---¶
title: Synesis¶
---¶
¶
is a model of understanding. It enables a community of volunteers to collaboratively write literature reviews and publish new work on complex subjects. [@0xAA17A6 | Idealogs] is a synesiary, a wiki that implements this model.¶
¶
## Model¶
¶
> **Axiom 1**: Understanding is the mastery of a subject's context.¶
> ¶
> **Axiom 2**: A subject has three types of context: writings, statements, and questions (WSQs).[^triad]¶
>¶
> **Axiom 3**: Assume a modified wiki $W$ with [@0x8A0BB9 | four classes of articles]: three for the three types of context, and one for the subjects themselves. The more [@0x2A91BA | reciprocal links] an article in $W$ contains, the more understanding that article contributes to $W$ as a whole, and vice versa.¶
¶
[^triad]:¶
Specifically, the things that have been written about the subject, the statements that those writings make, and the questions that arise when two or more of those statements contradict.¶
¶
## Implementation¶
¶
A synesiary is a reference work that implements synesis. Put another way, a synesiary is a collection of articles which catalog of writings, statements, and questions (WSQs) concerning subjects of interest, as well as the subjects themselves from a neutral point of view (NPOV). A synesiary runs on special wiki software that is custom designed for this purpose. There are four classes of articles in a synesiary:¶
¶
<figure class="fullwidth">¶
| Item | Article Type | Domain¶
| ---- | --- | -------¶
| subjects of interest | [@0x8A0BB9#definite \| Definite] | \@0 ¶
| writings | [@0x8A0BB9#transfinite \| Transfinite] | \@T ¶
| statements | [@0x8A0BB9#infinite \| Infinite] | \@I ¶
| questions | [@0x8A0BB9#finite \| Finite] | \@F ¶
</figure>¶
¶
The primary differences between a traditional wiki (e.g. Wikipedia) and a synesiary are:¶
¶
* in addition to cataloging subjects, a synesiary also catalogs WSQs¶
* articles are uniquely identified by their [@0x66F7B7#handles | handle] instead of their title¶
* all links in a synesiary are incentivized to be [@0x2A91BA | reciprocated]¶
¶
See the [@0x66F7B7 | docs] for how a synesiary works in practice. Below is an explanation of how a synesiary implements the axioms above.¶
¶
### Axiom 1¶
¶
> "Understanding is the mastery of a subject’s context."¶
¶
A synesiary is a crowdsourced approximation of the doctoral dissertation, the academic equivalent of mastering a subject's context. A dissertation is typically composed of an extensive literature review followed by the presentation of new work that slightly advances our knowledge of a subject. A synesiary, likewise, is a platform for collaboratively writing literature reviews, and a platform for publishing new [@0x66F7B7#works | work] that can be summarized but not edited by the community at large.¶
¶
* **Literature Reviews**: Notice how linking to a WSQ in any article will show up as '[@Tx9F6C41]'-- literally a citation. An article on subject X, then, is just a well-organized and thoughtful collection of such citations that are centered around X--i.e. a literature review. Second, notice how the link to an individual citation (e.g. a writing [@Tx9F6C41], a statement [@Ix4D05E7], a question [@Fx4609D9]) leads to a new article whose purpose is to describe that item. By describing these contextual items from a NPOV and assigning them a unique [@0x66F7B7 | handle], a dedicated community can create a common referencing system for writing literature reviews on any subject worth understanding.¶
¶
* **Original Work**: A synesiary provides a [@0x66F7B7#works | blog] for users to publish original writing outside of the wiki, and a mechanism for the community to catalog and analyze that writing in the wiki itself. See the [@0x66F7B7#works | docs] for how this works in practice.¶
¶
### Axiom 2¶
¶
> "A subject has three types of context: writings, statements, and questions (WSQs)."¶
¶
We define a **subject**'s context as the most important **writings**[^writing], **statements**, and **questions** that shape our understanding of the subject. A synesiary implements this by providing a distinct article type for each of these four categories (see [above](#implementation)).¶
¶
One interesting consequence of this system is that it is possible to 'cite' a question--e.g. [@Fx4609D9]--and 'cite' a statement--e.g. [@Ix4D05E7]--in any article in the synesiary. This is useful because when reviewing the literature for a given subject, there are certain statements and questions that are constantly reoccurring. By providing a mechanism to link to these statements and questions instead of having to constantly reintroduce them, an editor can instead focus on cataloging the thoughts and ideas that do not yet exist on the site.¶
¶
