@Sascha said
By definition: The Zettelkasten Method is a set of workflows and tools mainly for architecture. It is agnostic to the theory of knowledge that you are using as the foundational layer.
This is what we have to do to navigate this level of depth. We have to get into direct contact with ideas. (…) What I did was to build an inventory of knowledge building blocks for which I had a sufficient understanding, so that I would know their wholes, parts, and the parts’ relationships. (…) If you want to master the building blocks, the raw material of the knowledge that you want to build, you have to examine the building blocks closely.
Level 3 of the iceberg is labeled "Zettelkasten Method".
My brain reads: "Zettelkasten Method" = level 3 = knowledge building blocks = a very specifc theory of knowledge.
@Sascha said
By definition: The Zettelkasten Method is a set of workflows and tools mainly for architecture. It is agnostic to the theory of knowledge that you are using as the foundational layer.
This is what we have to do to navigate this level of depth. We have to get into direct contact with ideas. (…) What I did was to build an inventory of knowledge building blocks for which I had a sufficient understanding, so that I would know their wholes, parts, and the parts’ relationships. (…) If you want to master the building blocks, the raw material of the knowledge that you want to build, you have to examine the building blocks closely.
Level 3 of the iceberg is labeled "Zettelkasten Method".
My brain reads: "Zettelkasten Method" = level 3 = knowledge building blocks = a very specifc theory of knowledge.
What am I missing?
You seem to read "x is y" as only "x is y". However, "x is y" is compatible with "z is y".
In the guide, I don't argue for the position that knowledge building blocks knowledge atoms and only them are ones. I don't argue at all. I just make a claim and continue based on the claim.
So, to move from level 2 to level 3, you have to adhere to a model for atomicity. But, as stated above or somewhere else. The decision for a model doesn't have to be consistent for the total Zettelkasten. I use completely different atoms for story elements, and they link happily back and forth with my knowledge.
Additionally: Level 3 marks a direction and the distinction between level 2 and level 3 is marked by the difference between a natural and somewhat formal (or artificial?) language. @Andy nailed the connection to Rudolph Carnap's idea of explication.
Contrary to Carnap as I understood his intentions, I don't think that concepts should be fully explicated. The process of explication is an epistemological device, but the ordinary language is still the foundation for explications. For example: When I talk about knowledge I don't narrow the meaning of the word down to a set of building blocks for the same reason why I don't narrow down the idea of my dog to flesh, fur, and misbehaviour.
If you fully worked on an idea, you mastered it on all 4 levels, including level 1.
@Sascha said:
You seem to read "x is y" as only "x is y". However, "x is y" is compatible with "z is y".
Can we have this a bit less abstract and a bit more concrete?
I'm trying to understand the relationship between "Zettelkasten Method", "Level 3" and "Knowledge Building Blocks".
@Sascha said:
In the guide, I don't argue for the position that knowledge building blocks knowledge atoms and only them are ones. I don't argue at all. I just make a claim and continue based on the claim.
You designed a model. I'm trying to understand the model you designed.
The levels and their labels are your personal design decision. You could have chosen 3 or 5 or 10 levels, but you chose 4. You could have chosen the label "Zettelkasten Method" for the entire model, but you chose to assign the label to level 3. Why?
The six knowledge building blocks are also your personal design decision. You seem to be happy with your design. You seem to have anecdotal evidence that it works for your students.
@Sascha said:
So, to move from level 2 to level 3, you have to adhere to a model for atomicity.
(…) it is both a fallacy and a malicious trick to use beetle boxes. Often, it is necessary, since we can’t open every beetle box we use. But often, beetle boxes are a tool to sell something without having done the work required to master this.
What is this atom, then?
I use an inventory of six types of atoms, called knowledge building blocks, which I developed in 2011.
How is this compatible with your current view?
@Sascha said:
But, as stated above or somewhere else. The decision for a model doesn't have to be consistent for the total Zettelkasten. I use completely different atoms for story elements, and they link happily back and forth with my knowledge.
If the answer to the question "What is this atom, then?" is not "knowledge building blocks", what is it then? I'm confused.
And going back to the iceberg, could you explain why you chose the label "Zettelkasten Method" for level 3? The Guide also states more generally, that "The Zettelkasten Method is about creating links."
Comments
I'm confused. In The Complete Guide to Atomic Note-Taking you write in section "Level 3: Atomicity and the Zettelkasten Method":
Level 3 of the iceberg is labeled "Zettelkasten Method".
My brain reads: "Zettelkasten Method" = level 3 = knowledge building blocks = a very specifc theory of knowledge.
What am I missing?
You seem to read "x is y" as only "x is y". However, "x is y" is compatible with "z is y".
In the guide, I don't argue for the position that knowledge building blocks knowledge atoms and only them are ones. I don't argue at all. I just make a claim and continue based on the claim.
So, to move from level 2 to level 3, you have to adhere to a model for atomicity. But, as stated above or somewhere else. The decision for a model doesn't have to be consistent for the total Zettelkasten. I use completely different atoms for story elements, and they link happily back and forth with my knowledge.
Additionally: Level 3 marks a direction and the distinction between level 2 and level 3 is marked by the difference between a natural and somewhat formal (or artificial?) language. @Andy nailed the connection to Rudolph Carnap's idea of explication.
Contrary to Carnap as I understood his intentions, I don't think that concepts should be fully explicated. The process of explication is an epistemological device, but the ordinary language is still the foundation for explications. For example: When I talk about knowledge I don't narrow the meaning of the word down to a set of building blocks for the same reason why I don't narrow down the idea of my dog to flesh, fur, and misbehaviour.
If you fully worked on an idea, you mastered it on all 4 levels, including level 1.
I am a Zettler
Can we have this a bit less abstract and a bit more concrete?
I'm trying to understand the relationship between "Zettelkasten Method", "Level 3" and "Knowledge Building Blocks".
You designed a model. I'm trying to understand the model you designed.
The levels and their labels are your personal design decision. You could have chosen 3 or 5 or 10 levels, but you chose 4. You could have chosen the label "Zettelkasten Method" for the entire model, but you chose to assign the label to level 3. Why?
The six knowledge building blocks are also your personal design decision. You seem to be happy with your design. You seem to have anecdotal evidence that it works for your students.
A wise man once said:
He had observed that:
So he made a clear statement:
How is this compatible with your current view?
If the answer to the question "What is this atom, then?" is not "knowledge building blocks", what is it then? I'm confused.
And going back to the iceberg, could you explain why you chose the label "Zettelkasten Method" for level 3? The Guide also states more generally, that "The Zettelkasten Method is about creating links."