Sign in Subscribe

The Two-Week RR Project on Theme: A Record of What Happened

Last updated on 

by Oliver Ding

November 5, 2026

This article is part of a collection: The Spatial Heuristic Sprint.

This document records the two-week Revisiting-and-Rebuilding (RR) project on theme, from October 15 to 31, 2026. It tells what happened, in the order in which it happened, with the dates, the texts, and the articles that came out of it. It does not apply an analytical framework. Other essays in this collection will read the same material through different models.

Part 1: A Simple Narrative


The book Developmental Theme already gives an account of the project in its Introduction. That account is a retrospective summary, and it is the simplest version of the story. Its Part 2 begins:

The project began with a straightforward plan. Having just completed the Developmental Strategy manuscript on October 14, 2026, I wanted to apply the same meta-frameworks to the theme of "theme" itself, and integrate the results into Cognitive Hydrology, upgrading it to v2.0. The first three articles carried the prefix "Cognitive Hydrology" in their titles.

But the third article exposed a paradox. Thematic Engagement had hosted a rich theoretical enterprise, yet it had never been elevated to the level of a formal concept. This paradox changed the project. The question was no longer "how do we integrate these findings into Cognitive Hydrology?" It became "why did Thematic Engagement never become a concept, and what would it take to rebuild it as one?"

From there, the project unfolded in a series of moves that were not planned in advance.

The book then describes the project as eight steps, which it calls a movement from local to global:

  1. I revisited the Flow-Story-Model framework and other related models, developed a brand new structure: the Experience-Narrative-Framework-Ecology (ENFE) schema.
  2. I combined the ENFE schema with the 4M (Milieu-Mediator-Method-Mastery) schema. Using the "Weave 16" meta-diagram, I developed the Weave-the-Theme Framework (v1.0), and then used this new grid to curate years of scattered thematic outputs.
  3. I zoomed out using the broader Weave-the-Theory model to organize my theoretical outputs according to its four weave-points, which resulted in the Landscape of Thematic Engagement diagram.
  4. Focusing on the Curativity line of this landscape, I revisited my earlier work and proposed four concepts corresponding to four principles, anchoring the Weave-the-Theme Framework as Thematic Cognition.
  5. I organized these four concepts according to Ecological Formism into four distinct layers, officially completing the Thematic Engagement Toolkit (v2.0).
  6. I stepped back from pure theory, applying the Creative Life Curation method to my own past to identify 15 Creative Journeys and conduct a detailed narrative and analysis of each.
  7. I brought these findings back to the GO Theory platform, comparing them with the Developmental Strategy, ACS, and SDP manuscripts, which led to the naming of a new knowledge ecology: Developmental Theme.
  8. Finally, from the vantage point of the platform, I formulated the Genesis of the Concept System, positioning this entire RR project as a developmental Episode within the evolution of GO Theory.

The book adds that these steps "seem perfectly interlocking, as if they were mapped out in advance. But the truth is far less linear. I did not start with a master blueprint." It calls the process "a journey guided by spatial heuristics."

This account is a simplification, and the simplification was a decision made during the editing of the book. It keeps the structure I came to see in the work, and it compresses the work into one line of eight steps and one direction. The record shows more. Several threads ran at the same time, some plans were set aside, some outcomes were not planned, and some days produced nothing that was published.

Part 2: How This Record Was Made


2.1 Original sources


The record draws on every document the project left behind. These include the chat records with Claude and DeepSeek; the private documents that Claude saved; my private notes in Coda, where I kept a running page for the project and a separate page for each day's thinking; the articles published on the Activity Analysis Center website; the diagrams drawn on Miro; printed diagrams; screenshots of pages and figures; paper sketches on A4 sheets; and the notes in my paper notebook. Some moves are documented in only one of these places. The Miro diagrams, for example, show the state of a structure at a given hour, but not the reasons for the changes. Those reasons are in the chat records.

2.2 Timestamps


I went through the chat records and read their timestamps. A message sent at 9:05 in the morning, a note saved at 9:47 in the evening, and a published article dated the same day are three different kinds of trace, and the record keeps them apart. Where Claude saved a private document, I located its exact time from the conversation and placed it in the sequence of the project. Where a note in Coda was written, I used the time it was written, not the time I later revised it. The narrative follows this sequence, so that each move can be seen before and after the moves around it.

2.3 Sessions


The five parts of the work are called sessions. Each session is a block of concentrated work made of several conversations, articles and notes, and its date range may overlap with the next. The word needed a choice. "Phase" and "stage" imply a linear sequence with clear boundaries, which the record does not show. "Period" suggests a longer stretch of time than two or three days. "Session" describes a unit of work that is held together by one thread of ideas and that can be read on its own.

The choice also raises a question for the Project Engagement approach. The Developmental Project Model describes a project through its purpose, object, action, theme and identity, and it describes a project network above the level of single projects. It has no name for the unit in between: a run of actions, lasting two or three days, inside one project, with its own thread of ideas and its own outcomes. A two-week project that branches into several threads needs such a unit, and the model does not yet give one. The term session is offered for this unit. It should be tested against the other cases of this collection before it is used as a general term.

