There is a familiar moment that has become increasingly common. You sit down with the intention to write, and the idea is already there in some form. It may not be complete, but it is sufficient to begin. Instead of starting, however, you find yourself adjusting something. A folder is renamed, a file is moved, a structure is reconsidered. What begins as a small act of preparation gradually expands into something else.
This does not feel like distraction. It feels responsible. It feels like setting the stage properly, like ensuring that the work will proceed smoothly once it begins. There is a sense that a better structure will lead to better thinking, and that a few more minutes spent refining the environment will make everything clearer. The intention remains intact, but the act itself is delayed.
A subtle shift has taken place. Writing used to begin with a page and a willingness to think. Now it often begins with the design of a system that will eventually hold that thinking. The preparation becomes part of the process, and over time, it becomes difficult to distinguish where preparation ends and the work itself begins.
At some point, without a clear boundary, the work before the work begins to occupy the space where writing once lived. The delay is no longer temporary. It becomes a pattern that repeats itself each time we sit down to begin.
The Expansion of Preparation
In earlier moments, writing required very little to begin. A notebook, a document, a place to put words. The difficulty was internal, not structural. What mattered was whether one was ready to engage with thought, not whether the system supporting that thought was sufficiently refined.
Now the landscape has changed. Tools designed to capture, organize, and connect ideas have become more powerful and more accessible. Platforms like Obsidian allow us to build entire networks of notes, where each fragment of thought can be linked and revisited. Alongside this, new approaches such as LLM-driven knowledge systems promise to extend thinking itself.
I found this genuinely fascinating. Watching demos of elaborate setups, from carefully crafted Obsidian vaults to emerging ideas like LLM Wiki, it was difficult not to feel inspired. There is something compelling about seeing thought rendered as a system, where everything connects and nothing seems to be lost. It gives the impression that thinking itself can be engineered.
Naturally, I tried it myself. Using AI, I began building small tools and workflows, experimenting with ways to make thinking more structured, more efficient, and more integrated. At that point, I was not observing the trend from a distance. I was inside it, building, testing, and refining like everyone else.
Productivity Without Resolution
The result of this experimentation was not failure. In many ways, it worked. The tools functioned, the workflows made sense, and the system began to take shape. There was movement, and the movement was visible. Notes were created, processes were refined, and the overall structure became clearer.
But something else became apparent over time. Despite all this activity, there were fewer completed thoughts than expected. The system was growing, but the ideas within it were not always reaching a point of resolution. They were captured and organized, but often left in a state that never fully developed.
Switching tools or refining workflows seemed like progress, but it often delayed the more demanding part of the process. The act of thinking, especially the act of writing, requires a different kind of engagement. It cannot be replaced by better structure. The system can hold ideas, but it cannot complete them.
This creates a pattern that is difficult to notice while inside it. The more one prepares, the more preparation seems necessary. The more the system improves, the more it invites further improvement. Meanwhile, the work itself remains just out of reach, always about to begin, but not quite starting.
When Systems Become Self
Over time, the relationship with these tools begins to change. What starts as a practical approach gradually becomes something more personal. The system reflects how one organizes information, how one approaches work, and how one understands thinking. It becomes, in a subtle way, part of how one defines oneself.
There is a certain satisfaction in building something that appears comprehensive. A well-structured system suggests clarity and control. It signals that thinking is being handled in a deliberate way. This is reinforced by communities that share similar approaches, where systems are displayed, discussed, and refined collectively.
In this environment, the system becomes visible. It is no longer just a support for thinking, but something that can be presented as an achievement. The attention shifts from what is being thought to how thinking is being managed.
The risk is not that systems exist, but that they begin to replace the act they were meant to support. Maintaining the system can feel like meaningful work, even when thinking itself has not advanced. The structure remains active, while the ideas within it remain incomplete.
The Corporate Reflection
This pattern becomes even clearer within organizations. The adoption of AI has created new forms of visibility, where the use of tools itself becomes something that can be measured and reported. Teams are encouraged to integrate AI into their workflows, and the presence of these tools begins to signal progress.
Metrics follow naturally. The number of AI-assisted outputs, the extent of automation, the deployment of new tools. These are easy to track and communicate, and they create a shared sense that something is moving forward. The organization appears to be evolving, and AI becomes part of that narrative.
But this introduces a familiar inversion. The means begin to be measured as if they were the outcome. Saying that AI was used becomes part of the value of the work, even when it does not directly improve the result. The method becomes visible, while the substance becomes harder to evaluate.
