by Milton Dawes
General Semantics
Bulletin, Number 53, 1986/7…with a few updates, 2006.
OUR MAPS AND OURSELVES
By Milton Dawes
Mr. Dawes' first paper in this Bulletin, "It's a Matter of
Timing", was published in part in #50, pp. 171-182, ending with a promise
that Part II would appear in a later-issue. This is not it! His paper was
subtitled "An Extended Speculation", and as his speculations
developed they extended into new territories, which of necessity, as the
present paper outlines, constitute new maps. In this process universe, Milton
Dawes 1982 is not Milton Dawes 1987, and we thought it more important to seize
the moment to present this current Dawesian formulating. We're still looking
for a spot for Part II of
"Timing". -Ed.
A
Map is a Map of Another Map
"The map is not the territory" is a fundamental principle of
general semantics. In this essay I discuss this notion and some of its logical
implications, one of which is that "the map can not be identical with the
territory". I also explore ways in which we can use this 'map-territory'
notion to help us become better managers of our everyday personal and interpersonal
relationships. In doing this exercise, I found that I developed a deeper
appreciation of other general-semantics principles including the principles of
time-binding, non-allness, non-identity, self-reflexiveness, Korzybski's
generalized principle of uncertainty, multi-dimensional structure,
multi-ordinality, consciousness of projecting, and others.
For the purpose of this exercise, I define 'map' broadly to include all aspects
of conscious awareness (including higher-order awareness of being conscious) and
the verbal and non-verbal symbolic representations of these aspects. And I
define 'territory' as anything that can be mapped -- including maps.
Now if by chance you
are as puzzled as I felt with regard to the incompleteness of these two definitions, here's
how I clarified the issue for myself: the two definitions seem to be saying the
'same' thing only with different words; but what actually makes the difference
is a matter of timing -- how we order our evaluations: What we call a
'territory' (inferred) can be considered as map at time (1). And what we call
'map' can be considered as map (2) at time (2), of map (1). Territory exists
before a map of it; and the mapping process -- our nervous system -- occurs
between territory and map.
In perusing these formulations it may be helpful (from the
"application of general semantics to our everyday living" point of
view) to consider the notions 'map' or 'mapping' to include such operations and
their results as those we label 'hypotheses, theories, imagination, visualization,
memories, dreams, beliefs, hopes, fears, expectations, opinions, criticisms,
judgments, plans, interpretations, understanding, knowledge, generalizations, decisions,
seeing, hearing, touching', etc., road maps and other kinds of maps, and anything else
you can think of that we do or experience. With the hope that you have been
somewhat prepared, I present the following 'territory' as stimulus for your
mapping processes.
Differentiated
Consciousness or The Map Cannot be the Territory
If a map were identical with (absolutely the same in all respects as)
the territory, then that map would not be distinguishable from the territory --
and so would not exist as a map in terms of our present understanding and use
of the term. That we talk about maps, that we have a notion of maps, is an
indication of a differentiation in our conscious operations; it allows us the
consideration that we live in a world of multi-dimensional relationships; we
can differentiate between a 'this' and a 'that', between the products of our
map-making processes and our map making; between our maps, our map-making
processes, and some other 'entity' which we regard as neither of the two; and
between our maps, and our maps of our maps, and maps of maps of maps".
The recognition of our abilities to differentiate provides us with
opportunities to restructure our maps -- to experience our experiences from
different points of viewing, and to write different stories about our
experiences. For instance: If we re-map the experience that we label 'fear', or
'disappointment' or 'confusion', we will find that no label provides an
adequate description of the many things that through further and closer
observation could be discovered to be going on. Obviously from a practical
point of view, our exploration of our experiential territories requires that we
settle on one label or description --for a start. But to minimize our
tendencies toward an allness attitude, we should consider our labels, descriptions,
inferences, opinions, theories, judgments, disagreements", etc.) as psychological landmarks, intermediaries, reference
points, jumping-off points, heuristic variables, time-binding starting points towards
further explorations and possibly new discoveries. And remembering that
"the map is also a map of the map maker", we could think of our
labels, opinions, ideas, etc. as nervous system summations, organismic
integrations, semantic reactions, representing the present levels of
development of our skills in accommodating information and evaluating
experiences; also as representing our present organismic positionings in a
self-reflexive continuum involving our self-correcting, self-protecting, and
self-developing operations.
