“You use your eyes to observe reflected protons” Photons, no?

Aye, change made, thanks!

~

@Tom: I like your comment, but will have to get back to it later, sorry.

I think this is true for low connotation symbols. For example, I would agree that calling a brick red or orange is irrelevant. But it is irrelevant because none of the symbols in that exchange (red, orange, or brick) have any strong connotation with you or your friend. This is a fresh idea so bare with me, but I would argue that their are multiple types of connotation a symbol can have:

Relational connotations: That connect one symbol to another.

(Fx: white,light, purity, goodness, righteous, are all connected within the context of Western culture; while dark, polluted, evil, unjust are connected).

Abstract connotations: That connect a symbol to a value.

(Fx: Lions are connected to regality, honor, power; Snakes are connected to villainous and underhanded character)

Empirical connotations: That connect a symbol to a description of reality.

(Fx: the word pebble is connected to a conglomerate of sediment of a certain size)

Red, orange, purple, brick, for you and your friend these symbols carry at most empirical connotations. None of your values have been attached to them. You can imagine though, if those symbols had more relational and abstract connotations that it would not be as simple of a matter. Let’s say in Chinese culture, where red is STRONGLY associated with power, pride, and nationality; and ( I am making up a negative connotation of purple for the sake of argument) purple is let’s say STRONGLY associated with perversion. Perversion is a symbol that is relationally connected to many other symbols that carry negative abstract connotations. Abstract and Relational connotations create tangled webs of symbols that are infused with very strong connotations. These connotations are motivators, dispositions to action, regardless of their verisimilitude.
In your example of the bricks, let’s say that the bricks in question (i.e a specific building) hold important connotations for your friend. It is his safe haven at college, his favorite place, or if you would permit me to stretch the example, let’s say it is his home that he himself built. And let’s say that he carries the connotations of red and purple I have suggested above. In this situation, the “bricks” in question are relationally connected to the symbol of his home, which is relationally connected to his “self.” Thus while “bricks” are low connotation symbols for you (and thus not intrinsically important) these are not bricks to him, they are essentially an extension of himself. The color purple and red, both being a particularly heavy symbol for your friend, completes the scenario. Now, it means a great deal whether the bricks are purple or not. He will fight your description of it being purple, because to him, whether it is logical or not, the bricks are connected to him, and purple is connected to so many other negative symbols and connotations that to admit it is purple is to attach that to himself.

You two are essentially talking past each other/ arguing definitions as you put it. However, to you, the definition is removed. To him it is personal. And yet, it is personal to you in some sense as well. Because the moment you realize that you are arguing definitions, the symbols you are discussing become attached to the symbol “arguing definitions,” an idea that is highly valued by you, and thus highly personal. For him to not see that the bricks are neither “red” nor “purple” is for him to deny your coveted symbol. Why should you care if he denies it? Because he is your “friend” or “acquaintance” both of which are symbols that relationally connect him to you, thus the situations exist as this:

Friend: 1. Bricks- home- haven-pride-work-effort-self

2. Red-honor-pride-strength-respect-family-culture-self

(Because the connotations of redness represent a culture, they are connected to an idea of self as well)

3. Purple-Perversion-Childhood-Shame-Impotent-Wrong-Dirty-Etc

I threw in Childhood there for the same reason I threw in family and culture above, to highlight the extent to which relational connotations extend, and the subjectivity. If your friend grew-up in doubt of his purity and feeling secretly perverted, then the implications of subconsciously building a purple house could be huge.

You:

1. Purple Bricks-Red Bricks-Arbitrary Distinctions-Meaningless-Illogical-Arguing Definitions-Immoral-Stupid
2. Friend-Confidante-College-Self-Moral-Logical-Smart

You do not see Purple or Red or even bricks as separate, because to you all these things are connected to the symbol “Arguing definitions,” which is connected to various other symbols and negative connotations: “illogical,” “immoral,” and “stupid.” Because your friend is connected to you and your values, it is a threat to your identity and values to allow him or her to be connected to those negative connotations.

You and your friend are fighting for different things. Your friend is trying to stop 1 and 3 from being connected, because it is threatening to his identity. You are trying to stop 1 and 2 from being connected, because it is threatening to your identity.

His 1, 2 &3 are completely different from your 1 & 2. You both are arguing definitions, but both of your definitions define your identity. Thus they are not arbitrary.

I look forward to your response.

Photons, no?

I like the idea, but I think you need to rethink parts of it.

Probably. It’s a difficult idea to communicate, because it has a lot of implications.

Today, one of my friends asks me if a brick had to be “red” to be considered a brick, noting that the building we were in was made of both reddish, purplish, and brownish “bricks”.