2.4 Session summaries

  • Session 1 (October16–19). The question was the Curativity of Mind model, which needed a new name and a clearer account of its diagram and sidebars. A distinction between t and S-T-O emerged, and the model was found to concern t alone. The first schema was fixed in an article on October 19.
  • Session 2 (October 19–24). The ideas moved from the schema to two frameworks: the Weave-the-Theme framework and the Thematic Engagement Toolkit. The Landscape diagram was drawn on October 23. The three articles of this session all carried the "Cognitive Hydrology" prefix.
  • Session 3 (October 24–26). The writing plan of October 20 gave way. The typology became a curation of earlier attempts, and the six faces of the concept system were brought into it.
  • Session 4 (October 27–29). The fifteen creative journeys were curated. Part A, Part B and Four Views were published, and the term Developmental Theme first appeared.
  • Session 5 (October 29–31). The ideas were gathered into the book, and Cognitive Hydrology was placed within the new ecology as one of its programs.

Part 3: Session 1 (October 16–19)


3.1 The question, on the morning of October 16

I wrote to Claude at 6:57 on the morning of October 16. The message was a description of where I stood. A year earlier I had written the article Weave the Mind. Two days before, I had finished editing the Developmental Strategy collection, which had also expanded the Weave the Strategy framework into a toolkit. Going back to Weave the Mind, I found that my attention had moved away from its diagrams. The diagrams rested on earlier models, and the one that carried the most weight was the Curativity of Mind model, version 3.0. I wrote that this model was already a toolkit in its own right, and that I wanted to reflect on it within the GO Theory platform.

Source: Chat with Claude, October 16, 2026, 6:57 am.

This is the Weave the Mind article I wrote a year ago. Two days ago I finished editing the collection Developmental Strategy, which also expanded the Weave the Strategy framework into a toolkit. That framework was originally one of the diagrams of the Weave the Mind series.

Today I went back to Weave the Mind, and my attention fell on its original narrative sections, that is, the earlier knowledge models from which its diagrams were built, such as the Curativity of Mind model v3.0. It is already a toolkit in its own right.

My present thinking is to reflect on the Curativity of Mind model v3.0 within the GO Theory platform.

Several tasks:

Name. The name "the Curativity of Mind model v3.0" needs to change. In December 2025 I edited a book titled The Curativity of Mind: Mental Moves, Mental Curation, and Mental Platform, so this model can no longer be named with the words "the Curativity of Mind."

Content. I want to understand what this model is essentially about, especially how its main diagram relates to the elements of its sidebars.

Context. In the new background of the GO Theory platform, how should the model be revisited? For example, how should its sidebars now be read?

The message set three tasks. The first was the name. The title "Curativity of Mind" could no longer be used for this model, because in December 2025 I had edited a book with exactly that title, The Curativity of Mind: Mental Moves, Mental Curation, and Mental Platform. The second task was content. I wanted to understand what the model was essentially about, and in particular how its main diagram related to its sidebars. The third was context. In the new background of the GO Theory platform, how should the model be revisited? How should its sidebars be read now?

Over the next two days, the discussion moved through these three tasks in many rounds. I did not have a settled answer at the start. I had a set of questions that had been left open for a year, and a platform that had grown while the model stood still.

3.2 Four insights, over two days


The record shows four insights that came out of those rounds, and they are worth setting down in the order in which they appeared.

  • The first was that the early form of the model, the Flow-Story-Model framework of 2022, could be the starting point for a new four-layer model, rather than a historical footnote.
  • The second was that a four-layer structure could be organized by the structure of Ecological Formism, which I had been developing for the platform.
  • The third was that the model could be related to the S-T-O principle, and that this relation produced the idea of a T-only model, in which T and S-T-O sat at different levels.
  • The fourth was that Cognitive Hydrology 1.0 could be reviewed, a version 2.0 conceived, and the T-only model included in it.

The third insight changed the work most, and it came from a comparison that I made in the open. I put the model and S-T-O side by side, and I saw what was missing. The O of S-T-O is objectification, the moment when a theme becomes an artifact that others can see. The model did not consider this O at all. Nor was the model founded on the relation between inside and outside. Its flow was about experience, but its footing was elsewhere.

3.3 The morning of October 17


The discussion of October 16 had ended late, and the next morning I started by summarizing it. At 9:05 I wrote the comparison between S-T-O and the model in the form I still use. The main diagram with four thematic spaces, I wrote, gave one invariant for the model, and that invariant did not include objectification. At 9:08 I went further and proposed a composition: if the creative life square were placed beside the T-only model, the two could form a structure in the sense of Ecological Formism. The T-only model would be the invariant, with four thematic spaces. S-T-O together with the creative life square would be the constant, covering the concrete situations.

