The map is not the territory

[Pam Seeback]

In 1931, Alfred Korzybski coined the phrase "the map is not the territory", a brilliant nugget of practical wisdom for the truth seeker. In relation to wisdom of ultimate reality, the territory is the ultimate reality we cannot know with our intellect and the map is the reality we form with our feeling-rational intellect that allows us to live a connected, ordered life.

Clearly man cannot live without his maps. He has his religious maps, his scientific maps, his socio-cultural-historical maps, his philosophical maps and his spiritual maps. What distinguishes the enlightened map-maker from the unenlightened map-maker? Put simply, an ignorant map-maker believes his map is the territory, that is, that it is objectively real while the wise map-maker knows his maps not real, that instead, they are but impermanent, memory-based, fleeting expressions of subjectivity. Typically, unenlightened map-makers believe their objective idea worlds are THE truth and that their objective truth has the power to save the world from its uncertainly or nihilism. Hitler and The Pope may be perceived by most as being at opposite ends of the moral scale, but in principle, their goal was and is the same - to convert the world to bend to their misguided notion of a good or perfect objective ideology.

Is there a process to coming to full realization that the map is not the territory? Because most of us grew up believing our maps were objectively real worlds, yes, there are a number of steps one must take in order to come to awaken to the truth about the true nature of our thought-made worlds. First, there must be a disillusionment with the world of ideas. Second, there must be an inquiry as to the reason for the disillusionment. Third, when the answer comes, it takes time to fully accept its truth, after all, belief in an objective thought-based reality is a deeply-embedded delusion. Fourth, there is a return to the world of idea without the baggage of identification with idea and the awakened one can relax and enjoy his maps - entanglement free. Fifth, if he so desires, he can share his wisdom of "the map is not the territory" with the world, realizing, of course, that for most, its wisdom will not be welcome. Why will the wise map-maker's wisdom be unwelcome? Because, for most map-makers, even though they suffer in their map-clinging, the thought of being freed of clinging is unpleasant at best and terrifying at worst. And perhaps for the map-clinging philosopher this fear finds its apex - after all he has discovered the philosophy of nihilism - and although in time, his fear of a objective void will be proven to be totally an unfounded one, while gripped in the fear of an object called 'nothing-ness', it is experienced as being very real.

Practically speaking, the one who knows that the map is not the territory self-abides in the silence of the territory of the real until the usefulness of sound and image of the momentary map is required, usually for the sake of communication with other map-makers.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

In postmodern sense the fictional reference in "On Exactitude in Science" from Borges would stand out as a nice example:

... In that Empire, the Art of Cartography attained such Perfection that the map of a single Province occupied the entirety of a City, and the map of the Empire, the entirety of a Province. In time, those Unconscionable Maps no longer satisfied, and the Cartographers Guilds struck a Map of the Empire whose size was that of the Empire, and which coincided point for point with it. The following Generations, who were not so fond of the Study of Cartography as their Forebears had been, saw that that vast map was Useless, and not without some Pitilessness was it, that they delivered it up to the Inclemencies of Sun and Winters. In the Deserts of the West, still today, there are Tattered Ruins of that Map, inhabited by Animals and Beggars; in all the Land there is no other Relic of the Disciplines of Geography

-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Exactitude_in_Science

And yet this is all still "charming" old school simulation, like mulling on the differences between androids and humans or the AI and the mind, where the territory still somehow preceded the map or somehow survived it. But in those cases it's really never about the android simulating a human being but about the android approaching our own model of simulation, our own artificial concept of human nature. And it's no surprise how close, how "life like" it's then becoming. Gasp! But the whole scenario is a trick prepared and executed cleverly and what you see is not what is actually happening. And the reason for that is rather mundane and kind of self-congratulating. The territory here simply followed the map. This would be now the "postmodern society" -- where reality can be "made" from our maps, our collection of signs, signals and symbols. And not even that: the difference, that important difference has simply withered away and what's left is a population inhabiting a non-existent world, circulating their self-referential truths.

Perhaps the map is the only territory left for flatlandish human consciousness: overstretched, anorexic and superficial.

[Santiago Odo]

Is there a process to coming to full realization that the map is not the territory?

See here.

