Quora answer: Does Topicmarks help to read Quora answers?

Here is an experiment:

I have taken all those long answers of mine you have seen scattered about and entered them by subject into Topicmarks. Lets see if that makes them any more comprehensible to you the reader.

See http://topicmarks.com links below:

Text knode: Philosophy Quora Answers as of 20110211 http://topicmarks.com/exe?a=docu...

Text knode: Physics Quora Answers as of 20110211 http://topicmarks.com/exe?a=docu...

Text knode: Buddhism Quora Answers as of 20110211 http://topicmarks.com/exe?a=docu...

Text knode: Miscellaneous Quora Answers as of 20110211http://topicmarks.com/exe?a=docu...

Please provide your input as comments to this answer or make your own experiment separately.

roomrag's comment at the Quora discussion group at convore.com put me on to this. "I recommend you a combination of Quora and Topicmarks. Let me show you the sample.

http://rrg.me/emRSYZ "Text Knode: Technology Trends: What will be the next big thing after Facebook and Twitter? Why? - Quora?


There is also an open Quora chat channel there at https://convore.com/tech/quora/

Text knode: Buddhism Quora Answers as of 20110211 x

Text knode: Buddhism Quora Answers as of 20110211: "Once we understand that the idea of consciousness is bound up with the idea of Being and that Being is the basis of a prior projection, i.e. illusion and delusion then we can start wondering about the relation between consciousness and awareness of Existence which must be the ground of the projection mechanism of Being. So I hope this helps put into perspective the relations between awareness, consciousness, and memory as it is seen in phenomenology and how that phenomenology gives us access to understanding the nature of Buddhism as a way of getting back to Existence from the projections on it of Being. But this fact that enlightenment does not exist as something different from consciousness is precisely the bridge to the nondual of emptiness because it says ultimately that no goal exists, and everything in consciousness is empty like the goal of enlightenment, and thus enlightenment in the Buddhist sense is just this realization that just like enlightenment everything in consciousness is empty. But in general you cannot talk about one aspect without implying the other aspects at the same time because they are all co-related to each other intrinsically because they are part of both Being and Existence and are thus more fundamental than either of those standings. But that existence is not like the existence of things, because Dasein is an ecstatic projection of existence that brings the world into being."

Text knode: Miscellaneous Quora Answers as of 20110211

Text knode: Miscellaneous Quora Answers as of 20110211: "One thing I have done is to ask a question and then give my answer to that question, then leaving it to see if there are any other answers to that question. Also we could in the explanation of the questions try to explain the motivations for the question that stem from the problematic and also connect the question back to the tradition, as a starting context for answering the question. My answer is that System of Systems is merely a recursion of the System Schema and must be distinguished from the inverse dual of the System which I call the Meta-system (or Open-Scape) which is the environment, ecology, context, medium, etc. of the System, i.e. its inverse dual. Thus what is between the System and the System of Systems (Super-system) is the meta-system that allows the System to be part of the Super-system. I would like to introduce the idea of General Schemas Theory, which is the next level of abstraction up from General Systems Theory and covers other schemas besides systems such as form, pattern, domain and world."

Text knode: Philosophy Quora Answers as of 20110211

Text knode: Philosophy Quora Answers as of 20110211: "For Heidegger Being is 'No Thing' which means the same as ontological difference between Being and the ontic beings, because Being itself is no specific thing, but a generalization of all things that stands independently from the things. This is a long story, but to try to put it as concisely, when Husserl distinguished Ideas from Essences he basically inaugurated the search for the various kinds of Being because Heidegger took up this distinction and said that Dasein had two modalities of Being present-at-hand (Pure Being) and ready-to-hand (Process Being). Thus first you have Ontological difference between Being and beings, then at the first meta-level you have Pure Being which is the kind of being that Parmenides talks about. Thus he is in my opinion the true successor to Merleau-Ponty who identified Wild Being as a possibility, which is the dual and next level up from Hyper Being (the hyper dialectic between Process Being of Heidegger and Nothingness of Sartre) which Derrida called Differance and Heidegger called Being crossed out. So Deleuze's philosophy tends to be quite nihilistic, even more so than Derrida, and that is because Deleuze has gone on to the Wild Being meta-level of Being from the Hyper Being level and so there is an intensification of Being."

Text knode: Physics Quora Answers as of 20110211

Text knode: Physics Quora Answers as of 20110211: "We happen to be trapped in the third dimension and we experience time and so if we think of time linearly we can interpret it as the fourth dimension. In F theory which is twelve dimensional and is one dimension higher than M theory, there are two orthogonal timelines so we can think of the fifth dimension in terms of time as the place of the orthogonal timeline to the one we are on which would contain the multiverse if it is temporal rather than spatial. The most interesting dimension beyond what is schematizable is the twelfth dimension where F theory appears beyond M theory, where there are two orthogonal time lines. My General Schemas Theory proposes a relation between schemas and dimensions such that there are two schemas per dimension and two dimensions per schema. Seems in the fourteenth dimension there are three orthogonal time lines, and I have not found reference to it but I am betting that there are four orthogonal time lines in the sixteenth dimension."

recent finds

TrailMeme: http://www.trailmeme.com/ Way to blaze a trail through the Web

Blekko: http://blekko.com/ Great new search engine with slashes

Storify: http://storify.com/ need invite Looks interesting

Gravatar: http://en.gravatar.com Provides identity through the icon that one chooses.

BridgeURL http://bridgeurl.com/ Provides a way to combine URLs into a short link

Three Words: http://threewords.me/ Strange way to get feedback

Robo.to http://robo.to

Beginning on Quora

I have been using Quora for about a week now. So I thought I would record my impressions here. First I like the lay out and the usability of the site a lot. It seems to answer to the need to have well formulated questions that might appear in Google searches. And one would get a variety of answers to that question that seem to me would be pretty high quality from what I have seen.

What I don't like are the questions. I tried to explain in some of my posts that questions have to be motivated by a problematic, and they have to be seen in relation to the cutting edge of the tradition, and they have to be seen to exemplify a perspective. Thus if you get questions out of the blue then there is no way to know how to interpet them. And so this is the biggest weakness of Quora, they do not connect to problematics, and there is no place to put background information. So I tend to write much longer posts than most do because I try to supply some of this missing information to make the answer meaningful by trying to give some context in my answers.

So far my interaction with the community there has been very positive.