Posted: May 24, 2016 10:01 pm
EvertVd wrote:tolman wrote:
Why 'equally', as opposed to 'fairly', 'appropriately', 'efficiently', or some other criteria?
It was just an example, I didn't really weigh all the words I was using. But you are right, 'equally' is not the correct word; not sure what would be. I meant to say was something like: everyone receives what they need, no more, no less, keeping in mind everyone's needs are different.
@BWE: I'm not sure if I misunderstand you, or you me?
I am not looking to prevent map-territory errors. Although I guess that would be an implicit, and impossible, side effect. I am looking for a base of reference. A logical reference cannot, in my view, depend on neither the collective opinion of the majority nor the ideological delusions of a dictator. To me this seems the same difference.
The territory is the only immutable, objective thing we have. Our knowledge of it may not be perfect or complete, and it may never be. But it is the only common reference point all humans (life?) share.
I am not advocating anything, I am merely trying to understand why people compare their maps to each others instead of lining them up to the territory. Since the latter will line up their maps to each other as well and the former does not guarantee realism. This 'eliminates' any errors, since those would then be common (universal) as well; at least until our knowledge of the territory changes/improves.
I'm not sure i understand what you are asking or saying. Maps are shared through communication and adopted through their perceived fit with the territory. Ideally, we would always check the territory first and only conditionally employ the maps. That is why map-territory errors are errors though. It is often impossible to distinguish between the two and even more often impossibly inefficient to try.
If you are actually interested, you should read this:
https://www.uploady.com/#!/download/yRM ... Ux7yR0nb1_
If the link doesn't work, it's a pdf of a book called 'science and sanity' by a seriously unorthodox thinker named Alfred Korzybski. There are several links available through google. It is mildly torturous to read and excessively long but he thoroughly explored the idea and it does have some profound elements. I recommend it highly with the reservations given.