Second Brain, SuperNotes and Kanban

[cuathro]

Have you read the Longevity Statement?

• Yes

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

I fully understand StandardNotes philosophy of longevity, I value and respect it. Perhaps one doubt/suggestion that was unavoidable for me to contain was when I discovered @moughxyz fork (awesome-standard-notes) where incredible extensions are compiled. The two most important ones:

• Kanban Editor (Visual Organization).
• Awesome Customization Themes (Visual Alternatives)

It is frankly amazing what is already developed by the community. I understand that it's a luxury to have privacy like you have with StandardNotes, but why not dream about implementing a visual card space like Kanban and (Retired) Advanced Checklist?

Why? A few days ago I read in StandardNotes blog validated that idea of simplicity away from that "second brain with magic productivity solution". However, Super Notes was the most obvious way to demonstrate that the complexity of thoughts need the incorporation of tools that allow not wasting time (not to fall into the bureaucratic); specifically with the example of linking notes (replacing by a click the link between notes, discarding the tedious process of writing the title of the other note within the note to have to look for it later manually). In other words, "that procrastination and false sense of accomplishment" mentioned in the blog due to the excess of tools could also be due to the absence of tools. Procrastination could occur at any level and in any form. However, there is something inescapable: organizing complex thinking also requires the visual, Kanban is the way to synthesize work and thoughts in an undetermined order; just as an excel table helps the numerical realm, the visual helps the creative realm without the tedious process of making vertical checklists.

Describe the solution you'd like

In my opinion, improving the search function and adding a visual space like Kanban, the notes would have a value at the same level as Super Notes.

Describe alternatives you've considered

If in the end these lines are still not compatible with the StandardNotes philosophy, I would suggest, as an alternative, to create an official source repository of community extensions verified for security (not functionality).

Additional context

Finally, it never hurts to thank for all the work they do every day, to see an update of the application every morning is to feel accompanied by the freedom that StandardNotes and the team behind it allows.

Mentions with less relevance

To mention other extensions that do not go unnoticed. Obviously none of these extensions would have the same validity as Kanban has, it is a simple mention with the intention to value the intention of implementing tools from the OS community to StandardNotes:

• Pomodoro Timer (Productivity)
• Marp Editor (For presentations)
• Home & Coin Inventory (Inventories)
• Precious Metals (Charts on numerical data)
• Savings Goal Tracker (Goals)
• Free Draw Editor (Digital Whiteboard)

[cuathro]

Perhaps it is chance, the universe coming together or the mind interrelating isolated events. This blog (You only have one brain 20220104) entry may or may not be an implicit response to a post in this forum.

I share and restate several situations for consideration:

1. All technology is a "second part of us or something else". A shovel for digging is an extension of the hand, giving it strength and shape to achieve the purpose. Magnifying glasses are "second eyes" for people with severe myopia or astigmatism. A screen is a "second part" of a graphite paper. They are physical tools that allow us to solve problems and provide alternatives to achieve objectives, they are that second part, that extended version of the original.

2. In the software field we could say that a "second voice" is instant messaging, a "second vision" is photographs and videos, a "second memory" would be StandardNotes with the unique "Plain Text" editor.

3. That's it, the "Plain Text" is the tool at our service, it can be written and maintained, stored and retrieved in a solid and backed up way. But what about the "Spreadsheet", what about the "Checklist", what about the inclusion of "Markdown" formatting, what about "Super Notes", Perhaps, if you take the guiding principles mentioned in the blog, they don't fit with the features that were implemented and work very well to this day:

• "It's ok to not meticulously link your notes".

• • • It's also ok to be able to have the tool to do so (Natively and with SuperNotes.) Why? Because a fossil record of memory, needs clues and relationships for archaeologists to decipher the content, otherwise the fossil is a record, but an invalid record, corrupted by time and the fragility of human memory (which functions as a decoder of the notes).

• "It's ok to dump all your thoughts in one flat, untagged list".

• • • Nor is there anything wrong if you manage to dump your ideas on cards, without a search engine, without technology, with pencil and paper. Absolutely nothing happens, other than wasting time and the chances of their longevity. Improve time (with tools) to be able to perform every action that requires writing thoughts (many, in different times, in different spaces, of different types); improve longevity so that a tornado or a short circuit does not transform matter into memories (the digital has ample possibilities of overcoming the physical, with the measures taken by StandardNotes, I believe it fulfills one of its principles of Longevity, and that is calculated in at least 100 years). Giving tools allows people to have the freedom to manage their productivity or procrastination, denying them for the simple guiding fact of conformity is dangerous, because if everything is already done, there is nothing more to implement or improve; tools would be seen as the manager of corruption to "plain text" editor, increasing ways of management and data entry would break the status-quo (situation totally far from the work done in StandardNotes, each update shows a firmness in achieving goals beyond maintaining a status-quo, it fervently seeks a step ahead of what is already there).

• "It's ok to rely on a search bar as your primary organization method".

• • • If anything, StandardNotes search is currently the method of organization over tags; however, that same guiding principle is not enforced with such firmness, because the search bar is as limited as Google, Facebook and Whatsapp with its non-auditable or self-auditable "encryption." Why? The search is still limited to the desktop application (real search, with word highlighting), and even there there there are no search parameters, no way to filter results, it's just opening notes that might contain the result (trial and error) until something is found (if at all). Remember that a fossil record will not have 4 notes and 6 tags, but it is exponential as time goes by, notes grow, words increase and characters multiply.

