Editorial notes:
This is one of a number of entries found in Shai’s Evernote archives where he discusses his own methodology for researching and acquiring knowledge, and his preferred methods for storing his notes, taken during that process.
Shai devises a system of four tiers of acquiring knowledge. He refers to them as Tier1 to Tier 4.
The notes arising from this process of knowledge acquisition are designated as cJ, Content Journey, or cD, Content Destination. Content collected while conducting research can be maintained in some formats while the summary of that information is destined to be published in an electronic blog to allow for ease of editing and retrieval.
If you plant to play Tropico, then play the fucking sandbox. You don’t get points for wasting your time.
Autodidact (how-to):
An important strategy is to avoid any tendency that (even if implicitly) orients itself to achieve Total knowledge (TK). It is better to (explicitly) aim for Incomplete knowledge (IK). An important argument supporting this strategy is the finite nature of learning, with the consequence that all learning is dramatically weakened without this focus.
TK forbids excluding knowledge (goals/subjects/pathways), strengthened by the principle that ‘everything is interesting, given a sufficient perspective.’ IK selects knowledge domains primarily based on existing interest, without waiting for that interest to develop (esp. automatically by progress).
I; a case-study autodidact: Interest may be segregated into sciences and not. Interest in the latter is strongest for philosophy. Interest in the former is strongest for neuroscience. Interests outside these domains are best defined by their case, and are not encapsulated by similarly generic fields.
An important strategy_1: Evaluate value then consider how best to extract and retain.
Another_2: Strategies need to be tested.
The number of strategies is due to their respective idiosyncratic premises, for which reason neither can they be ranked. An instance: A tiered approach to study: Science can first be treated by perusal of journals; this perusal is the first-tier (tier 1) of study and thus offers the weakest investment per item. Articles may be selected and segregated according to use (tier 2). Articles can be followed-up on in a befitting manner (tier 3) which may require research (tier 4).
- Define journals. 2. Define categories of use. 3. Define follow-up use.
Articles can be categorized according to what I want to get out of them. For some, it is a fact, or a technology which is interesting because of what it offers in potential, or a concept which offers a way of looking at things. An eschatology is as a fact.
When I start reading a journal (as selected for tier 1), I begin by selecting articles to read based on potential interest. Some of these will never progress past tier 1, and are read purely for fun, and in all likelihood, based on human frailties, likely to be forgotten before long. Upon reading, however, some articles will suggest that they offer further value potential. In that case, they will be read with the consideration of “what value”. If value is attributed (i.e. not discarded back into tier 1), then they will be categorized; putatively:
- Filing: These articles remain at tier 2, as they recommend saving for possible future interest. Some might be Filed_review, or Filed_special-interest (i.e. some topic I wish to follow, e.g. space exploration, editorial, for – at the present point – fun).
- Concept (of interest): For tier 3, as are: C. Eschatology. D. Technology.
Articles in tier 3 require their follow-up be defined and applied; asked “What do I want as an outcome of ‘knowing’ this?” For example, a Concept may offer a perspective, an Eschatology may offer an appreciation of a novel domain, and a Technology may offer an appreciation for novel potentials. In each of these cases, it may be sufficient to define the facts necessary for that outcome, plus characterizing them in the context of the outcome. In that case they remain in tier 3. If however it is desired that the article serves as a springboard for the creation of a new epistemic domain (e.g. Amazonian civilization), then it must progress to tier 4, by further research.
Articles in tier 4 that require research have already defined their desired outcome, at least in brief, via passing tier 3. It is important to ensure their formation of an epistemic domain be contained (as per the principles of TK vs IK), and thus their interest and outcome must be suitably delineated.
Per strategy_2, workings of the tier system needs to be demonstrated.
Writing notes:
Tools are so important. Foremost: electric versus ink.
At this point (May/13) I am using both and expect to indefinitely continue so.
All content can be allocated to either of (cJ) part of the journey or (cD) a destination. To skip to the practical outcome, it can be held that: cJ may be in any form, thus whatever is chosen at the time, while cD can only be, initially, in any form as chosen, but must also be in an electronic form most liable to permanency and reference. Of permanent/reference formats is included electronic blogs. These offer the additional benefit of being easily editable at all points in time.
