    
|
|
1979
The Territory Construed as the MapIn search of radical design innovations in the representation of human activities and their relationships- / - Prepared in 1979 in connection with the Forms of Presentation sub-project of the Goals, Processes and Indicators of Development (GPID) project of the United Nations University. Printed in Transnational Associations, 1982, 2, pp 80-89. Also in: Forms of Presentation and the Future of Comprehension (1984) IntroductionThis paper explores the possibility of a new approach to the representation of any complete ranges of human activity or concern. The justification for doing so has been discussed elsewhere (1, 2, 3). The intention is to provide a much improved overview of their degree of relationship and a feel for the dynamics between them. A particular concern is to reflect adequately the degree of lack of relationship, indifference, mutual irrelevance, or distortion of perspective characteristic between those active in such different fields. The tentative nature of these investigations must be stressed. At this time it appears that three distinct approaches must be clarified. Then, by interrelating them and allowing each to modify the interpretations to which the others give rise, a basis for the new representation sought emerges. The prime concern here is not one of logic or rigour since, to the extent that these have been called for, they have been utilized in more conventional responses to the problem (e.g. classification schemes, general system theories, world models, etc.). Rather the concern is to provide a convenient, comprehensible representation - capable of embodying all the detail and precision required - which will provoke reflexion, discussion at many levels, and feedback on the perceived relationships between the fields represented. The concern is to create a communication tool to fulfil a need not met by conventional explanations, information frameworks and systems. Given that the conventional approaches are unable to provoke their users into formulating better (as opposed to more precise) questions, the tool sought should enable users to formulate those questions for which they did not know that they needed the answers. The three approaches are examined separately in Parts 1 to 3 below. In Part 4 their interrelationship is explored. Part 1: Ordering distinctionsIn this approach the point of departure is the concept of a complete range of human activity or concern, namely a totality which is divided up by making distinctions, whether in a series or nested. Aspects of this question have been explored elsewhere (1), especially the relationship of the act of distinguishing to cognition. Two much used representations of such breakdowns are the list and the matrix:
Now to the extent that the matrix is complete in its coverage, there really should not be any "wall". The matrix should in such cases in effect "wrap around" the observer; all is window and nothing is implict, unexplicated or excluded. If this is not so then the wall should be conceived as wrapping around the observer, possibly with other windows corresponding to other partial views of the external totality to which the observer may turn his attention. From this point of view the conventional two dimensional matrix raises the question of the conceptual significance of crossing the encompassing boundary. It is irrational and unmeaningful because the "wall" is unrecognized. There is almost a flavour of danger of "failing over the edge" as sailors feared with the early "flat earth" models (quaintly conceived in the East as supported on the back of a primordial elephant or tortoise). If it is assumed that the matrix is complete, then it should be possible to represent it without such an arbitrary external boundary. If the external boundary is eliminated then the matrix takes the form of a closed surface (wrapped around the observer). By what procedure can a two-dimensional matrix be so modified and to what does it give rise ? Consider a 2-by-2 matrix. The simplest symmetrical figure which retains the same number of areas is the tetrahedron. It provides four "windows" on the external universe for any observer positioned within. The continuity of surface area of the three dimensional figure emphasizes any functional continuity between the aspects associated with the individual sub-areas or facets (the "panes"). But at the same time it drawn attention to the discontinuities between the areas associated with the edges. They are not smooth transitions but are marked by sharp angles. It may then be asked (if reality is continuous in contrast to our conceptions thereof) whether such a representation suggests others which would reflect a lesser degree of discontinuity between aspects. And indeed there are, for the greater the number of symmetrically disposed surface areas ("panes"), the larger the angle between adjacent areas and the closer the approximation to a continuous surface, namely a spheroid. However, the greater the number of distinct areas (whatever they signify), the more difficult it is to comprehend the totality with any precision. The patterning of the surface area may be readily scanned but it is only through the "distorted discontinuities" of the most unspherical figures that it may be grasped to any degree. A compromise may be considered however. Even a tetrahedron may be projected onto a circumscribed sphere. This cuts up the surface of the sphere into four (spherically) triangular areas. More complex figures would of course result in more complex patterns on the surface of the sphere. The challenge is of course to maintain continuity but the realities of the discontinuities between extant conceptual frameworks may suggest that any such goal is idealistic. Disturbing factors are:
Pattern of contiguity In a matrix it is clear how the cells relate to one another. Once the boundary is eliminated, however, the question of what is contiguous to what is raised. Also in a two-dimensional matrix there are two types of contiguity (row and column) between cells. But, considering the simple example of a 2-by-2 matrix transformed into a tetrahedral surface, the validity of juxtaposing particular areas may be questioned.
