defo need to refine this idea - very convoluted explanation.
TM was just writing some notes on B - The Silk Roads and noticed TM’s use of its ad hoc generated acronym, SR, for referencing things discussed in the book, as opposed to the more common practice of using author surname. E.g., TM says “SR talks about…” instead of “Frankopan talks about…”
This is perhaps, in general, a better approach to referencing thoughts than solely using author name. Though, TM recognises that in many referencing systems, name is coupled with e.g. date, to form a unique identifier (in form of traditional citation) for a particular source (which TM generally refers to as “output”). But problem with this approach is that, for the type and extent of thought/output generation envisioned for optimal mindscaping (by which, TM means a lot of thoughts - that is, many, many outputs by any given mind, allowing for e.g. atomisation of thought), stating [author name + year] in some format is not feasible. So, each thought requires a unique identifier BUT this ID would have the be pretty long (due to aforementioned abundance of thought/output) and this would introduce friction in referencing.
Think this implies a need for distinguishing between local & global referencing. Why?
Want minds to be able to “natively” reference locally, in ways that come naturally to them, that minimise friction. For example, if a mind associates a particular word/symbol with a particular input (a source they have inputted/processed), they should be able to specify a local rule along the lines of “if I use the symbol , this should be taken as a reference to / citation of ” where is “fully specified/referenced” elsewhere - as in, the global ID for is linked with its local ID, .