[Santiago Odo]

That was not entirely a joke, to be honest. And in no sense is what I say here or anywhere intended as an attack on what you, Pam, value and live in accord with. If I offer a critique it is for different purposes. Those purposes are : as a remediation of what I see as *drug-induced* perceptions which are not thoroughly examined and are held up as absolutes to live by. My assertion is that in a wide range of different areas and fields (what I am referring to as) a *drug induced* mode of perception has asserted itself. It pretends to be helpful and good, and also correctly foundationed in *truth* and *reality* (it is for that reason a metaphysical construct) and yet it has certain destructive effects. I have said, and I think it true, that you Pam share some commonality with our Illustrious Founders in that you really believe that you have uncovered some vital truth that, I suppose, you imagine that you can teach and purvey (for purposes of establishing some *good* I suppose). But since I have my mind alerted to what I call *acids* (the pun to d-lysergic acid was merely fortuitious here), I view your assertions with some suspicion.

It would seem to me a more sound plan of action to see the maps that man contrives as being part-and-parcel of the physics and also the metaphysics that man conceives. The way you present it could be taken — and is taken — as an expression of relativism. And such a view does not help a man within his context to strengthen his position. The world of men is established through what you call its *maps*. We create on the base of our maps. Our definitions in higher realms, indeed in invisible and non-tangivble realms of meaning and value, are reflected downward into our creations within the concrete, visible plane. Thus, a map is not arbitrary and maps (of a region) can be compared on to another. They can be ammended, improved, shared and judged.

Diebert, though giving evidence of fatigue in cogitation from endless wheel-spinning, has at least hit something on the head with his comments re postmodernism. He is quite an authority on this topic because he exists within the postmodern frame-of-mind. Therefor, the *map* (of a different sort) that he offers in his eloquent paragraphs reveal, in my view, the key to understanding his own position and condition, if you will. But as to an understructure of soild *metaphysical content* : I am not sure it is in evidence. The terms he uses are oddly prescient and revealing when applied to his general structure and presentation : overstretched, anorexic, superficial.

Neither one of you are on the right track it seems to me, but each of you errs in different ways. It would be interesting to attempt definitions here, but I will resist the prompting.

And it's no surprise how close, how "life like" it's then becoming. Gasp! But the whole scenario is a trick prepared and executed cleverly and what you see is not what is actually happening. And the reason for that is rather mundane and kind of self-congratulating. The territory here simply followed the map.

Right from the horse’s mouth as it were!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

He is quite an authority on this topic because he exists within the postmodern frame-of-mind.

And that's rather an understatement! For to be authority on anything one has first to to able to "exist" in the subject frame and yet to communicate it, there's a kind of liberation needed which is only possible for people who can move "cross frame" and embody many perspectives. This is a extremely fragmenting and alienation thing to do. But someone has to do it :)

As for maps and territory, it's unclear if my point was fully understood. My attempt was simply to shift the discussion from discussing the problem of validity of ideas, thoughts and maps to the sense of reality, the nature of human being & existence, for which we'd like a better map. On which ground we even reject of abandon any "faulty" map? Which map are we standing on already? Or is it the territory? But the mind, even the senses are coming to us through projections, through filters, honing of instincts and needs. So the discussion folds back to the main topic of the forum: what is our absolute ground of reality?

“That immense framework and planking of concepts to which the needy man clings his whole life long in order to preserve himself is nothing but a scaffolding and toy for the most audacious feats of the liberated intellect. And when it smashes this framework to pieces, throws it into confusion, and puts it back together in an ironic fashion, pairing the most alien things and separating the closest, it is demonstrating that it has no need of these makeshifts of indigence and that it will now be guided by intuitions rather than by concepts. There is no regular path which leads from these intuitions into the land of ghostly schemata, the land of abstractions. There exists no word for these intuitions; when man sees them he grows dumb, or else he speaks only in forbidden metaphors and in unheard — of combinations of concepts. He does this so that by shattering and mocking the old conceptual barriers he may at least correspond creatively to the impression of the powerful present intuition.”

[Santiago Odo]

As for maps and territory, it's unclear if my point was fully understood. My attempt was simply to shift the discussion from discussing the problem of validity of ideas, thoughts and maps to the sense of reality, the nature of human being & existence, for which we'd like a better map. On which ground we even reject of abandon any "faulty" map? Which map are we standing on already? Or is it the territory? But the mind, even the senses are coming to us through projections, through filters, honing of instincts and needs. So the discussion folds back to the main topic of the forum: what is our absolute ground of reality?

