I'm at work here so let me keep this short.
In principle, we use the "map" metaphor because it works really well. One facet of real maps, which seems applicable to "maps"/"menus", is that a map can either show a large area, or show an area in detail - it can never do both at the same time.
However, the information age has changed mapping forever. Google Maps and all virtual, zoomable maps to come before (and after) it are entirely unlike classical maps for the simple reason that they are both large and detailed. Zooming enables maps to include far more information than a paper map could ever include, by expanding the medium's capacity for information multilaterally - in height and width, and also in depth.
The question now is whether the metaphor can, in any way, hold, when dealing with scalable maps. Can we possibly map our reality in a scalable way?
Or is this the whole point, that we simply can't, that maps are merely maps?
Yes, we had a similar discussion about this sort of thing awhile back, in this thread: http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=13891.0 (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=13891.0)
I had made this visual of a section of a BIP cell:
(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a29/RWHN/L.jpg)
I think this relates to what you are talking about, in that when examining your reality, your BIP cell, there are different levels of specificity. So as you see in the diagram you see a certain amount of bars zoomed out, but as you zoom in (as in the maps you've referenced) more detail appears. Bars between bars. So, yeah I think it holds up.
You begin looking at reality in a superficial sort of way, but then once you get a lay of the land you can "zoom in" and get more detailed information. Much like, if you want to go visit your friend in Memphis, Tennessee, you probably want to figure out how to get to Tennessee first, and then figure out how to navigate within Tennessee to find your friend.
Even with Zoom, the map still isn't the territory. Google Earth may well be a snapshot of the territory visible to satellites on the day the picture was taken, but the territory (probably) has changed since then. Further, things like trees, roofs, dirt etc keep Google Earth from detailing the Full Territory. That is, it doesn't show the people in their house, it doesn't show the car parked under the tree, it doesn't show the lair of giant rats that secretly control most of Columbus Ohio from their Underground Bunkers.
For the Map to equal the territory, it would have to be a real time, interactive, system, complete with X-Ray and Infrared vision... and even then, those would only show us representations of what was inside (the colored outlines of humans in the case of Infrared).
HOWEVER, the thing I love about grokking maps and models... is that we can use ANY symbol to represent other symbols, on any axis and at any depth (as RWHN did with his pretty picture).
Perhaps we could argue that the infamous "Quarter Experiment", "The 23 Enigma" and "The Law of Fives" might be examples of zooming in on a very specific aspect of the Map (if we see our reality as a map of "Reality:The Territory"). Maybe dogmatic belief systems could be EXTREME CLOSE UP of a tiny bit of the territory.... I don't know.
Maybe....
something something split beaver magazine something something dots?
Quote from: rong on May 29, 2008, 10:29:06 PM
something something split beaver magazine something something dots?
TROOF
It doesn't matter how refined and detailed and scalable a map is... it's still REPRESENTING the territory. Even the territory is not the territory when we're trying to put our finger on it, because the explanation/description/representation/abstraction/image of the territory is still a map.
A Name that can be named is not the Eternal Name.
surely one could make a map that is a map of itself, though? right - or is does this intrisicly violate the definition of a map?
Quote from: rong on May 30, 2008, 12:38:13 AM
surely one could make a map that is a map of itself, though? right - or is does this intrisicly violate the definition of a map?
Metamaps FTW!
Sure, Antero Alli has a map which uses interpretative ritual and paratheatrics as a model of the concepts that Leary used in the 8-Circuit theory. It might be like a "full immersion" map of the territory....
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 30, 2008, 01:28:32 AM
Quote from: rong on May 30, 2008, 12:38:13 AM
surely one could make a map that is a map of itself, though? right - or is does this intrisicly violate the definition of a map?
Metamaps FTW!
Sure, Antero Alli has a map which uses interpretative ritual and paratheatrics as a model of the concepts that Leary used in the 8-Circuit theory. It might be like a "full immersion" map of the territory....
sounds interesting
Quote from: daruko on May 30, 2008, 01:33:16 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on May 30, 2008, 01:28:32 AM
Quote from: rong on May 30, 2008, 12:38:13 AM
surely one could make a map that is a map of itself, though? right - or is does this intrisicly violate the definition of a map?
Metamaps FTW!
Sure, Antero Alli has a map which uses interpretative ritual and paratheatrics as a model of the concepts that Leary used in the 8-Circuit theory. It might be like a "full immersion" map of the territory....
sounds interesting
Search YouTube, he has several videos uploaded of some of the performances.
For me, his Angel Tech book was a great map, but the paratheatrics were a bit off for me. However, I have a friend that does a lot of acting, and he thought the practice was awesome.
I would point out that Google maps is usually a couple years old, things change. For a while it showed my neighbors house when it had the previous owner, and the yard was brown from neglect, but by the time Google maps launched, a new owner had replanted the grass and grown flowers in the yard.
Of course a scalable map is still a map. I was thinking about this in terms of how useful a map can be. If you have a map that is scalable, this is obviously far more useful and true to the territory as a whole than a single paper map could ever be. Google maps may only be able to see so much, and may only be able to keep up-to-date to a limited extent, yet in both respects it is quantum leaps beyond what paper maps could achieve.
