Re: One vs many directories

[Texas Cyberthal <texas.cyberthal@gmail.com>]

Hi Jean,

> What should it be or do?

Dbmind does things that Postgres handles better than Org.

> As you have specific thought order in directory names then maybe such could be parsed, maybe slashes / removed to show a full path to the file. This becomes long but could be useful in some lists.

I don't intend to do so.  Textmind maximizes path dynamism via
Dired+Treefactor.  Links shouldn't break that.

> Alright and I find that it is the case on my side, and previous work of Engelbart, then also within some other information management systems, like Semantic Synchrony.

Some of that might qualify as an algorithm, but not a natural thought
algorithm.  A natural thought algorithm must manage substantially all
natural thoughts while satisfying the definition of an algorithm.

The things you mentioned are not even as sophisticated and complete as
GTD.  And GTD is merely a personal paper-management algorithm, not a
natural thought algorithm.

(Textmind manages text only, whereas some people think visually.  It
would be easy to adapt Textmind principles to Binmind, if needed.
Therefore even for visual thinkers, Cyborganize is a natural thought
algorithm.)

I doubt there are multiple ways to design a natural thought algorithm.
For example, all natural thoughts occur in a chronological sequence.
This necessitates a ramblog to accurately reflect them.

This is the GTD inbox algorithm:

https://michaelwhatcott.com/gtd-workflow-processing-algorithm/

GTD is usually called a method.  I've started calling Textmind an
algorithm to emphasize the finiteness aspect of its design, a key
feature.  I think I could construct a pseudocode Textmind algorithm.
It would of course rely on human judgment for some decisions, and
judgment is fuzzy.  But the algorithm itself would be unambiguous.