The biggest point of discrepancy is the following statement:

• "There is no "second brain" technology right now."

• • • Glasses are not an imitation of the eyes, but a tool that complements and helps. StandardNotes is not an imitation of the brain, it is a complement to the memory, with tools that, from a personal criterion, should help to enhance the memory (not to continue creating gaps of forgetfulness or misunderstanding). If we try to understand the "second brain or the second something" as an imitation, then there is no such technology. However, if we consider that "second brain" as a "complement of the brain", then the vision of it changes and it could be said that such technology exists.

But where are the requirements of the previous message? Perhaps the explanation is self-explanatory when you understand that Markdown is a tool that helps visually to develop ideas with titles, subtitles, bold and italics, to give emphasis or to denote doubt, to establish hierarchies necessary in a text.; when understanding that a Spreadsheet is that fossil record of numerical parameters that are necessary to develop and enhance quantitative criteria that are not soluble with a flat list of numbers and functions; by understanding that the plausible need for SuperNotes and native tags/vehicles was to provide tools to solve and increase the ability to record what words cannot solve (the link to a specific note or the inclusion of a photograph to record and comment it); finally, by understanding that a visual Kanban board (or other style), allows to have a visual tool to solve the problem of rigidity of a tedious to organize and manage flat list.

I do not think that StandardNotes achieves what the techno-literates consider "second brain", perhaps using the terms of the techno-literates, the objective of StandardNotes would be to reach the level of "second useful memory" that includes a certain part of neural network, a certain part of numerical organization, a certain part of visual organization. Where evidently the fundamental is in the "Plain Text" (which is the managing principle of an idea or thought), is the objective of StandardNotes to stay with the achievement of the fossil record "Plain Text" or to try to give tools to manage that record, are the three guiding principles mentioned in that blog entry as genuine as the basic principles of: "Stand For Privacy", "Built to Last", "Write Fearlessly" and "Principles & Philosophies"?

[cuathro]

The one-person debate. I continue here breaking down some information and criteria about the "second brain".

The Tweet that grounds this autoresponse:

Tweet (20230123) from the official StandardNotes Twitter account:

"Second brain weighing you down? As approachable as it is, the idea that remembering everything will help you level up is antithetical to how brains work to keep you light on your feet. Wisdom lies not in what you remember but by how experiences shape your brain over time."

It would give the impression that this was the response to the previous message in this forum. Mentioning some sentences like: "Because a fossil record of memory, needs clues and relationships for archaeologists to decipher the content, otherwise the fossil is a record, but an invalid record, corrupted by time and the fragility of human memory (which functions as a decoder of the notes).", "StandardNotes is not an imitation of the brain, it is a complement to the memory, with tools that, from a personal criterion, should help to enhance the memory (not to continue creating gaps of forgetfulness or misunderstanding).", the objective of StandardNotes would be to reach the level of "second useful memory"

1. "Second brain weighing you down?"
   Experiences are valid, but so are memories; life has its own weight and the circumstances in its course, too. The brain never "keeps light baggage", the brain keeps in the background that which it does not manage to complete. The brain does not relieve itself with mediocre or conformist answers, the brain always seeks to complete thoughts and give them coherence. The brain does not seek to level up with "another brain", the brain always looks for ways and tools to manage its work that is born from that infinite number of possibilities that underlie the conscious and unconscious. The brain does not mist over time, the brain solidifies, the brain matures and strengthens its connections until the memory breaks down with something like Alzheimer's or death arrives.

2. "Wisdom lies not in what you remember but by how experiences shape your brain over time."
   I rephrase the wisdom statement, "Wisdom resides in what you remember and how experiences shape your brain over time, the fruit of knowledge and your own judgment." To deny that knowledge is that which is obtained from somewhere and stored in memory is absurd. One's own criterion has its origin in doubt, experience and in the relationships that one builds when one puts together one's own thoughts and stored knowledge; where the objective is to refute, affirm or create something. Wisdom requires memory, denying it, as accessible as it may seem, does not "alleviate" the "weight of the second brain".

With this, 3 points are born to emphasize and reaffirm from the previous message in this forum. Many are quotes from that message:

1. To take for granted that a tools are a burden, is a mistake:
   "Giving tools allows people to have the freedom to manage their productivity or procrastination, denying them for the simple guiding fact of conformity is dangerous, (...)"

2. The simplicity of mediocrity is dangerous because it leads to conforming:
   "(...) because if everything is already done, there is nothing more to implement or improve".

3. The imbalance of criteria that arises from a criterion that does not see alternatives in the definition:
   "If we try to understand the "second brain or the second something" as an imitation, then there is no such technology. However, if we consider that "second brain" as a "complement of the brain", then the vision of it changes and it could be said that such technology exists."

In the end this is all conjecture from an autoresponder, but looking for StandardNotes (in the wake of their new "guiding principle" mentioned on their blog and reaffirmed on their Twitter feed) to not look to their definition of "second brain" as an easy way to justify a line of work that doesn't see tools (basic ones like search or visual editors) in their future. Refusal to introduce those tools under the "second brain" argument will only find conformism justified with abstract parameters and denying the ability for users to manage their productivity or procrastination.

PS: Having guiding principles is valid and necessary. I agree on the other principles that StandardNotes handles, because they not only have solidity, coherence and real foundation, but because it does not assume and presuppose how the user procrastinates or how the "second brain" weighs on him.