> To be _fully_ 2D it must be at least a network, and something *that
> cannot be recomposed in linear form _without loss of meaning_*.
I think this is a pretty good summary.
With of course the clause that everything can be linearized (viz. all
digitization) with no actual loss of data; it's just that they loose
*comprehensibility*. (E.g. arrays -> lists still preserve their data,
but
> Secondly, there must be positive reason for using two dimensions. It
> should not be just linear stuff, recomposed, with a few extra 'fancy bits'.
>
> What, I think, we are attempting is to represent thought without having
> to process the thoughts through linear language. It is an attempt to
> represent thought(s) as, say, a 'thought-web'.
>
> > I ran into a similar problem a few days ago, when talking to a
> > linguistics prof about this - she got stuck on the idea that it was
> > 'non-temporal',
>
> I suppose time as we perceive is linear. But to say the thing is
> non-temporal is, I think, missing the point. Temporality is not what
> this about. We are creatures of time & and thoughts occur in time.
>
> > and kept overstating my position
>
> IME a common habit of those who disagree with one another :)
>
> > I think I left that conversation
> > with her still thoroughly convinced that what I was talking about was
> > completely impossible by everything she knew from linguistics and
> > cogpsych -
>
> Yes, an overstatement - to say something is _completely_ impossible is
> often rash. I don't know how realizable such a non-linear full-2d
> writing system is - perhaps it may prove impossible. But until we try we
> will not know.
>
> > and me with the impression that she didn't understand what
> > I was trying to describe.
>
> Probably a correct impression.
>
> > But then, Lakoff said the same thing when he gave me a F on my paper
> > about it. It'll probably be one of those nice things to frame and put
> > on my wall, once (if? nah, 'once') I succeed in making such a system.
> > :-P
>
> Yep - one must be positive.
>
> > Yahya -
> [snip]
> >>.......... And your latest posts on
> >>this topic are more concerned than ever with the
> >>idea of writing expressing a gestalt, with higher-
> >>level connections.
>
> Gestalt - yep, that's the sort of idea, I think.
>
> >> Sometimes I thinnk the ideal
> >>poem would be like that - a simple, integrated whole.
>
> Yep - that's the sort of thing!
>
> >>Indeed, I hadn't yet joined this list in May, so I
> >>had better follow Ray's advice and look up the
> >>original thread.
> >
> > No offense taken. Please do read those, and let us know what you think
> > about the idea once you have.
>
> Quite a bit of reading - but, yes, I too would be interested in what you
> think.
>
> > I (and others here most likely) could
> > use some more inspiration / ideas about how this could be done.
>
> Count me in as one of those others.
>
> > I'm currently a bit stuck on it - pending, as you say, the gestalt.
> > It's like poetry-writing for me; I can't really force myself to do it
> > is. And in this case, while I have a few ideas of how I want it to
> > work, and various angles at it, I don't have a good feeling of the
> > gestalt.
> >
> > I figure that once I do, the rest will come pretty quickly though.
>
> 'Tis a nice thought - let's hope it's true :)
>
> --
> Ray
> ==================================
> ray@carolandray.plus.com
>
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
> ==================================
> MAKE POVERTY HISTORY
>