A map is not the territory it represents, but…

I quote one of the key ideas of my activities, as stated bij Korzybski:

A map is not the territory it represents, but, if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness

Korzybski,
“Science and sanity: An introduction to non-Aristotelian systems and general semantics.“

This post is created to point towards a rather elaborated and interesting discussion, published by Darren Dalcher: “The map is not the territory: Musings on complexity, people and models“, expressing some great reflections on the object and its representation.

The map-territory relation refers to the association between the map, as the representational output of the mapping process, and the object being studied, or the actual, physical territory. The distinction draws on the early work of Korzybski (1931; 1933) representing his view that a simplification or an abstraction derived from some thing is not the thing itself.

Maps become more and more a tool for managing complexity, and increasingly have the potential to become more dynamic, allowing for experimentation and impact assessment of engagement.
Meanwhile, current thinking in geography emphasises postrepresentational perspectives that largely eschew material artefacts, preferring instead to accentuate mapping and the practices that bring it into being, thereby encouraging a processual turn fuelled by ethnographic inquiries and approaches.

…. if our maps can be addressed as a dynamic form of communication alongside narrative; mapping may yet be able to transform into a potent pictorial alternative that allows for enduring interaction, engagement and exploration in the face of complexity and can bring together participants and explorers seeking change and improvement.