Feedback: more insight in meaningful relations through the understanding of collective intelligence

Having played around with Logseq for a while, I my main feedback at this point is:

Logseq is still based on the ‘old school’ way of thinking that people’s creative thinking can be unlocked through personal networked thought. Hence, the ‘personal second brain’ purpose of Logseq. I disagree with that course, since it is an inheritance from the isolating and competing society which is currently already transforming to a decentralized and networked global culture. I believe that any app that tries to improve creativity now needs to implement collaboration right from the start. This corresponds with the understanding that we are interconnected beings that build our reality based on shared beliefs. Even the beliefs we think are personal, are subconsciously based on collective beliefs in our cultures. So what does this mean for Logseq? The concept of block level references is great, but this greatness needs to be built with the understanding of collective intelligence, and how intelligence is not growing in a personal bubble. True intelligence includes and connects with other minds as easily as within its own mind, since that difference of my and your brain does not matter very much for creative intelligence. Collective intelligence is not (only) about groups of people being smart together, but it applies to the mechanics of how creativity happens, regardless whether it is in one being or a network of beings.

There is also a strange idea about this personal bubble that it should not be published by default, or publishing to the internet should be made difficult? Why is that, since even without having to collaborate, feedback of the outside world outside of your own mind, is quite essential for creative intelligence? So my suggestion is to base the architecture of Logseq on publishing it on the web by default, in different ways.

Furthermore, the ability of interlinking pages and blocks is there, but while actually working with Logseq, my main pain point (and potential) is that I can’t easily display the linked references in ways that make me discover new meaningful relations between them.

There is an assumption made in Logseq (which is actually snowed under many features that people build or request based on their personal needs) which I deduce from what features were prioritized. The assumption is:

‘merely listing (linked/unlinked) references is enough’ to discover new meaningful connections.

I disagree with that. I want to easily create filters and choose for filter templates which choice of filter templates is utterly dependent on the very page that I am looking at.

Another assumption is

‘the features to filter and list references are there, people can use them.’

I disagree, people that actually are productive in their work, dont want to fiddle around with tucked away settings to have to design how they use it. I don’t want to become Logseq technical in order to be able to use it. It needs to be intuitive. So the emphasis I think needs to be on creating ready to use ‘whole system templates’ (to allow people to help create them) that truly make working more intuitive for a particular use.

Another related assumption is:

It does not matter so much in which position listings are visible. The default is now at the bottom. Why? Because humanity got accustomed to linear top down reading? I visualize my data relations three and multidimensionally. Now not everyone does that, but at least allowing to use the two dimensional space more freely is important.

To close this feedback, I would like to thank and congratulate all Logseq developers for paving the way to a new way of networked thinking and collaboration.