In this revitalized post, Siemens said
“I imagine instead of a taxonomy, I should create a networked view of how these elements interact. That’s a future task. For now, here is a connectivism taxonomy”
and Downes countered
“And a ‘connectivist taxonomy’, in particular, is at odds with a network-based theory of meaning.”
I also have my problems with the idea of a taxonomy which sounds like rock-solid, hierarchically arranged definitions of concepts, from #1 Awareness and Receptivity up to #6 Praxis. Like rock formations in Stratography.
I think the lower/ earlier levels are not hidden by the upper/ later levels, but they are still visible on the surface and they are still concurrently relevant. So to speak, the geological structure is tilted, like, for example, the Southwest German cuesta landscape.
Since I agree with Siemens that work on connectivist terminology and language is important, I started an attempt to put his “Connectivist Taxonomy” text on a Cmap. It became terribly messy, so I also made this more simplified version here:
One thing that already became apparent for me is that the concept cluster of learning network/ ecology/ space is too overburdened and deserves some dissection.
(Cmap and PPT sources also available ).