[tw5] Re: Incremental note-taking (article/discussion)

[TiddlyTweeter]

TW Tones wrote:

> Have you tried post it notes in software on the desktop? even google keep 
> starts you down a path which eventually overwhelms you.. You quickly 
> discover why they (post it notes) are the wrong tool in many cases, and its 
> not because they are hand written or on paper. 
>

YOU are always a great *sport! *(Australian-English meaning intended, like 
"mateship".)

Yeah, I tested everything software & net from a to z. 
*On paper *post-it notes are much more flexible. 
That topped any computer attempt to be them. 
To me they are just sticky paper.

*A Glue-Stick will dance me to the end of paper (<-- A song)*

To be honest the Post-It (3M) of putative Fry 1974 vintage 
 kinda anticipated "chunkology" 
in nascent webology: mainly fostering the option to slice to discrete data 
small for the necessary going from paper to "data chunks." 
 

> If I were seeking the ultimate truth I would not use them. But it is all 
> about how we each operate and think. If you can use them effectively do it. 
> But me thinks they a very flawed.
>

RIGHT. *That actually was my point. *We STILL need some kind of OVERVIEW of 
real stratagems to begin typing into (entrusting) a computer ... *Will this 
gizmo do my need?*

Everything is flawed. Just so long as the light (eventually) gets through 
... A Crack In Everything ...  

Very best wishes
TT

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/273e60a6-5f34-4a87-a258-e14515125af4n%40googlegroups.com.

[tw5] Re: Incremental note-taking (article/discussion)

[TW Tones]

Ha Ha,

A photo frame may have being better and cheaper.

Have you tried post it notes in software on the desktop? even google keep 
starts you down a path which eventually overwhelms you.. You quickly 
discover why they (post it notes) are the wrong tool in many cases, and its 
not because they are hand written or on paper. If I were seeking the 
ultimate truth I would not use them. But it is all about how we each 
operate and think. If you can use them effectively do it. But me thinks 
they a very flawed.

Where is my reference to the last time I hade a rant about post it notes?, 
is it there, or over there, could it have fallen off, dam those cheap post 
it notes, or did someone come in to my room and take it, am I getting 
paranoid? ahh I am sitting on it, no that one is years old, and faded, dam 
those cheap pens...

but then there was tiddlywiki.

Tones

On Wednesday, 21 July 2021 at 22:35:01 UTC+10 TiddlyTweeter wrote:

> Soren & Si
>
> Regarding Old World notes ... I'm a great adherent of the imperative that 
> a computer is merely an auxiliary.
>
> For example here is a snapshot of my Luddite Computer ...
>
> [image: WIN_20210721_14_31_36_Pro.jpg]
>
> TBH, I think we actually need better ANTHROPOLOGY of actual usage of 
> systems of meaning ordering to ensure that when you go computer-typist it 
> is additive, not reductive.
>
> Merely passing thoughts ... best
> TT.
>
> On Tuesday, 20 July 2021 at 23:04:48 UTC+2 Soren Bjornstad wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 12:28:40 PM UTC-5 Si wrote:
>>
>>> Ideally I would like to use TiddlyWiki for both sub-systems, but as you 
>>> point out the most important thing is the ability to capture stuff with 
>>> zero friction, and IMO this is one of the major weaknesses of TiddlyWiki. 
>>> I'm tempted by your approach of using a text file. Do you have a good way 
>>> to add stuff to it on mobile?
>>>
>> I still use paper for this -- I carry a little pocket notebook with me 
>> next to my phone and write down anything I need to save in there, then 
>> every couple of days I transcribe it. It's still faster and less 
>> frustrating for me than trying to open an app and type something in with 
>> two fingers.
>>
>> You could look at something like Simplenote  for 
>> cloud-hosted and mobile-accessible text files.
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/0a00bfb3-6d30-4bd8-b43b-cef884b3fed4n%40googlegroups.com.

[tw5] Re: Incremental note-taking (article/discussion)

[TiddlyTweeter]

ludwa6 wrote:

> Still: i find it hard to forbear from changing names to reflect changes in 
> my thinking and/or popular usage.  A constant struggle!
>

The whole PERMALINK thing is a bit of a nightmare.

A factor is "social evolution". The first book was printed in 1454 
.
 
The ISBN, an unique identification system for publicly printed books was 
created 
in 1966 .
Only 512 years to get that working well!

SO-CALLED "Permalinks", I think come in many different guises. 
And it IS confusing knowing what is what.

At on point there came, and now very much waning, the BLOGGER movement went 
for permanence. 
They added also copious TRACKBACKS, often mediated vis RSS and PINGS.
The thing was they evaporated, despite the intent.
>From deaths, neglect, and server non-persistence.

For longevity on permalinks there are SOME sites like IMBD that have done 
well. They assign unique UIDs to every newly RELEASED MOVIE. (Example: the 
short  Tiddlywink, which is "tt3337220" 
 in IMDB ).

The Internet Archive  is very interesting. A kind of  
"Preservation Society For The Lost" .

Regarding YOUR posts! I do think using, in TW, since we CAN do it, a UID as 
the initiation point, rather than server (or internal TW) REDIRECTS, is a 
pretty neat solution.

Just rambling thoughts
TT

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/bedb36f3-d540-43d9-bcaf-d8a09f08abcan%40googlegroups.com.

[tw5] Re: Incremental note-taking (article/discussion)

[TiddlyTweeter]

cj.v...@gmail.com wrote:

> For fleeting notes, I'm thinking of more often making use of my 
> Chromebook's dictation accessibility feature so that I can dictate my notes 
> in Keep when it makes sense to have individual notes, or maybe just add 
> notes in a Google Doc so that I don't have to futz around with creating a 
> new "whatever" for each note.
>

 Right! 
What is interesting to ME is getting to the point that whatever platform 
I'm on, and wherever I be, I want ONE system that just works for FLEETING 
NOTES that will SYNCHRO to the other, other systems I'm on. 
A big advantage of a real Universal Bucket is that you have (1) one easily 
remembered method to get to it; and, (2) it becomes possible to communicate 
how to use it to newbie idiots (like me).  

At base all one needs is something BETTER than PAPER. 
It is interesting that STILL using the net is more of a tribulation than a 
simple trial.
Paper it is not!

Just thoughts
TT

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/d760b610-9991-40e3-bb3b-8875ce82188cn%40googlegroups.com.

[tw5] Re: Incremental note-taking (article/discussion)

[TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao TW Tones

Tones wrote:

> Yes, Dictate directly into tiddlywiki.com from my android works after 
> hitting the mic icon on the keyboards. 


Right! 

I think you will find recent Android/Chrome very good at both VOICE and 
WRITING directly into TW.
It is actually becoming usable. At last!
Windows seems a Tad behind.

Personally I use WRITING via pen a lot now in a Chromebook directly into TW.

Side note
TT 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/cb4d5876-208e-4217-8ba6-94b339b5f1e5n%40googlegroups.com.

[tw5] Re: Incremental note-taking (article/discussion)

[TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao Soren Bjornstad

Soren Bjornstad wrote: 

> *TT,* I like your phrasing of the “category error” involved in applying 
> one notes system to everything. There are likely very few people who have 
> needed to work with notes of such a wide variety of types that they can 
> speak confidently on all of them. We've found some general patterns, but 
> they don't all work well for every purpose.
>

Right. The issue about HOW we conceptualize what we are doing on the net 
and in software is a big one!
Wider than this thread, though related. IMO the kind of "conceptual 
overview" we actually need to make the most informed practical decisions is 
currently lacking in general on the net. 

Shades of Ted Nelson, Jermolene & others.

Side comment
TT

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/8bdb714c-69bf-4425-898f-7441f0fd3919n%40googlegroups.com.

[tw5] Re: Incremental note-taking (article/discussion)

[TW Tones]

Yes, Dictate directly into tiddlywiki.com from my android works after 
hitting the mic icon on the keyboards. 

Must see now If I can get it working on my Windows desktop. Voice 
recognition without training is great now days.

I wonder if we could trigger actions like a keyboard shortcut, to open a 
tiddler as well. eg "new tiddler" or "new task", even rather than "ok 
google" try "ok tiddlywiki", or tab to move from title to text.
Unfortunately we need to say tiddly and wiki. 