By training ourselves in the consciousness of differentiating and
in the consciousness of integrating, we improve on our abilities to
re-examine, review, re-map our experiences; and by increasing the degree of
differentiating, by taking a closer and more detailed look, we give ourselves
opportunities for finding additional titles and sub-titles for our experiences.
Obviously, with a more detailed map, with more accurate information, we give
ourselves the resource for more behavioral choices, greater range of responses,
higher degree of flexibility and conditionality -- significant variables in
such areas as stress management, problem resolution, creative management of
everyday situations, conflict resolution, clearer thinking, resolving problems
in our relationships, and so on.
If
the Map were Identical with the Territory -- We Wouldn't Know
If a map were not identical with the territory, then that map would either have to be outside the territory, or be occupying part of (and
so be inside) the territory. Let's say a map existing outside its referent
territory was 'taken back' into that territory for comparison (this is one of
the fundamental principles of scientific activities); it would eventually be discovered that some territory was left over -- that
some territory was not mapped. Now suppose it was possible to map all the
territory by expanding our map to a one-to-one scale: we would now find that
the territory was no longer distinguishable from our map since the one-to-one
scale would require that they be of the same dimensions, bear the same
relationship to other mappings, and that they be structurally identical. But
this last specification would require them to be of the same materials. Our map
would now cease to exist as map (2)* of territory (1) because it would be no
longer distinguishable from territory (l). We cannot help concluding that a
map cannot represent all of a territory because if it did, we wouldn't know
it as a map. (*“Map (2) since what we label “territory” is already a map
created by our nervous system.
The general-semantics term for this non-differentiation between map and
territory is 'identification': We identify, for instance, when we are not aware
(and this happens more often than we are likely to accept) that there is a
significant and ineradicable difference between what we observe, think, say,
feel, understand, etc. about a person or situation, and what is going on. The
difference is there related to the factor that (this will be discussed further
on) the two happenings, what I say think, feel, etc. and the processes I am
saying, thinking, feeling" etc., about, take place at two different places
and times. It is also worth mentioning here (and detailing further on) that
strictly speaking, in terms of the uniqueness and non-repeatability of
space-time events, involving change, processes, etc., one cannot (as suggested
earlier) re-enter a territory previously mapped. The territory is not
identical with its former self.
Maps
are Inherently Inaccurate
If, as mentioned above, I took a map into a territory to evaluate its
accuracy, I would now be included in that territory (inevitably) and this would
require a new map of myself holding my old map and comparing it with what, to
be precise, is not the same territory I previously mapped. (If the comparison
was attempted without 're-entering' the territory, then the further one was
away from the, territory the more intervening space-time factors (distortion,
modulation, interference, reduction, contamination, etc. of information) one
would have to make allowances for.)
The following may serve to illustrate the problem of comparing the map
from inside the territory: When we ask for feedback from a close friend or
associate, on some action we have taken, we may say something along these
lines: "Well, what do you think I should have done?" In this
situation, asking the question becomes one part of the territory that will be
mapped (interpreted, considered".) by our friend and represented in his or
her reply -- which will be mapped (evaluated, responded to".) by us.
Another part of the territory will be related to the situation referred to by
the question. The point being emphasized here is this: Our interpretation of
our friend's response should include the factor that we have expanded,
disturbed, and modified the territory by the act of asking the question. Here
it seems that we have run into a bit of a problem, a fundamental one: We cannot
exclude ourselves from the territories we imagine ourselves to be mapping (from
an empirical point of view); and we also cannot completely include ourselves
(from a logical point of view). But what is most alarming of all is that we
cannot help making maps! So what is a human to do? It seems that simple
awareness of these factors is our best referential map. But this is nothing new: Kurt Godel more than fifty years ago
addressed a similar problem in mathematics and formulated the proposition we know as Godel's
Incompleteness Theorem. And around the same time Alfred Korzybski, in his
self-reflexive system general-semantics, summarized his recommendations in the
formulation consciousness of abstracting. Maps are inherently inaccurate
because, among other factors, we cannot include ourselves in the act of making
our last map -- but we can be aware of
this, and modify our behaviors accordingly.
