for - quote - first thing to understand is that humans are relational beings - John Churchill - adjacency - humans are relational beings John Churchill - Deep Humanity - individual / collective gestalt - self / other gestalt

for - adjacency - John Cobb - Whitehead - process relational ontology

for - definition - actual occasion of experience - Whitehead - definition - society - Whitehead - Whitehead - process relational ontology - adjacency - Whitehead's philosophy - morphic resonance

definition - actual occasion of experience - Whitehead question - does Whitehead mean that reality itself is intrinsically evolutionary in nature and that it is constantly metamorphosizing? Is he making a claim similiar to Rupert Sheldrake's morphic resonance? Or we might say Sheldrake follows Whitehead

Explanation - Whitehead's Process Relational Ontology - Passage below is explanation of Whitehead's Process Relational Ontology

• There's always a little bit of novelty with each new drop of experience and so
• There's a kind of reality
• At its fundamental basis is a kind of evolving relationship among all of these
• Whitehead's technical term again actual occasions of experience and
  • as they co-evolve new habits emerge and these habits allow nature at various scales to form what Whitehead calls societies
• An example of a society of occasions or experiential events would be hydrogen atoms
• The first hydrogen atoms which emerge i think a few hundred thousand years after the big bang represent the growing together of what had been distinct processes
  • protons and electrons
• to form this relationship that would be enduring which we call the hydrogen atom
• That's a society of actual occasions of experience that has formed
• and then hydrogen atoms continue this evolutionary process and collect together into the first stars
• and a star would be another example of a society of actual occasions of experience
• and as these new forms of social organization are emerging over the course of cosmic evolution
  • what physics describes in terms of laws begin to take shape
• but again for Whitehead these are not eternally fixed laws imposed on the process of evolution that's unfolding
• Rather what we call laws
  • emerge from out of that process itself
  • as a result of the creative relationships being formed by these actual occasions of experience
• So rather than speaking of laws imposed from outside,
  • Whitehead understands uh physical law
  • in terms of the habits which emerge over the course of time
    • as a result of relationships
• So for Whitehead, the task of philosophy is really
  • to situate us in our experience
• His is a is an experiential metaphysics and
  • as we've seen in our study of Goethe
  • the idea here is not to look behind or beyond experience for something which might be the cause of experience
  • The participatory approach to science that Goethe and Whitehead were both attempting to articulate
    • requires that we stay with experience
      • so metaphysics then
        • is not an effort to explain away our common sense experience
        • it's really the effort to bring logical coherence and consistency to experience
          • to find the all-pervasive relationships among various aspects of experience
• And so science becomes the search for those relationships within experience
  • rather than the search for some mechanical explanation which would be
    • before,
    • behind or
    • beneath experience

for - Whitehead's philosophy - Whitehead - limitations of language - Indra's Net - Whitehead - process relational ontology

• Whitehead says that

  • philosophy is an attempt to express the infinity of the universe
    • in terms of the LIMITATIONS OF LANGUAGE

• And i think this image of the spiderweb with the dewdrops each reflecting the others is the perfect analogy for whitehead's ontology

• You may have heard of indra's net from madhyamaka buddhism
  • the idea of dependent co-origination of all things
    • that nothing has independent abiding existence
      • but is rather caught up in a network of
        • relations or
      • causes and conditions
    • and so you can't remove any of the nodes in the network without destroying the node and totally changing the rest of the network that it was embedded within
• This is the key to what a process RELATIONAL ONTOLOGY is trying to reveal to us about the nature of reality
• Dependent co-origination or you could say
  • the inter-penetration of all things
• though in Whitehead's cosmology there really are no things
  • if by thing you mean an inert isolated entity
• Whiteheads ontology is really composed of events or processes
• You could say and these processes for whitehead are
  • drops of experience
• So for whitehead, there's no node in the network of reality that is not there for itself
• It is not enjoying some degree of experience or subjectivity or has some degree or capacity for feeling

for - Whitehead's philosophy of Organism

• for System change - Ruben Nelson - decentralized, community, relational approach

• for: cultural evolution - diverse movements, cultural transition - diverse movements

• summary

  • Bill Reese and Rubin Nelson believe that the dynamic / relational quadrant of indigenous culture is the most viable futures

The essence for this video is correct; active learning, progressive summarization, deep processing, relational analytical thinking, even evaluative.

