Hmm, I see where we’re not meeting. You’re referring to references which, yes, I agree are one-way.
Thanks to what you’ve said, it’s now clear to me what I’m getting at with this post.
What Logseq needs is a new “linking” feature. Because the reason we’re using something like Logseq is to see the links/connections/relations between objects, thoughts, etc.
Links, connections, and relations are fundamentally two-way/bidirectional. When an object is “related” to a second object, it means that the second object is also, equally, “related” to that first object. Whether that relation is hierarchical or not, they equally have a link/connection/relation to each other. These are what we actually want to see when we’re using apps like Logseq.
The problem lies in that we can only see those links/connections/relations through references which are one-way, as you said.
References should just be a means to travel from one block to the next, not as a way (in this case, the only way) to say that one block is “linked/connected/related” (linked reference) to another block.
edit:
Yes, I agree. Btw I realized that this is what I was getting at in my first post in this forum right here: Can Logseq do relations like in Notion?. Now I was able to articulate it better here thanks to you