Tree elements' formatting (Scrivener, "Aeon") - The Wolf!

Posted by 22111
Feb 14, 2023 at 09:16 PM

The Outlining Fallacy

Some people say, AI ain’t “there” yet: it can’t “think” yet…

But what’s “thinking” then?

Fact is: What you’ve already got*, will limit you.

*=and if you then treat it the traditional way…

And that, you might call, the “outlining fallacy”.

And, I’ve said it, here, before: Spatial representations - even the current “three-dimensional” ones - don’t also represent the (multiple) timelines: all those changes within humans’ relationships’ “colors”‘s adjustments, rearrangements, and within some high quality “narrative” (i.e. novel, movie…), that’s another “mesh”, too…

And you, then, want to “put it into an outline”?

I discovered that whenever I consider my “outline”, I then “think” within the confines of that outline, and that means, “amending”, and so on, and, forgive me, amending’s the contrary to creation.

On the other hand: Whenever I just “thought” about “things”, i.e. “had not present” “the outline”, but just “some aspects”, I’ve been able to “shift the horizon”... and, most of the time, this would imply “rewriting”... IF you had made the mistake to “write out” what you’ve got in mind, at any given time.

It’s similar if you treat the “mesh” as a “synopsis”, since that last term implies some sort of “order” already, and ANY order will kill your imagination, very unfortunately - even those graphic arrangements (i.e. “orderings”) those graphic tools, like “Scapple” or any other, 2-dimensional like the aforementioned, or allegedly 3-dimensional ones (and which ain’t able to represent the time dimension either, and don’t speak to me about the “spatial” one, the one which would represent (e.g. psychological) “distance”: all that’s not enough, and by far), will act the same: they will limit you, instead of “raising your horizon”.

And that’s the fallacy in all those “cardboard”, “corkboard”, whatever (physical or electronic) card collections: Any outline will have to “come afterwards”, and I’m so sorry - really! since for me, too, “everything” would be oh so much “easier” if not -, folks, to, by this, spit in your soup again!

No: Fact is: You have to consider your atom elements as nuclei, and then “think”, feel “around’em”, combine’em with any existent or imaginable element within your reach (i.e within your creative “perspective”... but perhaps that will be enhanced before your falling asleep, or just before waking up, or then - I hope you will not be forced to reach out to such extreme means - with what they call “drugs” of multiple kinds?), and then again contemplate your findings / gatherings, and their possible, necessary, in case multiple effects (and here again, it’s the Germans who’ve got the ultimate term: “Weiterungen”): “i it worth it?” i.e. to “rewrite”, to “re-outline”? or then, is it not?

And again, to complicate things further: You won’t be able to answer these questions but after some days, weeks, months, i.e. after having contemplated many more nuclei in your “mesh”...

An’so, at the end of any (multiple) “days 1 to 6” - an’yes, you’re “God” in this “play”, but wouldn’t you seriously try to exterminate (the possibility of) elements like Hitler et al. BEFORE day 7?), you’ll just expand your list / ordered / somewhat hierarchized-in-order-to-not-forfeit-any-order-n-overview list (aka “outline”) somewhat…

but you will not yet know about your real, your day-7, outline: the one you will present to “the world”, i.e. what, hopefully, some day, the “audience” (cf. “vox populi vox dei”) will have to digest?

And that’s why almost all of the greatest “creators” in any field said, in these or similar terms, “I’m just an instrument”, “of God” / “of Him”, whatever: all’of’em were NOT the masters of their creation, but then had just been some sorts of “architects”, i.e. of “representational organisators” of what had already come to them…

And here again, the Germans are those who have got, at least approximately, the term which nails it: they call musical interprets (vs composers) “nachschaffende Künstler”... obviously not being aware that even the composers are perfectly determined by that term, since even them: they just bring order in what will remain alien to them… but which will, ideally, and after their - in case arduous, or then even totally fluffy - “translation work”, finally enthrall us, i.e. any “audience” of their kind of what we call “creation”.

And that’s why dedicated “writer’s software” doesn’t work: Since their creators missed that writing’s organisation can just be an ancillary “science”; in other terms: promises to help with creation are snake oil.