top of page

Using imagination as a map

Artigo do Dr. Sergio Spritzer Ⓒ 2022

The phrase by Alfred Korzybski (inventor of neurosemantics) is already famous saying that the map is not the territory; it is just a more or less useful tool to deal with it. The challenge is to know what kind of mental maps we use at each moment.

A road map is made up of fixed elements and systems such as google maps or waze to calculate the vehicle's path from one point to another. Weather maps, on the other hand, are much more unstable and change less predictably. Human relations maps are even more unstable. They undergo unexpected updates at any time and more than that, they need to be reassembled and even recreated.

The challenge is precisely that of composing maps and not just mapping what already exists. Mapping what can be physically observed is much simpler. The challenge is to generate a composite usage map, and conversation, in the broadest sense of the term, which is the composition of versions among themselves in a single version, is the way to generate something like this. We are used to generating objective maps, but not to generating transsubjective maps, in which those involved perceive and respect the vision and mission of their interactions as a team learn to play on the field. Rehearsing plays helps, but does not replace the exercise of interaction.

In work organizations, in marital and family relationships, the composition of an overall vision is constituted more at coffee time, on leisure trips when people meet to situate themselves about each other in a so-called “informal” situation. ” than during a formal and “professional” meeting, which tends to focus on tasks and not on the exercise of the relationship.

It is not an accumulation of imaginaries, as if we were going to assemble a lego, but a composition of imaginaries. The idea of ​​a fantasy montage of imaginaries is not coherent and only shows how the organizational culture is still deceived by the phenomenology of the relational imaginary, treating it as if it were the same as the phenomenology of physical objects, like lego.

The example above ironizes the difference in the representation of the same reality among the different actors but does not propose theoretical and practical ways of examining the real form of composition of imaginaries. The solution is not as simple as the sum of the parts from 1 to 10. There is composition work that is not simple juxtaposition.

Want to read more?

Take part, for free, in our Online Study Group: “Pensando Fluidmente” and get the complete text.

Contact us via email at


bottom of page