5 ms·

https://generalsemantics.org/resources/documents/gsb-65-wilson.pdf https://generalsemantics.org/resources/documents/gsb-65-wils...

everybodyknows 3y ago
Can you provide a synopsis of this lecture transcript?
- ineptech 3y ago
  It's a speech by the author Robert Anton Wilson discussing the work of Alfred Korzybski, who helped to explain and popularize the map/territory distinction and how it relates to the philosophy of science. I'm a huge fan of Wilson and Korzybski, the ideas Wilson discusses in this lecture definitely changed my life and the way that I think about science, but even I would caution that it's not all that relevant to the discussion here.
- dsr_ 3y ago
  Words are tools of communication, but they are also tools of deception and obfuscation. They never represent reality correctly, but they can be useful. There is a chain of complexity where subatomic wavicles assemble into atoms, molecules, self-reproducing molecules, cells, multicellular life, specialized multicellular life, different clades of life, and on up to forms of intelligence and self-awareness. It is not possible for a human-equivalent intelligence to maintain continuous awareness of all these levels of complexity, and so we operate, much of the time, in abstractions and metaphors that we mistake for being real. We code-switch, consciously and not, through sets of behaviors that pretend that various abstractions are real. Among these abstractions: a town is a group of buildings and people, but different social abstractions don't have to agree about the contents. So the post office, the street maps, the police and the real estate agents can all be simultaneously in disagreement about the house where the author lives in terms of their mappings of "towns" and "jurisdictions", yet all agree on the street address and which building they mean. When you can't do something because it's illegal, you can do it, but you know that various social institutions will attempt to inflict various consequences on you if they become aware of your action in the appropriate ways. But most of the time you just say "I can't" and fall back on "I shouldn't". There's a lot more, but it's about the same: we build lots of maps, we don't agree on them, but we keep acting as though they were real even though we know that they aren't. When someone is invested enough in their current map, they can become very upset with someone who points out that it's fictional.

everybodyknows 3y ago

Can you provide a synopsis of this lecture transcript?

ineptech 3y ago
It's a speech by the author Robert Anton Wilson discussing the work of Alfred Korzybski, who helped to explain and popularize the map/territory distinction and how it relates to the philosophy of science. I'm a huge fan of Wilson and Korzybski, the ideas Wilson discusses in this lecture definitely changed my life and the way that I think about science, but even I would caution that it's not all that relevant to the discussion here.
dsr_ 3y ago
Words are tools of communication, but they are also tools of deception and obfuscation. They never represent reality correctly, but they can be useful. There is a chain of complexity where subatomic wavicles assemble into atoms, molecules, self-reproducing molecules, cells, multicellular life, specialized multicellular life, different clades of life, and on up to forms of intelligence and self-awareness. It is not possible for a human-equivalent intelligence to maintain continuous awareness of all these levels of complexity, and so we operate, much of the time, in abstractions and metaphors that we mistake for being real. We code-switch, consciously and not, through sets of behaviors that pretend that various abstractions are real. Among these abstractions: a town is a group of buildings and people, but different social abstractions don't have to agree about the contents. So the post office, the street maps, the police and the real estate agents can all be simultaneously in disagreement about the house where the author lives in terms of their mappings of "towns" and "jurisdictions", yet all agree on the street address and which building they mean. When you can't do something because it's illegal, you can do it, but you know that various social institutions will attempt to inflict various consequences on you if they become aware of your action in the appropriate ways. But most of the time you just say "I can't" and fall back on "I shouldn't". There's a lot more, but it's about the same: we build lots of maps, we don't agree on them, but we keep acting as though they were real even though we know that they aren't. When someone is invested enough in their current map, they can become very upset with someone who points out that it's fictional.