9:05 am. This diagram was designed according to the S-T-O principle, and its details were developed by the 8x8 method of GO Square. So the model we discussed today also has a core principle: the main diagram with four thematic spaces gives one invariant. It differs from S-T-O in this way. The o of S-T-O is objectification, and the main diagram, or the whole model, does not consider this o. Nor is it about s: although its flow concerns experience, the whole model does not stand on the relation between inside and outside.
9:08 am. So if we put the creative life square and the T-only model discussed today side by side, we can construct a composition in the sense of Ecological Formism. Invariant: T-only model, four thematic spaces. Constant: S-T-O and the creative life square, covering various concrete situations.
9:11 am. Answering this new construction: we are still missing the quasi-invariant layer.
9:12 am. Oh, the ones you named are cases, not yet models at the variable level. You should review the variables of the World of Activity v2.0, which are not concrete cases.
9:13 am. Oh, I see. S-T-O is in fact the quasi-invariant layer. It gives t its s and o.
9:15 am. The creative life square is S-T-O, and it sits at the quasi-invariant layer. So the 64 weave-points are 64 quasi-invariant models. Within the variable layer, they will evolve into more concrete operations of creative cognition.

At 9:11 I noticed that the composition was missing a layer. There was an invariant and there was a constant, but nothing between them. I wrote, in effect, that the quasi-invariant layer was still missing. Claude had offered concrete cases for the variable level, and at 9:12 I corrected that: the variable level should belong to the World of Activity version 2.0, and cases were instances of it, not members of it. At 9:13 I wrote the conclusion that the composition had been waiting for. S-T-O was the quasi-invariant layer, because it gives t its s and its o. At 9:15 the consequence followed. The creative life square was S-T-O, it sat at the quasi-invariant level, and its sixty-four weave-points were sixty-four quasi-invariant models. The variable layer would develop the more concrete operations of creative cognition inside each of them.

The layer structure was not finished that morning, and the record shows the corrections that followed. In the afternoon I wrote that the invariant and the constant were the same layer under two names, and that the naming differed only in wording. In the evening I still had to decide how the four layers related to the three layers of the World of Activity. The structure as it stood on October 17 had three named levels, and it would take another round before it had four.

3.4 The name of the model


The name was settled on October 19, but its reasoning belongs to these two days. I wrote that the model was called the t-only model because it corresponds to t in the S-T-O principle. The name was therefore a stance, not a new model. It meant that the model concerned t and nothing else, while S and O belonged to another layer. Put differently, the name recorded the separation that the comparison of October 17 had made.

Source: Chat with Claude, October 19, 2026 (supplementary note).

Why is it called the t-only model? Because it corresponds to t in the S-T-O principle.

3.5 The private note and the ten stages


At 9:37 on the morning of October 17, I saved a private document, Cognitive Hydrology Model: Discussion Record (2026-10-15 to 10-17), as a note that gathers the discussion of the three days into ten stages. The ten stages run from the starting point through the versions and sidebars, the concept dynamics, the narrowing of scope, the GO Theory map, the scales and layers, the four layers of the diagram, the multiple dimensions, the limits and boundaries, and finally a closing toolbox. The note is a summary that I wrote while the discussion was still fresh, and it preserves more of the sequence than my memory would have.

3.6 October 18: a longer account


On October 18, I wrote a longer article, Spatial Heuristics: From Broad to Narrow, which runs from 7:37 in the morning until 3:11 in the afternoon. It records the discussion of October 16 and 17 in detail. The article is kept in its original form in this collection, without revision. It is organized as four moves. The first move was from broad to narrow: the development of tacit knowledge was limited to the path from theme to concept to framework. The second was detach and attach: the narrow version, which I then called the t-only model, was taken out of the original model and attached to Cognitive Hydrology, and it had to be checked against what was already there, to see what was new and what was old. The third was seeing the local from the global: the meta-frameworks of the platform were used to examine the first two moves, and their results were arranged as a three-layer toolkit. The fourth was expanding from local to global: Cognitive Hydrology was placed on the HLS map again. Earlier I had confined it to the Symbolic Universe, because at that time it had to be distinguished from four other enterprises. Now it could be considered alone, and it extended across the four aspects of the map.

The article also records a by-product. I gave names to the four dimensions of the HLS map, which I wrote as experience, relevance, cognition, and language. I noted that the four dimensions were only one way of understanding the four regions, because the regions were themselves multidimensional. From this by-product came a further insight: the several dimensions of the four thematic areas of the Knowledge Discovery Canvas could be arranged in the same way. This was a question I had carried since 2023, when I first set out those dimensions by intuition in the project on the concept of mindset, and I had never found a way to formalize them.

3.7 October 19: the first article

The morning of October 19 began with a new positioning. At 5:40 am I wrote that I had thought of defining Cognitive Hydrology 2.0 as "the ecological approach to thematic cognition," and I asked how this differed from the description of version 1.0, which had been "thematic development and concept creation." Later that morning I began reading the original documents, starting with the article on the Flow-Story-Model framework, and I wrote that the curation was continuing and would continue in every round. At 4:34 in the afternoon I named the schema of the t-model and tested it, and I wrote an introductory article on it.