Yet, the implementation is severely lacking; marginalia, text writing, etc.

Better would be the use of mindmaps or GRINDEmaps. I personally would combine it with the Antinet of course.

I do like this guy's teaching style though 😂

Not everything has to be a problem in the literal sense of the word; it's a tool for generating creative insight by means of prompting and relational thinking.

When it comes to thinking, the Zettelkasten solves an important issue which is the problem of scope, which is impossible at the current moment in mindmapping software such as Concepts.

Mainly, Zettelkasten allows you gain a birds-eye holistic view of a topic, branch, or line of thought, while allowing you to at the same time also gain a microscopic view of an "atomic" idea within that thought-stream, therefore creating virtually infinite zoom-in and zoom-out capability. This is very, very, beneficial to the process of deep thinking and intellectual work.

Think of branches not as collections, but rather as conversations

When a branch starts to build, or prove itself, then ask the question (before indexing): "What is the conversation that is building here?"

Also related to Sönke Ahrens' maxim of seeking Disconfirming Information to counter Confirmation Bias. By thinking of branches as conversations instead of collectives, you are also more inclined to put disconfirming information within the branch.

The author goes into the correlation between categorization (branching) and the use of the index and the focus on them respectively. He mentions he "learned" that branching would be more beneficial than the using of the index to make finding the cards easier.

I strongly disagree with this focus. I agree with the "relational" principle of put the card between the one that has the closest proximital conceptual relation. The Zettelkasten's power relies in serendipitous creativity (or creativity/insight by chance), this is facilitated highly by the use of connectivity between cards, where each card as you go down the "hierarchy" of "branches" will be more unrelated to the original topic. (See also Luhmann's paper Communication with Zettelkasten, Manfred Kuehn Translation and Johannes F.K. Schmidt's article on Zettelkasten within Forgetting Machines, as well as his video presentation about Zettelkasten). In short, the friction of searching for cards by following trains of thought through connectivity boosters insight by chance and therefore facilitates the power of the system.

This is also, I believe, why Bob Doto argues to let categories emerge after the creation of notes/streams of thought instead of making the names for the "branches" up front.

I believe Luhmann himself also emphasized the use of the index by calling it a system of "query into the database," the index is the main navigational map for the Zettelkasten. If you have a question for your "communication partner" the index is the way to go. For example, if I wanted to know the impact of cognitive load theory within employee management as a CEO, I would go to my index and collect the entrances for both "branches" or terms, and then start reading these thought streams... Afterward, I might synthesize and create a new branch somewhere, in one of the aforementioned categories, or an entire new one, where I put the results of this questioning.

My own system of numbering and branching in this way is the following: A number signifies a note's position within a stream of thought. I branch off if, following the relational principle, a note adds unto a thought on a specific card, but not the stream specifically. This gets signified by a letter.

So, 1a1, 1a2, 1a3, and 1a4 are all part of the same stream while 1a, 1b, and 1c would all be different "branches" stemming from the original card that would be 1 in this case. This can repeat infinitely, therefore facilitating what Luhmann calls "Infinite potential for inward growth" of the system. It's autopoietic and cybernetic. (See also: The Radical Luhmann by Hans-Georg Moeller).

Something that can benefit the finding of notes once the system grows sufficiently large is the use of "structure" or "hub" cards where you put down a few key entrances to concepts related to this stream of thought or "branch" in remote sections of the Zettelkasten.

(1:21:20-1:39:40) Chris Aldrich describes his hypothes.is to Zettelkasten workflow. Prevents Collector's Fallacy, still allows to collect a lot. Open Bucket vs. Closed Bucket. Aldrich mentions he uses a common place book using hypothes.is which is where all his interesting highlights and annotations go to, unfiltered, but adequately tagged. This allows him to easily find his material whenever necessary in the future. These are digital. Then the best of the best material that he's interested in and works with (in a project or writing sense?) will go into his Zettelkasten and become fully fledged. This allows to maintain a high gold to mud (signal to noise) ratio for the Zettelkasten. In addition, Aldrich mentions that his ZK is more of his own thoughts and reflections whilst the commonplace book is more of other people's thoughts.

For the intellectual worker, an Antinet can be used to keep track of such questions and the thought-lines corresponding to these questions.

