The Reappropriation of Maps

[Roaring Biscuit!]

If there is one thing I can say, with certainty, it is that as human being, you will never see the territory, in a metaphorical sense.  We are ill equipped to percieve reality in its full detail.  A human being is incapable of understanding the big picture and the tiniest detail simultaneously, we are limited in too many ways.

We are limited in our apparatus.  Try this, close your eyes, and try to pinpoint and name every sound that you hear.

Done?  Don't tell me what you did hear, that's irrelevant, what you didn't hear is far more important.  What about the multitudes of insects creeping around merrily in the room around you?  Why not go smaller, the gentle flap of baterial flagellum as they propell themselves across your skin?

Nope?

Hopefully you can see that many of the tiny details of reality are lost in transition from the physical to the mental, our sensory apparatus is designed to deal with macro situations, not micro ones.  Even with our quickly advancing technology we still seem to hit a brick wall when trying to reconcile the micro with the macro (here I am referring specifically to quantum phenomena).

Simply put, we are ill equipped to observe a pure reality, in a purely mechanical sense.

But this is all foreword really, our observation is further skewed by our own personality, our experiences and beliefs.  Ever been home and felt a comforting warmth even on a cold day?  I'd bet that comforting warm, fuzzy feeling probably isn't contained within the bricks or the mortar.

So what do we see, what do we percieve, if not the territory itself?  Well, I guess we all know where this is going:

The Map.

In this particular iteration of this tired old metaphor I am using the map to refer to our perception of reality which is incomplete, and stylised due to biological limitations, and further skewed by our personal outlook.

What is the purpose of the map then?  Well, simply put, the map allows us to function.  If we truly percieved every detail of reality simultaneously we would be overwhelmed by its chaotic complexity.  Somewhere along the line, humans started to play round with the map, we started reappropriating.   We took our simple little maps that once upon a time just helped us function and stay alive, and we started to embellish them.

This is the nature of belief.

A belief, in fact and subjective view point, is a way of altering your personal map, to (hopefully) something more helpful or more appealing.  Of course there are some beliefs that simply do not work, why?  Because all beliefs are built on the map, so if they alter the map so much it no longer reflects a stylised version of reality we begin to have trouble functioning.

So what makes a successful belief?

One that enhances the map, adds detail in areas that are lacking, removes unessecary detail, or just makes it more appealing.  You can cover the map in pretty stars if thats what floats your boat but there's no point in replacing a lake with a mountain, that's just going to get you into trouble.

In conclusion, I find that beliefs have very little to do with true or false, and surprisingly little to do with right or wrong, but a hell of a lot to do with finding a personal niche. 

Finding a perfect map.


____________________________________

I've been talking to my friend about Discordianism, and trying to define it as loosely and truthfully as I can, which as you can imagine is proving difficult.  But I think I got something here, maybe, very loosely, Discordianism is recognising that the map can be redefined, and whether you act on that knowledge is just personal preference?

x

edd

p.s.  this is definitely the sort of piece that you've all heard before, but iits you know, one of those pieces for that thing that I've been working on forever

[Captain Utopia]

 

I liked it. Especially the conclusion about beliefs not being right or wrong, but aesthetically pleasing, as that is a point which is generally understated and can be easy to forget.

[the other anonymous]

Trying to talk to others about your beliefs? Dangerous territory!

If there is one thing I can say, with certainty,

Soapbox! How off-putting.

it is that as human being, you will never see the territory, in a metaphorical sense.  We are ill equipped to percieve reality in its full detail.

In other words, you're missing something. Which is why you shouldn't be certain.

Also: "metaphorical"? No one understands metaphors. Hence the map/territory analogy.

A human being is incapable of understanding the big picture and the tiniest detail simultaneously, we are limited in too many ways.

We are limited in our apparatus.

Big words plus jargon. I guess I am incapable of... um, what?

Try this [...]

No.

Nope?

No, I said "No."

Hopefully you can see

GODDAMN I'M SICK OF ALL THIS HOPE SHIT!! POLITICAL ACTIVIST, CHANGE THYSELF!

that many of the tiny details of reality are lost in transition from the physical to the mental, our sensory apparatus is designed to deal with macro situations, not micro ones.  Even with our quickly advancing technology we still seem to hit a brick wall when trying to reconcile the micro with the macro (here I am referring specifically to quantum phenomena).

Simply put, we are ill equipped to observe a pure reality, in a purely mechanical sense.

What? Too many words, not enough meaning. Cut to the chase. Eschew fancy linguistics in favor of clarity. Say what you want to say in a way they can understand.