Source: Chat with Claude, October 19, 2026, 5:40 am.

Yesterday I thought of positioning Cognitive Hydrology v2.0 this way: "Cognitive Hydrology: the ecological approach to thematic cognition." How does this differ from the Thematic Development and Concept Creation of v1.0?

The article was revised during the day and published that evening, under the title Cognitive Hydrology: The Experience-Narrative-Framework-Ecology Schema. It was the first article of the series, and it marked the move from discussion to writing. The documents of this stage are the discussion record of October 15 to 17, the Spatial Heuristics draft of October 18, and a diagram that I drew on Miro, The Four Aspects of Cognitive Hydrology.

Part 4: Session 2 (October 19–24)


The second session began on the same day as the first ended, so the two overlap on October 19. In the evening, after the article had gone out, I was already thinking about how the schema would support a framework. The discussion moved from naming to architecture.

4.1 October 20: the outline


The discussion continued in the morning, and I finalized the outline of the second article at 7:45 am. Its title was Weave-the-Theme Framework: A 4x4 T-only Model and Its Four-Layer Construction. The title named two things at once: the 4x4 model that the second article would present, and the four-layer construction that the third article would develop. The outline also listed the series I expected to write. It named the Experience-Narrative-Framework-Ecology schema as finished, the Weave-the-Theme framework as the present outline, an article on the four aspects of Cognitive Hydrology on the HLS map, an article on its place in cognitive science, and an optional reflection on the pedagogy of version 2.0.

Source: Coda note on the outline, October 20, 2026, 7:45 am.

At the end of the outline, the series of articles planned at the early stage was listed:Experience-Narrative-Framework-Ecology schema (completed)Weave-the-Theme Framework (this outline)The four aspects of Cognitive Hydrology on the HLS map (a separate article)Cognitive Hydrology: Thematic Cognition in Context (its place in cognitive science, and its relation to the other theoretical enterprises and to earlier projects)A reflection and commentary on the pedagogy of Cognitive Hydrology v2.0 (optional)
These four or five articles can form a new collection, and the articles of version 1.0 can be included as well.

4.2 October 20: the framework and the diagram

The second article was written on October 20. It drew on the Weave 16 diagram that the book Weave the Life had used, and it combined the ENFE schema with the Milieu-Mediator-Method-Mastery schema to make a 4x4 model. Once the model was built, I reviewed years of work on theme and chose a set of creative outcomes to place in the sixteen weave-points. The model gave sixteen thematic spaces, and each space could hold several outcomes, so it is an open map rather than a classification.

The making of the diagram had several steps. I first drew the grid by hand on an A4 sheet and wrote notes on each of the sixteen weave-points, with an example in mind for each. Then I drew the formal diagram on Miro, and while drawing I changed some of the examples, because some of them did not fit the points they had been assigned to. While writing the article, I went back to many earlier articles to collect the original accounts of the outcomes I placed in the grid. The diagram and the text changed each other, and neither was finished until the other was.

The article was published as version 1.0 on October 20, under the title Cognitive Hydrology: The Weave-the-Theme Framework.

4.3 October 22: version 1.1 and the third article

Version 1.1 of the second article was published on October 22, with 13,261 words. The revision was mostly a matter of putting the examples and the explanations in order.

On the same day I began a third article, Revisiting and Rebuilding the Thematic Engagement Toolkit. It was not in the original plan. Although the four-layer structure had come out of the exploration, I wrote this article as a curation within the Weave-the-Theory framework, using four of its weave-points. The four-layer structure was placed on the principles and the concepts, and at the same time I curated the models and themes. That day I also raised a question that looked like a contradiction. The three principles of the exploration, T-only, S-T-O and themes of practice, appeared to conflict with the Weave-the-Theme framework, which started from t alone. The answer, which I wrote in the chat, was that the article used the four-layer structure of Ecological Formism in a particular way: each layer distinguished between a principle and a model, and a model was the unfolding of its principle. With that distinction, the three principles did not conflict with the framework. The framework began from t, S-T-O added s and o to make thematic activity, and thematic activity needed a real situation, which gave the thematic situation. The three principles extended one another. They also produced some repeated content, because each extension carried part of the one before it.

Source: Chat with Claude, October 22, 2026.

The conflict you mentioned is not really a conflict. Why? The article written today uses Ecological Formism in a particular way: at each level it distinguishes between principle and model. That is, a model is the unfolding of its principle. So the structure of the three principles in this article does not conflict with the Weave-the-Theme framework. The Weave-the-Theme framework starts from a single principle, T-only, or thematic cognition. S-T-O adds s and o to it, which constitutes thematic activity. Finally, thematic activity has to take place in a real situation, which brings out thematic situation. These three principles extend one another step by step, in accordance with the principles of Ecological Formism. The models that the extension brings out will naturally contain much that repeats.