Tones


On Wednesday, 21 July 2021 at 12:27:00 UTC+10 TW Tones wrote:

> Charlie,
>
> I think I may be able to dictate directly into tiddlywiki on my android. I 
> must recheck.
>
> tones
>
> On Wednesday, 21 July 2021 at 12:21:26 UTC+10 cj.v...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> G'day Si,
>>
>> You've got me thinking about "fleeting notes", and don't think I've ever 
>> really thought about that much.
>>
>> Seeing as I've sold my soul to Google, you've got me thinking about using 
>> dictation to throw quick notes into Google Keep as a way to take fleeting 
>> notes.
>>
>> For fleeting notes, I'm thinking of more often making use of my 
>> Chromebook's dictation accessibility feature so that I can dictate my notes 
>> in Keep when it makes sense to have individual notes, or maybe just add 
>> notes in a Google Doc so that I don't have to futz around with creating a 
>> new "whatever" for each note.
>>
>> Thanks to all for the good stuff in this thread.  You've got me 
>> thinking/rethinking things.
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 2:28:40 PM UTC-3 Si wrote:
>>
>>> @Soren
>>>
>>> Interestingly your description of Random Thoughts has made me realize 
>>> that there are a couple of ways in which I already do something kind of 
>>> similar.
>>>
>>> First is just capturing fleeting notes while reading, which I later link 
>>> to evergreen notes (see here 
>>>  for 
>>> my rough workflow). While notes are in the fleeting note stage of their 
>>> life cycle they are pretty similar to RT. In fact my the only heuristic I 
>>> use for deciding what to capture is just "whatever strikes me as 
>>> interesting". Some of these notes will not relate to any larger ideas, and 
>>> I will keep them just as quotes or something, very much like RT, but the 
>>> rest will evolve and move elsewhere.
>>>
>>> The other thing I do is use Evernote as a kind of GTD inbox. This 
>>> basically is also just a way to capture fleeting thoughts, but also tasks, 
>>> links etc. I use Evernote for quick capture of ideas, then later act on 
>>> them, or copy them to a more permanent home, archiving the original note.
>>>
>>> I've only just realised that this does automatically give me a kind of 
>>> random-thoughts-list, though it's kind of a mess since my random thoughts 
>>> are split between Evernote and TiddlyWiki, and the ones in TiddlyWiki are 
>>> often not permanent.
>>>
>>> > So IMO the best option is two complementary systems (or parts of one 
>>> system) where you can move things from the quick-write one to the 
>>> flexible-thinking one when they become important.
>>>
>>> Yes this is very well-put. I feel like what I have (described above) 
>>> could be converted into such a system, but it's not quite coming together 
>>> in my mind just yet.
>>>
>>> I definitely want to move away from Evernote though. Ideally I would 
>>> like to use TiddlyWiki for both sub-systems, but as you point out the most 
>>> important thing is the ability to capture stuff with zero friction, and IMO 
>>> this is one of the major weaknesses of TiddlyWiki. I'm tempted by your 
>>> approach of using a text file. Do you have a good way to add stuff to it on 
>>> mobile?
>>> On Tuesday, 20 July 2021 at 13:04:07 UTC+1 Soren Bjornstad wrote:
>>>
 *Walt,* the thing that bugs me most about the “immutable title/ID” 
 idea is that unless your notes are also going to be immutable, the 
 *content* of a note can still change so much as to make the reference 
 not effective anymore. So I don't see much point in bothering, as long as 
 you can avoid having links break. Presumably the thing you were looking 
 for 
 won't move so far away from the updated note that you'll be unable to find 
 it, anyway (probably not more than one link away).

 It is a good point on external links breaking, though. It would be cool 
 if you could set up redirects within TW, so that you could at least have 
 an 
 incoming link to an old title go somewhere somewhat relevant. I guess you 
 could just leave the old title with a link to the new one, but without an 
 obvious way to distinguish redirect tiddlers from other tiddlers, they 
 would probably get in your way and make you think they were the “real” 
 tiddlers all the time.

 *TT,* I like your phrasing of the “category error” involved in 
 applying one notes system to everything. There are likely very few people 
 who 

[tw5] Re: Incremental note-taking (article/discussion)

[TW Tones]

Charlie,

I think I may be able to dictate directly into tiddlywiki on my android. I 
must recheck.

tones

On Wednesday, 21 July 2021 at 12:21:26 UTC+10 cj.v...@gmail.com wrote:

> G'day Si,
>
> You've got me thinking about "fleeting notes", and don't think I've ever 
> really thought about that much.
>
> Seeing as I've sold my soul to Google, you've got me thinking about using 
> dictation to throw quick notes into Google Keep as a way to take fleeting 
> notes.
>
> For fleeting notes, I'm thinking of more often making use of my 
> Chromebook's dictation accessibility feature so that I can dictate my notes 
> in Keep when it makes sense to have individual notes, or maybe just add 
> notes in a Google Doc so that I don't have to futz around with creating a 
> new "whatever" for each note.
>
> Thanks to all for the good stuff in this thread.  You've got me 
> thinking/rethinking things.
>
> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 2:28:40 PM UTC-3 Si wrote:
>
>> @Soren
>>
>> Interestingly your description of Random Thoughts has made me realize 
>> that there are a couple of ways in which I already do something kind of 
>> similar.
>>
>> First is just capturing fleeting notes while reading, which I later link 
>> to evergreen notes (see here 
>>  for 
>> my rough workflow). While notes are in the fleeting note stage of their 
>> life cycle they are pretty similar to RT. In fact my the only heuristic I 
>> use for deciding what to capture is just "whatever strikes me as 
>> interesting". Some of these notes will not relate to any larger ideas, and 
>> I will keep them just as quotes or something, very much like RT, but the 
>> rest will evolve and move elsewhere.
>>
>> The other thing I do is use Evernote as a kind of GTD inbox. This 
>> basically is also just a way to capture fleeting thoughts, but also tasks, 
>> links etc. I use Evernote for quick capture of ideas, then later act on 
>> them, or copy them to a more permanent home, archiving the original note.
>>
>> I've only just realised that this does automatically give me a kind of 
>> random-thoughts-list, though it's kind of a mess since my random thoughts 
>> are split between Evernote and TiddlyWiki, and the ones in TiddlyWiki are 
>> often not permanent.
>>
>> > So IMO the best option is two complementary systems (or parts of one 
>> system) where you can move things from the quick-write one to the 
>> flexible-thinking one when they become important.
>>
>> Yes this is very well-put. I feel like what I have (described above) 
>> could be converted into such a system, but it's not quite coming together 
>> in my mind just yet.
>>
>> I definitely want to move away from Evernote though. Ideally I would like 
>> to use TiddlyWiki for both sub-systems, but as you point out the most 
>> important thing is the ability to capture stuff with zero friction, and IMO 
>> this is one of the major weaknesses of TiddlyWiki. I'm tempted by your 
>> approach of using a text file. Do you have a good way to add stuff to it on 
>> mobile?
>> On Tuesday, 20 July 2021 at 13:04:07 UTC+1 Soren Bjornstad wrote:
>>
>>> *Walt,* the thing that bugs me most about the “immutable title/ID” idea 
>>> is that unless your notes are also going to be immutable, the *content* of 
>>> a note can still change so much as to make the reference not effective 
>>> anymore. So I don't see much point in bothering, as long as you can avoid 
>>> having links break. Presumably the thing you were looking for won't move so 
>>> far away from the updated note that you'll be unable to find it, anyway 
>>> (probably not more than one link away).
>>>
>>> It is a good point on external links breaking, though. It would be cool 
>>> if you could set up redirects within TW, so that you could at least have an 
>>> incoming link to an old title go somewhere somewhat relevant. I guess you 
>>> could just leave the old title with a link to the new one, but without an 
>>> obvious way to distinguish redirect tiddlers from other tiddlers, they 
>>> would probably get in your way and make you think they were the “real” 
>>> tiddlers all the time.
>>>
>>> *TT,* I like your phrasing of the “category error” involved in applying 
>>> one notes system to everything. There are likely very few people who have 
>>> needed to work with notes of such a wide variety of types that they can 
>>> speak confidently on all of them. We've found some general patterns, but 
>>> they don't all work well for every purpose.
>>>
>>> On the topic of places where the author's mechanism would be good, I've 
>>> wondered if it would be handy for project or work diaries…almost like a 
>>> more general Git commit log. I used a custom PowerShell script called 
>>> “Daylog” at work for a year or two that worked kind of like this – you 
>>> wrote a text file with a bunch of chronological entries in it and could 
>>> chain them together into topics, responsibilities, todo items and 

[tw5] Re: Incremental note-taking (article/discussion)

[Charlie Veniot]

G'day Si,

You've got me thinking about "fleeting notes", and don't think I've ever 
really thought about that much.

