Map of Content Vizualized (VMOC)
a start of thinking on the space of converging written and visual thinking, but not as advanced as even Raymond Llull or indigenous ways of knowing which more naturally merge these modes of thinking.
Western though is just missing so much... sigh
My "map of content" for Java Collection Framework. Obsidian & Excalidraw make learning programming language full of joy! Great thanks to @obsdmd @zsviczian
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>My "map of content" for Java Collection Framework. Obsidian & Excalidraw make learning programming language full of joy!<br><br>Great thanks to @obsdmd @zsviczian pic.twitter.com/FWBxfj2yLS
— YM (@Peng1M) April 22, 2022
Note the use of scare quotes around "map of content". Is it because YM doesn't take the idea seriously or because of the pseudo map nature of the diagram included?
Link to the idea that map of content is just a marketing term for something which already exists, namely a table of contents.
It's also similar to the projects idea and outlines espoused by Sönke Ahrens.
A Mental Squeeze Point is when your unsorted knowledge becomes so messy it overwhelms and discourages you. Either you are equipped with frameworks to overcome the squeeze point, or you are discouraged and possibly abandon your project.
Cross reference: https://hypothes.is/a/BuMcAnr4EeyxO-PwNBfPrg (Dan Allosso's analogy about the Kuiper Belt)
Three types of linking can be distinguished:a) References in the context of a larger structural outline: When beginning a major line of thoughtLuhmann sometimes noted on the first card several of the aspects to be addressed and marked themby a capital letter that referred to a card (or set of consecutive cards) that was numbered accordinglyand placed at least in relative proximity to the card containing the outline. This structure comesclosest to resembling the outline of an article or the table of contents of a book and therefore doesn’treally use the potentials of the collection as a web of notes.b) Collective references: At the beginning of a section devoted to a specific subject area, one can oftenfind a card that refers to a number of other cards in the collection that have some connection withthe subject or concept addressed in that section. A card of this kind can list up to 25 references andwill typically specify the respective subject or concept in addition to the number. These referencescan indicate cards that are related by subject matter and in close proximity or to cards that are farapart in other sections of the collection, the latter being the normal case.c) Single references: At a particular place in a normal note Luhmann often made a reference to anothercard in the collection that was also relevant to the special argument in question; in most cases the re
ferred card is located at an entirely different place in the file, frequently in the context of a completely different discussion or subject.
Niklas Luhmann's index card system had three different types of links. Direct links to individual notes, outlines with links to cards (similar to tables of contents or maps of content), and what Schmidt (2018) refers to as "collective references". These collective references sound a lot like search queries for related topics that have links to a variety of resources/cards related to a particular topic and sound like a table of contents, but without a specific hierarchy.
First, I go to existing structure notes. They are notes about notes, and therefore they map structures in my archive.
Structure notes are notes about notes. Sounds similar to Maps of Content (MoC) or Tables of Contents in some sense. No one seems to have a strong or consistent name for this practice.