Some thoughts on the risk of a passive knowledge management system. There are a lot of popular phrases for personal knowledge management systemsout there. One of the ones that gained the most popularity in recent years is the term "Second Brain," coined by **Tiago Forte**. It's a term that I've used, but never one I felt perfectly encapsualted my PKM systems. I recently saw a really interesting Mastodon post where the user said, _"ideally Obsidian should feel like strapping into your exosuit, a direct extension of yourself."_ And I actually really agreed to that. I think Niklas Luhmann had this idea of the **Zettelkasten** as a conversation partner. > **"Ideally Obsidian should feel like strapping into your exosuit, a direct extension of yourself." —****Stephan Ango (Kepano)** So for him, it was sitting down with somebody and having this kind of deep dialogue that was actually occurring. So that’s actually a very active process, not a passive process at all. Even the part of putting material into it isn’t a passive process; that’s also an active process. I've explored this idea of deep, interconnected systems previously in How to Start Your Personal Knowledge Management Adventure. I think I’ve come to prefer the term like "digital garden" more. I like the idea of a gardening as my metaphor. Metaphors change the way that we act. So a metaphor that is active and contains this sense of ecological interconnection is a really good one for a PKM. > **“A metaphor that is active and contains this sense of ecological interconnection is a really good one.”** If we think about the processes of knowledge interaction and accumulation in the past, we can look to such intriguing items as the **commonplace book** or the **_zibaldone_**. Which are sort of a melange of aspects that take all of your ordinary life experiences and put them together, combine them into a state of larger interaction and sort of interbeing where you are taking the little pieces of your daily life. Just daydreams, thoughts, whatever, which you combine with quotations and that sort of thing. These are tools of inspiration, but they’re also tools of relaxation and tools of comfort. In much the same way that a modern social media service might be. The idea behind something like this is that you are taking in a lot of information, so you should have a tool that allows you to **play** with that information. > **“'Play' is probably the most fundamental part of a good personal knowledge management system.”** And here, I think "play" is probably the most fundamental part of a good personal knowledge management system. It should feel like play, and it should allow you to take in what you are experiencing and interact with it in such a way that you can personally come to a grounded and internalized understanding of that information. > In our current landscape, we have to be careful about where we place our focus, as I discussed in Indigenous Mnemonics and Personal Knowledge Management. If your personal knowledge management system is just getting fed into an AI synthesis engine, that’s the faux appearance of intellect. That’s not a real process of personal growth, and you are not actually managing anything yourself; you are just having an AI do it. Once again, I am interested in how AI might be used for certain specific aspects of a PKM system. I think it could help reduce certain types of friction, but what I am seeing from a lot of people is putting all of the work of summarization and all of the work of connecting onto an AI. > **“If you do that, you are reducing the right kind of friction—the kind of friction that you actually need in order to improve and grow as a human being.”** If you do that, you are reducing the right kind of friction—the kind of friction that you actually need in order to improve and grow as a human being. So, there you have it. Those are some thoughts on what a good PKM system is and what it should look like. **How about you?** What does your personal knowledge management system look like? What things do you think of when you are building it, or have you rebuilt it to come at your process from a different angle? Do you subscribe to one of the kind of big name methods, or have you come up with something interesting on your own? Do you have a mix of analog and digital systems? **Go ahead and let me know in the comments. I’d love to hear.** * * * **I’m Odin Halvorson** , a librarian, life coach, and fiction author. If you like my work and want to support what we do here at _Unenlightened Generalists_ , please consider becoming a paid subscriber to our newsletter for as little as $2.50 a month! **Support us in other ways:** * **Start writing and reading with the Supernote**, and support me at the same time! * **Like audiobooks?_Hate_ DRM?** Use this affiliate link to sign up for Libro.fm, where you actually own the books you buy! * **Want your own Ghost newsletter?** Check out MagicPages for the cheapest hosting rates via my affiliate link (they even offer lifetime hosting plans!) **Thanks for your support!**

