Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!pyramid!thirdi!sarge
From: sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode)
Newsgroups: sci.misc
Subject: Re: The nature of reality.
Message-ID: <397@thirdi.UUCP>
Date: 13 Apr 88 17:01:13 GMT
References: <343@thirdi.UUCP> <732@actnyc.UUCP> <356@thirdi.UUCP> <365@thirdi.UUCP> <11008@mimsy.UUCP>
Reply-To: sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode)
Organization: Institute for Research in Metapsychology
Lines: 24
Summary: Problems arise when maps are asserted as "absolute reality".

In article <11008@mimsy.UUCP> chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:
>In article <365@thirdi.UUCP> sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes:
>-... With actual (non-metaophorical) maps, I think that one would judge
>-the accuracy of another's map by whether the parts that corresponded
>-with yours matched well -- by whether his had rivers where yours had
>-rivers, and so forth. ... In fact, we [compare and adjust and extend
>-the metaphorical maps] all the time.  It's called "communication" and
>-"education".

>This is quite true.  Note that major problems occur when the maps do
>NOT match well; then we get arguments like the one amongst Sevener,
>Friedman, and Carr.

These problems do not resolve, so long as each asserts his own particular map
as "absolute reality".  They do tend to resolve when people get together and
compare maps non-judgmentally and discuss the ways in which the maps were made
and the assumptions on which they were based.
-- 
"The map may not be the territory, but it's all we've got."

Sarge Gerbode
Institute for Research in Metapsychology
950 Guinda St.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
UUCP:  pyramid!thirdi!sarge