A test of cross linking
I am so pumped for this site. I can finally author content with a low barrier to publication, and keep accruing knowledge like Andy Matuschak told me to.
As a summary, his ideal version of "evergreen notes" follow these principles:
- Evergreen notes should be atomic
- Evergreen notes should be concept-oriented
- Evergreen notes should be densely linked
- Prefer associative ontologies to hierarchical taxonomies
- Write notes for yourself by default, disregarding audience
I can now densely link my thought by flowing entries together as links into my sentences. I can talk about how cradle-to-cradle and death-and-life-great-american-cities both say something about slowness while remaining tepid on pointing the finger at the burn-down gluttony of capitalism, leaving them to fizzle out at the end and gesture vaguely at a better way, even though I love those books with everything and I do believe that small-behavior-changes-make-big-outcome-changes.
I can talk about how my vision for interoperable-libraries is a combination of the thoughtful systems thinking of philosophy-of-software-design and an anticapitalist action in the spirit of disassembly-required, how a thin line traces between it and my wish that we could incentivize-deconstruction.
The link dump of paragraphs above goes overboard on point 1, but look how much conceptual richness I can embed in my thoughts for points 2 and 3! And it really lets me play the game I love, associative ontologies (point 4), which I thought of as conceptual cross-eyedness until I learned that term today. I can write fluidly enough to alienate an audience and have to dial it back later: that's what I'm looking for, to live up to point 5 so hard that I publish first and refine later.