The way we normally use databases,

whether SQL or document-object model,

is for archiving abstract details, extracting classifiable parts of whatever is being represented by the data.

This is absolutely necessary, of course,

but notice that it is

- note : the opposite of "embedding nuance,

rather we are extracting detail.

Abstracting details,

or in other words defining and utilizing data structures that represent things,

is an essential aspect of the practice of programming —

- state : no programming without data structures, schematizing

it is absurd and, I believe,
impossible to program anything at all without this fundamental act of defining data structures,
schematizing.
- respond : the reason we should stop programming

Programming is unlike human communication,

whereas there is the possibility of communication without language,

and this is important

- state :

to keep in context as we are essentially seeking
an affirmation about the nature of 'truth'
in the proper sense.

We must realize from the start,

- nice :

from this next beginning,

that our data models will not, cannot encapsulate truth. Period.

No matter how intricately, even beautifully we may design our schemas,

no matter their functionality and utility,

- state : truth is not reducible to abstract details.

So what are the truth-telling tools available to us?

- respond : it is not truth telling we need

And how does all this fit together?

Why am I here to discuss data models,

if I don't believe that they can capture truth?

To be clear about the origin of my thinking,

I have been influenced by the readings of Jacques Derrida.

Although I admit that I really only have had a rather cursory tour of

deconstructionism,

the philosophical move has been very influential for my thinking,

despite that multiple people who I respect have

openly despised deconstructionism and

its relationship to post modernism and

the so-called 'end of truth'.

I actually don't believe that deconstructionism does signal the end of truth,

- respond : I kept

rather I see that the work is half done.

What I have understood from my reading of deconstructionism is that 'the text' is irreducible.

Sure, we can read it and write over it. We can reference this and that text and write between them,

but this practice of

- state : commentary no substitute for the original text

offering commentary, of writing *into context, over and in-between texts,
this cannot really be a substitution for the original text itself.

Rather, what we are doing is

- state :

expanding context by putting texts into relationships with one another.

Is this beginning to

- state :

reveal what I mean by "embedding nuance"?
- respond : Wow. that is what I am doing with @TrailMarks

It's simply

- state :

reading and writing, as we have always done.
However, what we must supply is an inter-textual semantic framework,
which effectively establishes a "common place" for writing into context, for embedding nuance.
- respond : again beautiful articulation what @TrailMarks is about

The later deconstructionists talk about a kind of "applied grammatology,"

an application of "the science of writing". This is very curious to me, and I wonder:

- state : Is it time for an Programmatology?

- respond : ?

https://t.me/c/1339966659/451

Yarrow Love, [01.05.21 18:36]

I also just want to mention briefly that

- state :

by 'text' I mean any well formed, recorded communication,
whether that is the recorded word, an article or a book, a documentary or a photo, etc.
Each is a kind of text and all forms of communication deserve to be made way for in the creative commons.

The full breadth of human expression deserves to be honored

and wielded for the collective purpose of articulating meaning

in the places of power.

So I am here to discuss data models and what technologies are available

(graph databases?) for mapping intertextual relationships and embedding nuance.

- respond : Me Too, Gyuri