Tones, you sweet sweet guru of intertwingled thinking !
Just so you know, since reading your reply, I've been in an instantaneous
*(nothing
gradual about it)* and blissfully warm-fuzzy Nirvana of:
All o' them dots and "i's" and crosses and "t's" swirling around in me wee
sponge are slowly kind of coming together.
Me thinks.
At the very least, I'm inching towards some kind of faint glimmer.
I should probably put on some sunglasses.
And not stare directly into the light ...
Re-reading your reply, my mind goes to "structure" of information and a
frustration of mine. *(I have a thought, so I just surrender to the thing
and embrace it. Hold onto your ears folk, 'cause here I go !)*
Before starting any kind of writing project, most folk *(I think: by human
nature)* will want to plan some sort of information structure to get
started. Most likely, that structure will be determined by (or constrained
/ dictated by) the choice of tool used for the writing (and maybe a little
too much "lock in" via narrow-focused planning, thus missing out on
opportunities).
That kind of thing drives me a little bit bananas.
With the wrong kind of tool and/or the wrong kind of structure, you might
find yourself at some point locked into that structure (i.e. really painful
to change it) when elucidation, through discovery of new information or
requirements or opportunities, points to the need for different or
additional structure(s).
For example:
A few years ago, my teammates (programmer/analysts) were each asked to put
together each a OneNote document, in a shared network folder, to describe
his/her job. *(I was excused from that because I had already been
describing, for the previous 14-ish years everything about my job in a
wiki.)*
One of the teammates suggested that it might make more sense to have a
OneNote document per application instead. *(There was a "many-many"
relationship between each programmer/analyst and each supported
application. )* The teammate believed it made more sense to have a
OneNote document per application so that application-specific knowledge for
each application would be together, instead of knowledge for one
application split into pieces among job-related OneNote documents.
Of course, I couldn't help thinking: why are you locking up information
into a fixed structure?
- You are setting yourselves up to make it difficult-to-get "alternative
information views" because of the fixed storage structure of the
information.
- Or, worse: you are setting yourselves up for duplication of
information across multiple structures. A maintenance nightmare!
- i.e.
- a bunch of OneNote documents in some folder, each containing
job-specific information
- and a bunch of OneNote documents in some folder, each
containing application-specific information already existing in the
job-specific OneNote documents
Arg! A wiki would solve that! Create narrow-focused "Elemental"
Pages/Tiddlers (all "first-class citizens"), and transclude them into
whatever "structures" *(i.e. "Aggregation" Pages/Tiddlers via the magic of
transclusion)* to get whatever kind of information you need when you need
it ! That fell upon dead ears. I have no idea if they eventually got any
OneNote documents together at all, let along figure out first how to
structure them.
All of my wordiness to say... That's the beauty of wikis (my heart
belonging to TiddlyWiki) : they allow for agile and organic/evolutionary
figuring out of structure(s) and adapting structure(s) (as information is
discovered, as content gets created and as structural needs reveal
themselves.)
Intertwingularity Mapping is all about squashing writer's block. Don't get
into paralysis by analysis of big requirements up front (i.e. "detailed"
planning, and "structures" of any kind, especially documents and folders!)
Start writing! Start with a list! Just like the seeds for some plants,
the plants and the garden will let you know what they need in time.
Total aside, I am reminded of a philosophy, one of so many, I have: Life
has a way of confounding expectations. (And plans. Because we don't know
what we don't know. Until we know, at which point it is some nice to have
the luxury of quickly and easily adjusting, and re-adjusting, at any time.)
To me, there is nothing better than a wiki for the business of
writing/organizing *anything*. *(Well, although I'm pretty stubborn about
it, I am always open to any new thing that comes along and could change my
mind ... )*
Cheers, and thanks again, Tones !
On Sunday, August 30, 2020 at 6:44:20 PM UTC-3, TW Tones wrote:
>
> 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 [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/a00ef870-3fee-4a29-a817-9354d5599a04o%40googlegroups.com.