Part 2: ComplementaryThe three-dimensional closed figures discussed in Part 1 are ideal abstractions in an important sense distinct from that al-ready mentioned. It is a fact that all but the simplest structures (not excluding the cube, for example) are not of themselves stable. If the vertices play no structurally stabilising role they collapse. Intuitively this suggests the importance of attention to design techniques which could ensure the inherent stability of structures con-forming to such patterns. These problems have been extensively in-vestigated by Buckminster Fuller and others. Their relevance to the concerns of this paper have been discussed else-where (5, 6, 7). Of special relevance is the concept of counterbalancing counteracting forces as a basis for maintaining the pattern in question. This is achieved through ten-segrity structures. It suggests that com-plementary opposed factors should be specially positioned in relation to one an-other. This pattern of contraints may be used to design a spherically symmetrical representation (5). Part 3: Comprehensible codeIn thic approach the concern is to make use of some surface which can be suitably "coded" to provide "hooks" onto which concepts can be "hung" in such a way as to facilitate comprehension of the patterns as a whole. The emphasis is therefore on providing a trigger for memory and comprehension. This preoccupation has a long history going back to the Greeks, and possibly the Egyptians, as reported by Francis Yates (8). It is only comparatively recently in the 17th century that it went out of favour with the western scientific revolution and the widespread use of pa-per as a crutch for memory. There is little current concern with memory (particularly with the increasing number of information services and references tools) other than in the form of gimmicks to meet the chal-lenge of examination, or in relation to speed reading etc. On the other hand these gimmicks, current investigations of memory prodigies, and the reports of the ancient art, all emphasize the importance of suitable "hooks". The relation to com-prehension, as exemplified by the Eastern practice of the mandala (9), is discussed elsewhere ( 1 ). A recent paper proposes the use of a sperical surface to model the body of knowledge and its development (10). The concern did not extend to problems of comprehension. As Yates reports, this de-mands the use of "hooks" which usefully trigger the imagination through non-intellectual processes, however irrational and unsystematic they may appear. Thus favoured "surfaces" included building complexes which enabled some to use over 120,000 memory locations in a structured comprehensible relationship to one another. The production of a suitable representation can be seen as a problem of design, namely a series of decisions about the relationship between form and content (11). This involves a struggle for a "best fit". As the design is "firmed up" to completion, its value as a tool for improved comprehension becomes increa-singly apparent. As a design problem, any initial attempts are bound to contain many weaknesses. These could however be progessively reduced following experience with the representation, discussion and feedback. Part of the merit of this approach (for some at least) lies in reflecting on the design problem itself and the disciplined pattern of decisions which need to be made. It is likely that there are several alternative patterns which could lead to equally useful and thought provoking results. Decision 1: The surface used for the representation shall be a spherical one. This has the merit of built-in continuity which, through the absence of a boundary, does not give undue privilege to any position on the surface. Being finite and rounded it has a certain "graspable" quality; the form of the whole is intuitively comprehensible as a gestalt. This quality is absent from conventional tabular (or matrix) presentation which provide an abstract framework lacking any focus for comprehension. The same is true of more complex surfaces (although there are merits to the use of a torus, for example). Decision 2: The surface shall be broken up into a pattern of two interweaving forms: "land" and "water". Clearly a uniform surface would not provide any "grip" for the imagination. Simply inscribing a regular latitude/longitude grid pattern would also stress the abstract and alienate the imagination. The land-and-water coding appeals to the imagination because of the widespread familiarity with the terrestrial globe, its various surface features, and their relationship to the observers own location and those of others of whom he is aware. It has an organic quality which is encountered in fictional fantasy worlds (of Tolkien), science fiction, or humour (see Fig. 1 and 2; are they conceived as continents on a "flat earth", and if so, why ?; how distant are they from each other ?).
