
\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage[T2A,OT1]{fontenc}
\usepackage[a4paper, top=20mm, bottom=20mm, left=20mm, right=20mm]{geometry}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[russian, english]{babel}
\usepackage{tabu}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{tabularx}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{float}
\floatstyle{boxed}
\restylefloat{figure}
\usepackage{setspace}
\onehalfspacing
\author{Artyom Bologov \href{mailto:wiki@aartaka.me}{(email)}}
\date{\today}
\title{Wiki, Wittgenstein, and Wits}
\makeatletter
\def\endenv{\expandafter\end\expandafter{\@currenvir}}
\makeatother
\begin{document}
\maketitle

\includegraphics[width=\textwidth,height=\textheight,keepaspectratio]{./assets/wiki.png}

So Wittgenstein famously wrote ``(7) Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent'' in his
\href{https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus}{Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus}.
It might seem absurd and tautological---one is silent when they cannot speak anyway?

But what Wittgenstein meant by speech was not the everyday speech---but rather logical utterances.
So, if  one cannot speak logically---one must not speak.

This is a radical position.
Forcing all language to be logical is restrictive and kinda… futile?
But it's good that Wittgenstein picked his fight.

Wondering if I should cultivate a wiki or digital garden---I feel the same kind of discord.
If one cannot express something is an formal-ish self-detached wiki entry---one must remain silent.
And, as someone inherently informal, I am doomed to permanent wiki silence.

Wittgenstein himself provides a way out---he says that not everything is explainable and verbalizable.
``(6.522) There is indeed the [logically] inexpressible. This shows itself; it is the mystical.''
Meaning: not everything is logical, not everything is structured, not everything is wiki-ready.

\section*{The Only Option} \label{option}

What do I do about my site?
It cannot be a wiki---because not everything fits this mold.
It cannot be a knowledge base---not enough things in my head for it.
It cannot be a journal---I'm too intermittent to keep one.

I seem to be left with a single option---narrative blogging.

\section*{Authorship and Emotion} \label{authorship}

\begin{figure}[h!]\begin{quote}
The image, it is clear, must be set between the mind or senses of the artist himself and the mind or senses of others. If you bear this in memory you will see that art necessarily divides itself into three forms progressing from one to the next. These forms are: the lyrical form, the form wherein the artist presents his image in immediate relation to himself; the epical form, the form wherein he presents his image in mediate relation to himself and to others; the dramatic form, the form wherein he presents his image in immediate relation to others.
\end{quote}\caption{James Joyce, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, Chapter V}\end{figure}

Joyce---speaking through his autobiographical character, Stephen Dedalus---lectures us on types of literature.
In his classification wiki is an epic at best---being detached and ``objective.''
There's no author in the wiki.
But I'm an author!
Hey!
I'm Artyom!
I'm here!

\section*{Thinking in Non-Logic} \label{non-logic}

I think in images---not in graphics, mind you---in my dear flashes of imagination and bursts of emotion.
This often doesn't fit into logical model---heck, it even resists framing into words at times!
Truly anti-Wittgenstein stuff.

Lately I'm enamored by language.
Well, even more than before.
I want some style; some kick; some eloquence.
And logic does not always lay well with beauty.
I care about logic and objectivity---but I also care about style.
I want to sound… somehow?

\section*{Objectivity?} \label{objective}

\begin{figure}[h!]\begin{quote}
It has taken me some forty years to invent Russia and Western Europe,
and now I was faced by the task of inventing America.
The obtaining of such local ingredients as would allow me to inject a modicum of average ‘reality'
(one of the few words which mean nothing without quotes)
into the brew of individual fancy,  proved […] difficult
\end{quote}\caption{Vladimir Nabokov, Lolita, On a Book Entitled Lolita}\end{figure}

I realize that one's wiki is their own space for reflection and art.
It can be really personal and artsy!
But the default assumptions work against that:

\begin{itemize}\item Lack of authorship mechanisms, impersonality
\item Lack of extra-subject organization besides links
\item Lack of intra-subject permeation
\end{itemize}

Sure, you can write anything in the wiki, but the unspoken rule is: to mimic Wikipedia or at best c2wiki.

So if I were to make myself a wiki, the very values of it would daunt me.
It's too ``objective.''

\section*{So No, No Wikis Here} \label{no}

This website stays what it is now: a space for chaotic (duh) thoughts, interactive demos, and measly fiction.
Enjoy!


This post is non-linear and is better read in dynamic HTML at <https://aartaka.me/wiki.html>.
Do not expect it to have a coherent linear narrative.
Read <https://faculty.washington.edu/farkas/TC510-Fall2011/Horn-DocsWithFuture.pdf> for why I do that.

\par\noindent\rule{\textwidth}{0.4pt}
\href{https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0}{CC-BY 4.0} 2022-2026 by Artyom Bologov (aartaka,)
\href{https://codeberg.org/aartaka/pages/commit/a91befa}{with one commit remixing Claude-generated code}.
Any and all opinions listed here are my own and not representative of my employers; future, past and present.
\end{document}
