💾 Archived View for soviet.circumlunar.space › pjvm › antilog › antilog.gmi captured on 2022-06-03 at 23:37:39. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

the antilog

by pjvm

8-1-2021

introduction

I have this idea for a form of writing that I call the "antilog". Maybe it isn't a very good word for it, as it is a subtype of the log, but the constraints on it make it different from the vast majority of logs.

By a "log", here, I mean specifically a public personal log. Public as in publicly readable (usually ditributed via the internet), personal as in what you're logging is your life and your thoughts. An antilog is similar but with strong restrictions on what you discuss: not your life, and only a subset of your thoughts, specifically rather general thoughts.

An antilog tries to not "live" in this world and in this moment: you can't mention specific people, or organisations, or events. You're discussing ideas, without applying them to the latest news. The latter is also why I do not consider it a log: you're not "logging" your current thoughts on current things; you're writing a piece that is relatively independent of time and also quite independent of yourself (which is not to say there won't be a lot of you in it).

definition of an antilog

Below are properties that I think an antilog should have.

An antilog is a collection of "posts", written pieces, that:

(1) are primarily intended to convey ideas
(2) do not discuss specific people except as in (3), or specific publications except as in (3), or specific events, organisations, places, or objects, or facts except as in (4), or personal situations, activities and plans
(3) do indicate the source and optionally other earlier expressions of any non-original ideas, but only in footnotes
(4) may discuss general truths, long-lasting conditions and long-term trends of the author's context (time, place &c) or another context, but always explicitly describing them (thus not assuming the reader shares that context)
(5) explicitly define or describe any used term which could otherwise be interpreted in multiple ways
(6) use solid argumentation when defending or attacking ideas, that is, not resorting to fallacious arguments or unexplained characterisations
(7) do not briefly include tangential opinions or ideas

(3) is a compromise; ideally, an antilog would live completely in the world of ideas, but I think there is a certain "rightness" in letting people know who first came up with an idea and earlier expressions of the idea might help the reader understand better where it comes from. (4) is also a bit of a compromise; ideally, an antilog post would be fully independent of time and you'd only talk about how things should be, but how things are or were can provide a motivation for that, and allow for analysing causes and solutions.

(5) and (6) I consider necessary in order to properly discuss ideas. (7) keeps it to one idea at a time.

motivation

These restrictions are designed to keep both author and reader focused on a theoretical discussion. Say, for example, that you want to discuss a valuable, interesting idea of a certain thinker who also came up with a related idea that is rather silly and not honestly worth discussing. The fact that the name of the thinker is isolated to the footnotes encourages you to only discuss the interesting idea instead of going off on a tangent. When discussing politics, keeping it general and discussing a particular idea means less emotional reactions and associations, which might otherwise cloud judgement.

closing note

So far this introduction to the antilog qualifies as an antilog post... I think?

antilog index