Now, some people might argue that it's a little late to be responding to an article from 2017. I would argue that this is the perfect amount of space for me to finally comment on something I care about deeply: _Star Wars_. Diving into the blog post by Film Crit Hulk, I was cast back into the memory of watching the film for the first time—the things that I liked about it, and the things that I really, really did not. It is the reason why, in the subsequent years, I have only gone back and watched that film once. Even while I think _The Force Awakens_ and _The Rise of Skywalker_ are two of the most bland and uninspired films in recent science fiction history—and think that technically _The Last Jedi_ is far superior—I have absolutely zero interest in watching it again. ### The Problem with the "Mystery Box" I don't exactly classify myself as a super-fan; I love Star Wars and have a deep personal connection to it, but I don't usually obsess over the real-world minutia. However, when it comes to the storytelling, the writing... well, then I get punchy. Largely, my issues with the current trilogy can really be summed up in one name: **J.J. Abrams**. I have always disliked J.J.'s work, from _Lost_ through _Fringe,_ as well as his version of _Star Trek_. His work is shallow, even "facile" to be a little harsh. Film Crit Hulk sums it up well, noting that there is never a larger context in Abrams' work. There is the promise of deep questions, but they don't lead anywhere because: > "That's the mystery box. That's literally the design. He doesn't think it matters what's inside as long as he makes you think it's important. He's literally said this. And that's what it's always been. It's a grift. A con". The blogger argues that this "lack of point" is symbolized in the final moment of _The Force Awakens_ , with Rey standing there to hand a lightsaber to Luke. They describe it not as a story beat, but as: > "Just someone waiting to hand a baton to someone who can figure out a way to have any of this make a lick of sense". I both disagree and agree with that. It is a metatextual moment for the fans, and _The Force Awakens_ suffered heavily by being too focused on a "nostalgia mode." Yet, as someone who grew up with these films, I felt a certain joy in that moment—the sense of a great artifact being passed to a new generation. ### Irreverence vs. Consistency When Rian Johnson’s film opened and Luke simply threw the lightsaber off the cliff, I cracked up. I loved it. It was a beautiful moment of irreverence following so much fan service. It signaled that we weren't going to follow J.J.'s plot anymore; we were going to do something new. In that, however, creates both the brilliance and the fundamental problem of _The Last Jedi_. The blogger states: > "...the point is actually that beyond the artifice, it is actually the pure story level that makes things meaningful and last". I agree, but the problem is that Rian Johnson created a deconstructionist film with a tight internal storyline while giving absolutely no thought to the decades of work that went into the Star Wars canon. He gave no thought to internal consistencies beyond what he needed for a snappy scene. While J.J. creates mysteries with no answers, Johnson (at least in this film) creates beautiful cinematography without any sense of how it changes the larger story construct. Take the "Holdo Maneuver," where a ship is cut in half at lightspeed. From a photography perspective, it was beautiful. From an in-world story perspective, it makes no sense and undoes the logic of every defensive technology in the franchise. The blogger highlights that everything in the film is "built on direct storytelling function," and that’s largely true, but it is only for Rian Johnson's limited story. ### Lineage and Spirituality I do like that Johnson’s focus shifted away from lineage—a point the blogger also calls out. We moved away from the idea of an all-powerful family controlling the fate of the galaxy. This moves us away from the "regal thinking" that only certain bloodlines matter. Johnson highlights what the blogger calls the "nameless young children who are put under the thumb of the world," showing that the Force belongs to them, too. However, there were moments that truly bothered me. I really disliked the Admiral (Holdo) thanking God or praying to God. We’ve had very little sense of specific Earth-style religion in the original films. Bringing that in bothers me as an agnostic; I prefer my spirituality in a wider, decontextualized, metaphorical mode. ### Conclusion? A Hollow Deconstruction Ultimately, the film jumps through too many hoops. While Johnson does capture something meaningful in how he highlights the ills of high society and the villainy of capitalist war profiteering, _Andor_ has since explored these issues in far better detail. Johnson treated _The Last Jedi_ like just another movie—and frankly, one that he doesn't seem to like that much—rather than treating the fans with the respect they deserved. He could have grounded the movie in the lineage of prior Star Wars books and comics that attempted to bring deeper questions to the fore. Instead, he created a work that tackled big, often metatextual, ideas without maintaining consistency with the landscape of the story he was treading upon. At the end of the day, it’s a film full of pretty scenes, but I just don't want to watch it. * * * **I’m Odin Halvorson** , a librarian, life coach, and fiction author. If you like my work and want to support what we do here at _Unenlightened Generalists_ , please consider becoming a paid subscriber to our newsletter for as little as $2.50 a month! **Support us in other ways:** * **Start writing and reading with the Supernote**, and support me at the same time! * **Like audiobooks?