Also: "quickly advancing technology" is yet another dog whistle. Honestly, are you trying to convince someone to join us, or massacre us?

But this is all foreword really, our observation is further skewed by our own personality, our experiences and beliefs.  Ever been home and felt a comforting warmth even on a cold day?  I'd bet that comforting warm, fuzzy feeling probably isn't contained within the bricks or the mortar.

What? No, really; what? Our emotions aren't made of bricks?

So what do we see, what do we percieve, if not the territory itself?  Well, I guess we all know where this is going:

The Map.

I think we should give up this analogy. My first thought was, "You mean, like on Dora?" Besides, most people don't know how to read maps. Add to that the macho stereotype of not asking for directions, and this analogy quickly sounds like a dog whistle -- "ain't that just college-educated-gay-liberal propaganda?"

In this particular iteration of this tired old metaphor I am using the map to refer to our perception of reality which is incomplete, and stylised due to biological limitations, and further skewed by our personal outlook.

BORING!

What is the purpose of the map then?
[...]

Zzzz...

This is the nature of belief.

Sorry, wasn't listening. You an amurrica-hating atheist, or an amurrica-hating terrorist?

A belief, in fact and subjective view point, is a way of altering your personal map, to (hopefully) something more helpful or more appealing.  Of course there are some beliefs that simply do not work, why?  Because all beliefs are built on the map, so if they alter the map so much it no longer reflects a stylised version of reality we begin to have trouble functioning.

Y'know, if I wanted to be lost, I'd watch Lost.

So what makes a successful belief?

JAYZUS!!!!

One that enhances the map, adds detail in areas that are lacking, removes unessecary detail, or just makes it more appealing.  You can cover the map in pretty stars if thats what floats your boat but there's no point in replacing a lake with a mountain, that's just going to get you into trouble.

Wow. Forget the dog whistles. Just say "I'm here, I'm Discordian, get used to it!"

In conclusion,

About damn time!

I find that beliefs have very little to do with true or false, and surprisingly little to do with right or wrong, but a hell of a lot to do with finding a personal niche.

So, you're an immoral devil-worshiping atheist child molester who doesn't care about right and wrong?

Finding a perfect map.

Yea, a map straight to hell!

I've been talking to my friend about Discordianism,

Why?

and trying to define it as loosely and truthfully as I can,

We're a bunch of cynical absurdists who like to make fun of people because they're stupid. Oh, and there is no hope for humanity. Have a nice day.

which as you can imagine is proving difficult.

I like this quote, but only out of context.

But I think I got something here, maybe, very loosely, Discordianism is recognising that the map can be redefined, and whether you act on that knowledge is just personal preference?

"Personal preference" is conservative jargon for "duck fuckers."

one of those pieces [...] that I've been working on forever

And it still sucks.

-toa,
just trying to help

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

I suggest answering his questions with memebombs instead. He might 'get it' rather than just think he does.

[Roaring Biscuit!]

Soapbox! How off-putting.

fair 'nuff

In other words, you're missing something. Which is why you shouldn't be certain.

pardon?  I said we are ill equipped biologically to percieve reality in its "fullness" are you really trying to say I'm wrong?

Big words plus jargon. I guess I am incapable of... um, what?

learn to dictionary.

No.

unwilling to try?  all I was doing was trying to demonstrate a point, that you "refuted" earlier, but were unwilling to attempt to prove it yourself.

Our emotions aren't made of bricks?

bircks are made of brick, emotions are not contained within bricks.

So, you're an immoral devil-worshiping atheist child molester who doesn't care about right and wrong?

Morality is relative.

And it still sucks.

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=20538.0

thanks.

[the other anonymous]

pardon?  I said we are ill equipped biologically to percieve reality in its "fullness" are you really trying to say I'm wrong?

I'm not saying you're right. Depends on your definition of "fullness."

learn to dictionary.

Most people know few words. When you try to talk to them, you must use few words.

unwilling to try?  all I was doing was trying to

... talk to others about Discordia. Intellectually laziness must be expected from the proles.

bircks are made of brick, emotions are not contained within bricks.

So, our emotions are not made of bricks?

Morality is relative.

So, you admit you're an immoral devil-worshiping atheist child molester who doesn't care about right and wrong?

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=20538.0

tl;dr

-toa,
doesn't pay attention anymore

[Roaring Biscuit!]

I'm not saying you're right. Depends on your definition of "fullness."

Ok, I don't really want to be rude about this, since I imagine some of your crit is both genuine and constructive, but... you are actually wrong about this, not even like one of those things which you are subjectively wrong about, as in, we just disagree.  Actually wrong.

