>>189193
When my Great Work is ready, you will find it. It's not meant to be posted here, though. It turned out a little… prophetic.
If anons have questions, I can do my best to answer. I think people will have more questions soon.
Earlier this year I had a strange dream. About that time I took some notes, philosophical speculations about 'maps' and how they work. They might be useful to anons in this thread, as I suspect there is a personalized element to some of Q's posts - or so there seems to me. These are some of my notes:
>The map provides instructions for how to get from point A to point B
>Maps - not only geographic/ratio(nal), e.g. subway map
>A map cannot be judged by whether it "represents" reality more accurately, but by whether it is useful to the individual for navigating reality.
>Usefulness in part depends on competency of the individual; maps are not self-evident.
>Name/Map/Compression
>A compression is useless without being decompressed.
>Decompression is an endeavor of the individual.
>Requires recognition by the individual - "it is this kind of map; I will/would decompress in this kind of way."
>Testing decompression standard - it is this kind of map if it leads to this picture when interpreted as instructions for navigating reality.
>Circularity of maps/reality: map and reality are co-dependent.
>The map is a part of reality/the territory.
Maps are a really amazing technology when you think about it. A rational compression of reality which information can be decompressed by the individual to help him make his way to his destination. The principles of cartography are related to the way we use and interpret language, as signs representing conditionals we incorporate into our own decision trees. Maps represent a set of "If you go here, you will encounter this." Something which I've been applying to Q's maps, and it makes a lot of sense if you view the map as a compression which anons are working to decompress.
Something significant about maps is that they only need to exhibit "rational parity," rather than "spatial parity." In the example here for Seoul's subway system, there is not a strict 1:1 correspondence between the map and the geographic reality it represents. However, there is a rational parity, in that it represents the information required by an individual to understand how to use the system to get from point A to point B. The US highway system map is even more abstract, but still represents sufficient information that an individual could theoretically get from NYC to LA followings its directions. Some maps will be better for certain kinds of information rather than others - for example, a topographic map is more useful in certain situations rather than others.
And I don't know what kind of map Q's map is supposed to be, and it's bugging me. I don't think there is a single system in use, and if there's AI's involved then there is the potential the "key" is not available to any single anon, but must be developed by accumulating together our collective knowledge.
At least, if I were Q, that's how I would do it.