Seeing as I've sold my soul to Google, you've got me thinking about using 
dictation to throw quick notes into Google Keep as a way to take fleeting 
notes.

For fleeting notes, I'm thinking of more often making use of my 
Chromebook's dictation accessibility feature so that I can dictate my notes 
in Keep when it makes sense to have individual notes, or maybe just add 
notes in a Google Doc so that I don't have to futz around with creating a 
new "whatever" for each note.

Thanks to all for the good stuff in this thread.  You've got me 
thinking/rethinking things.

On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 2:28:40 PM UTC-3 Si wrote:

> @Soren
>
> Interestingly your description of Random Thoughts has made me realize that 
> there are a couple of ways in which I already do something kind of similar.
>
> First is just capturing fleeting notes while reading, which I later link 
> to evergreen notes (see here 
>  for 
> my rough workflow). While notes are in the fleeting note stage of their 
> life cycle they are pretty similar to RT. In fact my the only heuristic I 
> use for deciding what to capture is just "whatever strikes me as 
> interesting". Some of these notes will not relate to any larger ideas, and 
> I will keep them just as quotes or something, very much like RT, but the 
> rest will evolve and move elsewhere.
>
> The other thing I do is use Evernote as a kind of GTD inbox. This 
> basically is also just a way to capture fleeting thoughts, but also tasks, 
> links etc. I use Evernote for quick capture of ideas, then later act on 
> them, or copy them to a more permanent home, archiving the original note.
>
> I've only just realised that this does automatically give me a kind of 
> random-thoughts-list, though it's kind of a mess since my random thoughts 
> are split between Evernote and TiddlyWiki, and the ones in TiddlyWiki are 
> often not permanent.
>
> > So IMO the best option is two complementary systems (or parts of one 
> system) where you can move things from the quick-write one to the 
> flexible-thinking one when they become important.
>
> Yes this is very well-put. I feel like what I have (described above) could 
> be converted into such a system, but it's not quite coming together in my 
> mind just yet.
>
> I definitely want to move away from Evernote though. Ideally I would like 
> to use TiddlyWiki for both sub-systems, but as you point out the most 
> important thing is the ability to capture stuff with zero friction, and IMO 
> this is one of the major weaknesses of TiddlyWiki. I'm tempted by your 
> approach of using a text file. Do you have a good way to add stuff to it on 
> mobile?
> On Tuesday, 20 July 2021 at 13:04:07 UTC+1 Soren Bjornstad wrote:
>
>> *Walt,* the thing that bugs me most about the “immutable title/ID” idea 
>> is that unless your notes are also going to be immutable, the *content* of 
>> a note can still change so much as to make the reference not effective 
>> anymore. So I don't see much point in bothering, as long as you can avoid 
>> having links break. Presumably the thing you were looking for won't move so 
>> far away from the updated note that you'll be unable to find it, anyway 
>> (probably not more than one link away).
>>
>> It is a good point on external links breaking, though. It would be cool 
>> if you could set up redirects within TW, so that you could at least have an 
>> incoming link to an old title go somewhere somewhat relevant. I guess you 
>> could just leave the old title with a link to the new one, but without an 
>> obvious way to distinguish redirect tiddlers from other tiddlers, they 
>> would probably get in your way and make you think they were the “real” 
>> tiddlers all the time.
>>
>> *TT,* I like your phrasing of the “category error” involved in applying 
>> one notes system to everything. There are likely very few people who have 
>> needed to work with notes of such a wide variety of types that they can 
>> speak confidently on all of them. We've found some general patterns, but 
>> they don't all work well for every purpose.
>>
>> On the topic of places where the author's mechanism would be good, I've 
>> wondered if it would be handy for project or work diaries…almost like a 
>> more general Git commit log. I used a custom PowerShell script called 
>> “Daylog” at work for a year or two that worked kind of like this – you 
>> wrote a text file with a bunch of chronological entries in it and could 
>> chain them together into topics, responsibilities, todo items and notes on 
>> their completion, etc.
>>
>> *Si,* I realized I never responded to your characterization of my Random 
>> Thoughts as kind of like incremental note-taking way up-thread. I think it 
>> might be a little dangerous to attribute too much intentionality to that 
>> structure, 

[tw5] Re: Incremental note-taking (article/discussion)

[Soren Bjornstad]

On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 12:28:40 PM UTC-5 Si wrote:

> Ideally I would like to use TiddlyWiki for both sub-systems, but as you 
> point out the most important thing is the ability to capture stuff with 
> zero friction, and IMO this is one of the major weaknesses of TiddlyWiki. 
> I'm tempted by your approach of using a text file. Do you have a good way 
> to add stuff to it on mobile?
>
I still use paper for this -- I carry a little pocket notebook with me next 
to my phone and write down anything I need to save in there, then every 
couple of days I transcribe it. It's still faster and less frustrating for 
me than trying to open an app and type something in with two fingers.

You could look at something like Simplenote  for 
cloud-hosted and mobile-accessible text files.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/116de2b8-0a19-4e38-82a5-f7c061898526n%40googlegroups.com.

[tw5] Re: Incremental note-taking (article/discussion)

[Si]

 

@Soren

Interestingly your description of Random Thoughts has made me realize that 
there are a couple of ways in which I already do something kind of similar.

First is just capturing fleeting notes while reading, which I later link to 
evergreen notes (see here 
 for 
my rough workflow). While notes are in the fleeting note stage of their 
life cycle they are pretty similar to RT. In fact my the only heuristic I 
use for deciding what to capture is just "whatever strikes me as 
interesting". Some of these notes will not relate to any larger ideas, and 
I will keep them just as quotes or something, very much like RT, but the 
rest will evolve and move elsewhere.

The other thing I do is use Evernote as a kind of GTD inbox. This basically 
is also just a way to capture fleeting thoughts, but also tasks, links etc. 
I use Evernote for quick capture of ideas, then later act on them, or copy 
them to a more permanent home, archiving the original note.

I've only just realised that this does automatically give me a kind of 
random-thoughts-list, though it's kind of a mess since my random thoughts 
are split between Evernote and TiddlyWiki, and the ones in TiddlyWiki are 
often not permanent.

> So IMO the best option is two complementary systems (or parts of one 
system) where you can move things from the quick-write one to the 
flexible-thinking one when they become important.

Yes this is very well-put. I feel like what I have (described above) could 
be converted into such a system, but it's not quite coming together in my 
mind just yet.

I definitely want to move away from Evernote though. Ideally I would like 
to use TiddlyWiki for both sub-systems, but as you point out the most 
important thing is the ability to capture stuff with zero friction, and IMO 
this is one of the major weaknesses of TiddlyWiki. I'm tempted by your 
approach of using a text file. Do you have a good way to add stuff to it on 
mobile?
On Tuesday, 20 July 2021 at 13:04:07 UTC+1 Soren Bjornstad wrote:

> *Walt,* the thing that bugs me most about the “immutable title/ID” idea 
> is that unless your notes are also going to be immutable, the *content* of 
> a note can still change so much as to make the reference not effective 
> anymore. So I don't see much point in bothering, as long as you can avoid 
> having links break. Presumably the thing you were looking for won't move so 
> far away from the updated note that you'll be unable to find it, anyway 
> (probably not more than one link away).
>
> It is a good point on external links breaking, though. It would be cool if 
> you could set up redirects within TW, so that you could at least have an 
> incoming link to an old title go somewhere somewhat relevant. I guess you 
> could just leave the old title with a link to the new one, but without an 
> obvious way to distinguish redirect tiddlers from other tiddlers, they 
> would probably get in your way and make you think they were the “real” 
> tiddlers all the time.
>
> *TT,* I like your phrasing of the “category error” involved in applying 
> one notes system to everything. There are likely very few people who have 
> needed to work with notes of such a wide variety of types that they can 
> speak confidently on all of them. We've found some general patterns, but 
> they don't all work well for every purpose.
>
> On the topic of places where the author's mechanism would be good, I've 
> wondered if it would be handy for project or work diaries…almost like a 
> more general Git commit log. I used a custom PowerShell script called 
> “Daylog” at work for a year or two that worked kind of like this – you 
> wrote a text file with a bunch of chronological entries in it and could 
> chain them together into topics, responsibilities, todo items and notes on 
> their completion, etc.
>
> *Si,* I realized I never responded to your characterization of my Random 
> Thoughts as kind of like incremental note-taking way up-thread. I think it 
> might be a little dangerous to attribute too much intentionality to that 
> structure, because I started it when I was 14 years old (!) and 
> chronological bits was just the obvious structure to put it in since I 
> didn't really know much about notes at the time. But that said, it has 
> turned out to work well over the following 11+ years, at least once I went 
> back and added ID numbers to it so I could cross-reference things, so it 
> can't be too bad of a system. Perhaps the main difference between it and 
> evergreen notes is that it's optimized for ease of insertion, while 
> evergreen notes are optimized for ease of later use and flexibility of 
> thinking. Those are, I think, fundamentally irreconcilable; you can reduce 
> the weaknesses of one system in the opposite area, but nothing is ever 
> going to be great at both. So IMO the best option is two complementary 
> systems (or parts of one system) where you can move 

[tw5] Re: Incremental note-taking (article/discussion)

[Charlie Veniot]

This is such an awesome thread.

