The map is not the territory.

[Mole]

They tell me a map is not the territory but look at a flat map of the Earth and you will see the Northern Hemisphere is on top.

But look at a flat map of the Earth with South America bang smack in the middle and you get a different picture.

For we see at a glance there are four Continents in a straight line, North America, South America, Antarctica and Australia.

And these four Continents border all the oceans of the world.

This has enormous geo-political significance which we miss if we only look at a flat map with the Northern Hemisphere on top.

Yet no flat map with South America in the middle is produced commercially. In fact I will bet not one person here has seen such a map.

No wonder we forget the map is not the territory.

 

[Aquarelle]

Not to mention Africa looks tiny in the Merkator projection, but it's actually enormous.

 

[citizen cane]

...what are you getting at?

 

[Mole]

Not to mention Africa looks tiny in the Merkator projection, but it's actually enormous.

Yes, we have four Continents strung out like pearls in the oceans of the world, and we have two huge Continental land masses joined at the hip.

The string of pearls draped around the Earth is North America, South America, Antarctica and Australia. And the two huge Continental land masses joined at the hip are Eurasia and Africa.

 

[Mole]

...what are you getting at?

Well, imagine you are a geo-politican. What would be the significance of four Continents in a straight line in all the oceans of the world, facing two huge Continental land masses joined at the hip?

 

[Kenneth Almighty]

Two words: Dymaxion fucking map.

Google it.

Then again you probably already have.

 

[Thalassa]

I never thought North America was the center of the Earth.

In my head, Central Europe/Central Asia is the center of the Earth.

That's probably due to flat maps which emphasize East/West.

But it's interesting to me that that very location was where the prototype for all Indo-European languages is formed.

So it is the center of the world to me in a another sense.

Everybody has their view point. We had to talk about this map thing in my mandatory Origins class in college. You know, one of those classes they make you take so that ignorant people realize that there are other religions and cultures in the world.

 

[Haphazard]

Well, imagine you are a geo-politican. What would be the significance of four Continents in a straight line in all the oceans of the world, facing two huge Continental land masses joined at the hip?

You mean like this?

Here's the projection used by the US geological survey, according to Wikipedia.

A very bizarre projection, that.


I quite like the butterfly map though.

 

[citizen cane]

Well, imagine you are a geo-politican. What would be the significance of four Continents in a straight line in all the oceans of the world, facing two huge Continental land masses joined at the hip?

i was actually hoping you'd not only clarify what you're envisioning here, but continue to answer that for me...

in any case, i would imagine significance would be more or less in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Haphazard]

Until looking up the traverse-mercator map just now, I don't think I've ever seen an Americas-centric map before. There are a whole bunch of Euro-Atlantic centric ones, sure, and I've seen some Pacific-centric, some south-as-up maps (often Antarctica-centric), and even some Africa-centric maps, but never any Americas-centric, probably because by centering on those two continents you cut so much landmass in half.

Probably the best are the antarctica-clearly-on-top pacific maps, they give a more accurate view of exactly how much water there is. Most other maps seem to say there's so much land when that's not true.

 

[Mole]

i would imagine significance would be more or less in the eye of the beholder.

The significance of a map is in the eye of the beholder while the significance of the territory is in the eye of reality.

 

[Salomé]

Shouldn't this be in the politics subforum?

 

[Mole]

Shouldn't this be in the politics subforum?

The idea, "the map is not the territory", is a philosophical idea.

Of course it is not about maps and territory, but perception, epistemology or ways of seeing.

 

[Salomé]

The idea, "the map is not the territory", is a philosophical idea.

Of course it is not about maps and territory, but perception, epistemology or ways of seeing.

I know that. And this thread is a literal (and therefore mis)application of the idea.

I didn't think I'd have to spell that out to you.

That statement always struck me as tautological at best.