For some research the book form is just not conducive to the most productive work. Both the experiences of Beatrice Webb (My Apprenticeship, Appendix C) and Adolph Erman (on Wb) show that database forms for sorting, filtering, and comparing have been highly productive and provide a wealth of information which simply couldn't be done otherwise.

In the early twentieth century one might have created a card index to study a large textual corpus, but in the twenty first one is more likely to rely on a relational database instead.

Seems like from a historical perspective hierarchical databases were more prevalent in the 1960s and relational databases didn't exist until the 1970s. (check references for this historically)

Of course one must consider that within a card index or zettelkasten the ideas of both could have co-existed in essence even if they weren't named as such. Some of the business use cases as early as 1903 (earlier?) would have shown the idea of multiple storage and relational database usage. Beatrice Webb's usage of her notes in a database-like way may have indicated this as well.

// - This article provides an intersectional study of: - climate change, - collective action research - terror management theory / mortality salience - it explains the beneficial impacts of non-rational relational ontology and recommends the use of ritual practices based on this as a way to promote pro-environmental behavior

//

• key observation
• key insight

Seems similar to Communicating with an Antinet Zettelkasten.

relational notions of a good life buen vivir from Latin America

Rleational Machine Learning-Ansatz

Horita, Y., & Yamazaki, M. (2022). Generalized and behavioral trust: Correlation with nominating close friends in a social network. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/xu8k3

instead of addressing the user's relation with Adobe as a buyers/sellers relation, they used the word "partnering" to edge on the idea of collaborating and this prompts a more positive emotion towards Adobe, a great sales technique

Bringing a customer experience as a result of a successful sale, attracts new customers and security for the product. Smart strategy.

Gives guarantees that they are a trusted brand by showing some of their customers

Salvador, C. E., Berg, M. K., Yu, Q., San Martin, A., & Kitayama, S. (2020). Relational Mobility Predicts Faster Spread of COVID-19: A 39-Country Study. Psychological Science, 31(10), 1236–1244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620958118

Kozlowski, Diego, Jennifer Dusdal, Jun Pang, and Andreas Zilian. ‘Semantic and Relational Spaces in Science of Science: Deep Learning Models for Article Vectorisation’. ArXiv:2011.02887 [Physics], 5 November 2020. http://arxiv.org/abs/2011.02887.

Right away this B2B site hits the visitor with a gut-punch of emotion and customer expectation...suggest that they are the solution to this pain point! I like how bold and upfront they are here.

relational sales that involve multi-level approvals based on both the company's and client's requirements.

I was not able to highlight the part that I was interested in, but at the very bottom of the screen it says "Please fill out this form and we will get in touch with you shortly." This tells me that this company is offering specific, customized solutions to a business' office organization needs, and that there is individualized support for the duration of the process, beginning with a consultation.

Most organizations use multiple tools in their lines of operation. It is imperative that any tools acquired be compatible with the ones in use. this covers that segment.

It shows the company is maintaining a healthy relationship with the new customer and the old customer to build their image. It helps in maintaining the post-sales relationship to increase their company's family.

Salvador, C. E., Berg, M. K., Yu, Q., Martin, A. S., & Kitayama, S. (2020). Relational Mobility Predicts Faster Spread of COVID-19: A 39-Country Study: Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620958118

Adams, R. C., Sumner, P., Vivian-Griffiths, S., Barrington, A., Williams, A., Boivin, J., Chambers, C. D., & Bott, L. (2017). How readers understand causal and correlational expressions used in news headlines. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 23(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000100

Salvador, C., Berg, M., Yu, Q., Alvaro, S., & Kitayama, S. (2020, April 13). Relational mobility predicts the increased speed of the spread of COVID-19: A 37 country study. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/gwpj3

When to normalize and when to denormalize. The key is to think about UX, in this case the factors are db integrity (don't create errors that annoy users) and speed (don't make users wait for what they want)

Normalization has diminishing returns

Columns dependency on the primary key and no dependency on other columns is how you get 2NF and 3NF

3NF Definition

When I view this diagram, I am reminded of Robert Rosen's Modeling Relation, an image of which is here The Modeling Relation grew out of research in Relational Biology which was the first mathematical biology to recognize that relations among organism components and between those components and the environment are key to understanding complex adaptive systems.