I don't think the author quite groks the map/territory distinction that Korzybski goes on and on about. > A map shows you everything at once. The order of even

I don't think the author quite groks the map/territory distinction that Korzybski goes on and on about. > A map shows you everything at once. The order of events matters on a journey. Knowing your way around a place isn't remotely like map-knowledge. Korzybski almost gets this point. Whatever is happening as we represent the flow of sensation in words has a weak and fragile grip on things outside of the mind. Words can only express a tiny slice of what we experience of the world. In other words, he's complaining that a "map" (as in, paper with a drawing of some terrain on it) is a poor and limited stand-in for a "map" (as in mental model of some phenomenon). But that's exactly what Korzybski was saying! All maps are poor and limited, by virtue of being maps, even the one implied by "The map is not the territory" which uses physical terrain maps as a model for models generally. To be fair, Korzybski was prolific and most of his writing is pretty opaque and I don't understand 90% of his output (and I consider myself a huge fan!) so I may be misunderstanding OP's point, or misrepresenting Korzybski's. I'm just adding my two cents' worth because I was very heavily influenced by General Semantics (the parts I can understand) and am always excited to see it discussed.