4.4 October 23: publication, the landscape, and the count of five

I published the third article on October 23, under the title Revisiting and Rebuilding the Thematic Engagement Toolkit. The same day I drew the Landscape of Thematic Engagement, based on the four weave-points of the Weave-the-Theory model. The upper half holds the principles and the concepts, on the Curativity line. The lower half holds the models and the themes, on the Creativity line. The four principles are placed against the four concepts, and under the theme weave-point I placed examples of the kinds of theme that appear there.

At 10:06 that evening I revised the toolkit article again. At 10:11 I wrote that three articles were done and the core of the RR work was finished, with two supporting articles still to write: one on the level of the GO Theory platform, and one on the place of cognitive science. At 10:12 I wrote that the three articles, taken together, were a movement from the local to the whole. At 10:13 I went further: five articles would be five scales, and perhaps this was what a knowledge ecology looks like at several scales. I noted that the order of writing matched this scale structure. Claude replied at 10:24 by giving each scale its article: the thematic schema, the framework, the toolkit, the theoretical platform, and the academic domain. At 10:25 I answered that these terms were hard core, and that the toolkit did not need to be understood as something more abstract. It was simply several frameworks together.

Source: Coda note, October 23, 2026, evening.

On the evening of October 23 the discussion continued. Following the series of articles conceived on October 20, I began to think about the next article, which would discuss the position of Cognitive Hydrology on the GO Theory platform. That article was originally the third, and it has now become the fourth.

We now have three articles. The first (the ENFE schema) and the second (the Weave-the-Theme Framework) have been published. The third is Revisiting and Rebuilding the Thematic Engagement Toolkit. The fourth is the one that discusses the position of Cognitive Hydrology on the GO Theory platform.

The fourth article had two purposes: to formally announce Cognitive Hydrology v2.0, and to discuss the position of v2.0 on the GO Theory platform.

On October 24, I began to write the fourth article, and at that point the turn began.

4.5 October 24: the plan begins to change

On October 24, the writing plan set on October 20 began to change. The plan had been to continue the series of Cognitive Hydrology articles. The Toolkit had taken the place of some of the articles I had planned, and the work moved toward the concept of Thematic Engagement and its landscape. The change was not decided once. It appeared in the work, and it was confirmed in the articles that followed.

Part 5: Session 3 (October 24–26)


The movement that began on October 24 became clear on October 25. I started a new article in the morning, Weave the Theory: A Typology of Theme and Beyond. At first it carried the title "a typology," and I meant to develop a new typology. During the writing the aim changed. I changed the title to "the typology," and the article became an attempt to curate the typologies I had built in earlier projects. I also wanted the new typology to connect with the concept system of the GO Theory platform, so that it would belong to that system and not stand outside it.

That morning I proposed building a typology of theme on the six faces of the concept system. The platform already had the six faces, as a map of concept systems in their social context, but it did not say how concept systems came to be. A typology of themes could answer that question, because every concept system originates from a thematic network.

The article then took on a second aim. The four directions that the curation brought out matched the four concepts of the Toolkit. I had not planned this, and I recorded it as an unplanned confirmation of the layers.

Source: Chat with Claude, October 25, 2026, 8:00 am.

Should the typology be developed on the basis of the six faces of the concept system, and then should the current entries be placed there? Reason: it should be developed from the GO Theory platform. This RR of the Thematic Engagement Toolkit is in fact providing a more basic generative scheme for the concept system of the GO Theory platform. Originally it was only said that the platform has six faces, but it was never said how the concept system comes into being. Its process of generation is in fact thematic engagement.

Later on October 25, I decided that the part of the article on themes and projects should become a separate article. The part had been meant to list the terms that belonged to the practice of theme, but the terms were tied to specific projects, and a list of them would not help a reader. That decision was the origin of When Themes of Practice Meet Project Engagement.

Source: Chat with Claude, October 25, 2026, 6:34 pm.

This insight is in fact the verification of the Developmental Project Model itself, whose two core elements are theme and identity. The terms I reviewed just now, the situational themes, are indeed bound to specific projects; they become meaningful only when one enters the context of those projects. My research on themes over the years has in fact been spread across several projects, and was not built as a theoretical system from the top down from the beginning. So these terms have developed roughly around particular projects.

The typology was published on October 26, with a final length of 5,775 words. That evening, at 6:30, I wrote a private note that changed the direction of the work. It recorded that the previous two days had shown three steps for Cognitive Hydrology 2.0: first the RR of Thematic Engagement, then the RR of Cognitive Hydrology 1.0, and finally a merging of the two. It also recorded a shift. Instead of editing a book on Cognitive Hydrology 2.0, I would edit a collection on Weave the Theme, in the same format as Weave the Life and Weave the Theory, so that the new work would join the Weave knowledge system.

Source: Coda note, October 26, 2026, 6:30 pm.

Today I changed the original plan of editing Cognitive Hydrology v2.0, and instead I will edit a collection on Weave the Theme. The progress and discussions of the previous two days show that the work on Cognitive Hydrology v2.0 actually needs three steps: first the RR of thematic engagement; then the RR of the Cognitive Hydrology 1.0 part; and finally merging the two.

