Maps of Content and Objective Outlines

Should there be a difference?

• The traits of Objective Outlines
  • The objective outline serves to free the writer from literary constraints while writing - consider Roam-like, highly nested bulleted prose.
  • Statements and facts are chained together, but are meant to be moved, nested, and interwoven within a single page.
  • Topics that become too large are meant to be digested and decomposed via inclusion of more bullets.
  • The beginning and end of a trail of thought serve as bezier controls for a path yet determined.
    • this analogy comes from a person on twitter I can no longer find a link to
• The traits of Maps of Content - 2022-06-10 On Maps of Content - MOCs should be built by pulling relevant information (that already exists) into the MOC - The MOC should be filtered down over time - Examples - 2022-06-13 Building Maps of Content - 2022-06-17 3 ways I organize my PhD notes - Maps of Content are Themes - Maps of Content are Tables of Contents - Maps of Content are Structure Notes - 2022-06-21 Thoughts on Maps of Content -Maps of Content are not Tables of Contents - a TOC should include the full hierarchy of ideas that can be accessed (linearly) - a MOC is a 'jumping off' point, a tool for exploration and construction. Not an exhaustive listing
• The necessary axioms for notes that underpin the requirements for Structure Notes / Objective Outlines and Maps of Content
  • 2022-06-21 Thoughts on Maps of Content#We must establish a pattern of Links as Continuations
    • Individual notes act as facts, statements, and replies to other notes
  • Notes structured like this - like Objective outlines - are difficult to compose with notes, especially via transclusion, because the mixing of note content and using bullets underneath tend to have the same meaning for information relativity.
  • It's important to re-imagine that notes could and should be contained with a single massive file - like the good ol' days
• Objective Outlines are too limiting
  • for a simple reason too. Objective outlines like this showcase linear, nested discussion
  • this falls into the same trap as modern chat applications because replies to ideas are
    • implicit (lacking the metadata for a computer to understand the link)
    • highly time and context dependent
      • observations through time shape the discussion, and so context can not be cherry picked. In effect, each reply is a reply to a certain time not a certain idea.
      • This line of bullets also adds confusion to illustrate this fact - by being self referential as well was building on the concept of implicit
      • what then when a context held within the writer is too recent, too deep, but unseen from the reader? the babbles and ranting of the writer loses meaning because a critical context is unshared
        • how much of the phenomena of being unready to learn does this missing context impact?
      • herein lies the Student's Dilemma ! that anything that could be known relieis on an ever growing amount o context and content that - if the time were spent to grasp - they would never be able to move forward.
        • thus we employ the great trick - pattern recognition and action by means of intuition alone become our guardian - as in the way we learn language as well! we do not need the rules except when criticality is more important than our speed to act.
  • Cyclic graphs are necessary for conveying information because information is cyclical
    • the description of process, like the formulations of differential equations, compound and change themselves over time. So we must have a way of naming the things we have not yet described, so that we can begin to build recursive definitions of those things
    • For efficient teaching, cyclical graphs need to be transformed into directed acyclic graphs
      • In Obsidian, and for Tools for Thought in general, we need a system that can help dismantle and break descriptive processes down until the smallest closed cycles can be found.

Looks can be deceiving - I know in the above blob, I made a claim that what I constructed was an Objective Outline, but it's more of a ramble than anything else. Instead of fixing it (based on the assumption that some automated process from the future may try to parse this), I will keep it as is(ish). Mistakes are critical elements of human thought, and we shouldn't be bother to fix our mistakes because a machine isn't capable of understanding our intent by their (the mistakes) inclusion.

The rant, the ramble, such a construct establishes the need for desperate organization. The burden on the mind that understanding such a tangle of claims, lies, mistakes, and truth is already unbearable today. And it will only get worse as the quantity of content accumulates.

An Objective Outline is a means to an end whose time is near. A letter to a business entity, a report, and essay. The Objective Outline need not be concerned with the state of all facts and minutia. It can and will contain lies, holes, and missing connections. It can because it's purpose is not to drive towards the ultimate understanding and knowing. It's most powerful capability is in utilizing and guiding the time critical context of pre-hyper language. It's a tool for yesterday and today, let it be absolved of the demands of tomorrow.