Shiftology and Mapology

In general, maps are not stable (attractors), but always shifting (i.e., being permanently rewritten, modified, adjusted, "adapted", etc.).

While maps (e.g., linguistic maps) seem to be (potentially) "stable" (e.g., in the form of "stable neural attractors", including "stable words" and linguistic maps...), the permanent shift between maps is not.

And while Parmenides (and Plato) emphasized the aspect of stability (maps?), Heraclitus rather emphasized the aspect of (dynamic) shifts (all is shifting: panta rhei...).

As long as this debate on "what comes first?" (maps or shifts?) is not settled, I (Oliver Elbs) still have had to have two websites in parallel (www.shiftology.org [until 2008!] and this here) to cover both vital aspects — although I heavily prefer "maps" to "shifts" because of the heavy "human" bias for "stable words" (and some seemingly "stochastic-static" "Thermodynamics"(!)), and because even "scientific" (e.g., microscopic) movies of "shifts" as well as numerical methods in some "discrete mathematics" (and even some "neural processing"?) may ultimately boil down to a succession of discrete and static maps and images due to some necessarily digitized and discrete sampling on all methodical levels, biases, and "attractor landscapes" (including "words" and "digits" (numbers) as discrete attractors...).

A nice example for "shifts" may not only be "emotions" and "feelings" (i.e., shifts that have become mapped), but also some "music": music may simply be defined as a play with (auditory etc.) shifts...

Another example may be some "fluid intelligence" (including some "logical thinking" in [hierarchical?] sequences?), i.e., the ABILIty or POTENTIAL to shift between (static?) maps (or: attractor landscapes) more or less "flexibly" and "dynamically"...

And by the way: have you ever noticed that "scientists" (i.e., map-makers) of all kinds are making (at the moment...) increasingly use of terms like "maps", "shifts", etc.??? [[1]]

And that's why I always say: my Map 2005 ff. [[2]] may be the most advanced "theory of science" (i.e., map of maps) today - and (sadly enough...) no body may know it...