## 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?