On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 9:04:07 AM UTC-3 Soren Bjornstad wrote:

> *Walt,* the thing that bugs me most about the “immutable title/ID” idea 
> is that unless your notes are also going to be immutable, the *content* of 
> a note can still change so much as to make the reference not effective 
> anymore. So I don't see much point in bothering, as long as you can avoid 
> having links break. Presumably the thing you were looking for won't move so 
> far away from the updated note that you'll be unable to find it, anyway 
> (probably not more than one link away).
>
>
Hence why I have an awful lot of love for relink.  I would have a rough 
time without it.  No broken (internal links) with Relink.
 

> It is a good point on external links breaking, though. It would be cool if 
> you could set up redirects within TW, so that you could at least have an 
> incoming link to an old title go somewhere somewhat relevant. I guess you 
> could just leave the old title with a link to the new one, but without an 
> obvious way to distinguish redirect tiddlers from other tiddlers, they 
> would probably get in your way and make you think they were the “real” 
> tiddlers all the time.
>
>
Link rot.  Redirects is a possibility.  I much prefer UID fields and 
providing links to a Tiddler in some TiddlyWiki with a "UID" reference.  
(related thread: A Prototype of UID's for stable permalinks 
)

So if I want to provide folk with a link to a specific tiddler in some 
TiddlyWiki, in a way that allows me to change the tiddler title willy-nilly 
without breaking the link, I would give folk this:
 
https://tiddlywiki-programming.neocities.org/CJ_TiddlyWikiProgramming.html#:[uid[2]]
 


For some reason, I prefer this than setting up redirects.  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/a06e5603-9288-4153-bf71-068a022fd267n%40googlegroups.com.

[tw5] Re: Incremental note-taking (article/discussion)

[Soren Bjornstad]

*Walt,* the thing that bugs me most about the “immutable title/ID” idea is 
that unless your notes are also going to be immutable, the *content* of a 
note can still change so much as to make the reference not effective 
anymore. So I don't see much point in bothering, as long as you can avoid 
having links break. Presumably the thing you were looking for won't move so 
far away from the updated note that you'll be unable to find it, anyway 
(probably not more than one link away).

It is a good point on external links breaking, though. It would be cool if 
you could set up redirects within TW, so that you could at least have an 
incoming link to an old title go somewhere somewhat relevant. I guess you 
could just leave the old title with a link to the new one, but without an 
obvious way to distinguish redirect tiddlers from other tiddlers, they 
would probably get in your way and make you think they were the “real” 
tiddlers all the time.

*TT,* I like your phrasing of the “category error” involved in applying one 
notes system to everything. There are likely very few people who have 
needed to work with notes of such a wide variety of types that they can 
speak confidently on all of them. We've found some general patterns, but 
they don't all work well for every purpose.

On the topic of places where the author's mechanism would be good, I've 
wondered if it would be handy for project or work diaries…almost like a 
more general Git commit log. I used a custom PowerShell script called 
“Daylog” at work for a year or two that worked kind of like this – you 
wrote a text file with a bunch of chronological entries in it and could 
chain them together into topics, responsibilities, todo items and notes on 
their completion, etc.

*Si,* I realized I never responded to your characterization of my Random 
Thoughts as kind of like incremental note-taking way up-thread. I think it 
might be a little dangerous to attribute too much intentionality to that 
structure, because I started it when I was 14 years old (!) and 
chronological bits was just the obvious structure to put it in since I 
didn't really know much about notes at the time. But that said, it has 
turned out to work well over the following 11+ years, at least once I went 
back and added ID numbers to it so I could cross-reference things, so it 
can't be too bad of a system. Perhaps the main difference between it and 
evergreen notes is that it's optimized for ease of insertion, while 
evergreen notes are optimized for ease of later use and flexibility of 
thinking. Those are, I think, fundamentally irreconcilable; you can reduce 
the weaknesses of one system in the opposite area, but nothing is ever 
going to be great at both. So IMO the best option is two complementary 
systems (or parts of one system) where you can move things from the 
quick-write one to the flexible-thinking one when they become important.

I have a vague draft on the principles of RT as I've accidentally 
discovered them here: 
https://zettelkasten.sorenbjornstad.com/#SketchOnCommonplacing

On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 5:52:20 AM UTC-5 ludwa6 wrote:

> That's an important point @TT about the WHY of "Luhmann's Rule," i would 
> say, regarding immutability of the index field.  
> In the world of hard-copy artifacts he was designing, this makes perfect 
> sense... And also on the WWW, still today, where the problem of link-rot is 
> a serious PITA. 
>
> BUT in the domain of a standalone TW instance with the Relink plugin -e.g. 
> my own desktop Digital Garden- that rule becomes a serious impediment to 
> the kind of refactoring that is wanted. 
>
> OTOH: In case of a public TW instance, where you want to encourage content 
> sharing & reuse via permalinks, this is where one might do well to apply 
> Luhmann's Rule. 
> Still: i find it hard to forbear from changing names to reflect changes in 
> my thinking and/or popular usage.  A constant struggle!
>
> /walt
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 9:36:12 AM UTC+1 TiddlyTweeter wrote:
>
>> Ciao Si,
>>
>> FOOTNOTE ON ZETTELKASTEN
>>
>> Luhmann's Zettelkasten were, of course, only on paper. He was very 
>> dedicated to NEVER changing the INDEX to an entry. 
>> He never said, or implied, you could not UPDATE an entry if you wanted 
>> too. 
>> The Zettelkasten thing is about NOT spawning clone entities, rather 
>> fixing the Index of one forever. 
>>
>> Best wishes
>> TT
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, 15 July 2021 at 21:18:48 UTC+2 Si wrote:
>>
>>> I just came across this post: https://thesephist.com/posts/inc/, and it 
>>> challenges a lot of my own views on effective note-taking practices, so I 
>>> thought it was worth sharing here.
>>>
>>> The author advocates for a kind of chronological system, where as a rule 
>>> notes are never updated after they are made, meaning that they retain a 
>>> fixed position in time. It kind of reminded me of Soren's random thoughts: 
>>> https://randomthoughts.sorenbjornstad.com/
>>>
>>> Anyway this approach 

[tw5] Re: Incremental note-taking (article/discussion)

[ludwa6]

That's an important point @TT about the WHY of "Luhmann's Rule," i would 
say, regarding immutability of the index field.  
In the world of hard-copy artifacts he was designing, this makes perfect 
sense... And also on the WWW, still today, where the problem of link-rot is 
a serious PITA. 

BUT in the domain of a standalone TW instance with the Relink plugin -e.g. 
my own desktop Digital Garden- that rule becomes a serious impediment to 
the kind of refactoring that is wanted. 

OTOH: In case of a public TW instance, where you want to encourage content 
sharing & reuse via permalinks, this is where one might do well to apply 
Luhmann's Rule. 
Still: i find it hard to forbear from changing names to reflect changes in 
my thinking and/or popular usage.  A constant struggle!

