If there’s a story you want to tell or a vibe you want to convey, or an aesthetic, or some news, or a new development, or a new menu or something—any of that can be conveyed within a content container on Facebook, Instagram, Wordpress, Squarespace or another modern tool.
But when you do that, you forfeit a whole layer of choice in terms of how things relate to each other. Everything doesn’t just have to be a bunch of pages that have some number of tags. Maybe the menu items could be something other than just elements in a list. Like maybe they have relationships to each other, or maybe they’re changing over time, and you want to capture that change. Or maybe they have people attached them, or there is someone special who prepared the dish, or there’s a process by which it’s prepared, or maybe there’s a seasonality or periodicity to it. Or there’s some special scarcity or ability to “build your own,” or there are modifications allowed. Or maybe special music plays in the restaurant or different music plays at different times. Or people have control over elements of the atmosphere, or the atmosphere changes depending on who’s there, or depending on if there’s a party or if you rent the room or something. Anyway, there’s a lot to the experience that’s very meaningful that doesn’t fit into a pages, tags, posts, and feeds model.
Are thoughts separate?
We often talk about the “relations of ideas” through various metaphors: nodes in a network, lego bricks, files in a storage system, etc.
One thing I don’t think I’ve questioned enough is whether and when it makes sense to talk about ideas as compartmentalized/separate/categorized entities.
Categorizing information, or “making sense of” something is certainly a natural mental procedure. We impose our own ontologies on the world all the time. But that doesn’t necessarily imply that our systems of categorization are a reflection of the structures of our minds.
Thoughts are sort of fuzzy and fluid, and our tendency to delineate them (as we do even in calling them thoughts or ideas) seems more like a post-rationalization.
Maybe these are questions for neuroscience — we ought to be weary of the suppositions we make about “ideas” in philosophizing though.
Planning is much more than marking a target and working your way backwards. Planning is about expanding your options, remember? it’s collecting data, making predictions, branching over different realizations of those predictions and speculating about resources that could help. Planning is as much about what not to do as it is about what to do. Planning is about cramming up as many possible futures into plan which tries to narrow these futures into one future. Planning is fan-out where the plan is fan-in.