I think your first sentence indicates where you stand in relation to very basic metaphysics. That is, you function in and operate from a rebellious posture. But that is what I call *unmooring* and I am not certain that one is wise to allow unmooring from established and defined metaphysics, those that have *informed the Occident*. It is taken as a given that one should, one must, rebel against the previous metaphysics, and inevitability becomes the current that pulls one along. Is one really making *conscious* choices? I am not sure that one is.

According to some views, we reject a given map — determine it to be ‘faulty’ — because we seek material power, or perhaps one might say we are *seduced* from the ideals established through higher intellect (intellectus again) and are drawn downward into what become ever-increasing material bonds. I am naturally making a reference to the rebellions of the Seventeenth Century and what followed. One must take into account the idea of rebellion and the consequences of it. It is certainly a trope that runs through Occidental ideation and not one that can be easily dismissed.

Put another way, people give evidence all the time of (their words) waking up to the Reality of a higher, invisible *world* in relation to which they offer themseves, or surrender themselves to use a monastic term. One can do this cheaply and vulgarly or one can do it elegantly and in accord with far more sophisticated sensibilities. But *the Occident* in its most profound senses had been created through its relationship with intellectus and not with its now increasing, now dominating, relationship with mutability and materialsm. It is important to see this movement downward and notice its consequences.

But DD&K could not ever really define any ‘absolute ground of reality’ because they had no way to grasp what the term ‘intellectus’ refers to in Latin and in scholastic metaphysics. If they asked the question — perhaps they did — no answer they ever gave was complete nor did it make any sense. They had themselves fallen, if you will, into a current (of idea) that powerfully swept them along. Their own *will* became allied and supportive of the radicalism in the current that carried them and they called that ‘the Absolute’. And in one degree or another we are all *victims* of the same current. It is I think our duty to oppose the current, to reverse it. We begin to do this by ‘turning around’ to see what impels us.

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert quoting Nietzsche:
“That immense framework and planking of concepts to which the needy man clings his whole life long in order to preserve himself is nothing but a scaffolding and toy for the most audacious feats of the liberated intellect. And when it smashes this framework to pieces, throws it into confusion, and puts it back together in an ironic fashion, pairing the most alien things and separating the closest, it is demonstrating that it has no need of these makeshifts of indigence and that it will now be guided by intuitions rather than by concepts. There is no regular path which leads from these intuitions into the land of ghostly schemata, the land of abstractions. There exists no word for these intuitions; when man sees them he grows dumb, or else he speaks only in forbidden metaphors and in unheard — of combinations of concepts. He does this so that by shattering and mocking the old conceptual barriers he may at least correspond creatively to the impression of the powerful present intuition.”

Alex, you didn't comment on this quote from Nietzsche, so I shall. Can you intuit what he means by "it (man) has no need of these makeshifts of indigence (the needy man's clinging to concepts) and that it will now be guided by intuitions rather than by concepts?" Note that he is not promoting the dropping of concepts, only that they be realized to be formed (caused by) a force or source wherein no word 'can go.'

Nietzsche is not referring to a drug-induced state of being when he refers to 'growing dumb at seeing the intuitions' any more than am I. If I were to find the 'best' word to describe living of intuition rather than by conceptual maps, I would describe it as 'being awake' or if I were to use metaphorical 'religious' terms it is as if of every moment one is 'waiting for God to show himself and then, God does.'

[Santiago Odo]

What Nietzsche has written is, of course, one thing. But there is more to be gained from looking at the selected part in relation to Diebert who brings it forward. While this is not a very radical method in itself it is one that I do not think some (many) who write here submit themselves to. So, I see people tied up in their stories as they attempt describe their personal relationship to *the currents flowing in the present*.

It has been my experience reading Nietzsche, and it is the experience of many so it is a known thing, that Nietzsche writes in a captivating manner. His ideas are, by definition, ‘seductive’ because he allows you to collude with him in what you imagine to be a radical departure from the common view : what the *little people* and *the needy man* cling to. And the one reading — how could it be otherwise? — imagines himself an audacious ‘liberated intellect’. Naturally, this powerful, liberated soul recognizes the scaffoldings as toys which he will, with the Nietzschean hammer naturally, ‘smash to pieces’. And certainly, gazing at all the smashed pieces, which have tumbled all down into chaotic but yet artful array, he can only put things back together sardonically, in *ironic fashion*. Such a man has no need for these ‘makeshifts of indigence’ and he — he alone: the romantic intelligence on a ‘journey of discovery’ — will now be guided by *intuitions rather than concepts*.