/walt


On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 9:36:12 AM UTC+1 TiddlyTweeter wrote:

> Ciao Si,
>
> FOOTNOTE ON ZETTELKASTEN
>
> Luhmann's Zettelkasten were, of course, only on paper. He was very 
> dedicated to NEVER changing the INDEX to an entry. 
> He never said, or implied, you could not UPDATE an entry if you wanted 
> too. 
> The Zettelkasten thing is about NOT spawning clone entities, rather fixing 
> the Index of one forever. 
>
> Best wishes
> TT
>
>
> On Thursday, 15 July 2021 at 21:18:48 UTC+2 Si wrote:
>
>> I just came across this post: https://thesephist.com/posts/inc/, and it 
>> challenges a lot of my own views on effective note-taking practices, so I 
>> thought it was worth sharing here.
>>
>> The author advocates for a kind of chronological system, where as a rule 
>> notes are never updated after they are made, meaning that they retain a 
>> fixed position in time. It kind of reminded me of Soren's random thoughts: 
>> https://randomthoughts.sorenbjornstad.com/
>>
>> Anyway this approach seems completely counter to my current approach to 
>> note-taking, where I want my notes to represent ideas that I am building 
>> over time with little regard to where or when they originally came from.
>>
>> I'm not particularly convinced, but I'm curious if anyone here has any 
>> thoughts? Do you see any advantages to this approach? Disadvantages? Do you 
>> think it could gel with the zettelkasten philosophy, or are they polar 
>> opposites?
>>
>> Just interested in hearing other peoples thoughts.
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/fc8951aa-f331-473b-902d-924817e54f9fn%40googlegroups.com.

[tw5] Re: Incremental note-taking (article/discussion)

[TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao Si,

FOOTNOTE ON ZETTELKASTEN

Luhmann's Zettelkasten were, of course, only on paper. He was very 
dedicated to NEVER changing the INDEX to an entry. 
He never said, or implied, you could not UPDATE an entry if you wanted too. 
The Zettelkasten thing is about NOT spawning clone entities, rather fixing 
the Index of one forever. 

Best wishes
TT


On Thursday, 15 July 2021 at 21:18:48 UTC+2 Si wrote:

> I just came across this post: https://thesephist.com/posts/inc/, and it 
> challenges a lot of my own views on effective note-taking practices, so I 
> thought it was worth sharing here.
>
> The author advocates for a kind of chronological system, where as a rule 
> notes are never updated after they are made, meaning that they retain a 
> fixed position in time. It kind of reminded me of Soren's random thoughts: 
> https://randomthoughts.sorenbjornstad.com/
>
> Anyway this approach seems completely counter to my current approach to 
> note-taking, where I want my notes to represent ideas that I am building 
> over time with little regard to where or when they originally came from.
>
> I'm not particularly convinced, but I'm curious if anyone here has any 
> thoughts? Do you see any advantages to this approach? Disadvantages? Do you 
> think it could gel with the zettelkasten philosophy, or are they polar 
> opposites?
>
> Just interested in hearing other peoples thoughts.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/0d20575f-b33a-4a11-b482-65c6ed0ead1dn%40googlegroups.com.

[tw5] Re: Incremental note-taking (article/discussion)

[TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao Si,

Interesting thread! 

I read  the article on  Incremental note-taking 
 ...

I'm not so negative about it as maybe some feel. To me it illustrates a 
generic issue on the internet. That we UNDER-conceptualize what the whole 
thing is about.

On the POSITIVE side the writer has an explicit NARROW brief that they are 
pursing. 
In that I think it is informative & useful for certain types of 
apps/purposes.

On the NEGATIVE side it falls into a basic trap. 
In philosophy you'd call it a "*category error*". 
What happens is that the writer *conflates *AN objective of their own with 
A GLOBAL *universal rule*., as if they were co-terminus. They aren't.
So the "reach" is just not credible!

However, it has to be said, that, generally, the internet tends to foster 
such errors as *we have no agreed shared understanding* of the 
technological ramifications of meaning-making yet.

My 2 cents
TT

On Thursday, 15 July 2021 at 21:18:48 UTC+2 Si wrote:

> I just came across this post: https://thesephist.com/posts/inc/, and it 
> challenges a lot of my own views on effective note-taking practices, so I 
> thought it was worth sharing here.
>
> The author advocates for a kind of chronological system, where as a rule 
> notes are never updated after they are made, meaning that they retain a 
> fixed position in time. It kind of reminded me of Soren's random thoughts: 
> https://randomthoughts.sorenbjornstad.com/
>
> Anyway this approach seems completely counter to my current approach to 
> note-taking, where I want my notes to represent ideas that I am building 
> over time with little regard to where or when they originally came from.
>
> I'm not particularly convinced, but I'm curious if anyone here has any 
> thoughts? Do you see any advantages to this approach? Disadvantages? Do you 
> think it could gel with the zettelkasten philosophy, or are they polar 
> opposites?
>
> Just interested in hearing other peoples thoughts.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/95fd30eb-f3d8-45c5-8c0b-f2f81abc2e92n%40googlegroups.com.

[tw5] Re: Incremental note-taking (article/discussion)

[TW Tones]

David et al..

Just a quick point while some may find " Myers-Briggs" useful for 
stimulating discussion about the diversity of people, it actually has being 
shown to have no basis in science or research, in fact the opposite, it is 
positively wrong in many respects. I know this as a fact from multiple 
sources and experts, but just like the concepts of "we only use 10% of our 
brain" or people are "left or right brained" they are simple urbane myths 
with no support in fact. I have also seen good evidence for "learning 
styles" and NLP (Neuro linguistic Programming) to also be total "hogwash". 
Although all of these ideas can stimulate thinking, it must be remembered 
that they are merely useful myths.

It is not that I want to argue this fact, there are resources out there if 
you look, I simple want to raise this as a counter position.

Some related quotes

“If I were to remain silent, I'd be guilty of complicity.”
― Albert Einstein

“Always have something to say. The man who has something to say and who is 
known never to speak unless he has, is sure to be listened to.”
― Dale Carnegie

Regards
Tones
On Tuesday, 20 July 2021 at 07:15:18 UTC+10 David Gifford wrote:

>
> Hi Si
>
> I read this the other day but didn't have time to comment. Now I am done 
> getting ready for our trip tomorrow and I have a moment to breathe. My 
> thoughts:
>
> 1. Fascinating that this is the *opposite* of Evergreen notes, which is 
> all the rage now.
> 2. I think it would make more sense to allow overwriting notes, but take a 
> moment to think things through in the moment: might I need this version's 
> info later? Like Tones said, a combination approach. There could be 
> academic fields or professions where tracking the development of one's 
> thoughts is pretty important. But probably most people would feel fine 
> adding to or updating a note.
> 3. It would be interesting to know the personality types (whether using 
> Myers-Briggs or OCEAN) that gravitate toward certain notetaking tools. This 
> person seems like he could be an OCD type, feeling the need to have all 
> information organized thoroughly.
> 4. The article seems also to be pre-release propaganda for the Idea Flow 
> product. Probably best just to evaluate Idea flow when it becomes available 
> for preview. Maybe seeing it work will give us an idea on how to implement 
> in a useful way.
> On Thursday, July 15, 2021 at 2:18:48 PM UTC-5 Si wrote:
>
>> I just came across this post: https://thesephist.com/posts/inc/, and it 
>> challenges a lot of my own views on effective note-taking practices, so I 
>> thought it was worth sharing here.
>>
>> The author advocates for a kind of chronological system, where as a rule 
>> notes are never updated after they are made, meaning that they retain a 
>> fixed position in time. It kind of reminded me of Soren's random thoughts: 
>> https://randomthoughts.sorenbjornstad.com/
>>
>> Anyway this approach seems completely counter to my current approach to 
>> note-taking, where I want my notes to represent ideas that I am building 
>> over time with little regard to where or when they originally came from.
>>
>> I'm not particularly convinced, but I'm curious if anyone here has any 
>> thoughts? Do you see any advantages to this approach? Disadvantages? Do you 
>> think it could gel with the zettelkasten philosophy, or are they polar 
>> opposites?
>>
>> Just interested in hearing other peoples thoughts.
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/a1727bc7-7ba2-46f5-b7da-970d950d0e60n%40googlegroups.com.

[tw5] Re: Incremental note-taking (article/discussion)

[Charlie Veniot]

On Monday, July 19, 2021 at 6:15:18 PM UTC-3 David Gifford wrote:

> ...
>  
>
3. It would be interesting to know the personality types (whether using 
> Myers-Briggs or OCEAN) that gravitate toward certain notetaking tools. This 
> person seems like he could be an OCD type, feeling the need to have all 
> information organized thoroughly.
>

That could easily need a dedicated Google Group.  I find that kind of stuff 
wildly interesting.

Could be OCD, could be ADHD (attention-regulation disorder), could be so 
many things or mix of things ...