A General Uncertainty
Principle
A map by definition is the product of a map-making process; it has to be
distinguishable from the territory of which it is a map; and it also has to be
distinguishable from the map-making process. For this to be so,
there has to be some space-timing interval between the territory being mapped,
the map maker, and the map. But from information gathered through mappings, we
find that these intervals are not empty of materials, or devoid of activity;
and so we can not be certain or know precisely when, how, and whether the
information that reaches us, after having traversed these intervals, has been
modified and modulated by whatever may be going on in these intervals. And
also, since any knowledge of the map making process (the nervous system
activities) will also qualify as a map, we can never be absolutely certain how
the information has been processed. What we know is a map of maps of maps… Knowledge is inherently inaccurate,
because, among other things, we cannot transcend the mapping process, or
eliminate space-timing intervals -- and the knowledge- map does not represent
all the territory..
Some significances in terms of the management of everyday situations can
be stated thusly: We can never, for instance, know for certain that a well
thought out plan will be successful; or that a brilliant idea will not be
rejected as nonsense; or that any decision is the only 'right' one; or that a
sincerely made promise will be kept; or that a venture that failed will not
result in some success later on, somewhere else; or that a thoroughly explained
position will not be misunderstood, and so on. The best we can do is to prepare
ourselves well with reasonably accurate-and up to date ‘maps’, see what
happens, and be ready to make adjustments. This way we make our little
contributions to the sanity of the race.
Maps
are Always Out of Date
If we accept that there has to be some space-timing interval between a
map and the thing being mapped, then it follows that the clock time of a map
has to be different from the clock time of the territory; it follows that the
time of mapping processes will of necessity always occur after the happenings
of the territory. (This is so even if the entity being mapped -- observed,
talked about". -- is ourselves.) Another factor worth considering is this:
unless there is no change whatsoever in the relationship of things to each
other -- which would require the complete cessation of all movements in all
parts of the universe, macroscopically and sub-microscopically -- then no
territory is identical to itself from one instant to the next. But mapping
processes take time; consequently, in the period of time taken in the construction of a map,
the territory would have changed. This suggests that, from a theoretical and
also practical standpoint, a map should be evaluated as being out of date the
instant it is completed. Of course, we still have to act despite all this. With
experience, alertness, and clear thinking, we can decide when and where we can
ignore this “out of date” feature of maps.
Moving from the mainly theoretical to the practical, and to get a better
feel for the importance of this notion of 'out-of-date-maps', as it applies to
the management of our everyday situations, readers are invited to explore the
following in terms of the notion: the different experiences that we label
'fear', 'expectation', 'disappointment' (to name a few); the different feelings
we label 'failure' or 'success'; the plans and decisions we make, etc. Specific
questions to be included are: "What territory is my feeling of fear,
expectation, etc., a map of?"; "Where is the territory for which I
have completed this elaborate map I call a 'plan' or 'decision'?";
"How can I understand my disappointment or anxieties in terms of the maps
I created?" (By the way, the exercise may also give a feel of an analogy
of the differential calculus applied to everyday living. Korzybski defines
differential calculus (Science and Sanity, p. 582) as "The study of
a continuous function by following its history through indefinitely
small steps." Here I will reformulate and generalize the analysis as
"very close mapping of a situation"; and apply it as above in terms
of "giving a high level of attention to psycho-logical variables as a
function of time"; or "extensional exploration of one's semantic
reactions".)
But in applying this analogy of the calculus to human situations, we
should remember a very important difference:' in the mathematical method, answers
were generated by ignoring 'small' quantities. But in non
mathematical human situations 'the tiniest increment' of awareness,
evaluation, activity, etc. can be of major significance. It is on this
difference (non-identity) that the whole system called general-semantics is
built. This difference also provides us with a striking illustration of the
significance of the map-territory factor in human affairs. The territory is
potentially indefinitely differentiable; the calculus provides us with a
theoretical system addressing this indefinite differentiability; our
nervous-system processes limit our individual ability to differentiate
indefinitely (a good argument in support of time-binding) -- and an unavoidable
consequence of this is that our
experiences, awareness, our knowledge -- our maps -- are necessarily
approximate.
