4 thoughts on “Representations of Reality in Constructivism:”

1. Reblogged this on Systems Community of Inquiry.

   LikeLike

   Reply

2. Reblogged this on facilitation guru and commented:
   ; but the structure accounts for its usefulness.

   LikeLike

   Reply

3. A map is not given (data), but made from observed facts. Like an observer being part of observing, so a map maker takes part in (its) map making. In doing so, a maker also fabricates its territory. The word translates in Dutch into “gebied” or “commanding”. Being a cybernetician, helmsman, Korzybski used “territory” as an helmsman is “in command”. I would have used the more neutral “terrain”.

   In fabricating an actual map, one transfers elements of the terrain into symbols on a map. These symbols carry over the meaning of the terrain as observed by the map maker. The map makes therefore also a model and a metaphor of the terrain.

   Making a map of a terrain requires using the terrain and in doing so, the map maker makes the terrain into a territory. Mapping – making in actual map – means projecting elements from one domain (the terrain) unto another domain (the map). This is the same process as metaphor making: mapping from a source domain into a target domain. This is why most of our metaphors – from the Greek “to carry over”, -are “spatial metaphors”. Like “life goes on” or “time flies”.

   The use of the terrain determines the usefulness of the map. That’s why we’ve got road maps, hiking maps, public transport maps, military maps, … . The transfer contains the (implicit) meaning of the map. A map being a metaphor, carrying over the meaning in the relationship between the domains. Meaning, as Watzlawick – also a radical constructivist – pointed out, doesn’t reside in the words used, but in the relationships.

   As one in map masking makes a terrain into a territory, so one makes oneself part of the territory and into a community. We make a second metaphor, a second mapping: from the sensory data into a map (or model) – fist metaphorical map – and from the map into the territory described in the language or jargon.

   This is why we call reality reality, as this word has been derived from Latin “res” or things and “li” or connection (as in li-ne, a line connects). Reality is “in between”, between terrain and map maker, between “out there” and “in here”. One realizes one’s reality. In doing so, one also induces a ‘territory’.

   Like the different maps on terrains, we’ve got different mappings of reality: scientific, social, economic, politic, nationalistic, … An observer is part of its observations and in taking part in observing “invents” territories which has to be observed. So, in my view, reality isn’t invented – it’s out there – but community – in here. This is why I agree partly with Von Foerster: reality makes community. (He uses = – equals – ; I prefer the “makes” as in 1 and 1 makes 2. One thing can only be equal to itself). It’s also the other way around: community makes reality.

   Both reality and community are invented, constructed based on their uses. They induce each other, like nature and culture.

   As structure accounts for usefulness, in using things (res) one constructs the things-as-maps, as metaphorical models. I may have told that I like to call these “metaphor-in-use”.

   One cannot not “structurally couple” the structures – independent from the medium used (like on can have a map on paper, on a drawing board, in an app, …). Simply because one corrects “mistakes” in map making while using the map in map making (it’s called learning, derived from (back) tracking https://www.etymonline.com/word/learn).

   So this accounts for the “strange” explanation of “structural coupling” to account for the working of the (animal) brain and body. (I’ve got more to share on this. later)

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply
4. Pingback: Being-In-the-Ohno-Circle: | Harish's Notebook - My notes... Lean, Cybernetics, Quality & Data Science. ~