Summary: In this entry I argue that a different position in a process of research/inquiry (thought development?) probably requires a different treatment in the weblogging, klogging process. I discuss a simple model of the thinking process and how each piece of the model might be treated differently by the weblogger. Bottom line is that Radio can be used to support such differentiation. See below for details.

Model of Thinking/ Communicating Process: Let's distinguish four items, each from the other

a) the process of developing a set of thoughts from

b)communicating about that process from

c) "having" or "owning" the thought/set of thoughts (you now believe you understand it/them) from

d) communicating your the thought/set of thoughts to someone who, you feel, may not or does not have them.

In this model of the development of thinking I have differentiated what one can communicate to oneself about an a new issue/thought (e.g., a note or sketch which is meant to act as a tag or stimulus to enable recall of pieces of understanding that don't yet hold together) but not to others [it's not yet coherent ; it's practically averbal... words have interior meaning but haven't yet been socialized for understanding by others] and what one can communicate about an owned thought. The owned thought is readily socialized (i.e, socially communicable) or has actually been communicated in a social context before.

I have also differentiated the process of communicating the owned thoughts from communicating thoughts-in-development. In the former case I'm referring to the capacity to deliver the idea to a an audience of other people. I break the later in two: first, introspective communication which might be useful to oneself but which is unlikely to communicate with others [the notes and pictures I mentioned above] and , second, a specialized means of communication which draws others into ideas as you develop them.

Journals kept by authors, scientists, researchers, might take either form and serve an important function. The [OE]notes and pictures[base '] stage might occur first and the thought process explanation might be second -- articulate but still not primarily focused on the sharing of the ideas for a broad and diverse public. (For me, the communication and thinking processes are not distinct. As I work to socialize what I have come to understand I come to understand it more. Trying to view my idea as another might I find cracks between ideas that I had just believed were one; thus I am moved to provide the bridge between the two pieces. Examining the [OE]bridge[base '], itself , after construction, might have me discovering relations to ideas I already own and/or it might have me finding gaps that require further development in my understanding before I can fill them).

Developing and communicating a set of ideas in general: How about all of that in a weblog?

I will answer my question by telling you what I am starting to do. On top of my general categories (Ecology, Edsped, Evaluation, Philosophy, and Weblogging) I[base ']ve added Notes and Seeds. The first five categories are meant to provide what I see to be socialized or accessible presentations of ideas I[base ']ve worked on.These entries are not done in any final sense. Entries in these categories have been constructed for broader reading because I felt ready to do so . By that means I invite other readings, criticisms and suggestions.

The last two categories, Notes and Seeds, are thoughts in earlier stages of development. The notes category is managed by radio and is accessible by me but is not published online. My belief is that first, the notes entries are by-and-large useless for social communication, even amongst people already schooled in my five categories of development. Thus I don[base ']t publish them. I intend to work on the notes entries to get them ready for publication. But, they aren[base ']t there yet.

Entries in the Seeds are articulate enough to be accessible to interested fellow knowledge-makers. They are published. The idea is that arguments and thoughts are communicated well enough to be criticized, extended, praised or dissected. Such responses can only be helpful as I try to understand a little bit more of material in my five categories. I will work on a number of ways to communicate the special status of those entries. [base "]Get the word out[per thou] and I might have the help of those interested in the development of ideas (It[base ']s not a one-sided exchange, for I would offer the same in return; also working on my ideas may help another km[base ']er find some bricks with which to build her/his own thoughts).

Some related links:

to my own past entries working the same territory(http://radio.weblogs.com/0106698/outlines/topics/topicsk.html#knowledge-making),

linking to related work of others - Matt Mower (http://radio.weblogs.com/0107808/topics/topicsB.html#blogging), Seb Paquet (http://radio.weblogs.com/0110772/) and the group-forming group (http://www.aquameta.com/gf).