Charlie, Well, How did I know you were going to bite me?
It should not be so easy to get attacked when expressing a different viewpoint. I inhabit this space as well, and whilst you demand something from me, please expect some demands in return. The moment anybody here says that any other member's perspective is wrong: > What Peter says about Paul says more about Peter than about Paul. I can't > seen anybody who says "you are wrong" as credible at all. > You are not wrong as a person. You have given wonderful contributions, I think you are wrong about something you have *said a number of times*. I even raised this with you before, and you did not concede, that I even had a right to disagree, just as you you assert that right to say I am wrong now. What am I doing that you have not? > > It is a pretty lousy way to give one's perspective. > > Everybody here has equally credible perspectives based on her/his > experiences. > Of course, did I say otherwise?, did I discredit you?, or are you reading insult between the lines I never wrote? > > I have 25 years of experience in the IT field as well, software developer > with strengths in object-oriented programming, relational algebra, large > queries, Object Role Modeling <http://orm.net/>, and organising large > amounts of intertwingled knowledge/information for a large suite of > applications comprehensively supporting all facets in the domains of > building construction management, space leasing, and facilities management. > > I'm confident of my abilities, but I'm not all high and mighty about it. > They are experiences that have had trials and errors, and have shaped my > views. > If it was important, it is not, I could argue I have more qualifications than you, but I did not, and do not. I value your different position, but surely I am allowed to disagree with you, as apparently you have made clear, you disagree with me. But did I react as you have? Personally I value diversity over prestige. > > Aside from having ADHD (attention subtype), I have this strange cognitive > issue in which I cannot see any one thing without all interconnected things > (at however many degrees of separation) related to that one simple thing. > That makes it really difficult for me to discuss something in isolation > without the context of all things connected. So I have a lifetime of > always dealing with complexity, always seeing everything as intertwingled, > and always coming up with quick solutions and waiting for everybody else to > catch up because I've processed so many frigging details that nobody else > has processed. > Here you are saying you are ahead of us all! That you deserve some exceptionalism? What do you know about me and my relationship to complexity? Is a diversity of views they most important thing here? > > Not for a second would I ever think that any of that makes me right and > somebody else wrong, or use that as a way to make myself more credible than > anybody else. > Again I am arguing against an idea, not a person. Nowhere did I say your "idea" was wrong because you made it. In this case I think my position was more credible, but I did not argue that, I argued the idea. > > All of that, my experience and the "how I am wired" is only good to say "I > think this way because ...", so that maybe the context helps make sense of > whatever I'm blathering about. > > Never never never would I ever consider saying "you are wrong." Nobody > has any business denying the experience-based perspective that anybody else > has. > I do not deny anything, but if you keep posting an idea you may know others disagree with, perhaps you are "denying the experience-based perspective that I have". > > Every perspective from every contributor is right based on that experience > (however great or small) and is of equal value. > Of course and always, so where is your equivalent treatment of me, should I not disagree with an idea you put forward? > > All of that aside and just to reiterate: to me, every tiddler is a first > class citizen. There is no second class, no third class, etc. Each > tiddler participates in an infinite number of relationships which can be > viewed as a hierarchical structure (or whatever kind of structure), and > each tiddler can participate in any number of structures (each one being a > useful information context). In some scenarios, a tiddler may be at the > top of the hierarchy, in others at the very bottom, and in others anywhere > in between. Such is the way I view all information. It has helped me > tremendously over the years. That may not work for you based on your > experience, but it doesn't mean it isn't right for some other soul out > there with the same wonky set of circumstances as mine. > If my characterisation of your idea is wrong, just tell me so. I do not need to get upset because someone disagrees, I don't think you need to as well. > > So with all due respect, if you have questions: ask. If something I say > doesn't jive with your experience, then ask: "how would you handle > this/that"? Ask. More likely good stuff comes out of that. Well, > compared to a public "with all due respect, you are wrong." Ouch. > Well, if you were a reader of my posts you would know this how I most often operate. As a very large contributor, for much longer than you here, I have a body of work in this forum who Indicates who I am as a contributor. You along with ONE other person, likes to take offence in this community. It would be easier to self censor and shut up in the face of their replies, but as long as people are respectful, it should be OK to disagree with an Idea (not the person). Perhaps you forget, that when you target one person (not