Another interesting consequence is the cycle that emerges from the WSQ triad: strong writings make well-formed statements, contradicting statements suggest a question, and unanswered questions inspire new writings [@Tx434FC1]. One purpose of a synesiary is to capture this cycle to prevent derivative, unoriginal WSQs from permeating the site. For example, original writing $A$ and derivative writing $B$ link to the same set of statements and questions. Since those statements and questions must [@0x2A91BA | reciprocate] the link in order for it to last, and since it would be redundant to cite both, they will each choose $A$ over $B$. Consequently, $A$ raises its profile on the site while $B$ fades away.¶
¶
[^writing]:¶
A writing is defined as any human communication that represents language with signs and symbols. This excludes things like audio, video, and photography, but may include things like charts, graphs, etc.¶
¶
#[@0xAA17A6 | Idealogs] is a synesiary, a wiki that implements this model.¶
¶
The synesis theory is as follows: understanding is the mastery of a subject’s context, and a subject has three types of context—writings, statements, and questions—which together form a cycle [@Tx434FC1]; this cycle is the underlying process by which understanding is accumulated by man, and a person understands a subject if and only if they have mastered its synesis cycle. Idealogs uses the synesis model to enable a community of volunteers to collaboratively write literature reviews and publish new works on complex subjects.¶
¶
## Model¶
¶
> **Axiom 1**: Understanding is the mastery of a subject's context.¶
> ¶
> **Axiom 2**: A subject has three types of context--writings, statements, and questions (WSQs)[^triad]--which together form a cycle; this cycle is the underlying process by which understanding of subjects is accumulated by man, and a person understands a subject if and only if they have mastered its synesis cycle.¶
>¶
> **Axiom 3**: Assume a modified wiki $W$ with [@0x8A0BB9 | four classes of articles]: three for the three types of context, and one for the subjects themselves. The more [@0x2A91BA | reciprocal links] an article in $W$ contains, the more understanding that article contributes to $W$ as a whole, and vice versa.¶
¶
[^triad]:¶
Specifically, the things that have been written about the subject, the statements that those writings make, and the questions that arise when two or more of those statements contradict.¶
¶
## Implementation¶
¶
A synesiary is a reference work that implements synesis. Put another way, a synesiary is a collection of articles which catalog writings, statements, and questions (WSQs) concerning subjects of interest, as well as the subjects themselves from a neutral point of view (NPOV). A synesiary runs on special wiki software that is custom designed for this purpose. There are four classes of articles in a synesiary:¶
¶
<figure class="fullwidth">¶
| Item | Article Type | Domain¶
| ---- | --- | -------¶
| subjects of interest | [@0x8A0BB9#definite \| Definite] | \@0 ¶
| writings | [@0x8A0BB9#transfinite \| Transfinite] | \@T ¶
| statements | [@0x8A0BB9#infinite \| Infinite] | \@I ¶
| questions | [@0x8A0BB9#finite \| Finite] | \@F ¶
</figure>¶
¶
The primary differences between a traditional wiki (e.g. Wikipedia) and a synesiary are:¶
¶
* In addition to cataloging subjects, a synesiary also catalogs WSQs; there is a distinct article type for each of these four categories.¶
* Articles are uniquely identified by their [@0x66F7B7#handles | handle] instead of their title.¶
* All links in a synesiary are [@0x2A91BA | incentivized to be reciprocated]. This is designed to prevent derivative, unoriginal WSQs from permeating the site. For example, original writing *A* and derivative writing *B* link to the same set of statements and questions. Since those statements and questions must [@0x2A91BA | reciprocate] the link in order for it to last, and since it would be redundant to cite both, they will each choose *A* over *B*. Consequently, *A* raises its profile on the site while *B* fades away.¶
* It is possible to 'cite' a question--e.g. [@Fx4609D9]--and 'cite' a statement--e.g. [@Ix4D05E7]--in any article in the synesiary. This is useful because when reviewing the literature for a given subject, there are certain statements and questions that are constantly reoccurring. By providing a mechanism to link to these statements and questions instead of having to constantly reintroduce them, an editor can instead focus on cataloging the thoughts and ideas that do not yet exist on the site.¶
¶
See the [@0x66F7B7 | docs] for more on how a synesiary works in practice. Below is an explanation of how a synesiary implements the axioms above.¶
¶
## Axiom 1¶
¶
> "Understanding is the mastery of a subject’s context."¶
¶
