Dear Brian (et al.),
I thought I was "getting it", that our "instruments" were coming into "tune"; but I get the distinct sense of "drawing up" or "reinforcement", indicating a feeling of beseigement... Probably just a normal reaction to my usual brutish clumsiness...
Anyway, I hope I don't seem confrontational or diminishing in any way!! As someone who has studied Communications Theory (and
Practice) somewhat thoroughly, and who has actually written a rudimentary compiler (
to convert human-readable instructions into something the computer can understand), etc., the idea of using knots to convey meaning (as in "The three figure-of-eight knots is a word; it is a "written" name.") literally struck a chord here! That would make for a very powerful "language", IMO, and I'm excited about it!
As to any implied or perceived slight against CWA, I apologize! My assessment of CWA is that he spared us all the effort and expense of travelling to some obscure hole-in-the-volcano there to integrate into the native society well enough to earn the honor of being taught some clever kink in a cord for ourselves. And he apparently did this in every corner of the world! He did all the work (with "merely" pen & paper!!) of acquiring the Data, now (IMO) it's up to the rest of us to convert it into useful Information. What I meant by "run what ya brung" was that
if you're building a language it will need to be as complete as you can make it, with enough solidity to permit extending itself into the future. Latin was fairly thoroughly "crafted" and it didn't survive! However, I do get the distinct sense CWA's commitment to organization was greatly overshadowed by his intense commitment ("obsession" might not be too strong a word here) to diligently record, graphically, each and every knot known, anywhere and everywhere, at that time. That effort, and it's result (The ABOK), are awe-inspiring and deserve at least a permanent place in the History of All Mankind.
But I digress...
You and Nautile seem to be "on the same page" regarding what he calls "mind maps" (a grammatical concept), where -- to stick with the topic -- e.g. a set of three figure-eight knots would "map" to "Puruchuco". This is the essence of creating any "language", be it spoken, written, or computer. The "tokens" ("words", "knots", "opcodes") must relate to something IRL (In Real Life, which includes imaginary constructs) or they (by definition) have no "meaning". Where the Jesuits sinned was in destroying the "map" the Inca used (their "Rosetta Stone") so all we now have are their quipu and the opinions of some modern archaeologists as to speculative associations therewith. The articles you provided are quite interesting, but they seem to ask more questions than they answer. And still, I only saw them as examples of your point.
The suggestion you made re: beginners hit home, too!! I cheerfully admit I am a green, wet, yellow-pooping baby in this group, and how!!
It's an honor just to get noticed here, even dismissively! If you want to know what questions a beginner would ask, I may be able to help! One question I know we all get asked is "what's the name of that knot?" (
As I am, at best, "Rainman with a rope", I never know how to answer that. Seeking the name of the Single Bottle Knot was what led me here in the first place.) Question #2, if we're
lucky might be "How do I tie it?"...
It just sounded to me as if you were heading for some sort of "knot language", which might answer both those questions at once; and I was happy to rush off thataway pell-mell. I do happen to know a little bit about creating languages, so I hoped only to help.
In order to communicate, one needs four things: a Sender, a Reciever, a Message, and a Protocol. The Protocol is all we need here.
To lean a little Nautile's way, what if we were to decide, say, that the bights, loops, etc. represent the "letters" of our "language", and the knots comprised of them would then be our "words"? Wouldn't that start us off, or at least give us a toe-hold to work from?
Not to "kiss up", but I have a strong feeling you may have hit on a Very Powerful Way to overcome most of the problems we face when "sharing the wealth" of our knotting experience. Trying to convey knots as 3D constructs does indeed limit us to face-to-face exchanges, with some extension provided by those few of us blessed with the Art.
By finding the "grammar" of a "knot language", we could finally break free of our bondage to pixtures. I thought that was a Good Idea, and worth exploring.
(
To offer a simile, ABOK is like a Dictionary: you can learn the "words" (the knots) and how to "spell" them (the bights, loops, etc. that comprise them), and a little about their usage (the stories & text). But a dictionary can't teach you how to write poetry!)
We can now say "the" is a word, but "teh" is not. If we could find your Way, we might say: the knot "the" can be tied, but the knot "teh" cannot, therefore "teh" is not a knot...
But that's just a newbie's opinion.
Please do continue to expound! Prolifically, if such suits you!
Gan bei!
Jimbo
*What's a "double-shamu"? In homage to the hilarious move "Gone Fishing", the double-shamu is the only knot that can currently be described verbally. Here's how:
"When you can't tie a knot, tie a lot." <LOL>