Unfortunately I think a lot was lost in translation, because you haven’t understood the points I was trying to make whatsoever. This has nothing to do with any philosophical school, nor for me to impose any particular way of living or working on anyone. Nor am I imposing any particular structure on their Obsidian, or any other, notes.
On the contrary, I’m saying the how the system works is far less important than why you have the system and what it is working towards. In that regard, I’m simply calling for people to reflect and see how they can use their passions, skills and opportunities in a way that also addresses deeper social/global issues, in whatever way is appropriate for each person.
Looking beyond the mirror (which first requires a deep, honest look in the mirror) is the only thing I’m trying to encourage/impose. And I can’t see any reasonable argument against this, other than “I only care about myself”. My argument against that, without getting back into philosophical weeds, is a) “I’d rather not be an asshole” and b) “you actually sell yourself short insofar as you only care about yourself”.
I recognize that these ideas, and especially the way that I tend to share them, can be inflammatory (sometimes intentionally, but often just because I need to develop a better way of communicating them). In that respect, MY use of Obsidian (or whatever PKM tool I end up settling on in the long run - its an exciting time with lots of blossoming options) will be to try to create a navigable network of links and resources to justify, embolden, make attractive, etc… these ideas in as many ways as I can, because different notions, examples, rhetoric styles, etc… will attract different people. (I also have a physical project going on in the real world that I will be using Obsidian to help research and manage. Not sure what overlap these two things will have at the moment).
I hope this is more palatable to you.
More generally (and because I’ve hit my consecutive post limit and can’t reply to @NickMilo 's post directly):
I completely agree. What I was suggesting (and still maintain) is that many people whose PKM examples I’ve seen (I haven’t kept any references, so don’t ask, but you just have to look at society and how people generally live to prove my point…) don’t have this perspective and practice of looking for meaning.
Its also worth distinguishing different levels of “meaning” - as I pointed out in a different reply, we have Data, Information, Knowledge and Wisdom. Each level has its own “meaning”. There’s no meaning at the data level - its just numbers/data points. Information gives it some context or use. Knowledge gets more abstract, and perhaps insightful. Wisdom goes well beyond that to find universal principles and truths that underlie all the other levels and activities. Extremely simplified, surely full of holes - please don’t quibble.
People, in general, tend to live at the Information level. No real thirst or drive for understanding. Knowledge workers, by definition, tend to be at the Knowledge level (at least insofar as their work goes, but likely revert to information in many other areas of life). Seeking Wisdom is far more rare, and far more necessary in a world of information and “knowledge” overload.
I think a good PKM system (and just any human life) needs to try to understand and integrate all of these levels, especially wisdom. Perhaps that’s what I’ve been groping at saying all along - embed an Integrating Wisdom into your process of turning Data and Information into Knowledge.
Here’s a good, PKM friendly, resource on this concept.