Most people know few words. When you try to talk to them, you must use few words.

your are incapable of understanding "simultaneously" with your apparatus?

So, our emotions are not made of bricks?

yes, i know its obvious but i was using it as an example of how our brain can alter our perception of reality.  And if you still don't believe me about maybe you should look up some stuff about how our vision works, there's a neat trick with blind spots which gets the point across pretty well.

So, you admit you're an immoral devil-worshiping atheist child molester who doesn't care about right and wrong?

I only object to child molester.

tl;dr

just skip to the last few pages and look at the pretty pictures.

[Kai]

I thought this was a pretty good basic summary of a number of concepts. Or I'm just delirious.

TOA, I don't know what the fuck you are on. Or is this one of those noobs that has pissed someone off so I'm supposed to be mean to them?

[LMNO]

I was wondering the same thing myself.

[Cramulus]

I give the OP a B-, but only because I don't think I'm the target audience.

It was well written and well articulated, but doesn't add anything to the map/territory metaphor. Could use some new energy, or some fresh metaphorical language.

overall, I enjoyed it, but didn't feel like I was provoked or educated

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

Same. Not BAD, just meh.

You aim it at someone on PD and there's no new info. You aim it at someone not on PD and they probably won't get anything out of it, I don't think.

[the other anonymous]

Ok, I don't really want to be rude about this, since I imagine some of your crit is both genuine and constructive, but... you are actually wrong about this, not even like one of those things which you are subjectively wrong about, as in, we just disagree.  Actually wrong.

You'll never convince anybody like that! Where did you learn to debate?

your are incapable of understanding "simultaneously" with your apparatus?

I don't think with my apparatus. (zing!)

I am quite capable, but your stated goal was to talk to others. Remember that, by definition of 100, half the world has a two-digit IQ.

yes, i know its obvious but i was using it as an example of how our brain can alter our perception of reality.

If our brains can alter our perceptions of reality, then how can anything be considered obvious?

And if you still don't believe me about maybe you should look up some stuff about how our vision works, there's a neat trick with blind spots which gets the point across pretty well.

I don't disagree with you. I'm being intentionally antagonistic so you can strengthen your argument.

So, you admit you're an immoral devil-worshiping atheist child molester who doesn't care about right and wrong?

I only object to child molester.

So, you admit you're an immoral devil-worshiping atheist furry who doesn't care about right and wrong?

just skip to the last few pages and look at the pretty pictures.

Tried that once. My mom caught me.

TOA, I don't know what the fuck you are on. Or is this one of those noobs that has pissed someone off so I'm supposed to be mean to them?

I'm just trying to help.

-toa,
is one of the good guys... for subjectively relativistic definitions of "good"

[Triple Zero]

I thought this was a pretty good basic summary of a number of concepts. Or I'm just delirious.

TOA, I don't know what the fuck you are on. Or is this one of those noobs that has pissed someone off so I'm supposed to be mean to them?

afaik, TOA's shtick is to make remarks that are so bad, actively seeking out rock-bottom and then digging deeper. in fact, the living proof that postcount/being around for quite a time, does let you get away with a lot of things a n00b would be roasted for.

but I dunno, for some reason I like him. even if I wish he wouldn't do stuff like this.

[the other anonymous]

afaik, TOA's shtick is to make remarks that are so bad, actively seeking out rock-bottom and then digging deeper. in fact, the living proof that postcount/being around for quite a time, does let you get away with a lot of things a n00b would be roasted for.

but I dunno, for some reason I like him. even if I wish he wouldn't do stuff like this.

I represent humanity at its finest.

[Roaring Biscuit!]

If our brains can alter our perceptions of reality, then how can anything be considered obvious?

re-read OP.

I don't disagree with you. I'm being intentionally antagonistic so you can strengthen your argument.

I don't need to, you are living proof that my argument is correct, deal with it.

So, you admit you're an immoral devil-worshiping atheist furry who doesn't care about right and wrong?

I feel this may be a dead end, so I guess that will have to do.

@Kai 'n' Cram:

Thanks and yes, it is pretty middle of the road stuff, but its an introductory kinda thing I guess, and I has cool illustrative ideas for it

And as fas as being a tired metaphor, hey look, it says that right up there in the OP    again, from an introductory point of view the map/territory analogy is used quite frequently by PDers and probably other discordians too.  So don't worry, I wasn't expecting people to go "holy shit this is mindblowing/provoking etc."

@Enki, as far as PDers are concerned its old hat, but this "essay" did arise basically from a series of conversations with my friend in which I tried to explain Discordia, as far as explanations go, this one seemed to work well, even if its ideas weren't particularly agreed with.