_Hate_ DRM?** Use this affiliate link to sign up for Libro.fm, where you actually own the books you buy! * **Want your own Ghost newsletter?** Check out MagicPages for the cheapest hosting rates via my affiliate link (they even offer lifetime hosting plans!) **Thanks for your support!**

Watsuji Tetsurō was a Japanese philosopher in the early 20th century who is often described as a Japanese Existentialist. He formulated a uniquely Asian response to Western individualist ethics and the earliest Japanese ethics of environmentalism, and he explored the linguistic argument for natural mutual aid[^1]. This exploration is crucial because our understanding of what is ethical is derived from how we think about what it means to be human. In the West, ethical systems strive toward a perspective from the inward to the outward. This model builds humanity (as a concept) from the subjectivity of the personal. The self-referential Descartes "cogito" becomes a universal template for all thinking humanity, it is thought to be a reflective single person in the vital sense. In fact, Descartes, Kant, and Hegel all developed Western philosophical methodologies stemming from singular philosophers and then declared that their self-referential abstraction of reality was applicable to people across temporal space, regardless of culture, history, and experiences. From this, Watsuji, argues, we have one of the core anchors for Western intellectual colonialism. This Western philosophy is grounded in both the dogma of colonial exclusion and the concept of the transcendent, to which they all appeal as a universal first principle of Enlightenment thinking. Watsuji is not alone in his critiques. Herbert Read, the British anarchist and art critic, noted that this kind of abstraction is dangerous. Read argued that "Modern man has been in search of a new language of form" to end his alienation. He warned against systems imposed from above, stating, "You cannot impose a culture from the top; it must come from under. It grows out of the soil, out of the people, out of their daily life and work." According to Watsuji, the Western obsession with a worldview built on a "self-referential abstraction" forces an alienation of the subject from their surroundings. It places nature in a lower category that operates on different principles than human thought. Thus, the environment becomes an alien nature. It becomes a presence of chaos and hostility that must be tamed by individual will. Western philosophy alienates nature from self as the deadly consequence of fundamental hierarchy. It claims to be the arbiter of all truth yet is severed from circumstance. Thus, a tradition of philosophical colonization is linked into the fabric of Western ethics, for "circumstance" includes culture, history, place, and community. The East has long built its model differently, basing it on the concept of interrelationship through the space between, or _aidagara_ in the Japanese, a concept which the Vietnamese Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh would later coin the term "interbeing" to explain. Within East Asian philosophies, humanity is a matter of being in-between. Where Western thought assembles reality from one or more isolated pathways to God, "in-betweenness" conceptualizes the human being as an "edge state." This state is defined by a practical understanding of its place in the middle of a vast web of interrelationships, a perspective born out from the modern scientific perspective as well. If there is to be a modern ethics after this tumultuous time in human history, it must be one that disconnects from the traditional Western concept of a fixed self. Instead, it must place the self as a construct of interbeing within a networked reality. Thus, we regain context as selves within our relationships. Relationships to history, culture, time, place, and ecology. As Read famously said, "Only a people serving an apprenticeship to nature can be trusted with machines." As the world grapples with technological crises of unprecedented scale, it seems clear that we must return to that apprenticeship if we hope to survive and thrive. [^1]: It is also important to note that Watsuji himself experienced a high degree of what I might call "cognitive dissonance" in that he railed against the Imperialism of the West while largely supporting the same in his own country. Regardless, his critique of Western philosophy, and his ethics of interconnection are logically fascinating and remain poignant in their own right.