an idea they put) that everyone else is a bystander. You have mentioned how you are not neurotypical before, and perhaps neither am I, but to assume your telling me means something about how I am supposed to respond to you I don't know, how am I supposed participate, if I need to keep a dossier on each person to make sure I don't offend them, when I thought I was in a market place of ideas. Please let us de-escalate this and I am fine if you disagree with me, please keep it about the ideas as you have so often. Perhaps for now it is too late to address the differences between our view points, on the subject of hierarchies, Feel free to post a direct reply in public, but perhaps we should take this off line after that?. Yours Sincerly Tones > On Saturday, October 31, 2020 at 10:30:32 PM UTC-3, TW Tones wrote: >> >> Charlie et al, >> >> I value this discussion, and hope to respond in more detail to the OT, >> because I value the forthright and open conversation, but I also need to >> disagree sometimes to be truthful. Just as I expect you to disagree with >> me. The fact is tiddlywiki helps us understand the process of thinking. >> >> Charlie I appreciate you putting forward your view on how hierarchies can >> impact the way we see things, they can force us to "stay within the box". >> However as you have raised this a number of times I must say, I must point >> out that I believe, with all due respect ultimately you are wrong, or at >> least the way you say it is. >> >> My argument >> >> As an creative Information Technology professional of many years, the way >> I use hierarchies is not the rigid inflexible ones you seem to speak of. >> With tiddlywiki I can apply, impose multiple hierarchies on the very same >> data. I can handle exceptions, build a supplementary network to accommodate >> the things that don't fit, so I am never restricted by them. Hierarchies >> can also "ebb and flow", A really simple example is "addresses", by >> definition they ultimately need to refer to a specific location - Planet, >> Hemisphere, country, state, region, town or location, street, number or >> block, even front or back gate, The ability to detect a hierarchy when it >> exists is critical, representing it as such, is information about the thing >> you describe, to deny it is to loose information. But yes there are other >> substantially different ways to capture and organise information and I like >> to make use of them all. I have being exploring all the ways we can >> organise knowledge with tiddlywiki. A contra example with location is >> "address less" see What3Words <https://what3words.com/guard.cling.radio>, >> in this case we learn more from the fact that the hierarchy sometimes fails >> and another organisational method is needed, in the case of what3words you >> need to know the planet and three specific but arbitrary words from a >> database of 3 metre x 3 metre locations. >> >> There is some good books on the way we think, and one of the strongest >> argued that the key to human learning, creativity and intelligence is our >> ability to "abstract", take a set of occurrences and identify both the >> similarities and differences, then take this abstraction and apply it in a >> novel circumstance. This relates to systems theory, where one learns the >> system behind the observations, then applies the same system to other >> cases. Abstraction is almost totally a hierarchical model (if very >> flexible). There is good argument that we humans use this to write poetry, >> stories and uncover the systems behind nature. >> >> I do understand what you are saying, and I think it is an important thing >> to keep in mind, the possible failings of a hierarchy, but then we must >> also recognise its values. >> >> I am a "lay philosopher" and there are dozens of examples where we learn >> what appears to be a truth, or a good rule, but then we must keep it in >> mind, but set it aside, lest it restrict our vision going forward. This is >> I believe a case in point. Another is a need to accept we can be certain of >> nothing, but simultaneously, somethings are much more certain than others, >> how can these apparently contradictory things be true? perhaps that just >> is how the universe is. >> >> Regards >> TonyM >> >> On Sunday, 1 November 2020 09:59:55 UTC+11, Charlie Veniot wrote: >>> >>> From the Wikipedia article Schema.org >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schema.org> : >>> >>> Schema.org is a collaborative community activity with a mission to >>> "create, maintain, and promote schemas for structured data on the Internet, >>> on web pages, in email messages, and beyond."[1] Webmasters use this shared >>> vocabulary to structure metadata on their websites and to help search >>> engines understand the published content, a technique known as search >>> engine optimisation. >>> >>> >>> To me, that sniffs of information architecture with a very narrow focus >>> (i.e. a common vocabulary for labelling/structuring metadata) ? As in this >>> one aspect about Information Architecture: >>> >>> The art and science of organizing and labeling web sites, intranets, >>> online communities, and software to support findability and usability >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, October 31, 2020 at 7:20:46 PM UTC-3, bimlas wrote: >>> >>>> It sounds like you are describing Information Architecture >>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_architecture>. >>>> >>>> >>>> I may have misunderstood, but is https://schema.org an implementation >>>> of this? >>>> >>> -- 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/5ec714a7-4b3c-4a54-8bc2-8419938484ffo%40googlegroups.com.