Alfred Korzybski recognized this inherent asymmetric relationship
between our evaluating processes and world processes (which include our
evaluating processes). He saw that we could accommodate this disharmony by
negotiating with ourselves, and by so doing improve our relationships between
ourselves and our environments. He recommended that we base our negotiating
strategies on 'consciousness of abstracting'…Awareness that in the process of
abstracting we have not included all.
Our Behaviors are a
Function of our Mappings ... and Vice Versa
By definition, map making processes at a time, and the maps they
produce, can become the territory for future mappings. Consequently, map-making
processes at a time, and the maps produced by these later processings, are
functionally related to those earlier maps: what we believe now will influence
what we will believe, how we will understand, what we will expect, what we will
see and hear and say, and so on. One result of this reflexive interaction
(neuro-linguistic and neuro-semantic feedback) takes form as a certain degree
of relative invariance, logical consistency, and continuity, in the maps
produced and held in high esteem by individuals, groups, institutions,
societies. (Here we can substitute for 'maps' what we understand by terms such
as 'personality', 'self-image', 'creeds', 'goals', 'policies', 'beliefs',
'values', 'expectations', 'laws', 'regulations', and others you may think of.)
Maps are the means by which individuals or groups orient themselves and
attempt to make sense of the complex world of their past, present, and
anticipated experiences: different maps result in different behaviors. What we
do, and how we do it depend to a great extent on the psycho-logical and
biological modulating influences that guide our map making processes. Put in
the 'same' situation, different individuals will perceive different things;
will have different interests; and will consequently respond in different ways
and with different degrees of enthusiasm; they will see different problems and
propose different solutions.
An individual or group will feel lost and disabled without their ‘maps’.
This could be one reason many of us find it so difficult to change our
belief-maps. 'Feeling lost and disabled also qualifies as a map: as mentioned
before, we map our maps, and we map the maps of our maps ... We are self-reflexive beings; and our
self-reflexiveness is reflected in our languaging behaviors: we can map our
maps, we can be sad about being sad; we can become angry at ourselves for
having been angry; we can plan to make plans; we can worry about being worried;
we write books about writing books; and we do television shows about television shows we have done ... One of the greatest contributions to our understanding of
ourselves was Korzybski's recognition of this special case of
self-reflexiveness in languaging: he called it 'the multiordinality of terms' (Science
and Sanity, p. 14). It is to be expected that as map makers we will at
times feel lost and disabled without our maps. If all we have are our maps
(remember that, as mentioned earlier, what we call 'territory' is to be
considered as map (l) at time (l), then maps for us humans are important not
only for our biological survival, but also for our psycho-logical survival; and
this latter in many instances seems more important than biological survival-people
will kill others and be willing to die for their languages, beliefs, political
parties, religious convictions, to protect sacred grounds, or animals, or a
patterned piece of cloth called a flag, and so on. Thinking in terms of maps,
it is easy to understand why (contributing factors) an individual or group will
resist, violently if necessary, any attempt to modify or destroy, devalue or
ignore their maps. You might look at it this way: What you and your group may
choose to call a map may be for me not a map, but the truth, the reality, the
plain-as-can-be, obvious, undeniable fact. Without some differentiating
tool-system-mechanism such as provided by the formulations of general semantics
and other map-territory disciplines, I would be unable to distinguish between
map and territory"; and although my behavior would be, from your point of
view, a function of my maps ... that is not how I would be likely to see
the situation.
How
do we determine the Worth of a Map?
