One Territory

Since I made the post below, I've changed my mind on what is more or less the main point.  In that post, I claimed that biological models of the body are maps (in the sense of "the map is not the territory") that have two territories, one being the body itself, the other being experience itself.

I've changed my mind on this based on the fact that a "map of the body" is not a map of experience itself, but just of the body.  To think otherwise would be to imply that experience is caused solely by the body.  In reality, experience owes the entire experienced world in addition to the body for its existence.

This leads to the question of what the map of all of experience is.  Is it possible to make a map of experience in the same way that a biological model of the body can be made as a map of the actual body?

I think that the way to achieve this is to make a map of all of experience-a map that would take as its object experience itself.  Such a map would not have to account for the intricacies of experience, since maps in general don't do that.  Rather, the map would in general account for the nature of the coupling between the organism and the environment.

Ideally, the map would specify itself, and this would of course be recursive.  However, I don't think that this should be a central concern from the beginning. It would be best to first try to map the experience of an animal that is not self reflexive, and then to introduce self reflection as a developmental addition to the basic map.  

Because I'm impatient, in the next post I want to address what form self reflection could take in such a map...