Decision 3: The two-fold distinction on the surface shall be used to carry the basic two-fold distinction in human activity and concerns. Here care is required because of the problems of label words at this level of abstraction (1). It is not a question of adequate definition, because this simply introduces the vicious circle of the definition of the words used in any definition, etc. ignoring the question of comprehension. The words used here are therefore to be considered as pointers only. The basic distinction is between what can be comprehended (by the reader/observer) as common to what is denoted by the labels in earth of the following lists:
Decision 4: The land masses shall represent activity performance rather than the activity as a subject eg performing chemical operation and associated symbol manipulation, rather than "chemistry" as a body of knowledge; praying rather than prayer; etc. This removes the need to consider subjects which are not associated with a pattern of activity, and renders other subjects subordinate to the pattern of activity with which they are associated. It is a move from a noun-focus to a verb-focus (and is thus more process oriented). Subsequent investigation may suggest that this decision should focus more on the notion of the "body of knowledge" rather than "activity performance". Revision of the design sequence would then be required or the advantages of an alternative design considered. It is possible that some mixed notion ("disciplined order" ?) would be preferable whose specification might itself raise problems of labelling, definition and comprehension.
The "fields of human activity" denoted by the land masses could be interpreted to include: walking, hating, philosophy, economics, welding, chemistry, drama, meditation, etc. They could have been restricted to intellectual disciplines (12), or more broadly to occupations (13). They could have been extend to types of role. Only by further investigation will the implications of this design decision become apparent. There is an obvious design problem of determining which level of " human activity" is to be mapped by the surface areas themselves and which levels could be more appropriately indicated by (a) features on those areas, whether "natural" or "artificial", or (b) by "natural" or other activities occurring on or over such surfaces, or (c) by making use of one or more other spherical surfaces (a point raised in Part 1). This question will be considered in Part 4 Decision 5: It follows from Decisions 3 and 4, that the water masses shall be used to represent human activity which is not "consciously" and "rationally" ordered in the manner associated with land masses. A land mass split by a body of water, would thus be used to represent an "irrational" discontinuity in an ordered approach. The distinctions implied by the size and nature pf the body of water (ocean, inland sea, lake, river, marsh, stream, etc) will need to be clarified by subsequent design decisions even if their possibilities can be intuited at this point. Two basic design problems must be faced at this point namely:
Part 4: IntegrationThe conceptual procedure whereby a matrix is formulated gives rise to cells of "equal importance" or "weight". By this is meant that each category (cell) is equally distinct from the other categories (cells). Of course, if some quantitative measure is attached to the cells than there will be inequalities. But these may be considered secondary (at least for the moment). Using the argument of Part 1, the matrix categories may be given equal "land" areas (in Part 3) on the surface of a sphere, at least as a first approximation. If the matrix attempted to reflect all fields of human activity (see Fig. 3, for example), then this could be considered an indication of the desired subdivision of the spherical surface. The relationship of the matrix cells might also be considered an adequate indication of the disposition of the areas on the surface. This procedure of course presupposes that :
The current lack of relationships between the natural sciences, or with the social sciences, the humanities, or other modes of activity shows the weakness of this presupposition and the difficulty which would be encountered in formulating such a matrix. Even classification science, by definition neutral to the variety of fields of activity, generates a variety of competing matrices (although they are usually lists). In fact Fig. 3 constitutes the most recent effort to cover the complete range with a minimum of distortion. But of course it is not designed to highlight the hiatus, in the minds of the practitioners, between the different fields. One may also ask what aspects of human activity are omitted from a « subject field »matrix with its built in emphasis on the study mode. In the light of Part 3 therefore, «water » areas are likely to be evident along the discontinuities between the areas on the spherical surface. However this does not imply a regular pattern of « canals », for the degree of hiatus will vary between different « land » areas, giving rise to anything in width between a river and an ocean. On the other hand, some possible lines of hiatus will be eliminated as a result of the rational binding together of two areas (e.g. where a suitable paradigm ensures the appropriate meshing). Furthermore, a large category (e.g. a particular science) may be fragmented by a «network of waterways » into sub-areas due to the mutual hostility between