I am supposing that by now you (may) get my point. These are mental games and they are poses. And what I am attempting to demonstrate is that if you really wished to get to the core, the sheer bedrock of Diebert’s *philosophy* (the one who held this paragraph of Nietzsche like a flag to indicate his specialness, his revolutionary intelligence and his intelligent zeal), you might see, as I have seen, that it is an empty shell of a philosophy. If you have read anything I have written of late you would know that I am less focussed on what one sole individual does and says but that I see all of us as *responding to* and *reacting against* unfavorable metaphysical circumstances (if I will be permitted this loose phrasing). Therefor, to comment on Nietzsche is not the point, and little will be gained from the superficial surface of his text. We will gain much more examining our own relationship to *superficialities* and this will, I would hope, lead to larger and more critical questions. These are questions that have to do with important questions of *value* and *meaning*.

Now, since my position has become one of criticism — certainly of our Beloved Founders but also carried well beyond their temporal contrivances — I must involve myself in and ask questions about such *meaning and value*, and when I make this effort, and then glance back at much of what is written on this forum, I cannot say that I am much impressed. And as you know I am not much impressed by what I understand of your *stance* and the content of your discourse. You seem to me monomaniacal. But as I have said I do not and would not criticize you for your personal choices or the way you choose to live in what I imagine to be welcome isolation. But this forum was founded by men who saw themselves as reforming missionaries of culture and who described their efforts and contributions in grandiose terms. Very romantic really, very Nietzschean! I have described the general underpinning of their motivations, and of those attracted to this *philosophy*, as ‘boyish’ and immature. And I say this without rancor, but as directly as I can and with no mincing nor measuring of words, that it is largely a sort of childishness that tinges the *philosophers* who are attracted to this space. But instead of being sucked down into their various labyrinthian rabbit holes — a neurotic’s expedition — I choose to hold to a position where I hover above it, look down on it, and work out ways to describe what I see. And as always there is no personal blame that is leveled against them (or you for that matter) but rather that I see nihilism as a serious infection, demanding a cure, but which nihilistic state is actually maintained and defended by those caught in its webs.

Therefor — and this should be obvious — one needs to return as it were to the drawing board and start over again. Attempting to get out of a trap, you-plural (I might say) became more mired in the bog. Then, *you* became invested in your *solutions* and imagined yourselves as having *special knowledge* and it is important to say *special aptitudes* which you understand as the mental machinations of a ‘liberated intellect’ (::: guffaws! :::), but I suggest (I do not make myself very popular as a result!) that a great deal of this is just childish posturing, game-playing, vain focus and a waste of time.

Therefor, and again, the focus must be changed. The real questions, the important questions, have to be brought out again and a new method and a new program needs to be instituted. I do not merely mean *you* (and you are, in the larger picture, quite irrelevant). The larger question has to do with Europe and with Europeans, the preservation of culture, the recognition of real value in what has made Europe Europe, and the more immediate struggles of our present. Instead of a journey into the abstract and all that distances us from reality, the opposite needs to occur. That is what I have been writing about lately and, as of right now, I am not at all convinced that I am on a wrong track.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The quote was really about two things, strongly related to the topic of the thread, which already contained a few references and quotes. But lets not dwell on the randomness and meaningless of what is, in the end, nothing but your rather nihilistic form of critique.

The first strong idea is about "the needy man" who clings his whole life long in order to preserve himself, all in the conceptual sense but it's all very real, it's body, it's world to him! The second one is that of what anyone having mastered perspectives will tend to appear as inside conversations: full of irony, unexpected pairings of separate traditions and vocabularies, mocking much of the old which has grown into a mindless barrier for the future and yet remaining silent on so many things as they remain unspeakable, hardly even fathomable.

Admittedly this behavior in itself could be easily emulated. Disconnected meaning trying to appear deep by amplifying the ironic over and beyond reason, pairing randomly some ideas while avoiding all the particulars. This is inherent to the age of simulation, to the creature and master of simulation; the human being. But in this case, no, you're speaking to the "real deal" with a "live wire" and as well a resonating "don't care snare". ~~

[Pam Seeback]

Alex, it is clear you don't trust the God you profess to follow or you would have no need to construct a man-made metaphysic to replace what is already available to you right here, right now - His Word/Logos. You want to make a map when you are already THE map but you know this not - alas, to your great loss.