Could even be just a matter of continuously tweaking to get it to the right 
cognitive place (i.e. it mirrors current knowledge and comprehension, and 
getting it organized jst right makes everything still in the brain 
instantly coalesce at the mere sight of both the information bread crumbs 
and the organization of the information bread crumbs.)


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/a6828dd5-d7c0-4928-add4-f71414ad1b5dn%40googlegroups.com.

[tw5] Re: Incremental note-taking (article/discussion)

[David Gifford]

Hi Si

I read this the other day but didn't have time to comment. Now I am done 
getting ready for our trip tomorrow and I have a moment to breathe. My 
thoughts:

1. Fascinating that this is the *opposite* of Evergreen notes, which is all 
the rage now.
2. I think it would make more sense to allow overwriting notes, but take a 
moment to think things through in the moment: might I need this version's 
info later? Like Tones said, a combination approach. There could be 
academic fields or professions where tracking the development of one's 
thoughts is pretty important. But probably most people would feel fine 
adding to or updating a note.
3. It would be interesting to know the personality types (whether using 
Myers-Briggs or OCEAN) that gravitate toward certain notetaking tools. This 
person seems like he could be an OCD type, feeling the need to have all 
information organized thoroughly.
4. The article seems also to be pre-release propaganda for the Idea Flow 
product. Probably best just to evaluate Idea flow when it becomes available 
for preview. Maybe seeing it work will give us an idea on how to implement 
in a useful way.
On Thursday, July 15, 2021 at 2:18:48 PM UTC-5 Si wrote:

> I just came across this post: https://thesephist.com/posts/inc/, and it 
> challenges a lot of my own views on effective note-taking practices, so I 
> thought it was worth sharing here.
>
> The author advocates for a kind of chronological system, where as a rule 
> notes are never updated after they are made, meaning that they retain a 
> fixed position in time. It kind of reminded me of Soren's random thoughts: 
> https://randomthoughts.sorenbjornstad.com/
>
> Anyway this approach seems completely counter to my current approach to 
> note-taking, where I want my notes to represent ideas that I am building 
> over time with little regard to where or when they originally came from.
>
> I'm not particularly convinced, but I'm curious if anyone here has any 
> thoughts? Do you see any advantages to this approach? Disadvantages? Do you 
> think it could gel with the zettelkasten philosophy, or are they polar 
> opposites?
>
> Just interested in hearing other peoples thoughts.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/ee4d8847-f3e2-4ee7-983c-a01d1cc81f46n%40googlegroups.com.

[tw5] Re: Incremental note-taking (article/discussion)

[Si]

Thanks for the thoughtful replies everyone! I'm definitely in agreement 
with all that has been said.

>>> sorry if my end-of-day (i.e. tired!) response came off as dismissive. 

@walt Not at all!

>>> i think what we want in a note-taking system is not to *replicate* the 
human brain, but rather to *Augment* our intelligence. 

Yes I often think about this. Many tools claim to 'mimic the way humans 
think' or something, but its not obvious to me that this is necessarily. We 
should seek to understand how we think of course, but so that we can build 
tools that *interact* with our minds, not imitate them. For example, we 
didn't improve our ability to travel quickly over long distances by 
mimicking bipedalism.
On Friday, 16 July 2021 at 16:00:26 UTC+1 ludwa6 wrote:

> @Soren: I appreciate the nuanced understanding you bring to this topic. 
>
> @Si: sorry if my end-of-day (i.e. tired!) response came off as 
> dismissive.  I have since read the subject article with due attention, and 
> while i appreciate the author's perspective, i must agree w/ Soren that it 
> is not generalisable to the level of how all human brains work. Tho i am no 
> neuroscientist, i resonate strongly with the exceptions Soren points out, 
> especially in his 2nd paragraph.  The time dimension can be a powerful key 
> to recall, but so can space quite independent of time (yeah, i know: 
> space/time is one dimension, but not in the human brain -this at least IS a 
> generalisable principle) and other factors in our sensory apparatus -all of 
> which i would lump into the category of CONTEXT. 
>
> That's my take on one (#4) in the author's list of 4 "big ideas" for 
> problem-solving in this domain.  As to the 3, i must say:
>
>1. "Captured ideas are better than missed ones." YES -agree strongly.
>2. "Adding new ideas is better than updating old ones."  NO 
>-definitely not for me, mate.  I'm with Gandhi on this one -and Soren, if 
> i 
>understand him right [*]
>3. "Ideas that can’t be recalled are worse than useless."  EXACTLY! 
>They actually impede access to the useful ideas -which is why point 2 
> above 
>is so wrong, from my POV.
>
> Note [*]:  Now from a practical perspective: Does updating notes mean we 
> must sacrifice important history?  Clearly not -as various projects (Git 
> diffs, Wikipedia history, Internet Archive, etc.) prove. Are such solutions 
> good enough? You'll never get everyone to agree on any one as a canonical 
> solution to the problem.  For my purposes: a periodic push to Github, with 
> a reasonably descriptive comment after every *significant* development, 
> is good enough... But that's just me.  If we're talking about 
> "mission-critical" code, that's another matter, but not in the scope of 
> "note-taking," i would say (tho if we're talking about lab notes that must 
> eventually serve as evidence in a legal dispute over IP... Let's just not 
> go there :-)
>
> Final thought: Invoking the wisdom of Soren yet again -i.e. memory updates 
> itself over time, while retaining traces- i think what we want in a 
> note-taking system is not to *replicate* the human brain, but rather to 
> *Augment* our intelligence.  For all the talk about AI and the 
> existential risks attending to it, i'm going all-in on the idea that IA 
> (Intelligence Augmentation) is the best shot we have at ensuring that the 
> inevitable tech progression from narrow AI -> AGI -> "The Singularity" does 
> not necessarily mean the end of humankind.  It may however mean we must 
> reconcile ourselves to the idea of our progeny being post-human (whatever 
> that means)... But, enough said about that for now :-)
>
> /walt
> On Friday, July 16, 2021 at 2:43:24 PM UTC+1 Soren Bjornstad wrote:
>
>> I think the author's first principle contradicts the article: it says 
>> that "good notes should behave like memory." But actual human memory is 
>> *not* immutable, not even close; memories are changed somewhat every 
>> time we recall them. So it seems to me that a system that actually matched 
>> memory would update over time, but also retain some traces of previous 
>> versions.
>>
>> On the topic of "time is essential to how we remember," at least for me 
>> it depends on the *type* of information. If it is naturally 
>> autobiographical, or there was a particularly salient moment at which I 
>> learned the information, or it happened during a particular project or 
>> class, sure. When the thoughts are more abstract and developing over time, 
>> I absolutely cannot remember a thing about the time I had them or added to 
>> them, nor is that information particularly relevant.
>>
>> As I recall, Ted Nelson talked about adding a time dimension to 
>> hypertext, where you could easily go back and forth between different 
>> versions and see exactly what has changed in a graphical manner. Google 
>> Docs and Git both kind of do this, but I don't think they've figured out 
>> all the possibilities here...you 

[tw5] Re: Incremental note-taking (article/discussion)

[ludwa6]

@Soren: I appreciate the nuanced understanding you bring to this topic. 

@Si: sorry if my end-of-day (i.e. tired!) response came off as dismissive.  
I have since read the subject article with due attention, and while i 
appreciate the author's perspective, i must agree w/ Soren that it is not 
generalisable to the level of how all human brains work. Tho i am no 
neuroscientist, i resonate strongly with the exceptions Soren points out, 
especially in his 2nd paragraph.  The time dimension can be a powerful key 
to recall, but so can space quite independent of time (yeah, i know: 
space/time is one dimension, but not in the human brain -this at least IS a 
generalisable principle) and other factors in our sensory apparatus -all of 
which i would lump into the category of CONTEXT. 

That's my take on one (#4) in the author's list of 4 "big ideas" for 
problem-solving in this domain.  As to the 3, i must say:

   1. "Captured ideas are better than missed ones." YES -agree strongly.
   2. "Adding new ideas is better than updating old ones."  NO -definitely 
   not for me, mate.  I'm with Gandhi on this one -and Soren, if i understand 
   him right [*]
   3. "Ideas that can’t be recalled are worse than useless."  EXACTLY! They 
   actually impede access to the useful ideas -which is why point 2 above is 
   so wrong, from my POV.
   
