Intertwingularity Mapping Defined (foundational thoughts)

Since my 2020-03-13 Intertwingularity Mapping Defined (alpha version 0.1?) blog entry, I haven't yet sorted out all of my intertwingled thoughts to formulate a clear and concise definition/explanation.

Happily, my "ADHD Slice'n Dice" project (thinking about Intertwingularity Mapping as part of writing, and organizing, information about ADHD) has somehow inspired some ideas (a "vision?) for defining Intertwingularity Mapping (still a work in progress.)

Here's what I recently came up with:

For the last few years, all of these swirling thoughts about Intertwingularity Mapping have been more focused, more coherent after seeing these bits copied from the "Intertwingularity" Wikipedia article:

  • 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."

From there, I've got a ridiculously intertwingled mess of notions, in particular:

  • Everything is indeed deeply intertwingled
  • 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 ...
    • Although I may be very humbly disagreeing here with Ted Nelson, I'm pretty sure this is just contextual apples and oranges.
  • 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...)
    • Ditto re: contextual apples and oranges!
  • Every topic/sub-topic/super-topic, and every aggregation can definitely be categorized in however many useful (i.e. of information value) ways
  • All of the information components (fragmental and elemental), all of the aggregations (every topic/sub-topic/super-topic), all of the categories, all of the connections between each one of those things ... together they are the intertwingularity within whatever unlimited or narrow scope that matters

Slowly and surely, I may be getting "somewhere" ...

No comments: