The map is not the territory

[Pam Seeback]

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?

Territory is to the absolute reality (pure or spirit or formless reasoning) as maps are to the relative reality (the imagined reasoned world of self). When one is ignorant of the absolute reality, one lives in their maps of relativity-self and believe them to be the only reality. However, when one is awakened to the absolute reality, maps become the reality (reasoning) that 'leads them' to the absolute, maps that although come labelled as belonging to this or that religion or philosophy are united in their singularity of purpose: to sever one's attachment to maps.

[Glostik91]

Territory is to the absolute reality (pure or spirit or formless reasoning) as maps are to the relative reality (the imagined reasoned world of self). When one is ignorant of the absolute reality, one lives in their maps of relativity-self and believe them to be the only reality. However, when one is awakened to the absolute reality, maps become the reality (reasoning) that 'leads them' to the absolute, maps that although come labelled as belonging to this or that religion or philosophy are united in their singularity of purpose: to sever one's attachment to maps.

Okay so I am to understand that there are many different relative realities. Each person or even each being capable of cognition is potentially perceiving a different reality relative to something else.

So out of all of these possible realities, you're saying that none of them are the actual reality, independent of imagination or perception or anything (the absolute reality). But why couldn't one of them be the actual absolute reality? And don't give me the "because they're all relative realities not absolute realities". That answer demonstrates you don't understand the question I'm asking.

[Pam Seeback]

So you want me to say a dog is a cat? Reasoning of the absolute is to have wisdom of what is absolutely true: in this case, what is absolute is absolute, what is relative is relative, to try and make one the other is to experience delusion. Having said this, although they are not the same realities, they are causally linked. Perhaps you can tell me how a relative reality can be absolute. An actual example would be helpful.

[Glostik91]

I'm not asking you to say a dog is a cat. I suppose what I'm asking is this. Of all the possible experiences one could have (experiences which include reasonings, sensation of objects, any possible experience) is it possible that one of the realities which you think is relative is actually the absolute one?

You cognize a reality, and you think it is relative, but it is actually the absolute one.

So I am a human who walks around experiencing the world. And the notion occurs to me that the whole world I see is relative to specific fundamentals truths such as time and space, and that these fundamental truths distort my view of pure noumenal reality. I realize that I'm not actually viewing absolute reality, but reality as it is passed through the lens of the fundamental truths (aka pure intuition) of space and time.

So we have that set up, but isn't it possible that the lens doesn't distort the absolute noumenal reality at all? Instead of a lens, it is just flat glass. Isn't it possible that absolute reality is simply just as I am experiencing it?

In other words, what if the map is simply the same as the territory? I understand that the idea doesn't follow as well with this figure of speech. The lens analogy works better in my opinion. But the fundamental idea still holds true, because it's possible we could just be mistaken, and the map could simply be the same as the territory.

[Pam Seeback]

Glostik91: You cognize a reality, and you think it is relative, but it is actually the absolute one.

When I speak of the absolute reality (the territory) I am referring to the unchanging causal reality of laws and principles that causes all things - non-feeling insights that can be known (absolute truths) and reasoned feeling-things we enjoy/like or don't enjoy/dislike (preferences). And as an all-inclusive reality that remains hidden to our mind until a single thought appears, logically, the all-inclusive, hidden absolute reality cannot be cognized by this single thought. I notice you used the term 'noumenal', implying that man can know a thing as it is in itself (Kantian philosophy). Perhaps this is why you asserted that it is possible to mistake the absolute reality for a cognized relative reality.

Although we can't reveal the absolute reality, as I mentioned above we can know absolute truths that are true at all times in all places. Empirical truths such as a dog is never a cat and mathematical truths such as 16 - 6 = 10 and philosophical/spiritual truths such as things of the earth (including man's imagination) are impermanent. Knowing the difference between the natures of a relative, self-made-world and self-less knowing of absolute truths is to have wisdom. For the most part, because it does not know the difference, the world operates from the (caused) principle of ignorance.

[the discourse]

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.

Generally, there is something wrong with your statement. I have been reading some of your other posts, which have left doubts in my mind as well, as to the coherence and validity of some of your writings.

The main flaw, is that it seems to reverse the order of cause-and-effect, that is it reverses the order of subjectivity and objectivity.

Subjectivity arises from an objective universe. DNA, biology, forms minds which holds consciousness. In fact the whole concept of subjectivity and objectivity is a failed American description of events. That is not to say that objects do not exist outside of the mind. But to say that tastes are subjective, is a misunderstanding...Tastes are determined by real, objective, chemical events: physical space, the brain as object. Inside the brain lies the first-person-camera "Consciousness", which again, is object, since it exists. That is not to say that the subject does not exist. It is to say that subject and object, in such a context, are poorly chosen words.

It is to say that the Consciousness is a different object from the lifeless world (unless PanPsychism is real.)

Thus, to reject objectivity, is a fool's errand, (Also that end song of David's podcast02.mp3 is so incredibly annoying...)

Put simply, what are you saying? Because you make the first error of putting scientists and religious people, lumping them all in one boat, and categorizing into two components of a binary: Scientists and Religious are all part of Group 1: The unenlightened. And you, who are "enlightened", still uses maps, but knows maps are not to be considered important, as all is impermanent, memory based, subjectivity.
There is so much nonsense in some of these statements I cannot even know where to begin.

First thing, the one of the driving forces of lifeforms is self-replication. And another is the pleasure principle: To achieve better standards of living.
So there are three options here: Either you do not care about your own standards of living, or that you do care about your standards of living. If you care about your standards of living, then the map matters to you. If you don't, then there is still option 3: Others who care about their own standards of living. And then you can claim they are all delusional, that if only they saw that standards of living, simply did not matter. If they could all just wise up and see that suffering was impermanent, they would be free. But what if it really wasn't impermanent? What if reincarnation, was actually a thing? Can you actually prove it isn't? And maybe all along, the ones who said they were sane, actually turned out to be sane after all. Ala, Jim Carrey in 23, everyone outside of his glass windowpane was insane, looking out the windowpane of the basement dwelling conspiracist.

My main concern here, is what is the point of your post right now? It is very much something I'd hear from my local reiki organization, as she rubs my shoulders and we hold our hands doing kumbaya. Is it meant to be some revolutionary thing? What exactly are we supposed to get out of this? Vague mentions of the "absolute" and modern, new-age hipsterite musings of how "all is subjective"? Vague mentions about "causal laws of the universe", which obviously don't include Newtonian physics, because those "scientist" guys just are too unenlightened, "rigidly" obeying maps?