Yes, Jeff Bezos did fire a reporter in the middle of a war zone, alongside 300 others across all sectors of the Washington Post. This sucks on a number of levels, but two things stand out to me. First, it's another sign of our failed ability to build class power against mindless little scumbags like Jeff Bezos. Second, it's a warning about the power being exerted by a hateful few who are utterly terrified of a well-informed populace. According to reports, among those laid off were the paper's Ukraine bureau chief and correspondent, the latter of whom **was****literally in a war zone****at the time of the layoffs.** The layoffs included hundreds of journalists and staffers, with entire bureaus being shut down, from sports to local news. But the problem is larger than one newspaper–it's inherent in the broader context of labor power in America. > In fact, many people badmouth unions without realizing that the only reason they have working conditions that aren't truly abhorrent is because of unions. A friend of mine worked as a union organizer, going to companies where unions actually already existed. Why? Because most of the employees didn't realize that their good benefits and pay were because they paid union dues. My friend's job was to speak with these employees, many of whom had no idea that they were contractually part of a union, or what that actually meant. They had no idea that the reason they had healthcare or a fair wage was because of a union fighting tooth and nail for their rights. In fact, many people badmouth unions without realizing that the only reason they have working conditions that aren't truly abhorrent is because of unions. The weakness of unions in our country is something that affects everyone, from Amazon warehouses to your local public library. Actually, this was something that I personally witnessed at the library system I used to work in. > There's a relentless attack happening on fair and strong reporting in this country Years back, the library's union had had its teeth cut with an anti-strike clause. Now, under an administration that’s not just petty but outright hostile—pushing invasive surveillance, anti-homeless crackdowns, and even launching smear campaigns against employees (like the one against my old manager)—things have only gotten worse. But the story doesn't end with the struggles of unions. Because the Washington Post, whatever I've thought of as reporting in the past, is one of our few remaining vital, researched sources of information. Jeff Bezos didn't just buy the Washington Post for fun or as a prestige object. He bought it because, by buying it, he is able to control the flow of information to hundreds of thousands of Americans. There's a relentless attack happening on fair and strong reporting in this country, an attack exemplified by extremist organizations like the Sinclair Media Group, which owns a significant number of local news stations across the United States, with 294 television stations in 89 markets. > The first step is speaking up so your co-workers actually know why they have any rights at all. And it's not just about the number of stations. The far right, alongside an established class of neoliberal elites, are the only people who are actually producing most of our consumed news. Local news sources are fading fast, and with them go our ability to be good, informed citizens. And so, here we are, with a media landscape dominated by a handful of powerful entities and labor power that's been systematically eroded. It's a perfect storm that leaves everyday people at the mercy of corporate interests and a media that's more concerned with profit than truth. The task now at hand, for all of us (across the political spectrum), is recognizing that these issues are interconnected and that addressing them requires a multifaceted approach. From supporting and revitalizing unions to advocating for stronger anti-monopoly laws, there's a lot of work to be done. But the first step is understanding the depth and breadth of the problem, and speaking up so your co-workers actually know why they have any rights at all. * * * **I’m Odin Halvorson** , a librarian, life coach, and fiction author. If you like my work and want to support what we do here at _Unenlightened Generalists_ , please consider becoming a paid subscriber to our newsletter for as little as $2.50 a month! **Support us in other ways:** * **Start writing and reading with the Supernote**, and support me at the same time! * **Like audiobooks?_Hate_ DRM?** Use this affiliate link to sign up for Libro.fm, where you actually own the books you buy! * **Want your own Ghost newsletter?** Check out MagicPages for the cheapest hosting rates via my affiliate link (they even offer lifetime hosting plans!) **Thanks for your support!**