If the map is not the territory, and if the territory keeps changing,
and if we all produce different maps as a consequence of our different
locations in our psycho-biological and physical environments -- who then
has the last word? Who is the final authority on any subject? And what is the
source of this authority? Which individual or group has the final say on such
matters as 'truth, justice, beauty, art, science, goodness, evil, morality,
intelligence, failure, success, right, wrong, communism, democracy', and so
on? In discussions we often hear someone say "Well, the real issue is";
or, "The important point is" Who determines what is the
real issue or the important point? And when someone commenting on some concern
you have, says "Oh, that's all in your head"--how is this to be
interpreted? Where else do we find concerns? How is it that some maps are
considered of great human value, and others dismissed as nonsense? Why, for
instance, is astrology considered such a ridiculous map and looked down upon by
so many, while other maps formulated as various religions, political theories, and
psychological disciplines often escape this kind of rating?
That some people
believe in astrology, or telepathy, or a loving, omniscient, and omnipotent God, or devils, or
dreams, or sacred mountains and trees, etc., and the fact that these beliefs
have no present scientific recognition or status, does not make them any less
instructive as maps. They can be considered as examples illustrating the
polymorphism of human expression -- and of human consciousness, if we consider statements we
make to be maps of the operations of our consciousness.
For those of us who are concerned to become better map makers, I propose
that all maps are worthy of consideration for the following reasons: Each map,
as an existence, constitutes a valid and undeniable feature of our environment,
and qualifies as territory. How sane or intelligent the map maker is adjudged
to be, or how incredible the map may seem to observers, are not relevant
factors in this situation: each map, regardless of any other judgment we may
make, should first be considered as a unique human statement about the world,
presented from a unique frame of reference. (The statement may be evaluated as
outright fantasy -- but an individual fantasizing is still a part of the
world.) Each map qualifies as a valid element of the set of all maps created by
us humans; consequently, if we are to further our understanding of ourselves,
and of the world of which we are a part, then we cannot afford to ignore any
map. We can summarize these reasons by an appeal to the notion of 'levels of
abstraction': evaluated from one level, a statement may be dismissed as
nonsense; but seen from another level, the fact that the statement was made is
not nonsense.
Now all this is not to suggest that it does not matter which map we
follow; or that there is no distinction to be made between contradictory maps;
or that all maps are of equal stature: this is clearly not the case (empirically),
and as we have established, cannot be the case (logically). If we start with
the premise that the key feature of maps has to do with their representational
accuracy (structural correspondence with territories), then it is easy to make
the connection that the maps we create ourselves, and those we follow created
by others, can either be a source of confusion, or can lead us to more sane ways
of being. One way for the concerned individual to estimate the worth and
usefulness of any map ... to evaluate its effectiveness ... to keep a clear head when following its directions ... is to seek answers to the question: To
represent which territory am I assigning this map that I am following?
When We Disagree with Others ... We are also Disagreeing with Ourselves
If the map is not the territory, and the word is not the thing, then it
follows that when you speak, your words are not your meanings; and when I hear
your words, the meanings I give to them are obviously my meanings, (not so
obvious in everyday situations) not yours. And so the conclusion is unavoidable;
when I agree or disagree with you, I am, more accurately speaking, agreeing or
disagreeing with myself. For instance: when I criticize or pass judgment on a
statement you make, my criticism or judgment represents my reaction to my interpretation of the words I heard; and these
words may not even be the ones you uttered, or the ones you intended to use.
And even if I happen to become aware of all this, it still does not bring me
any closer to direct knowledge of the workings of your inner world.
The above is not meant to suggest that we abandon criticisms, judgments,
interpretations
etc.; and I am not here concerned with the rightness, wrongness, appropriateness,
or justifiability of our verbal and non-verbal responses. The point I am
seeking to emphasize is that if we accept the general semantics formulation
that 'the map is a map of the territory and the map maker', then the conclusion
is a logical consequence. And following this, if we are concerned to recognize
and accept our share of responsibility for our feelings, reactions, and
responses, resulting from our everyday interactions, then we should train
ourselves in the 'consciousness of projecting',(see Science and Sanity, page
89) and recognize how much and how often we credit and discredit others as
designers of the maps we created ourselves. This could also give us a greater
appreciation of how much we contribute to our own development ... and retardation.