Note [*]:  Now from a practical perspective: Does updating notes mean we 
must sacrifice important history?  Clearly not -as various projects (Git 
diffs, Wikipedia history, Internet Archive, etc.) prove. Are such solutions 
good enough? You'll never get everyone to agree on any one as a canonical 
solution to the problem.  For my purposes: a periodic push to Github, with 
a reasonably descriptive comment after every *significant* development, is 
good enough... But that's just me.  If we're talking about 
"mission-critical" code, that's another matter, but not in the scope of 
"note-taking," i would say (tho if we're talking about lab notes that must 
eventually serve as evidence in a legal dispute over IP... Let's just not 
go there :-)

Final thought: Invoking the wisdom of Soren yet again -i.e. memory updates 
itself over time, while retaining traces- i think what we want in a 
note-taking system is not to *replicate* the human brain, but rather to 
*Augment* our intelligence.  For all the talk about AI and the existential 
risks attending to it, i'm going all-in on the idea that IA (Intelligence 
Augmentation) is the best shot we have at ensuring that the inevitable tech 
progression from narrow AI -> AGI -> "The Singularity" does not necessarily 
mean the end of humankind.  It may however mean we must reconcile ourselves 
to the idea of our progeny being post-human (whatever that means)... But, 
enough said about that for now :-)

/walt
On Friday, July 16, 2021 at 2:43:24 PM UTC+1 Soren Bjornstad wrote:

> I think the author's first principle contradicts the article: it says that 
> "good notes should behave like memory." But actual human memory is *not* 
> immutable, 
> not even close; memories are changed somewhat every time we recall them. So 
> it seems to me that a system that actually matched memory would update over 
> time, but also retain some traces of previous versions.
>
> On the topic of "time is essential to how we remember," at least for me it 
> depends on the *type* of information. If it is naturally 
> autobiographical, or there was a particularly salient moment at which I 
> learned the information, or it happened during a particular project or 
> class, sure. When the thoughts are more abstract and developing over time, 
> I absolutely cannot remember a thing about the time I had them or added to 
> them, nor is that information particularly relevant.
>
> As I recall, Ted Nelson talked about adding a time dimension to hypertext, 
> where you could easily go back and forth between different versions and see 
> exactly what has changed in a graphical manner. Google Docs and Git both 
> kind of do this, but I don't think they've figured out all the 
> possibilities here...you still have to go into a separate system to browse 
> through the different versions, and it's hard to see several at the same 
> time. The diff between versions is also probably not the best visualization 
> -- perhaps for instance a stream of different additions (as in the *inc* idea 
> the author mentions!) would be better for many types of notes. So overall, 
> this would seem like a more productive direction to me -- you can see the 
> latest state of the art, or you can quickly and easily look at previous 
> "versions", whatever makes the most sense.
>
> I do think TiddlyWiki's tools in this area are currently somewhat 
> impoverished.
>
> On Thursday, July 15, 2021 at 2:18:48 PM UTC-5 Si wrote:
>
>> I just came across this post: https://thesephist.com/posts/inc/, and it 
>> challenges a lot of my own views on effective note-taking practices, so I 
>> thought it was worth sharing 

[tw5] Re: Incremental note-taking (article/discussion)

[Charlie Veniot]

You know, chewing on the concept of Incremental note-taking becomes even 
more interesting in conjunction with chewing on note taking versus note 
making 
.

The intertwingling of it all.  The interweaving of the two threads.  Kind 
of mind-blowing.  If I smoked weed, me thinks I'd light up a doobie toute 
suite and wax philosophical for the rest of the day ...

On Thursday, July 15, 2021 at 4:18:48 PM UTC-3 Si wrote:

> I just came across this post: https://thesephist.com/posts/inc/, and it 
> challenges a lot of my own views on effective note-taking practices, so I 
> thought it was worth sharing here.
>
> The author advocates for a kind of chronological system, where as a rule 
> notes are never updated after they are made, meaning that they retain a 
> fixed position in time. It kind of reminded me of Soren's random thoughts: 
> https://randomthoughts.sorenbjornstad.com/
>
> Anyway this approach seems completely counter to my current approach to 
> note-taking, where I want my notes to represent ideas that I am building 
> over time with little regard to where or when they originally came from.
>
> I'm not particularly convinced, but I'm curious if anyone here has any 
> thoughts? Do you see any advantages to this approach? Disadvantages? Do you 
> think it could gel with the zettelkasten philosophy, or are they polar 
> opposites?
>
> Just interested in hearing other peoples thoughts.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/29afad6f-649b-48ad-8363-7afa27f7ae0dn%40googlegroups.com.

[tw5] Re: Incremental note-taking (article/discussion)

[Charlie Veniot]

Man, if I kept every single iteration of every little thought, so that for 
every little thing I can see the path of thinking between version X and 
version Y ... way too heavy to carry all of that around.

Between the choices of all or nothing, I think I'd prefer nothing.  The 
"all" turns into information hoarding: I must keep every little thing and 
every version of that thing in case I need it someday.  Bleurk.

There are some things that may be worth keeping "milestone" versions of.  
But every version?  Maybe for some really critical things, but I can't 
imagine any such scenario for myself.

The thing with the need to keep every iteration of a note: you then kind of 
need to keep every iteration of related notes too.  Otherwise, the memory 
of that note at a particular point in time might be missing some pieces.  
Unless you keep all of the pieces in the one note, which is crappy for 
information 
componentization 

 
and totally conflicts with the philosophy and benefits of tiddlers (i.e. 
keep them suckers focused, light, agile.)

I say all of that, I don't ever get into thoughts akin to: back in 1986, 
seems to me somebody said something to me that shaped the way of thinking I 
have today.  Now where is the note that reminds me who said what and where, 
and where is the chain of notes that together shaped this silly way of 
thinking I have today.

If I really needed a perfect snapshot in time for everything, I might 
archive daily versions of entire TiddlyWiki instances.  BLEURK.

A good enough solution, to me, would involve just annotating/adorning a 
Tiddler with change log entries of significant milestone changes, little 
breadcrumbs that would remind me of what the heck I was thinking at some 
particular moment.  No way would I bother doing that for every thought.

Huh.  I re-read all of my gibberish, and I imagine a large plate of 
spaghetti and meat balls flung at a wall.  Kind of all over the place ...

On Thursday, July 15, 2021 at 4:18:48 PM UTC-3 Si wrote:

> I just came across this post: https://thesephist.com/posts/inc/, and it 
> challenges a lot of my own views on effective note-taking practices, so I 
> thought it was worth sharing here.
>
> The author advocates for a kind of chronological system, where as a rule 
> notes are never updated after they are made, meaning that they retain a 
> fixed position in time. It kind of reminded me of Soren's random thoughts: 
> https://randomthoughts.sorenbjornstad.com/
>
> Anyway this approach seems completely counter to my current approach to 
> note-taking, where I want my notes to represent ideas that I am building 
> over time with little regard to where or when they originally came from.
>
> I'm not particularly convinced, but I'm curious if anyone here has any 
> thoughts? Do you see any advantages to this approach? Disadvantages? Do you 
> think it could gel with the zettelkasten philosophy, or are they polar 
> opposites?
>
> Just interested in hearing other peoples thoughts.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/69e88278-1984-4c69-9f5e-7f6760cb29cen%40googlegroups.com.

[tw5] Re: Incremental note-taking (article/discussion)

[Soren Bjornstad]

I think the author's first principle contradicts the article: it says that 
"good notes should behave like memory." But actual human memory is *not* 
immutable, 
not even close; memories are changed somewhat every time we recall them. So 
it seems to me that a system that actually matched memory would update over 
time, but also retain some traces of previous versions.

On the topic of "time is essential to how we remember," at least for me it 
depends on the *type* of information. If it is naturally autobiographical, 
or there was a particularly salient moment at which I learned the 
information, or it happened during a particular project or class, sure. 
When the thoughts are more abstract and developing over time, I absolutely 
cannot remember a thing about the time I had them or added to them, nor is 
that information particularly relevant.

As I recall, Ted Nelson talked about adding a time dimension to hypertext, 
where you could easily go back and forth between different versions and see 
exactly what has changed in a graphical manner. Google Docs and Git both 
kind of do this, but I don't think they've figured out all the 
possibilities here...you still have to go into a separate system to browse 
through the different versions, and it's hard to see several at the same 
time. The diff between versions is also probably not the best visualization 
-- perhaps for instance a stream of different additions (as in the *inc* idea 
the author mentions!) would be better for many types of notes. So overall, 
this would seem like a more productive direction to me -- you can see the 
latest state of the art, or you can quickly and easily look at previous 
"versions", whatever makes the most sense.

