Saturday, March 18, 2017

What will historical records say about Mind Mapping?

Historical records are fascinating aren’t they? I’m not the historical type, but my wife is, and she’s the one who professionally works within the family tree arena. I kind of look at these things with a glazed look to my eyes, and it’s very evident I’m rather uninterested in historical time-lines.

But late last year my wife sat me down (yes I was coerced) and she systematically showed me the structure of my family name tree. For the first time I had a very relaxed feeling as my wife took me through the past four centuries of her detective work relating to my family name.

It was fascinating and I eventually got it. I appreciated her work and was so interested in her system of operation while she whittled out the false avenues she often went down eventually arriving at a proven source and then moving on to establish a new historical avenue to investigate. The potentials and probabilities are so captivating. It is true detective work.

And this got me thinking about historical time-lines and their significance.

I asked myself, and now you the reader: what will historical records say? Of course as always I am speaking directly about the visual mapping arena.

For the past 50 years or so we’ve been introduced to the formalizing of hand drawn Mind mapping by the one and only Tony Buzan. And of course we’ve since then witnessed and experienced an exponential expansion of the original thought, method and evolved expressions of the original methodology.

The constant though is: It’s all based on Buzan Mind mapping, no denying that at all. And I can’t help bend the knee of respect to Tony Buzan for formalizing what was named Mind mapping into a structure that has indeed changed the lives of numerous adherents to this fascinating synaptic tool.

And for those who would suggest Mind mapping has been around for millennium; well they’re right as “Historical records” do prove a form of mind mapping has been around throughout human history.

However: one man, and that is Tony Buzan formalized hand drawn Mind mapping, so there we have it.

What will the historical records say?

The works of Roy Grubb are in my opinion such an important historical record relating to all things graphical data, information and knowledge mapping. Go sift through his awesome work and soak in the information and knowledge Roy presents at his domain.

Mind mapping became Visual mapping by virtue of the inclusion of multiple graphical formats being added to the original radiant Buzan approach.

And: Visual mapping has by virtue of this digital age morphed (even evolved) into knowledge mapping. And of course it is evolving continuously along with technology.

It does seem we are at an epoch of great advancement, even to the point of the inclusion of enhanced reality and Artificial Intelligence being added to the mix that seems to be taking the original format down the rabbit hole of mind bending possibilities. What those possibilities are? We can only surmise at this time, but suffice to say it may indeed be mind bending.

So: Historical records are important, and as we are exponentially pushing forward into uncharted territory with the help of big data, AI and augmented reality systems, we must needs establish, support and enhance a true Historical record of where this arena started (or was rebooted) from. Let’s make sure we’ve got an accurate point of reference for an historical record.

What do you believe the historical records shall say about where this arena had its actual genesis and where it has been and where it’s going.

The work of Tony Buzan, Roy Grubb, John England, Chuck Frey and developers such as CS Odessa, Mindjet, iMindMap, Xmind and organizations such as Biggerplate and the product/service that underpins the digital mind evolution of this part of the 21st century TheBrain: they’re all part of this historical mosaic. There’s many other contributing knowledge architect thought leaders: see HERE.

History is indeed in reality all about where we are going, with the knowledge of where we have been; is it not?

No comments: