#twine #exploratory #fragmented #thinking #story %% - What is fragmented exploratory thinking? - What is the use case? - ~~Are there other techniques to handle the same use cases?~~ - What is the main product of this type of activity? - What are the possible secondary outcomes? - Why is Twine a good technology to sustain such form of thinking? - The case for using a narrative structure to think through a topic. %% [[Dialectic Topic Writing to Handle Fragmented Understanding|Fragmented exploratory thinking]] is a note-taking technique I came up with few years back to help myself thinking and writing about various topics. The method exploits the natural tendency of our mind to try various configurations of understanding while thinking about a given topic and capture these moments into entries. Contrary to essay writing which requires us to make sense across a long period of time. Fragmented writing doesn't force our mind to operate on an ordered regime which is different from our internal tempo. The result is that, this approach helps reduce [[2024-06-30#^91220e|entropy]] we might experience from trying to be coherent for too long while our mind is possibly phasing. The attitude of fragmented writing is to explore and contemplate various positions toward a topic of interest. Especially contradictory ones. As these represent tension points which delimit the domain of speculation. I employ this style of inquiry on topics I deemed interesting, yet I had no idea in which way. I also switch gears to this format whenever I am writing and I have a rush of connections that I cannot immediately integrate into a single description. Instead of battling on how to make sense, I put priority on externalizing my intuitions, then take time to organize them once they are expressed. I noticed that fragmented exploratory writing relates to the more conventional, cohesive focused (essay) writing via an [[2024-06-06#^20bc5e|ergodic rotation]]. Instead of spending so much time working from the same initial condition (a title, few points and few questions) until we get a coherent piece of writing, we integrate over many entries, which represent virtually many starting points on which you spend little enough time to formulate the entry and overall achieve the same result. Fragmented thinking has secondary outputs beside the main of piece writing. It produces a "tree of considerations" that documents all of the alternative interesting paths and the various modes of reasoning that weren't chosen to be part of the main artifact. Additionally, it generates a "map of understanding" that, represents a state of charting the topic space. This map can be used to guide further explorations, leading to more insights. Despite all of the good that comes out of this technique, for all the time since I have known it, I haven't found the technology to sustain this kind of work in a satisfactory manner that didn't require me battling the medium and internalizing a dozen self-inflicted conventions. Until, I was pointed to a software called Twine, on a totally unrelated subject, by someone I have just met. [Twine](https://twinery.org/) is a software meant for developing non-linear interactive stories. A story is broken down into small self-contained passages made out of text and illustrative media. Passages are related to each other via links, used to either represent a choice made by the reader, or a curiosity to expand on a given detail within the passage. A story has a starting passage and can end in many ways depending on the reader's path. "The beauty of this technology is that it packages many experiences in a single bundle, by leveraging non-linearity and interactivity." And, it was the above formulation which lead me to contemplate the analogy of, thinking as storytelling. The more I thought about it, it seems to hold. Stories are about scenes and actions which take us from one scene to another. So is thinking, about description and reasoning which takes us from one form of description to another. The most obvious example is problem-solving where we reason our way from a problematic description into a [[2024-07-01#^1a36ac|solvant]] one (in other words, the solution). And then it occurred to me. Use passages to capture entries. Connect them using various links attached to questions, different options and keywords. The first entry being the starting point to which all entries connect back to. In addition to holding entry content, passages come with an extra freedoms that is, a title and media. Even though this is an artifact of using Twine, from the [[Dialectic Topic Writing to Handle Fragmented Understanding|Fragmented Writing]] point of view, I think it is better to use extra freedoms to embed meaningful information. Think of it as an aesthetical dimension which can give more depth to our contemplation and possibly lead to deeper realizations. Personally, I use the title to express the main idea of the entry or the turn of phrase which motivated it. At times, I make a point strictly using illustrations. I consider them a more powerful mode of embedding thought since they allow for various [[2024-07-01#^ffea91|graphical readings]] in a singular expression. The single BEST feature of this technology is the reader mode. It enables you "the fragmenter" or any other person interested in your exploration, to experience it, and move within by choosing different routes from one description to another. Making it possible for others and yourself to visit and revisit your own constructions, the same way you would tour over a gallery, an exhibition or a museum. And it is out of these experiences that one can reach a state of inspiration where a single cohesive expression would be possible, even natural. Published on, [[2024-07-01]].