Building My Second Brain with Emacs and Org-Roam (An Overview) 

Hey Stefansen! I have a video in the pipeline for this, but the spoiler is that I am using org-roam-ui to visualize the nodes of content and the connections between them. github.com/org-roam/org-roam-ui

Hey @lamb-eng, I tested Obsidian for about six months, but eventually found myself drawn to an Emacs-based solution, which led me to org-roam. The key reason for the switch was my need for the fast navigation between workspaces and buffers that are built into my muscle memory. Like [SPC]-[b]-[p] to navigate to the previous buffer. My workflow is very keyboard- and text-centric, and I'm not a huge fan of reaching for the mouse. With Emacs, I can also easily tailor my environment to my needs. For example, I can write custom functions to generate file names in specific formats or rename files using custom front-matter. Another factor was Obsidian's commercial license, which was a bit of a drawback for me [obsidian.md/pricing]. That said, I did support the project by signing up for Catalyst, which gave me early beta access and iOS app access when I was using Obsidian (2021). However, the biggest reason I ultimately chose org-roam was the ability to use org files instead of Markdown. It all comes down to personal preference, not necessarily which tool is >>better

Thanks Anders for this question as it helps to structure my next org-roam video that I will finish and release this week. The two cent version is that I learned of the Zettlekasten method while trying to organize and modularize my TeX files. My org-roam notes are essentially gateways to my TeX files that are like you said are small and many files, so yes my org-roam files are for the most part made up of Zettles or atoms of information and then structured using both Maps Of Content (Indexes) and file naming conventions. I will also be going through how I bridge my org files with my TeX files without the video getting too long. I want to keep all these videos rather short and then at some point do a long form video putting it all together.

The graph is generated using org-roam-ui. github.com/org-roam/org-roam-ui Org-Roam-UI is a frontend for exploring and interacting with your org-roam notes. While the graph is a nice visualisation, I am now in the process of porting my notes to denote - github.com/protesilaos/denote.

They were referencing LaTex (pronounced "luh-tech")

A series of videos are in the stack to present how I use org-roam and LaTeX to populate the nodes of my “second brain” and I use Python to glue it all together.

The more is on the production Q and hopefully will be able to start sharing soon.

It depends on how you define how content is going to be related. For me the connections of interest are few as I am specifically interested in specific schema of content. For example, I might be interested in how the zeros of a specific conditional degree 2 trinomial equation is also being used to find to find the local extrema of a degree 3 trinomial. Images assets could also be linked. More importantly, where have I used this content previously. Was it used in an exam or perhaps a slide deck? Is there a Python notebook associated with solving this equation. So this network is highly localised. It can sometimes lead to unexpected links between nodes of content. While the graph view is fun, it is the backlinks generated by org-roam where it starts to become useful. So if I create a map of content containing the questions of an exam, then if I would visit any one of those questions it would indicate which exam(s) referenced this particular node of content. So what stops everything from being connected? I feel it is attributed to the intentions of the author of what connections are of interest and priority. So for example, I would not link every node that made use of the commutative law as that would just provide too much noise to the network. Is there too much to keep track of - yes! It is org-roam that is responsible to make finding that information quickly.

@@mholson I keep remembering that knowledge is discovered by finding connections , and that there should not ever be any thing not connected, because else that means that there is still possible knowledge gap. People may have differing and thus unobjective view of things because they don't have all the connections yet. The Truth is always the same objective One. I'm not entirely sure how to phrase this better, as I myself am not fully aware or understanding of this concept or truth. If you map out all your thoughts and ideas exactly and it matches someone else's exact mind map exactly then you have the exact same subjective view as identical subjects of the object of truth itself. If mind maps are merged then they will become closer to the truth by being more complete, especially after untrue links are repaired. Is this some conecpt of ai singularity ? or of human wasted potential ? am I supposed to be afraid? I feel unconventionally unintelligent not being sure what I am meaning or thinking really, don't you agree with me yet? I'd like to read from you what is your mind map of this whole paradigm I express ? Be rejoiced , take a great day some day. Undefined Null.

Building local knowledge networks as opposed to one massive public knowledge network has several advantages, some of which include: 1. Tailored information: Local knowledge networks focus on the specific needs, interests, and issues relevant to a particular community, region, or group. This allows for more accurate, relevant, and detailed information to be shared, which may not be as easily accessible or comprehensible in a massive public knowledge network. 2. Cultural and linguistic diversity: Local knowledge networks can preserve and promote the unique cultural, linguistic, and historical aspects of specific communities. This fosters a more inclusive and diverse global knowledge landscape, while also encouraging the use and preservation of local languages. 3. Trust and credibility: Local knowledge networks are often built on trust and credibility, as they involve community members or experts who are familiar with the specific context. This can lead to more reliable and accurate information and increased user confidence in the network. 4. Community engagement and empowerment: Local knowledge networks empower communities by allowing them to share their knowledge and experiences, build connections, and participate in the decision-making processes that affect them. This can lead to greater social cohesion, collaboration, and a sense of ownership over the information and resources generated. 5. Resilience and adaptability: Local knowledge networks can be more resilient and adaptable to change, as they are better equipped to understand and respond to the unique challenges and opportunities faced by their specific community or region. 6. Decentralization and reduced risk: Having multiple local knowledge networks reduces the risk of a single point of failure or control, which could occur in a massive public knowledge network. Decentralization ensures that information remains accessible even if one network experiences technical difficulties or is compromised in some way. 7. Privacy and security: Local knowledge networks can be better equipped to handle sensitive or confidential information relevant to a specific community or group, as access can be limited and controlled more easily than in a massive public knowledge network. While local knowledge networks offer several advantages, it is important to recognize that they can also benefit from being interconnected with other networks, both local and global. This interconnectedness can facilitate the sharing of best practices, innovations, and resources, while still maintaining the unique aspects and advantages of local knowledge networks

I should be back creating videos next week. This is definitely on my roadmap - and I have just moved it up.

@@mholson excellent