<p>At their best, our technologies could aid in the fomentation of better, more symbiotic, social and ecological systems. From stateless organizations to cooperatively-owned automation, the advent of advanced technology <em>could</em> lend itself to a communal prosperity and social Enlightenment that would outshine any in human history. But this potential is not what we’re given. Instead, we get surveillance disguised as safety, extraction disguised as innovation, and passivity disguised as progress.</p><p>All data that you provide to the AI becomes part of that AI, and trusting to self-monitored corporate safeguards is pure naivety. Programs like <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11/legal-case-against-rings-face-recognition-feature" rel="noopener ugc nofollow">Flock Safety</a> and<a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11/legal-case-against-rings-face-recognition-feature" rel="noopener ugc nofollow"> Amazon Ring</a> don’t just <em>watch</em> — they <em>track</em>, they <em>share</em>, and they <em>profit</em>, often in direct violation of privacy laws and without public consent.</p><p>This brings us to the idea of the Commons. In perhaps no other technology is this concept more relevant (or more violated) than in artificial intelligence. Peter Kropotkin’s words from <em>The Conquest of Bread</em> (1892) cut to the core:</p><blockquote class="kg-blockquote-alt">“By what right then can anyone whatever appropriate the least morsel of this immense whole and say — This is mine, not yours?”</blockquote><p>AI, as a product of collective human knowledge, <em>should</em> be a Commons — a shared resource for mutual betterment. But what we see is enclosure, extraction, and monopolization. A tool that could liberate instead reinforces the hierarchies it claims to transcend.</p><p>And this is no accident. The trend in a technocentric society is one where alienation is normalized — where we are distanced from ourselves, from our neighbors, from nature, and ultimately from the very concept of reality. Technology, in this context, is not a neutral arbiter but an active participant in the erosion of agency. Each new “innovation” arrives pre-packaged with the assumptions of <em>growth-consumption</em>, a passive acceptance of the status quo, and the quiet insistence that there is no alternative.</p><p>Herein lies the propaganda: the insistence that AI itself is the threat. Critics (and proponents) often anthropomorphize it, lending personhood to what is, in truth, a Baudrillardian simulacrum, just a hollow mimicry of intelligence that nonetheless reshapes our social, digital, and physical realities. But the real danger is not the machine; it is the system that deploys it. The specter of a “rogue AI” serves as a distraction, directing our fear toward a fictional villain while the actual architects of harm (entities and ideologies of dominance hierarchy) operate unchecked.</p><p>Likewise, artificial intelligence need not be an ecological disaster… but within a system of endlessly expanding production and consumption, it <em>cannot</em> be anything but. The same logic applies to its social impact: AI, as it exists today, is not a tool for liberation but a mechanism for control. To mitigate its damage, we must confront not just the technology itself but the structures that give it form.</p><p>The Chinese model of modern Marxian market economics, for example, ostensibly aims to build a “<a href="https://en.theorychina.org.cn/c/2023-03-07/1461846.shtml" rel="noopener ugc nofollow">human community with a shared future</a>,” yet even there, inequality persists as a structural issue, one that their own citizens link to what amounts to a gap between ideology and outcome. Can the “West” do any better? Can we find our path to a shared future, and a renewed Commons? Or will it prove true that no technological development can outrun the contradictions of the system that birthed it?</p><p>The great averaging engines of our AI epoch do truly represent a crystallized danger: that our historical oppressions and inequalities will be ossified within the tools we use to interpret the world.</p><p>What was once fluid becomes fixed; what was once contested becomes canon. The question, then, is not whether technology is “good” or “evil,” but <em>who controls it and who benefits from it.</em> Right now, the beneficiaries are not those responsible for its creation, and we’re all being placed into an ecological and social debt from which there may be no return.</p><hr /><p><strong>I’m Odin Halvorson</strong>, a librarian, life coach, and fiction author. If you like my work and want to support what we do here at <em>Unenlightened Generalists</em>, <a href="https://unenlightenedgeneralists.com/#/portal/" rel="noopener ugc nofollow">please consider becoming a paid subscriber to our newsletter for as little as $2.50 a month</a>!</p><p><strong>Support us in other ways:</strong></p><ul><li><a href="https://supernote.com/?sca_ref=7925099.twoh8HuAUk" rel="noopener ugc nofollow"><strong>Start writing and reading with the Supernote</strong></a>, and support me at the same time!</li><li><strong>Like audiobooks? <em>Hate</em> DRM?</strong> <a href="https://www.awin1.com/awclick.php?gid=420441&amp;mid=25361&amp;awinaffid=1626919&amp;linkid=2962108&amp;clickref=" rel="noopener ugc nofollow">Use this affiliate link to sign up for Libro.fm</a>, where you actually own the books you buy!</li><li><strong>Want your own Ghost newsletter?</strong> <a href="https://magicpages.co/?aff=zRoWoqmXhO9J" rel="noopener ugc nofollow">Check out MagicPages for the cheapest hosting rates via my affiliate link</a> (they even offer lifetime hosting plans!)</li></ul><p><strong>Thanks for your support!</strong></p>