> TiddlyTweeter wrote: >> >> Is "FRAGMENT" scope ONLY intuitively known, rather than formally >> definable? If so .... then ...? >> > Mat responded ...
> ...then the important thing is that we have a system that allows the data > to change along with the changes of our feeble minds. To merge or split the > fragments as we see fit. IMO TW does this better than any other software I > know of BUT there is definite room for experimentation and improvement. For > example, it would be cool if we could drag'n drop to merge tiddlers. And if > the excision functionality was more accessible. > That's interesting. "More ways to re-chunk" ?? Sounds right, to make data and concepts of that data more explicitly re-chunkable ?? That loop, to re-do fragment size & scope, I think fits human meaning making process better than idea of "getting it right"--which completely overlooks we are inherently iterative. FWIW, In my own case, I am very interested in facilitating associative thinking. For example have a wiki of thousands of phrases (sub sentence) that you can randomise and then transclude and save interesting combos of. Repeat at will. Basically, a William Burroughs "cut-up" machine. That use of random "fragments" supports associative cognition and pattern (new story) recognition in a helpful low overhead way. 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/792ad94d-0dff-47b4-aa2e-da86e702f29a%40googlegroups.com.
