Codex OS (@codexeditor): Annotation exercise: every abstract entity you reference should by default be prefixed by the name of the person who used the term.

When I write Truth it becomes me/Truth.

When I quote someone on Truth, like Kant, it becomes Kant/Truth ...

If you use a non-intrusive annotation system - standoff as an example but you could also hide the prefixes inside the wikilinks - you could trace the connections between specific concepts without cluttering the text itself ...

What you would achieve is a loosening of the tight coupling between word & idea, between signifier & signified.

The dictionary is a slice of definitions across public contexts.

We need personalised dictionaries, which link word-instances to word-types through a graph ...

Philosophers often associate erudite concepts with everyday language; or two philosophers what seem to be the same words but which have different meanings.

We could start to approach the I. A. Richards ideal of multiple-definition & the disambiguation of abstract thought.

If the system supports overlapping annotations then multiple users could offer their own interpretations without obliterating another's.

Does overlap sound like overkill here?

Should my definition of Truth override yours? Or vice versa? We need to preserve all interpretations!

Margaret Warren (@ImageSnippets): @codexeditor I love this idea. It sounds dense in a UI kind of way, but it's also something @jerrymichalski was essentially saying just last week.