Charlie, Some responses inline
> > Dang, that was well put. > Thanks, but its just a result of career in information tech and information management for real people. > > I usually find it really challenging to put into words the thoughts > swirling around in this sponge o' mine. Whenever I find something written > (by some really skillful folk), I can't help but get excited with a happy > "That's it! That's what I was thinking!" internal jig going on. > This happens for most of us to different degrees, you may notice I tend to challenge exceptionalism, and replace it with spectrum's. Although I appreciate the uniqueness and individuality of us all. > > For the last few years, all of these swirling thoughts have been more > focused, more coherent after seeing these bits from the Intertwingularity > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intertwingularity> Wikipedia article: > Interesting > > > - *Ted Nelson wrote: "EVERYTHING IS DEEPLY INTERTWINGLED. In an > important sense there are no "subjects" at all; there is only all > knowledge, since the cross-connections among the myriad topics of this > world simply cannot be divided up neatly."* > > > - *He added the following comment: "Hierarchical and sequential > structures, especially popular since Gutenberg, are usually forced and > artificial. Intertwingularity is not generally acknowledged—people keep > pretending they can make things hierarchical, categorizable and sequential > when they can't."* > > I understand the idea here, and perhaps this is the case for many but my "*Hierarchical and sequential structures"* are rarely forced and artificial. I don't pretend they are hierarchical, I deploy a hierarchy if there is one to be found, but I use a tool that allows me to capture the free links and the hierarchical. Yes we must not be tied up by the representations we use, but rather than avoid one, I implement as many different structures I can. A sequence may be as simple as the order I enter them, or a category that indicates what stimulated the generation of content. > > - *there are always a myriad of cross-connected topics and sub-topics > and super-topics, and, although not easy, there is a way of componentizing > every little thing into fragmental and elemental information components > (Tiddlers in TiddlyWiki, Pages in other Wikis) that can be combined into > all/any aggregations (complex topic, sub-topic, and super-topic)* > - tell me something is impossible, and I will hyperfocus on that to > either prove that it is indeed impossible, or actually do the > impossible > thing; stubborn me ... > > You do sound a lot like me with this. > > - *Each topic/sub-topic/super-topic can certainly be presented in > various alternative aggregations, each aggregation being a > "living/dynamic" > hierarchical/sequential/linear perspective of the > topic/sub-topic/super-topic* > - living/dynamic in the sense that everything is ever-evolving: > every information component, every aggregation, interconnections.. > > Yes, Yes Yes and look at philosophy's, science and belief's the world over and you will see this reoccurring in anyone who is just a little thoughtful. > > Not sure if well put. I'll have to re-read again later to decide *(I'm a > "tweaker" by nature, always adjusting to get "it" juuuuust right. I find > all things good enough until, they aren't.)* > Perhaps Tweeking is a key term for TiddlyWiki users to use, even an alternative name should we want one. To back up some of my claims, I am interested in building a knowledge model where we use a multitude of hierarchies, designed to capture a range of organisational methods, spawning another when needed. Perhaps even to the extreme that no tiddler has a value of an attribute without it being a relationship to another structure. So to assign a color, color point to it in the color wheel, want a street address?, point to it on a map, want a family relationship? point to a place in a family tree. Add the ability to have fuzzy and gradually accumulated hierarchies, tolerant of missing information and you are on the way to information Nirvana. Eg a simple list with items on the left and right is the structure needed to establish a *zero, 1 or many to many relationship* between two sets. Regards Tones -- 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/bf76c927-7762-4ccf-95b5-0e340ea7d066o%40googlegroups.com.