Here's a thought: all "maps" are scalable, because we're designed to apply all available cartography to any available perception. "What the thinker thinks, the prover proves" means, amongst other things, that if you have a map in your mind, you will scale it to fit anything.
Maybe this is why it's so easy to think the map is the territory.
Maybe I just applied a different map to things already said.
Quote from: Verbatim on May 30, 2008, 10:23:20 AM
Of course a scalable map is still a map. I was thinking about this in terms of how useful a map can be. If you have a map that is scalable, this is obviously far more useful and true to the territory as a whole than a single paper map could ever be. Google maps may only be able to see so much, and may only be able to keep up-to-date to a limited extent, yet in both respects it is quantum leaps beyond what paper maps could achieve.
Here's a thought: all "maps" are scalable, because we're designed to apply all available cartography to any available perception. "What the thinker thinks, the prover proves" means, amongst other things, that if you have a map in your mind, you will scale it to fit anything.
Maybe this is why it's so easy to think the map is the territory.
Maybe I just applied a different map to things already said.
:mittens:
Excellent thought!
In a sense, invocation (in the CM or Crowley sense) has been likened to a exaggerated or hyper-focus on the individual's interpretation of *insert invoked archetype here*. That is, while the person is "possessed" or "riding the loa" they are perhaps, simply working from a map that is zoomed in on one very specific concept.
I mean, either that, or they're just crazy...
or both.
i'm fond of a mental excersize that involves imagining an object that keeps getting bigger and bigger (or smaller and smaller). sort of a way to "stretch" your mind. i always reach a point where i can no longer continue without changing scales. this, of course, always leads me to pondering fractal dimensions and scaling. why is it that we are comfortable at certain scales and have difficulty at the "in between" areas? information blocking? not sure.
o shit i totally saw an incredibly microsoft presentation about some infinitely smooth zooming collection of images, you could like read a newspaper, and ads would be there, but if you wanted more info, you could zoom to a tiny area which would contain a few columns of text etc.
i just wouldn't know the link to the video :)
Quote from: daruko on May 29, 2008, 11:14:49 PM
It doesn't matter how refined and detailed and scalable a map is... it's still REPRESENTING the territory. Even the territory is not the territory when we're trying to put our finger on it, because the explanation/description/representation/abstraction/image of the territory is still a map.
:mittens:
I think that maps that are too easy to fit on to something that is not there qualify as bad maps, not scalable ones.
I don't think this is a map per say, but I think it could be used as such given time and evolution of this type of project. I do think this is pretty close to what a real time rendering of a place would be like, in three dimensions and from quite a few perspectives. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkuGrCB85H8&feature=related The mapping bit starts at about two min in.
Here is a link to a photosynth sample. http://labs.live.com/photosynth/
The uncertainty principle means that you can never have a perfectly accurate map. And Thou Shalt Not Clone One Bit (http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.2310) proves that you can't even make the map by copying the existing reality. There is no such thing as a perfect map, you can't make a map that IS the territory.
Quote from: Raphaella VonMercer on June 01, 2008, 12:57:16 AM
I don’t think this is a map per say, but I think it could be used as such given time and evolution of this type of project. I do think this is pretty close to what a real time rendering of a place would be like, in three dimensions and from quite a few perspectives. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkuGrCB85H8&feature=related The mapping bit starts at about two min in.
Here is a link to a photosynth sample. http://labs.live.com/photosynth/
yeah that's the one i was talking about! thanks!
i suggest anyone who can spare the 7 minutes watch this presentation, it'll knock yr socks off :D
it's very cool...... i look forward to seeing the repertoire for the real thing.
Quote from: Requiem on May 31, 2008, 09:25:44 PM
I think that maps that are too easy to fit on to something that is not there qualify as bad maps, not scalable ones.
I consider "that which is there" to be PURE CHAOS (this is the original thing that attracted me to Discordianism, and it is a very good way to express something I already had in mind beforehand). So essentially, any map has to fit something that is not there, because PURE CHAOS is by nature unmappable.
Quote from: Verbatim on June 01, 2008, 08:12:11 PM
Quote from: Requiem on May 31, 2008, 09:25:44 PM
I think that maps that are too easy to fit on to something that is not there qualify as bad maps, not scalable ones.
I consider "that which is there" to be PURE CHAOS (this is the original thing that attracted me to Discordianism, and it is a very good way to express something I already had in mind beforehand). So essentially, any map has to fit something that is not there, because PURE CHAOS is by nature unmappable.
Indeed, surely the Territory (if anything) might have to be considered as some collection of quanta, electrons, protons, nutrons and quarks. Anything else, would seem more like a representation of how we perceive and interact with those subatomic items... I think.
As to how we would map that territory... ick. :wink:
Yeah, it's like we can map a tiny theoretical case that illustrates the underlying dynamics of the Territory well, but that map doesn't scale very well... e.g, all attempts to apply quantum mechanics to non-subatomic objects.