Luke 17:21: "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." Think of me what you will, but I speak the truth when I say that until you stop banging your nihilistic criticism drum, His Word will never reach your ear.

[Santiago Odo]

When pressed, Diebert, you reveal an incoherent core. When pressed, you reveal your solid location within the mire of postmodernism. I guess I would say that for you the map is philosophical scambled eggs, tarted up into intellectual sententiousness : an unlikely feature for one who has effectively no content and nothing to teach.

What I try to express — well or badly I will leave the coming generations to decide — is very simple and really does not have many moving parts. And it is that I think we do well to examine with more energy and focus, perhaps sincerity is the word, the place(s) where we have wound up as we are pushed along by strange currents.

I do not think that David, bless his heart, *mastered perspectives* or anything else much for that matter. He did I think demonstrate how will and a certain application of reason function. But it is of a disconnected variety, bereft of *proper context*. That road, and this is always the case I think, peters out into meaninglessness, and again the *current* that pulls one along is just more evidence of a consuming nihilism.

[Santiago Odo]

Alex, it is clear you don't trust the God you profess to follow or you would have no need to construct a man-made metaphysic to replace what is already available to you right here, right now - His Word/Logos. You want to make a map when you are already THE map but you know this not - alas, to your great loss.

Luke 17:21: "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." Think of me what you will, but I speak the truth when I say that until you stop banging your nihilistic criticism drum, His Word will never reach your ear.

As always seems to be the case, Pam, we are speaking to and concerned for very different things. As I have said before I do not have any reason (and there is little to be gained) by arguing against your personal realizations. In their context, I suppose, they are important and have value. But I am interested in larger themes. And what those themes are is expressed in a dozen different posts.

In my own case, I am more interested in how one’s *theology* influences one’s actions and activities in the here-and-now. Maybe the term ‘political spirituality’ is apt to some degree? Given that I have a critique (and have had such a critique for a long time!) of the decisions and choices of those who founded GF and see what they have done in a larger, cutlrual and social, context, to see the ramifications of our spirtual choices in a social and political context is what interests me. And that is why I am working this nihilism-angle.

God, one’s inner life, the internal message that one attempts to receive and respond to as a soul : those are personal issues and they subjective. These are the sorts of thing one talks about with other people, for example, when one is working through personal issues and problems. One’s inner struggles, from a Greco-Christian perspective, are constant and unchanging. They will not change as long as man is man. But that also implies that the larger road, the larger endeavor, is also unchanging. And thus a *good map* is not to be transcended but used, applied. You know what I am referring to here.

But what I am trying to speak about are larger cultural issues of the day. What interests me is the larger currents and then the counter-currents that are opposing certain specificities within cultural settings. It is my view that, in addition to one’s own internal work (and I do recognize such a thing) one also has an outer work. How currents of nihilism have come to bear on and also against one’s subjective self and one’s objective relationship to culture, civilization, temporal modality, politics, but as you know to more specific forms of identity and also nationalism : these are the areas that interest me. And I am linking one’s *theology* to how one responds to all these things.

It is not quite proper to suppose that I do not ‘trust the God I profess to follow’ and, in fact, I simply do not speak in such terms. That is your domain, isn’t it? As I say, if there is a ‘God’ to be ‘followed’ I think it must take shape pretty much as Ortega y Gassett expressed it : the willingness to respect and *trust* the theological map, and the willingness to get down to the business of embodying it. What I am saying here is, I think, very Greco-Christian and, I hope, essentially European. I do not think what I am saying can make much sense to you, or put another way I do not think you need any part of this in your life. It is an area of focus completely outside of your concerns and your interests. And as you know 1) I have no argument against you and your personal choices within their limited context, but 2) I do have and argument against if, as with DD&K, a particular desperate modality is held up as some sort of panacea for the angst of currents of nihilism.

Every *conversation* that we ever have had, and those now, always result in the same. It is really a dead-end. Not because I could not, under pressure, enter into and talk about your particular ideas and concerns (I likely could) but that I am not at all interested in that particular conversation.

[Pam Seeback]

Alex: Every *conversation* that we ever have had, and those now, always result in the same. It is really a dead-end. Not because I could not, under pressure, enter into and talk about your particular ideas and concerns (I likely could) but that I am not at all interested in that particular conversation.

If our conversations have always resulted in dead ends for you, why do you continue to speak with me?

