So I was considering starting a wiki. But it seems there are some unsurmountable value mismatches with me and wikis. So here’s a small reflection piece engaging Wittgenstein, literary theory, and a straw man idea of wikis. assets/wiki.png A simplistic and doodly thumbnail. On it, bright-ish letters say “Wi.” Out of there, three continuations stem: “ttgenstein” (Wittgenstein,) “ki” (Wiki,) and “ts” (Wits.) In the corners, equally chaotic and nervous letters spell out: “Artyom Bologov” and “AARTAKA.ME” IMAGE-ALT

So Wittgenstein famously wrote “(7) Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent” in his 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.

The only 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.

Authorship and Emotion

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.

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!

Thinking in 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?

Objectivity?

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

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:

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

So No, No Wikis Here

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