The map is not the terrain. Any map, coarse grained or fine grained has its place, they maybe be useful. But neither are actually the terrain. Even software models aren't the real thing.
To analyse the map, its author and its purpose, is just as useful as getting into the weeds and understanding the terrain.
What use would knowing the terrain be if you can’t share your mental model of it with someone else?
"The map is not the terrain" is useful if you're in danger of throwing away evidence that challenges your favourite model, in all other cases it distracts attention from the fact that building models is essential and important.
Note that this is emphatically not saying to abandon maps. I'm pushing more for having things in addition. And if you really want to build a shared mental model, you almost certainly have to share an experience. You can use narratives to help build a shared experience, but often you have to practice/rehearse anything that you want to have a truly shared model of.
The brain evolved precisely because operating at a higher level of abstraction is valuable. If you understand the brain in terms only of neural firings and not in terms of the concepts they encode, you will never properly understand what the brain is doing.
If the subject under discussion is something symbolic, or symbol using (e.g. a map) then trying to understand it in terms of its physical instantiation (atoms of paper and ink) is likely going to lead you astray.