Am I that scary that you need to be under pressure to 'speak my language?' :-)

[Santiago Odo]

I speak to you in relation to the general theme I explore. You are related to it as you are an ‘abstract chronicle’ of our time. You have a place in Our Time and a place within the concerns of the Forum, obviously.

If you will only take some time to understand my orientation you will I think better grasp why our views don’t meet.

I respond to you because you come forward with countervailing ideas that serve my *discursive purposes*..

[Pam Seeback]

Alex, Diebert has asked that we move our conversations about "subjective and objective" from the Jordan Peterson thread as it is not directly related and I agree with his request, so if you are amenable, I would like to discuss these terms here in this thread, as I do believe they are a perfect fit.

I copy and pasted Diebert's request as a launching off point:

Santiago Odo: You misunderstand — again! When I say ‘objective’ I mean focussed on objective events, the present. It is clearly demonstrated in all my posts. Your interests are ‘subjective’ indofar as *enlightenment* is a subjective category. You are further ‘subjectively oriented’ because — I gather — you do not read, are not a student of history or of current events.

Pam: You are correct, I do not focus on history or current events, I focus on the nature of the subject of history or current events. Does it not make sense to understand the nature of the who before assuming an understanding of the why, what, where and when?

Diebert: Lets clarify this for the common good: conversations around here normally see the term "objective" as related to existence, the absolute, the question of inherent vs non-inherent existence and perhaps the role of logic and reason. Subjective orientations like history and world events are internal affairs, that is: deeply related to ones own interpretation caused by transitioning forms like culture, emotion and desire.

While this can be rehashed again if so desired, it won't be in this thread about Jordan Peterson and it might be split off. It's tempting to discuss all things related to philosophy in this rather specific topic, as all things do relate at some point, but well, please organize thought.

Before we begin, if we do begin, do you understand as Diebert understands the terms subjective and objective? For the record, I do with the caveat that I am glad he put the term "objective" in quotation marks and I can elaborate if you wish.

[Santiago Odo]

I won’t participate here, for stated reasons, and have kept my comments in the Peterson thread.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Lets clarify this for the common good: conversations around here normally see the term "objective" as related to existence, the absolute, the question of inherent vs non-inherent existence and perhaps the role of logic and reason. Subjective orientations like history and world events are internal affairs, that is: deeply related to ones own interpretation caused by transitioning forms like culture, emotion and desire

(...) with the caveat that I am glad he put the term "objective" in quotation marks and I can elaborate if you wish.

Well, lets have this discussion anyway. The quotation marks seem reasonable because of the paradox working inside this terminology. At the one extreme end you have, once the self is snuffed out, only the absolute left. But our framework of experiencing still has to be subjective as we cannot simply escape formation by culture, emotion and desire.

The modern solution is to reverse this (a trick of absolute power grabbing!) and define as real and "matter" the very things which are personal experiences and valuing. With complexity added, a reality can now be created. Reality as function of connection. By creating many connection with the experiencing at all levels, realities can be created, no matter yet if false or true.

To counter this means to literally stand on ones head. The whole world of things that matter becomes internal experiencing & deeply relative. But that objectiveness is now what "lies beyond" that. We can describe it with logical sense: constant, independent, unchanging, verifiable as it fuels "truth" itself (it's what makes all verification possible). The "object" itself remains out of reach, cannot exist but it stands model for the one, the source of all desire, which fuels all senses of perfection and inspired the whole idea of solidness and steadiness in a world which is neither.

Well, it's a start. Please elaborate...

[Pam Seeback]

Lets clarify this for the common good: conversations around here normally see the term "objective" as related to existence, the absolute, the question of inherent vs non-inherent existence and perhaps the role of logic and reason. Subjective orientations like history and world events are internal affairs, that is: deeply related to ones own interpretation caused by transitioning forms like culture, emotion and desire

(...) with the caveat that I am glad he put the term "objective" in quotation marks and I can elaborate if you wish.

Well, lets have this discussion anyway. The quotation marks seem reasonable because of the paradox working inside this terminology. At the one extreme end you have, once the self is snuffed out, only the absolute left. But our framework of experiencing still has to be subjective as we cannot simply escape formation by culture, emotion and desire.

The modern solution is to reverse this (a trick of absolute power grabbing!) and define as real and "matter" the very things which are personal experiences and valuing. With complexity added, a reality can now be created. Reality as function of connection. By creating many connection with the experiencing at all levels, realities can be created, no matter yet if false or true.