There is also a social layer. Using advanced tools is noticeable and can be presented as innovation. Simpler approaches, even when effective, are less visible and can appear less forward-looking. This creates a subtle pressure to adopt tools not only for their utility, but for what they represent.
A Simpler Way to Work
After experimenting with more elaborate approaches, I found myself moving in the opposite direction. Not because the tools were ineffective, but because they were often more than what the work actually required. A simpler approach began to feel not only sufficient, but more aligned with the act of thinking itself. I did not want a system that demanded constant maintenance. I wanted something I could return to easily, something that would support the work without becoming another project.
What I ended up with was minimal by design. A few small tools created with AI, and a basic workflow built around plain text Markdown files. You could call it a kind of “my-pkm,” not a polished second brain, but a working space made of simple, readable files. The key difference is that this simplicity does not exclude AI. It invites it. Because everything is stored in Markdown, AI can directly read, summarize, transform, and extend the content without friction.
The tools themselves are straightforward. One converts content into clean Markdown. Another summarizes URLs into usable text. A third refines language through translation and tone adjustment. Each tool does one thing. Together, they form a loop. Content comes in, it is transformed, it is structured in Markdown, and then it becomes output again through writing. Input, transformation, structure, output. This is not a complex system, but it is a complete one.
GitHub adds continuity without adding weight. By storing these Markdown files in a repository, version control happens naturally. Drafts evolve, changes are tracked, and earlier states remain accessible. The result is a workflow that is simple, AI-usable, and versioned. It does not try to impress, but it allows thinking to move forward without friction. In that sense, it feels closer to a plain text movement than to a productivity system.
The Collapse of Necessary Complexity
This experience points to a broader shift that is easy to overlook. As tools become more capable, the need for elaborate systems decreases. Many of the functions that once required careful design can now be handled directly. Information can be reshaped, summarized, and reused on demand.
In this context, complexity becomes optional. It is no longer required to achieve clarity or continuity. A simple structure can support a wide range of activities, and the absence of a large system can make it easier to begin. The barrier is no longer technical. It is the hesitation to start without preparation.
There is a contrast here that becomes difficult to ignore. While tools reduce the need for complexity, the surrounding culture often encourages more of it. There is a tendency to build systems that reflect what is possible, rather than what is necessary.
Choosing simplicity in this context is not a limitation. It is a decision. It reflects an understanding that thinking does not require elaborate scaffolding, and that reducing unnecessary structure creates more space for actual work.
Writing as the Work
At the center of this is a simple realization. Writing is not the final step of thinking. It is the process through which thinking becomes clear. When writing is delayed, thinking is also delayed, held in a form that never fully resolves.
Beginning to write changes this immediately. Even incomplete sentences create direction. Ideas that were vague begin to take shape, and connections that were uncertain become visible. The act of writing does not require a complete system. It requires only a starting point.
This reframes everything that comes before it. Preparation can support the work, but it cannot replace it. When preparation expands beyond its role, it begins to displace the act it was meant to enable.
Returning to writing restores direct engagement. It allows ideas to develop in a form that can be understood, shared, and refined. The work does not begin when everything is ready. It begins when writing begins.
The Discipline of Enough
In an environment where possibilities continue to expand, a different kind of discipline becomes necessary. It is not the discipline of doing more, but the discipline of recognizing when something is sufficient. Without this, preparation can continue indefinitely, and the work itself is never fully reached.
Simplicity, in this sense, is not about reducing everything to the minimum. It is about removing what is unnecessary. It is about keeping only what supports the work, and letting go of what exists for its own sake.
The workflow described earlier reflects this principle. It is not designed to be complete. It is designed to be enough. Enough to capture, process, and express ideas without creating additional layers of maintenance.
In a context where new tools are constantly emerging, this becomes an important form of clarity. It allows one to engage with the work directly, without being drawn into an endless cycle of refinement.
Returning to the Page
The movement is simple. It is a shift from preparation to expression, from managing systems to engaging directly with thought. The tools remain available, but they no longer occupy the center of the process.
The page returns as the primary space of work. It does not require a complete system, and it does not demand certainty. It offers a place where thinking can begin in its incomplete form and develop through expression.
The work before the work does not disappear. There will always be moments of hesitation and adjustment. But these moments do not need to expand indefinitely. They can remain contained, allowing the work itself to take precedence.
At some point, the work begins. And it begins, not with a system, but with a sentence.
Image: StockCake
Tom’s Blog 