A synesiary is a crowdsourced approximation of the doctoral dissertation, the academic equivalent of mastering a subject's context. A dissertation is typically composed of an extensive literature review followed by the presentation of new work that slightly advances our knowledge of a subject. A synesiary, likewise, is a platform for collaboratively writing literature reviews, and a platform for publishing new [@0x66F7B7#works | work] that can be summarized but not edited by the community at large.¶
¶
* **Literature Reviews**: Notice how linking to a WSQ in any article will show up as '[@Tx9F6C41]'-- literally a citation. An article on subject X, then, is just a well-organized and thoughtful collection of such citations that are centered around X--i.e. a literature review. Second, notice how the link to an individual citation (e.g. a writing [@Tx9F6C41], a statement [@Ix4D05E7], a question [@Fx4609D9]) leads to a new article whose purpose is to describe that item. By describing these contextual items from a NPOV and assigning them a unique [@0x66F7B7 | handle], a dedicated community can create a common referencing system for writing literature reviews on any subject worth understanding.¶
¶
* **Original Work**: A synesiary provides a [@0x66F7B7#works | blog] for users to publish original writing outside of the wiki, and a mechanism for the community to catalog and analyze that writing in the wiki itself. See the [@0x66F7B7#works | docs] for how this works in practice.¶
¶
## Axiom 2¶
¶
> "A subject has three types of context--writings, statements, and questions (WSQs)--which together form a cycle; this cycle is the underlying process by which understanding of subjects is accumulated by man, and a person understands a subject if and only if they have mastered its synesis cycle."¶
¶
We define a **subject**'s context as the most important **writings**[^writing], **statements**, and **questions** that shape our understanding of the subject, and which together form a cycle.¶
¶
[^writing]: A writing is defined as any human communication that represents language with signs and symbols. This excludes things like audio, video, and photography, but may include things like charts, graphs, etc.¶
¶
### Step 1 in the cycle: A person writes something¶
¶
Writing converts abstract thought into a physical creation that others can interact with, so long as the container (e.g. paper, or perhaps a computer server) persists. A piece of writing is both finite and infinite in nature: infinite in that it represents a deeper, infinite truth that the author is trying to express, and finite in that it has a physical, finite form which enables that truth to be shared with others.¶
¶
### Step 2: A statement is derived from the writing¶
¶
Loosely, writings make statements about the world. Usually there are one or more proofs associated with each statement. A statement is “infinite” in that it establishes some deeper truth about the world which exists outside of man.¶
¶
### Step 3: A question arises¶
¶
When two or more of those statements contradict, a question arises. Either the question can be resolved by clarifying one or both of the statements, or more likely further writing is required in order to unravel the contradiction. ¶
¶
### Step 4: Repeat!¶
¶
A beautiful cycle emerges: writings lead to statements, contradicting statements lead to questions, and questions lead to new writings. This is called the synesis[^latin] cycle.¶
¶
[^latin]: latin for understanding¶
¶
## Axiom 3¶
¶
> "Assume a modified wiki $W$ with [@0x8A0BB9 | four classes of articles]: three for the three types of context, and one for the subjects themselves. The more [@0x2A91BA | reciprocal links] an article in $W$ contains, the more understanding that article contributes to $W$ as a whole, and vice versa."¶
¶
A unique challenge of cataloging writings, statements, and questions is that there are *a lot* of them, and most are not worth thinking about. [@0x2A91BA | Reciprocal linking] is the mechanism that a synesiary uses to sift through the nonsense and raise the profile of only meaningful and original WSQs. ¶
¶
How? Every article is ranked according to a metric called [@0x66F7B7#kenscore | KenScore][^ken], which is calculated according to the number of links that the article contains. In order for link count to serve as an adequate index of quality, however, links must be relatively scarce and difficult to accumulate. This is where [@0x2A91BA | reciprocal linking] comes into play: it establishes a major disincentive to creating asymmetrical links, which in turn reduces the quantity of links that will be created but increases the quality of each link that meets this higher standard. The end result is a system wherein the more reciprocal links an article acquires--and thus the more understanding the article contains--the more visible it will become on the site. Visibility of an article refers to how often links to it show up in other articles, and how often it shows up on the front page feed.¶
¶
[^ken]:¶
Ken (n.) means understanding; as in *beyond one's ken*