The map tries to represent the territory faithfully.
The map consciously misrepresent the territory. But you can still infer through the malevolent map some things about the territory.
The map does not represent the territory at all but pretends to be 1. Difference to 2 is that 2 is still taking the territory as base case and changing it while 3 is not at all trying to look at the territory.
The map is the territory. Any reference on the map is just a reference to another part of the map. Claiming that the map might be connected to an external territory is taken as bullshit because people are living in the map. In the optimal case the map is at least self consistent.
Do you find this an intuitive framework? I find the implication that conversation fits neatly into these boxes or that these are the relevant boxes a little doubtful.
Are you able to quickly give examples in any setting of what 1,2,3 and 4 would be?
Here is an example which I believe is directionally correct, it took me roughly 20 minutes to come up with it. The prompt is “how do living systems create meaning ”?:
My life feels like it has meaning (sensory-motor behavior and conceptual intentional aspects). Looking at it through an evolutionary perspective, it is highly likely that meaning assignment is the way through which living systems survived. Thus, there has to be some base biological level at which meaning is created through cell-cell communication/ bioelectricity/ biochemistry /biosensoring etc.
Life is just made of atoms. Atoms are just automata. This implies, there is no meaning at the atom level and thus it cannot pop at a higher levels through emergence or some shit. You are delusional to believe there is some meaning assignment in life.
Meaning is something that is defined through the language that we speak. It is well known that different cultures have different words and conceptual framing which implies that meaning is different in different cultures. Meaning thus only depends on language.
Meaning is just a social construct and we can define anything to have meaning. Thus it doesn’t matter what you find meaningful since it is just something you inherited through society and parenting.
I believe points 1-3 are fine, point 4 is kinda shaky.
I don’t really understand the difference between simulacra levels 2 and 3.
Discussing reality
Attempting to achieve results in reality by inaccuracy
Attempting to achieve results in social reality by inaccuracy
I’ve never really got 4 either, but let’s stick to 1 − 3.
Also they seem more like nested circles rather than levels—the jump between 2 and 3 (if I understand it correctly) seems pretty arbitrary.
I think 3 is more like: “Attempting to achieve results in social reality, by ‘social accuracy’, regardless of factual accuracy.”
1 = telling the truth, plainly
2 = lying, for instrumental purposes (not social)
3 = tribal speech (political correctness, religious orthodoxy, uncritical contrarianism, etc.)
4 = buzzwords, used randomly
This is better understood as a 2×2 matrix, rather than a linear sequence of 4 steps.
1, 2 = about reality
3, 4 = about social reality
1, 3 = trying to have a coherent model of (real or social) reality
2, 4 = making a random move to achieve a short-term goal in (real or social) reality
Maybe a different framework to look at it:
The map tries to represent the territory faithfully.
The map consciously misrepresent the territory. But you can still infer through the malevolent map some things about the territory.
The map does not represent the territory at all but pretends to be 1. Difference to 2 is that 2 is still taking the territory as base case and changing it while 3 is not at all trying to look at the territory.
The map is the territory. Any reference on the map is just a reference to another part of the map. Claiming that the map might be connected to an external territory is taken as bullshit because people are living in the map. In the optimal case the map is at least self consistent.
Do you find this an intuitive framework? I find the implication that conversation fits neatly into these boxes or that these are the relevant boxes a little doubtful.
Are you able to quickly give examples in any setting of what 1,2,3 and 4 would be?
Here is an example which I believe is directionally correct, it took me roughly 20 minutes to come up with it. The prompt is “how do living systems create meaning ”?:
My life feels like it has meaning (sensory-motor behavior and conceptual intentional aspects). Looking at it through an evolutionary perspective, it is highly likely that meaning assignment is the way through which living systems survived. Thus, there has to be some base biological level at which meaning is created through cell-cell communication/ bioelectricity/ biochemistry /biosensoring etc.
Life is just made of atoms. Atoms are just automata. This implies, there is no meaning at the atom level and thus it cannot pop at a higher levels through emergence or some shit. You are delusional to believe there is some meaning assignment in life.
Meaning is something that is defined through the language that we speak. It is well known that different cultures have different words and conceptual framing which implies that meaning is different in different cultures. Meaning thus only depends on language.
Meaning is just a social construct and we can define anything to have meaning. Thus it doesn’t matter what you find meaningful since it is just something you inherited through society and parenting.
I believe points 1-3 are fine, point 4 is kinda shaky.