dioramaorama wrote:
Does map always = face? I think it's past the spoiler line, but sll the quibbling about the map vs. the territory in the Eschaton section got me thinking that maybe when Wallace uses the word map w/r/t a person, what he's really talking about is their physical selves as a representation of their inner selves, histories, beliefs, ideas, etc. And the relationships between those things.
So person A uses all the observable traits and behaviors of person B to read the unobservable (and incommunicable) aspects of person B, like you'd use a map to navigate the territory of a place you've never been to.
Good point. It also relates to the conversation at the party where Joelle attempts suicide. On pg. 232, someone argues that "
this, this whole thing, what you and I are discoursing
within, is a technologically constituted space." On 233, his companion says that the "more interesting issue from a Heideggerian perspective is
a priori, whether space as a concept is enframed by technology as a concept."
At least, I think it does. I don't have any idea what Heidegger's views were on space. It just seems like space vs representation of space is brought up a few times, like how we identify it, signifiers vs signified, etc.