its constituent schools of thought. The question is then does the Part 1 procedure suggest a means of decomposing the surface further to delineate where discontinuities may arise between sub-categories. There is in fact a well-developed tech nique for doing so. This is the geodesic subdivision of the surface of a sphere (Fig. 4). It may be used to decompose the surface as finely as is required by the (ability to « resolve conceptually » the) presence of nested sub-categories in a given zone (and not necessarily in another). It may be based on many of the three-dimensional figures to which the Part 1 procedure gives rise. These steps indicate that it is possible to depart from the «simplistic » ideal subdivision of the spherical surface and to respond to local variations. But the areas so delineated, however small, are still bounded by « straight » lines (i.e. on the curved surface). It is a valuable indication (preserving the classificatory precision of Part 1) but lacks the organic quality sought in Part 3. However, consider the ideal boundaries of the areas decomposed as in Fig. 5. If a given boundary is « eroded » by the encroachment of some irrational element. this may be indicated by selective removal of the smallest sub-areas, thus resulting in a ragged, « realistic coastline ». This raises the question of how to determine with precision which such areas to switch from land to water.
On the other hand, the encroachment may be that of a neighbouring field of activity which "incorporates" a sub-area across the original boundary into its own domain. This opens the possibility to the indication of a ("political") switch of allegiance or empire building, neither of which is foreign to the dynamics between disciplines, for example. Despite these possibilities however some nagging questions remain. They may be illustrated by imagining that in the absence of the conventional global map information was nevertheless available on all the land masses. This could be presented in list or matrix form. Despite the lack of any global perspective, inhabitants of the land masses could be consulted on their relationships with neighbouring territories and the barrier constituted by any intervening body of water. The problem is how to solve the question of scale, distance and direction on the basis of such interviews. How can any group associated with a particular pattern of activity be objective about the relative size of the land surface by which the activity is denoted ? There would be an obvious tendency to inflate the importance of that with which one was familiar and, unless menaced by it, to diminish that of which one disapproved or was misinformed (even to the point of declaring its existence to be a "pure fantasy of fevered minds"). In this light, any map in likely to be the subject of considerable controversy (if in fact the procedure is held to be of any merit). It may in future be possible to respond to this difficulty and provide a rational basis for positioning the boundaries between fields of activity and this is considered in Part 5. At this point some available indicators may be considered as a guide to refining a map in terms of size of surface areas as a measure of relative importance. A number of possible indicators are available:
Both types of data would fail to distinguish between the various patterns of activity often associated with different kinds of social grouping (e.g. organizations) or cultural group (e.g. communities). Clearly a variety of sources would have to be used to obtain a rough indication of surface areas as a stimulus to feedback. A second question concerns overlapping patterns of activity (e.g. an occupation which involves walking, which is itself also a leisure activity). Here the overriding or determining pattern must be considered to take precedence. This however brings up a further question. If the relative land surface approximations are based on some indicator like world man-hours per year per activity, some very basic activities might acquire undesirable prominence on the total surface (e.g. sleeping, food consumption, etc.). One approach, if desired, is to use a logarithmic relationship between man-hours and surface area. But would this destroy the desirable iconic value of such a map ? With regard to the degree of relationship between land areas, it should be possible to make some use of citation analysis. Clearly the frequency of citation of papers in neighbouring fields would be high. A frequency analysis could then lead to a suitable pattern of juxtaposition of fields. Of course citation information is only available for certain fields of activity and covers only a few publications, but it could nevertheless provide some valuable ("quantifiable") guidance particularly for the natural and social sciences. Possibly an analogous "citation" approach could be developed on the basis of a rigorous interview technique in order to cover other fields. The preceding paragraphs are an indication of design problems to be confronted in the light of different kinds of information available. It is appropriate to view this problem in terms of the probable confusion in the minds of the early cartographers confronted on the one hand with religious and philosophic (ideal) models of the structure of the world, and on the other with a jumble of facts, opinions and rumours based on travellers and investigators with different kinds of axe to grind.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