Yesterday I continued with the Weave the Theory part and expanded the themes weave-point into an independent article. I had intended one article; today it became two: one on the typology, and another on the model-theme line. This way the RR series is complete, and a new book can be edited from it.

The new idea I proposed was to name the collection Weave the Theme. This name keeps the same format as the earlier books Weave the Life and Weave the Theory. It also corresponds to the two outcomes of this work: the Weave-the-Theme framework v1.0, built on the Weave 16 diagram, and the Thematic Engagement Toolkit v2.0, built on the Weave-the-Theory framework. Naming it in the Weave series is therefore natural, and it adds a new member to the Weave knowledge system.

However, the final book was titled Developmental Theme, with Weave the Theme moved to the subtitle. That adjustment brought the knowledge ecology of theme to the front, rather than the method of the Weave knowledge system.

On the same day I wrote The Art of Alignment. It examines the correspondence between the zones of the 2023 diagram and the four layers. The correspondence held in this case as a one-to-one reading, but the two spatial grammars differed. The diagram was adjacent and synchronic, while the layers were nested and diachronic, so the alignment was a coincidence at the level of the case, and the article had to say so. I asked Claude to revise the article that evening, and it was published at night.

Part 6: Session 4 (October 27–29)


6.1 October 27: the handover

On the morning of October 27, I began a new article, the last of the RR series. Its title was Weave the Theme: When Themes of Practice Meet Project Engagement. The conversation had grown too long to support the work, so I asked Claude to write a handover document for a new chat. The handover was to continue the landscape of the theme weave-point, and to rest on the postscript of the typology article. The argument was that the theme-model line, which the Weave-the-Theory model calls the Creativity line, could be read as the operation of the principle of Themes of Practice. Many projects of past years had produced models and themes, and the new article would treat them as material for a meta-reflection on the relation between themes and models. It would also establish the relation between thematic engagement and project engagement, since the basic model of project engagement is the Developmental Project Model, whose core elements are theme and identity.

Source: Chat with Claude, October 27, 2026, 7:38 am.

Good, let us continue this writing task. Write a handover document, focusing on the following. The next article is the last of the Revisiting-and-Rebuilding thematic engagement series, and its title is: Weave the Theme: When Themes of Practice Meet Project Engagement.

It continues around the "theme" weave-point of the landscape diagram of thematic engagement. The examples given by the diagram were already explained in yesterday's typology article. But the thematic space that this weave-point points to can hold a very large number of explorations of themes over many years.

The postscript of the typology article also explains the direction of the new article: understand the theme-model line, that is, the Creativity line of the Weave-the-Theory model, as the operation of the principle of Themes of Practice. Over many years I have done a great deal on themes, much of it in the form of projects. The outcomes of these matters and projects, presented as models and themes, lie on the Creativity line. This is the main narrative line of the article.

But the article is not merely narrative. It connects the principle of Themes of Practice with the Weave-the-Theory model. It is a meta-level reflection, because we use the creative process of themes as material to discuss the relation between theme and model.

In addition, the basic model of the project engagement theoretical orientation is the Developmental Project Model, whose core elements are theme and identity. So the purpose of this article is also to establish the relation between thematic engagement and project engagement.

At 9:47 that evening I wrote in my Coda notes that I would study each journey by the Creative Life Curation method. A journey would be named "the xxxx journey" after the theme it carried, and four or more projects would make a journey. The note observed that the theme of one project could be chosen in different ways, depending on whether one was looking at the project or at the journey. Sometimes the theme of a project within a journey was not its main theme when read alone, yet it was the theme that mattered to the journey. I called this the main-side pattern of a dramatic life.

Source: Coda note, October 27, 2026, 9:47 pm.

This is my new note. I plan to study each journey by the method of creative life curation: each journey is named uniformly as "the xxxx journey." According to the setting of creative life curation, a creative journey consists of four or more projects. Each journey can yield one theme, and the journey is named by that theme.

A project, according to the Developmental Project Model, also has the element theme. But for the purposes of research, how one chooses the theme of a project is subtle. The analysis at the journey level and at the project level differ in how they choose themes. Sometimes a member project of a journey, read alone, does not have the main theme, but for the analysis of the journey it may be the important theme. I call this the "main-side" dramatic life pattern.

At 11:55 that morning I had already identified eleven journeys. Each was named "Theme and X," with the theme paired with curation, interpersonal communication, activity, subjectivity, adult development, cognition, creative life, discovery, enterprise, diagram, and strategy. The structure itself seemed to be the skeleton of the article: the same theme, examined in eleven directions.

6.2 October 27: fifteen journeys and their context

In the afternoon the journeys reached fifteen. They covered several years and many projects, so I needed a way to tell them as one meaningful whole. I used a container-network-platform model to think about the context, which the stories themselves did not contain. I wrote the context as three periods.

