A map represents a situation, seen from a distance, in overview. It provides a representation of the spatial relationships of entities in the world — how they are located in space. Maps often provide the name of each entity, as well.
Maps also (less directly) represent all possible spatial situations within the bounds of the map, and this is actually the main purpose of a map.
Maps viewed as objects are one thing; maps used as instruments are another.
*
If a navigator were able to see himself from the distant vantage of the map, and if he knew where he was trying to go, a map would not be necessary.
*
A map by itself does not indicate where on the map the navigator is located, nor does it give the navigator his orientation. Only if the navigator discovers where he is located and how he is oriented on his map, he can understand the positions of the entities depicted on the map relative to himself. And then he can find the correspondence between the situation he sees around him and what he sees depicted on his map. Then he can navigate.
*
It’s interesting to note that the word “navigate” comes from navis ‘ship’ + agere ‘drive.’
Old maps of oceans were charted from extremely sporadic points. These maps were not constructed atomistically, by systematically inventorying grids of space. They were made by spatially relating separate discoveries. But between these, who knew what was there? Most of what is shown on such maps is distances — mere potential for traversal and occasional discovery.
Beyond the charted discoveries, nobody knew how large a piece of paper would be needed to chart all possible discoveries.
*
Once a navigator has located and oriented himself on the map, he now has an objective representation of the situation he is in.
The navigator’s situation surrounds him. He situated inside it, and is oriented within it.
The navigator’s map allows him to get an outside overview of what he is inside.
*
Situating oneself within reality, through situating oneself on a map, and vice versa, so the two correspond — that’s a pretty interesting transformation of knowledge and perspective. We relate an outside, distant view with an inside, involved view.
The map view vs the immersed view (or 3rd-vs-1st person view or maze-vs-labyrinth), does more justice to the objective-vs-subjective dichotomy than the usual thinking-vs-feeling or fact-vs-opinion or inner-mind-vs-outer-world or especially the actual-vs-arbitrary dichotomies we habitually employ when thinking on this theme.
*
Does a map show someone where he really is? Or does “being there” provide the map its reality?
*
A compass rose on a map shows us how the situation it represents is oriented within reality, so if we orient ourselves in reality we can also orient the map.
A navigation tool such as an astrolabe, sextant or GPS situates us within reality, making us locatable on a map.
A compass orients us within reality, making us orientable to a map.
A map, when used in conjunction with observation of reality, can also give us our situation and orientation in reality.
But the same map can also be misunderstood and give us only misinformation, despite its correctness.
[fading out…]