I do think TiddlyWiki's tools in this area are currently somewhat 
impoverished.

On Thursday, July 15, 2021 at 2:18:48 PM UTC-5 Si wrote:

> I just came across this post: https://thesephist.com/posts/inc/, and it 
> challenges a lot of my own views on effective note-taking practices, so I 
> thought it was worth sharing here.
>
> The author advocates for a kind of chronological system, where as a rule 
> notes are never updated after they are made, meaning that they retain a 
> fixed position in time. It kind of reminded me of Soren's random thoughts: 
> https://randomthoughts.sorenbjornstad.com/
>
> Anyway this approach seems completely counter to my current approach to 
> note-taking, where I want my notes to represent ideas that I am building 
> over time with little regard to where or when they originally came from.
>
> I'm not particularly convinced, but I'm curious if anyone here has any 
> thoughts? Do you see any advantages to this approach? Disadvantages? Do you 
> think it could gel with the zettelkasten philosophy, or are they polar 
> opposites?
>
> Just interested in hearing other peoples thoughts.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/61ffa220-c49c-42ec-91c2-86d0cdd069d7n%40googlegroups.com.

[tw5] Re: Incremental note-taking (article/discussion)

[TW Tones]

Si,

There are some arguments for this approach, starting with the ability to 
research how things evolved, but I agree it is somewhat trivial with 
computers. 

Some quick thoughts

   - tiddlywiki could support this starting with the core plugin  *Save 
   Trail*: Automatically download modified tiddlers
   - there is no reason not to combine this method - perhaps we call it the 
   "log method" with other methods
   - Making use of the differences tools could even be more powerful, you 
   could replay the content of a tiddler over multiple versions.

I am not convinced either with this method, but I see the potential for 
this in a hybrid method. 

   - Chronologies are important, journals and log methods are very useful
   - The advantage of chronologies is if all your devices are synchronized 
   you can associate one with another 
  - For example if you have a GPS trail - time and place and you have 
  photos and the time taken, you can recover where the photo was taken.
   - What occurs before or after another is sometimes valuable information. 
   - Cause and effect is something we often want to discover, unless you 
   can separate these in time it is not always possible the cause.
  - eg; observe a symptom, if you did not take the medication before 
  the symptom then the medication did not cause it. 
   

It relates to something I have expressed before and that is providing use 
analytics back to the user so they can observe their own usage and 
behaviours, that is the maximum information you can obtain from the same 
collection of data can include its time based evolution. You may discover 
your most productive days, or time of day, you may discover when you are 
most likely to make errors, which buttons you use the most - there is 
virtually no limit.

I could imagine some ideas triggered by this thread evolving into an 
interesting solution. It would be great to be able to return here in months 
to see what the "progenitor" was. It may be a way to discover new 
opportunities.

Thanks for raising this important knowledge management question.
Tones

On Friday, 16 July 2021 at 05:18:48 UTC+10 Si wrote:

> I just came across this post: https://thesephist.com/posts/inc/, and it 
> challenges a lot of my own views on effective note-taking practices, so I 
> thought it was worth sharing here.
>
> The author advocates for a kind of chronological system, where as a rule 
> notes are never updated after they are made, meaning that they retain a 
> fixed position in time. It kind of reminded me of Soren's random thoughts: 
> https://randomthoughts.sorenbjornstad.com/
>
> Anyway this approach seems completely counter to my current approach to 
> note-taking, where I want my notes to represent ideas that I am building 
> over time with little regard to where or when they originally came from.
>
> I'm not particularly convinced, but I'm curious if anyone here has any 
> thoughts? Do you see any advantages to this approach? Disadvantages? Do you 
> think it could gel with the zettelkasten philosophy, or are they polar 
> opposites?
>
> Just interested in hearing other peoples thoughts.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/90be3466-5910-4eab-9e31-5e91392efaf0n%40googlegroups.com.

[tw5] Re: Incremental note-taking (article/discussion)

[Si]

@Walt

>>> let's evolve our docs to keep pace with changes in the world... And let 
us also keep track of those changes, as is easily done in Github. or your 
choice of SCM. 

Well yes, this is what I already do. But the author is advocating for 
something subtly different: he argues that you shouldn't update a note 
after it has been added, and instead if you want to expand on or change it, 
you should add an entirely new note. I'm not quite sure this is the same 
thing as simply keeping a history. He seems to think that the original 
chronological context in which you capture a note is an important and 
defining feature of that note.

>>> Unless i am missing something, this seems like a trivial problem today 
(tho the lack of change history in TW is notable in the world of wiki, it 
must be said).

My post was less about how to technically implement anything, and more just 
intended to prompt a discussion on this particular way of thinking about 
note-taking. Personally I don't personally see any particular merit to this 
approach, but since its good to question your own perspective I want to 
hear what other people think.
On Thursday, 15 July 2021 at 21:10:00 UTC+1 ludwa6 wrote:

> @Si, i must answer your Q w/ a Q: Why must it be viewed as a binary 
> choice?  
> Bearing in mind the wisdom of Gahdhi 
> 
>  [1], 
> let's evolve our docs to keep pace with changes in the world... And let us 
> also keep track of those changes, as is easily done in Github. or your 
> choice of SCM.
> Unless i am missing something, this seems like a trivial problem today 
> (tho the lack of change history in TW is notable in the world of wiki, it 
> must be said).
>
> /walt
>
> [1]. “My aim is not to be consistent with my previous statements on a 
> given question, but to be consistent with truth as it may present itself to 
> me at a given moment. The result has been that I have grown from truth to 
> truth.”
> On Thursday, July 15, 2021 at 8:18:48 PM UTC+1 Si wrote:
>
>> I just came across this post: https://thesephist.com/posts/inc/, and it 
>> challenges a lot of my own views on effective note-taking practices, so I 
>> thought it was worth sharing here.
>>
>> The author advocates for a kind of chronological system, where as a rule 
>> notes are never updated after they are made, meaning that they retain a 
>> fixed position in time. It kind of reminded me of Soren's random thoughts: 
>> https://randomthoughts.sorenbjornstad.com/
>>
>> Anyway this approach seems completely counter to my current approach to 
>> note-taking, where I want my notes to represent ideas that I am building 
>> over time with little regard to where or when they originally came from.
>>
>> I'm not particularly convinced, but I'm curious if anyone here has any 
>> thoughts? Do you see any advantages to this approach? Disadvantages? Do you 
>> think it could gel with the zettelkasten philosophy, or are they polar 
>> opposites?
>>
>> Just interested in hearing other peoples thoughts.
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/04de8931-e5d4-4710-a1c4-7e586eb15ac4n%40googlegroups.com.

[tw5] Re: Incremental note-taking (article/discussion)

[ludwa6]

@Si, i must answer your Q w/ a Q: Why must it be viewed as a binary 
choice?  
Bearing in mind the wisdom of Gahdhi 

 [1], 
let's evolve our docs to keep pace with changes in the world... And let us 
also keep track of those changes, as is easily done in Github. or your 
choice of SCM.
Unless i am missing something, this seems like a trivial problem today (tho 
the lack of change history in TW is notable in the world of wiki, it must 
be said).

/walt

[1]. “My aim is not to be consistent with my previous statements on a given 
question, but to be consistent with truth as it may present itself to me at 
a given moment. The result has been that I have grown from truth to truth.”
On Thursday, July 15, 2021 at 8:18:48 PM UTC+1 Si wrote:

> I just came across this post: https://thesephist.com/posts/inc/, and it 
> challenges a lot of my own views on effective note-taking practices, so I 
> thought it was worth sharing here.
>
> The author advocates for a kind of chronological system, where as a rule 
> notes are never updated after they are made, meaning that they retain a 
> fixed position in time. It kind of reminded me of Soren's random thoughts: 
> https://randomthoughts.sorenbjornstad.com/
>
> Anyway this approach seems completely counter to my current approach to 
> note-taking, where I want my notes to represent ideas that I am building 
> over time with little regard to where or when they originally came from.
>
> I'm not particularly convinced, but I'm curious if anyone here has any 
> thoughts? Do you see any advantages to this approach? Disadvantages? Do you 
> think it could gel with the zettelkasten philosophy, or are they polar 
> opposites?
>
> Just interested in hearing other peoples thoughts.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/ebc0ee28-df1f-437e-981c-72d076014cd8n%40googlegroups.com.