This is a restatement that a particular system should be customized to its users.

There is potential that a system could be applied universally, but it requires a very large amount of data and metadata to suit the needs of a greater number of people and use cases. It also requires a reasonable amount of work in practical use to make it operate as expected.

The Mundaneum was likely close on paper and Google comes close to this, but still isn't perfect.

quote via ¶76 and 92

• for: polycrisis, perfect storm, reinforcing feedbacks,

• paraphrase

  • the polycrisis is a network of self-reinforcing and diverse crisis:
    • political polarization
    • war
    • fossil fuel entrenchment and expansion
    • precarity
    • migration
    • climate crisis
    • extreme weather
    • AI
    • political polarization
    • misinformation and interference of sovereign voting
    • emergence of authoritarianism
    • incorrect focus of effort - tinkering at the margins
    • runaway inequality - wealth, racial, post colonial, gender
    • dominance of capitalist wealth aspiration
    • rapid change required for entire system
    • sense of despair, hopelessness, anger, fear
    • mass extinction
    • climate departure
    • increasing health burden
    • runaway pollution
    • lack of effective government regulation
    • approaching planetary tipping points
  • the "perfect storm" assumes that these crisis are not related, but they are all syncrhonizing through positive feedbacks -their self-reinforcing positive feedbacks amplify all of them together and it can reach a threshold beyond human institutions to be able to cope
  • Commanding Hope or "Hope to" is critical for meeting these challenges

reply to u/FusRoDaahh at https://www.reddit.com/r/commonplacebook/comments/188j2xt/getting_over_the_fear_of_perfection/

I had this problem too, but eventually switched to keeping my commonplace entirely on index cards, which also allows me to move them around and re-arrange them as necessary or when useful. (It also fixed some of my indexing problems.)

The side benefit is that if I botch a single card, no sweat, just pull out a new one and start over! If you like the higher end stationery scene afforded in notebooks, then take a look at Clairfontaine's bristol cards from Exacompta which are lush and come in a variety of sizes, colors, and rulings. (They're roughly equivalent to the cost per square meter of paper you'll find in finer notebooks like Leuchtturm, Hobonichi, Moleskine, etc., though some of the less expensive index cards still do well with many writing instruments.) Most of their card sizes are just about perfect for capturing the sorts of entries that one might wish to commonplace.

Once you've been at it a while, if you want to keep up with the luxe route that some notebook practices allow, then find yourself a classy looking box to store them all in to make your neighbors jealous. My card indexes bring me more joy than any notebook ever did.

When penmanship becomes a problem, then you can fix it by printing your cards, or (even better in my opinion), typing them on your vintage Smith-Corona Clipper.

And of course the first thing one could type out on their first card and file it at the front where you can see it every day:

"Le mieux est le mortel ennemi du bien" (The better is the mortal enemy of the good).<br /> — Montesquieu, in Pensées, 1726

aka "Don't let perfection be the enemy of the good."

optimization-procrastination trap is related to shiny object syndrome - the idea of tweaking one's system constantly

perfect tool trap - guess what? there isn't one

https://www.reddit.com/r/Zettelkasten/comments/zl2hwh/is_the_concept_of_personal_knowledge_management/

This essay seems to be more about shiny object syndrome. The writer doesn't seem to realize any problems they've created. Way too much digging into tools and processes. Note the switching and trying out dozens of applications. (Dear god, why??!!) Also looks like a lot of collecting digitally for no clear goal. As a result of this sort of process it appears that many of the usual affordances were completely blocked, unrealized, and thus useless.

No clear goal in mind for anything other than a nebulous being "better".

One goal was to "retain what I read", but nothing was actively used toward this stated goal. Notes can help a little, but one would need mnemonic methods and possibly spaced repetition neither of which was mentioned.

A list of specific building blocks within the methods and expected outcomes would have helped this person (and likely others), but to my knowledge this doesn't exist as a thing yet though bits and pieces are obviously floating around.<br /> TK: building blocks of note taking

Evidence here for what we'll call the "perfect system fallacy", an illness which often goes hand in hand with "shiny object syndrome".

Too many systems bound together will create so much immediate complexity that there isn't any chance for future complexity or emergence as the proximal system is doomed to failure. One should instead strive for immediate and excessive simplicity which might then build with time, use, and practice into something more rich and complex. This idea seems to be either completely missed or lost in the online literature and especially the blogosphere and social media.

people had come up with solutions Sadly, despite thousands of variations on some patterns, people don't seem to be able to settle on either "one solution" or their "own solution" and in trying to do everything all at once they become lost, set adrift, and lose focus on any particular thing they've got as their own goal.

In this particular instance, "retaining what they read" was totally ignored. Worse, they didn't seem to ever review over their notes of what they read.

I was pondering about different note types, fleeting, permanent, different organisational systems, hierarchical, non-hierarchical, you know the deal.

Why worry about all the types of notes?! This is the problem with these multi-various definitions and types. They end up confusing people without giving them clear cut use cases and methods by which to use them. They get lost in definitional overload and aren't connecting the names with actual use cases and affordances.

I often felt lost about what to takes notes on and what not to take notes on.

Why? Most sources seem to have reasonable guidance on this. Make notes on things that interest you, things which surprise you.

They seem to have gotten lost in all the other moving pieces. Perhaps advice on this should come first, again in the middle, and a third time at the end of these processes.

I'm curious how deeply they read sources and which sources they read to come to these conclusions? Did they read a lot of one page blog posts with summarizations or did they read book length works by Ahrens, Forte, Allosso, Scheper, et al? Or did they read all of these and watch lots of crazy videos as well. Doing it "all" will likely lead into the shiny object syndrome as well.

This seems to outline a list of specifically what not to do and how not to approach these systems and "popular" blog posts that are an inch deep and a mile wide rather than some which have more depth.

Worst of all, I spent so much time taking notes and figuring out a personal knowledge management system that I neglected the things I actually wanted to learn about. And even though I kind of always knew this, I kept falling into the same trap.

Definitely a symptom of shiny object syndrome!

https://www.joggles.com/blog/transform-index-cards-perfect-bound-journal/

There's some magical thinking involved here. While the system has some arbitrary internal branching, the surprises come from the system's perfect memory that the human user doesn't have. This makes it appear that the system creates its own creativity, but it is really the combinatorics of the perfect memory system with use over time.

Link to: serendipity of systems based on auto-complete

https://fermatslibrary.com/s/perfect-numbers

Apparently Terry Tao's first paper

The power of editorial is its ability to focus attention on what the editors deem to be important.

I think I learned about effective altruism through Ezra Klein and the Future Perfect podcast.

the crux of the problem is: trade-offs

When Rama finds his sons by coincidence he wants to take the boy with him, but not Sita. So he suggest another trial to confirm her purity. The only reason why he seems to "Care" about his songs is because they are boy, I am sure that if they were girls Rama would not have care. But he wants a successor and now he has it. Thought out the story Sita needs to prove herself but no Rama. Sita's Value depends on how valuable Rama think she is. And right now she is garbage to him. Now that he has his songs there is no more use for her. CC BY-NC-ND

Allusion

Allusion

Is this in reference to a religious belief?

Analogy of what makes a perfect orator.