Sharing
Maps... Time-Binding
That so many people find so many different ways to talk about, describe,
interpret, react to, etc., the 'same' situation, should provide us with a clue
that we live in a world of multi-dimensional structures. And if we accept that
no map gives the whole picture, and each map (opinion, observation,
interpretation, etc.) represents mappings from a unique set of space-time, and
psychobiological perspectives, then it would be informationally advantageous
for us to think of other people's maps as complementary to our own. The more
maps we have the better our feel of the territory of our human, and physical
world. Having more maps gives us the chance to improve our favorite maps.
When our own reference maps incorporate elements of information borrowed
from the maps of others, (see Korzybski's Manhood of Humanity, and Science
and Sanity pages 374,396) we literally extend our senses, among other
things: by being aware that there is more to see, we see more; similarly, we
hear more; and by getting more in touch with more of what is going on around us
and in the world at large, we develop wider interpretative abilities; and we
increase our chances for more flexible, creative, and effective responses to a
wide variety of situations.
(A word of caution about the word 'same' used above and elsewhere in
this essay: For each of two people A and B, in a situation C, during a specific
time period, the situation apart from other factors mentioned elsewhere is not
'the same.' For A, the situation includes B; and for B the situation includes A: and since CB and
CA are not identical, we should not claim that the situation is the same for
both individuals. This may seem a little like splitting hairs; but in many
relationships -- domestic, business, etc. -- the source of many problems and
disputes can be traced to a tacit assumption of 'sameness'. One party in the
relationship may be quite comfortable with things as they are; the other may be
seething with dissatisfaction, and looking for ways to change the status quo.
How often have we heard one partner say “But everything was going fine!” In
talking about maps, we are talking about ourselves: map making is one of the
chief things we humans do. The quality of our social and professional
relationships, our relationship with ourselves (our self-image, self
confidence, and so on), the relationship with our physical environment, the
distress or harmony we experience in these relationships, are mainly a function
of the kinds of maps we create, and the kinds of maps we choose to follow. As
our maps are incomplete, so is what we know or think we know; as our maps are
out of date, so it is that we need to remain open to new information, new ways
of seeing things, new ways of understanding things, new ways of doing things;
as our maps are inaccurate, so we need to refine our map making abilities to
make better maps; as we each see the world from a unique vantage point, so we
could extend our horizons by sharing and comparing maps.
As individuals and as a species, we spend an inordinate amount of time
defending and protecting our maps. Individuals, groups, nations, often behave
in ways which seem to be saying "Of all the trillions of maps produced by
humans, ours is the only important one": and sometimes, with extreme
malice, we set out to convince others that this is so.
It could be that we do not as yet see ourselves as map makers, and so we
sabotage our own development by not recognizing our potentials. Except for a
few areas of activity -- scientific activity especially -- we short-circuit our
map making capabilities by subjecting and restricting our thinking, our values,
our beliefs, etc., to conform to a two-dimensional, two-valued (either/or) map
standard. We see-map ourselves as communists, capitalists, democrats,
republicans, liberals and what not. We tend to think in terms of black and white
or various other colors; as teachers, or students, intelligent or not
intelligent, talented or not talented; we often think in terms of success and
failure, good and bad, right and wrong, and so on. It seems
we often forget that the names we give to a person, thing or system, do not cover all of
their features and operations and
relationships. The term 'map maker' is no exception to this -- but it is a more fitting
description of what we do than most of the other labels we apply to ourselves.
There is a high probability that if we developed a deeper appreciation of
ourselves as 'map makers', we could do much better as human beings than we have
done so far by our other labels.
In the system-discipline General Semantics, Alfred Korzybski has
provided us with many psycho-logical tools we can use to intercept, interrupt,
critique, modify, and even abandon some of our habitual ways of thinking about
ourselves, others, and the world around us--including related behaviors. He has
provided us (humans) with ways to become more conscious, more advanced time-binders, and also better map-makers. He
was concerned for the sanity of the species. As more conscious and more
intelligent time-binders-- recognizing our interdependence and
interrelationships, we can individually create little “pockets of sanity” in a
seemingly ever increasingly insane, disagreeable, and violent human world.