To counter this means to literally stand on ones head. The whole world of things that matter becomes internal experiencing & deeply relative. But that objectiveness is now what "lies beyond" that. We can describe it with logical sense: constant, independent, unchanging, verifiable as it fuels "truth" itself (it's what makes all verification possible). The "object" itself remains out of reach, cannot exist but it stands model for the one, the source of all desire, which fuels all senses of perfection and inspired the whole idea of solidness and steadiness in a world which is neither.

Well, it's a start. Please elaborate...

In my 'map' of post-self experience, there is a continuing relationship between outside stimuli - the object - and the internal analyzing subject. What is absent in this subjective-objective union is the old self that identified with the object, a very different experience than allowing it to act as an agent of inspiration and 'reaching for' as is done by the non-attached reasoning subject.

While the above wisdom 'map' could be interpreted as lacking feeling and intensity, just the opposite is true. Where the old self of object-identification experiences conflicting emotions of doubt and unrequited desire - suffering - the non-attached reasoning subject experiences reasoning, feeling and desire as if they are a single or united experience. The term 'connections' works well here - it is as if behind the scenes where thinking 'happens' there is a constant making of connections between past, present and future to form the 'new' moment.

Not sure how much our 'maps' of the subjective-objective relate, but anytime I can put into words that which is not easy to put into words - score! :-)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

In my 'map' of post-self experience, there is a continuing relationship between outside stimuli - the object - and the internal analyzing subject.

To me that sounds like a good description of "plain old self" but as more masculine orientated (as in: externally objectifying and internally subjective-empty). The shift is important but perhaps not post-self more like post-feminized? Of course there's the idea that this is somewhat the same but I don't see it like that. Orientation of self could be said to be 180 degrees different.

What is absent in this subjective-objective union is the old self that identified with the object, a very different experience than allowing it to act as an agent of inspiration and 'reaching for' as is done by the non-attached reasoning subject.

A self identified with the object equals the notion of an objectified or absolute sense of self. Which is often confused with "actualized" which only means something after total disintegration. It's hard to comment on broad categories like "agent of inspiration" and "reaching for" since they seem to belong to a different domain (a behavior, a flavor, a labor).

the non-attached reasoning subject experiences reasoning, feeling and desire as if they are a single or united experience.

Yes - way more links between them than usually assumed. The one shapes or amplifies the other but principle rules them all.

[Pam Seeback]

Pam: the non-attached reasoning subject experiences reasoning, feeling and desire as if they are a single or united experience.

Diebert: Yes - way more links between them than usually assumed. The one shapes or amplifies the other but principle rules them all.

As I understand it, the principle that rules them all is what we call 'intuition' or 'conscience'. It is the activity of formless reasoning - the 'invisible' connecting or linking logos - whose contents/contexts (meaning) aren't revealed until they are fully shaped. Ignorance and delusion enter the picture when we become attached to the revelations of the logos, and of this attachment, form conscious worlds of good and evil thinking (morality, ethics, conditioned human responses, aka the self).

Those who do not trust their intuition or conscience to give them the 'naked' truth are those who rely on the truths or beliefs of their culture (or counter-culture) for guidance, or in absence of a defined culture, follow the stream of popular thought (Alex's nihilism?). It does seems as if the modern world is leaning toward 'what is in' rather than what is culturally passed down or what is right or true. Is this a transition phase of self-release as I believe it to be? Only time will tell.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

As I understand it, the principle that rules them all is what we call 'intuition' or 'conscience'. It is the activity of formless reasoning - the 'invisible' connecting or linking logos - whose contents/contexts (meaning) aren't revealed until they are fully shaped. Ignorance and delusion enter the picture when we become attached to the revelations of the logos, and of this attachment, form conscious worlds of good and evil thinking (morality, ethics, conditioned human responses, aka the self).

Yes, it's the non-intellectual compound of this forum's ruling idea. But nothing anti-intellectual of course. In fact, the intellect, the strongest reason ability, is seen as crucial in taking apart ignorance and preventing one to slip back into that too easily. But left to its own devices, the intellect chases for ever its own tail. It's kind of how it works to begin with!