  • From 2019 to 2020 the CALL, the Creative Action Learning Lab, was the container. It had started as a publication on Medium, became a place for creative action, and then applied Curativity theory to knowledge curation in the Activity U project, which ran from 2020 to 2022.
  • From 2020 to 2025 I developed from CALL a set of knowledge centers, each responsible for one or two theoretical enterprises. They were independent, but they carried on a creative dialogue, and together they formed a network I called the Value Circle.
  • From 2025 to 2026, after the generative confluence of June to December 2025, I developed the GO Theory platform, then stood beside the three earlier enterprises. TALE, the thematic analysis learning engagement center set up in early 2023, was one link in the development of the Value Circle.

I then grouped the fifteen journeys into three periods: the container period (CALL, 2019–2020), the network period (the knowledge centers of the Value Circle, 2020–2025), and the platform period (GO Theory, 2025–2026). In the table of contents of the article the grouping later appeared as sections on the container stage, the network stage, the ecological practice thread, the life as activity thread, the creative life theory thread, the TALE thread, and the latest stage of the platform.

6.3 October 28: the test of a stranger

On October 28, I wrote a note about the day before. I had reviewed the fifteen journeys against two frameworks and found that subjectivity was hidden in them. Looking at a third framework, I saw that it could lead to a theme that would frame a new book, and the theme was Developmental Theme. The note also recorded a test. If a stranger read the fifteen journeys, what would they ask? I wrote three questions. What is the mother theme of these creative journeys? Over these years the experiences have changed many times; is there a pattern in how they changed? What is the overall understanding the journeys have produced, and what does each journey contribute to it?

Source: Coda note, October 28, 2026.

Yesterday I organized fifteen creative journeys about theme. When I later compared them against two frameworks, I found that subjectivity was in fact hidden in them. Comparing them against a third framework, I could lead to the theme of developmental theme, and edit a new book.

Today's approach: if a stranger read these fifteen creative journeys, what three questions would they ask?

- What is the primary theme after so many creative journeys?
- Over these years the experiences have changed back and forth. Overall, is there a pattern?
- What is the present overall understanding, and how does each journey contribute to it?

Thinking about these questions finally leads to five lenses for reflecting on the fifteen creative journeys: the Developmental Functionalism Lens, the Master Theme Lens, the Evolving Concept System Lens, the Developmental Episode Lens, and the Self-referential Activity Lens.

The three questions led to five lenses for reflecting on the fifteen journeys:

  • the Developmental Functionalism Lens,
  • the Master Theme Lens,
  • the Evolving Concept System Lens,
  • the Developmental Episode Lens,
  • the Self-referential Activity Lens.

The record shows that the lens later named the Platform Ecology Lens was first called the Developmental Episode Lens, and the name changed as the article was written. The concept of Developmental Theme also gave the new book an idea that could carry it. I weighed two candidate titles, Weave the Theme and Developmental Theme, and chose the second, because it named the knowledge ecology more directly than the method did.

6.4 October 29: the case set and the printed leeway

At 4:00 in the afternoon of October 29 I began to think about a collection of cases on developmental theme. A printed diagram of the Leeway model lay on my desk, and it reminded me that some cases were like Leeway: they named an object that was not a theme in the usual sense. In Coda I wrote a note with four categories, and for each category I gave three cases: theoretical concepts, framework names, situational themes, and book names. The set was made before the structure of the whole book was settled. It could stand as a part of the book, and it became the material of the last part, Following the Theme. It could be completed without the whole structure.

Source: Coda note, 29 October 2026, 4:00 pm.

Following the theme: a collection of cases. In this note, following the categories below, each category gives three cases. Later these form one part of the final book.

Categories: theoretical concepts; framework names; situational themes; book names.

Part B was published on October 29, together with Four Views of Knowledge Ecology. The term Developmental Theme appeared in section 3.1 of Part B, where I wrote that after reviewing the fifteen journeys I needed a new term to frame my explorations over the years.

Part 7: Session 5 (October 29–31)


7.1 October 30: the start of the book

The new book was edited from 6:46 in the morning of October 30. At 6:55 I sent Claude a message with the title, Developmental Theme: The Weave-the-Theme Framework and Thematic Engagement, and four empty parts. The message asked two questions. The first was about the cover. I had chosen an image of water droplets on a window, with round patches of blurred light behind them. I had not searched for a keyword. I browsed the home page and found it. The water matched my habit of thinking about flow, river, lake and sea, and it seemed to fit the genesis of the concept system, in which a small unit is the first thing the eye sees. Claude replied that the image fitted the book: clear droplets in front and blurred circles behind made the same picture as a flow of thought that cuts out a focus, so that attention falls on one point and the rest recedes. The image corresponded to genesis, and also to Thematic Focus.

Source: Chat with Claude, October 30, 2026, 6:55 am.

New book title: Developmental Theme: The Weave-the-Theme Framework and Thematic Engagement. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4 (titles to follow).