My younger self would have totally launched into this argument defending the notion of bricks as being all colors, not just red, but today I instantly recognized the folly. I responded that while people commonly refer to some non-red objects as bricks, making red a requirement of bricks does not change what the building is made of.

That bolded part is one of the main ideas I wanted to communicate in this essay — calling something this word instead of that word, does not change the object in itself.

That specific idea, that words are in the map and not the territory, is one of the points I wanted to communicate, and I think really ties in my series on definitions (smuggling connotations, applause lights, and debating definitions) with my series on knowledge (that this essay is a part of).

~

The piece you are missing in my opinion is the fact that the map does in fact influence the territory. You are correct that the map is not the territory and that the map can never be the full territory. That said, the map determines how people act; how people act determines changes within the territory; thus the map influences the territory.

Definitely. This is both a large piece and a piece I initially wanted to include, but was not quite sure how to articulate it.

I’m reminded of your comment on spoons being defined as a weapon. While this would change no properties of the spoon (see above), and therefore I feel *should* do nothing to change people’s opinions of spoons, it is a descriptive fact that it would change people’s opinions of spoons, therefore changing how spoons are used.

~

Do you see how the idea that there are maps, which are human delusions and territories that are the actual reality is a type of dualism?

I’m not really sure how it specifically ties into dualism, or whatever you are calling dualism, but I think I get the point as a whole.

~

the idea to limit maps that do not exactly reflect the territory is an attempt to remove the type of motivator I was talking about in our previous discussion. The motivator that does not reflect the current reality, but hold the potential to shape a new reality based on its vision.

Yes.

~

You suggest to remove maps that are not empirically accurate, but I would argue that one of humanities greatest dispositions for survival is our ability to shape reality to meet our maps. I would suggest not getting rid of the imagined maps, but rather, to make sure that they all point towards humaneness.

I’m in agreement.

I think this goes back into some of what we discussed in the essay “Clarifying the Idea of Meaning”, and to tie it into map-territory discussion, I could describe it as saying we really make two different maps: the map of “how the world is” and the map of “how the world should be”.

I think this is another distinction that should be made, like the map-territory distinction, as these two maps can also get mixed up (see wishful thinking). I would be in favor of removing maps that describe “how the world is” if they are not empirically accurate, but I would not place the same restrictions on maps of “how the world should be”.

I see value systems (like morality, humaneness, or just personal goals) as being the map-of-should-be, and motivation being your desire to make the two maps the same, turning the map-of-what-is into the map-of-should-be.

~

(Humanness will be described further on my website in the essay I am working on now. It is almost done, well maybe…)

I look forward to it.

I like the idea, but I think you need to rethink parts of it. First off I would get rid of the section titled “the problem of abstract categorization.” It seems to me to just be further arguing the folly of definitions. I understand you are taking the initiative to spread this idea, but I think you overuse it. I don’t think it is applicable to every scenario and I do not see it as adding much to this essay.
The reason I do not see it adding much to this essay is due to the fact that I think you are missing a much more substantial piece of this discussion; a piece that if included would clash with the “arguing definitions” bit.
The piece you are missing in my opinion is the fact that the map does in fact influence the territory. You are correct that the map is not the territory and that the map can never be the full territory. That said, the map determines how people act; how people act determines changes within the territory; thus the map influences the territory.
Keeping with your analogy, imagine that your map has a path on it. A path that is not in reality carved into the territory. However, when you enter the territory you expect a path to be in a certain place. Your expectations lead you to see a path (even though there is no path) and you forge it. You having forged a path makes a path that other people and other animals can tread. The continual usage of your path will lead to erosion, shift territories, stop plants from growing, it changes the territory.
Let’s say the map you have is “God’s map” and it has a church in the middle of the territory. You go there and you see no church, but your map has a church, you know that specific area is a church, it just does not know it is a church yet. You make a church.

Thus even if it is impossible to chart the full map, even if elements of your map are fictions, your map influences your actions; your actions influence the territory. Your map changes the territory.

Do you see how the idea that there are maps, which are human delusions and territories that are the actual reality is a type of dualism? Humans exist as a part of the territory, maps exist as a part of humans, thus maps influence territories.
the idea to limit maps that do not exactly reflect the territory is an attempt to remove the type of motivator I was talking about in our previous discussion. The motivator that does not reflect the current reality, but hold the potential to shape a new reality based on its vision.
You suggest to remove maps that are not empirically accurate, but I would argue that one of humanities greatest dispositions for survival is our ability to shape reality to meet our maps. I would suggest not getting rid of the imagined maps, but rather, to make sure that they all point towards humaneness. (Humanness will be described further on my website in the essay I am working on now. It is almost done, well maybe…)