Intuition is sometimes confused, and I'm borrowing from Spinoza here, with the first degree of knowing: opining, feeling, hinting, suspecting etc. But that's just a precursor to ratio, not yet to real intuition. First there's the ultimate challenger & opponent: pure reason. And other adversaries of course but they all will imprint reasonability over time, at the very least experience.

It does seems as if the modern world is leaning toward 'what is in' rather than what is culturally passed down or what is right or true. Is this a transition phase of self-release as I believe it to be? Only time will tell.

Destruction and creation in that regard always have ruled. But like people engineer their environment, they will, when possible, also start engineering themselves freely. A true revaluation will take place and the outcome cannot be predicted.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Intuition is also confused, borrowing Spinoza here, with the first degree of knowing: opining, feeling, hinting, suspecting etc. But that's just a precursor to reason, not yet to real intuition. First there's the ultimate challenger & opponent: pure reason. And other adversaries of course but they all will imprint reasonability over time, at the very least experience.

This idea of intuition or higher degrees of knowing is a crucial notion and relevant to everything else discussed on this forum although perhaps not entirely related to the map and territory issue.

Intuition or at it's sometimes called direct knowing, cannot be just another strong idea, feeling or experience. Or a kind of knowing something, somewhere, in some context. That kind of perception would be simply a piece of a ten thousand piece puzzle, forever fragmenting. Anyone claiming this kind of thing and calling it ultimate will only fragment his own mind and those of the ones believing him, when trying to follow.

So what could be really meant?

When such intuition arrives it will be in complete accordance with everything so far thought, felt, understood and experienced. It will not and cannot conflict with anything gained so far, assuming of course already a level of perception and self-knowledge. And this is the first struggle: one will try to find fault with it by the nature of a healthy critical mind, when this intuition is first encountered in full. Going over each of your experiences all the way back as your memory allows, which easily can take years. Does it confirm and illuminate or does the experience counters and questions the perspective?

This is like some initial experience. Ultimate understandings are simply undeniable by any challenge of logic, nature, debate or research. It's not just that they are impossible to challenge, they actually confirm and illuminate everything else experienced and understood so far. It's really full reversal!

The question is then asked: how can one be sure that this wouldn't be some ultimate self-deception? It's not difficult to imagine how the mind can play tricks: filtering everything out that might challenge the "intuition" and only show the ones in accordance. This is a catch 22 situation and there's no easy answer here. Traditionally it would be assumed that the mind is thoroughly watched and tested to prevent such scenario. Or some spiritual authorities somehow screening and judging from the outside, providing correction when delusions would creep in. In my view currently the best way is to submit at least to the power of reason as to allow for some way to lay bare and watch the tricks and traps.

Another question would be what such intuition really would add, if not providing any new kind of eclectic or special knowledge or experience. Wouldn't it be simpler to assert that it does not have to exist at all? My attempt to answer this would include the notion of illumination: all what you already know or experience is made possible by the same intuitive powers. In other words, direct, intuitive knowing can intensify and clarify all other forms of knowing and experiencing. While "nothing new" necessarily, in practice many new things can and will arise, even "all new".

[Glostik91]

How do you know the map is not the territory? How do you know that the map =/= the territory?

[Pam Seeback]

How do you know the map is not the territory? How do you know that the map =/= the territory?

By way of intuitive reasoning/logic: reality is absolute ('one' non-comparable causality) whereas maps of reality are relative (multiple comparable causalities). In relation to finding one's absolute nature, wisdom/spiritual/philosophical maps help the seeker 'find it' while at the same time supporting the search until 'it' is realized. And once realized, wisdom/spiritual/philosophical maps are no longer needed. What comes to mind is the Buddha's story of the raft (wisdom map/Buddhist sutras): one needs it/them to cross to the shore of the absolute, but once one is standing firmly on the shore, the sutra map must be pushed off into the river.

[Glostik91]

By way of intuitive reasoning/logic: reality is absolute ('one' non-comparable causality) whereas maps of reality are relative (multiple comparable causalities). In relation to finding one's absolute nature, wisdom/spiritual/philosophical maps help the seeker 'find it' while at the same time supporting the search until 'it' is realized. And once realized, wisdom/spiritual/philosophical maps are no longer needed. What comes to mind is the Buddha's story of the raft (wisdom map/Buddhist sutras): one needs it/them to cross to the shore of the absolute, but once one is standing firmly on the shore, the sutra map must be pushed off into the river.

I guess I must be confused about the analogy. Territory is to reality as maps are to ____ what exactly? Our perception of reality?