To link is to thinkIts opposite (well, it's probably not an opposite, but simply another way of phrasing it) - To think is to link - seems to show up only once. The similar I link therefore I am brings up about ten results. But I'm not really in the business of designing catchy phrases. I'm more interested in trying to determine if associative linking is a "natural" process, one that imitates, perhaps stems from, the basic ways we think.
Our ineptitude in getting at the record is largely caused by the artificiality of systems of indexing. When data of any sort are placed in storage, they are filed alphabetically or numerically, and information is found (when it is) by tracing it down from subclass to subclass…
The human mind does not work that way. It operates by association.
Cliff McKnight, in his book Hypertext in Context, quotes from Jonassen (who in turn, as his text shows) derives from Bush:
For Jonassen (1990) hypertext is eminently appropriate because "hypertext mimics the associative networks of human memory", a notion derived directly from Vannevar Bush's seminal paper in 1945 and subsequently repeated (often uncritically) by many commentators.And numerous commentators quote Ted Nelson, another pioneer in hypertext who seemed incapable of bringing his ideas to fruition, but most certainly seeded others who were more able to realize the vision. Among Nelson's more frequently quoted statements we find:
Intertwingularity is not generally acknowledged - people keep pretending they can make things hierarchical, categorizable and sequential when they can't. Everything is deeply intertwingled.That intertwingularity definitely has the right ring to it. But even if this really is a natural quality of thinking, or a hard-wired method of human thought, it's a very hard act to keep up. If we're intertwingling all the time we're also going to be pretty exhausted. It's enough to make one hope for something at least a wee bit hierarchical so that we can catch our breath.