Two questions.The cover image: I chose one, is it suitable? It is water droplets, with circular colour blocks behind them. This matches my intuition exactly: I have always used water images, flow, river, lake, sea. This time it is water droplets, the very small unit, which matches my idea of the genesis of the concept system.While thinking about the structure of the book, I noticed that the RR project seems to have a pattern similar to the 2025 "path of creative life in a trip." Could this past-present-future structure be used to plan the new book?

The second question was about structure. In July I had found that my 2025 journey through Fuzhou had followed the Path of Creative Life model. I now asked whether the RR project had a similar rhythm, from past to present to future. Claude answered that it did. The project looked back at the earlier thinking on Thematic Engagement, the plan was interrupted by the paradox, the existing frameworks were used to test the new concept, the naming of Developmental Theme came as improvisation, and the work finally turned to the future. Claude proposed four parts: Reviewing the Past, Serendipitous Emergence, Exploitation and Exploration, and Orienting to the Future. It also named two costs. The articles would be grouped by function rather than by time, so that the Typology and the Weave-the-Theme framework might fall into different parts. And the Introduction would have to be cut down, because its sections overlapped with the new parts.

Between the morning and midday I created a post on my website and wrote the structure of the book in it, with a summary of each part and a selection of articles for each chapter. By 2:14 in the afternoon every part was complete except the articles of Part 4. The table of contents then had four parts. Part 1, The Present of the Past, had five chapters: revisiting themes of practice, thematic engagement, thematic space, thematic enterprise, and TALE. Part 2, The Present of the Present, had four: rebuilding the Flow-Story-Model framework, rebuilding the Thematic Engagement Toolkit, mapping and storytelling, and creating with spatial heuristics. Part 3, The Present of the Future, had two: framing a knowledge ecology, and contributing to the GO Theory platform. Part 4, Following the Theme, had four chapters of case studies: theoretical concepts, frameworks, situational themes, and possible books.

7.2 October 30: the introduction and the genesis

In the afternoon and evening I wrote the introduction of the book. I also created two standalone articles, so that the two central concepts, Developmental Theme and the genesis of the concept system, could be shown on their own. The concept of genesis had its own history. In the early exploration I had noted that the six faces article of the platform discussed the six faces without explaining how the concept system developed. On October 26, in the typology article, I had used the six faces to develop a typology of themes with six kinds, knowledge, life, strategic, cultural, institutional and spiritual themes, each corresponding to one face. The typology gave the genesis account its first step.

In the introduction I gave the genesis of the concept system a part of its own, Part 3, titled Thematic Engagement as the Genesis of the Concept System. In section 3.3 I proposed a chain of genesis, running from the body as self, through action and project, experience, thematic supportance, thematic exploration, thematic focus, thematic living coordinate, themes of practice, thematic creation, concept system, thematic enterprise and thematic attachment, to creative life curation, thematic identity curation, and the history of life and self. I wrote that the chain was a provisional picture, a heuristic for seeing how a concept system might come into being.

I published Developmental Theme and the Genesis of the Concept System as a standalone piece and placed it in the book's eleventh chapter, Contributing to the GO Theory Platform. The article made the concept visible in the table of contents. It also led me to organize articles around the chain of genesis, so that a reader could see the original articles behind each link. This produced a fifth part of the book, The Chain of Genesis, with five chapters: the foundation of subjectivity and the World of Activity, thematic situation, thematic activity, thematic cognition, and thematic enterprise. At 11:31 that night I completed the first draft of the introduction and the table of contents.

7.3 October 31: the last part and the email list

On the morning of October 31, I continued Part 4, Following the Theme, collecting the articles and writing a short introduction for each case. I placed the old article Themes of Practice: Concept, Activity, and Cognition at the head of the introduction, as its second article, because it offered the broader academic landscape that the book's innovations needed. This completed the book.

The afternoon and evening went to the email list of the Activity Analysis Network, issue twenty-seven. The list is organized by the Flow-Focus-Center-Circle model, and each of its four parts covers a different kind of content. This issue covered only one project, so I spread its highlights across the four parts.

7.4 The work of the final cycle

Three challenges were noted in the record. The first was how to edit a book at all. The book needed a frame to organize the results of the project, and the frame came from the experience of the project itself, which recalled the Path of Creative Life in the 2025 trip. From that inspiration the parts were organized around Augustine's three times, and the other parts unfolded from there.

The second challenge was how to make the two core ideas stand out. Both Developmental Theme and the genesis of the concept system had been born inside long articles, mixed with other ideas. I extracted the passages, published them as standalone articles, and expanded them slightly.

The third challenge was how to present the RR project in the email list, since this issue had to focus on a single project. The issue itself, organized by the four parts of the model, was the answer.

The curation of articles into the collection was also a task of its own, separate from the writing. It meant deciding which earlier articles belonged to which part, and in some cases placing an article in a part that its date did not suggest.

The two-week project ends here. The epilogue, which records the early thinking about Cognitive Hydrology 2.0 and the editing of the book, was written later, on November 3, and falls outside this record.

v1.0 - November 5, 2026 - 8,834 words