What's A "Zettlekasten" (Oh, no, not again!)?

ZettelDistraction · August 9

@harr said:

@ZettelDistraction said:

Not sure how this counts as a discontinuity. I'd treat this as an example, where Luhmann repeatedly made the same mistake. :-) He could have used the standard practice of the time and create one card for each term in the alphabetical index.

Granted on the index: four rewrites of the same index is a kind of consistency.

The other differences stand unanswered. Sectioning: 108 consecutively numbered sections against eleven top-level sections with roughly a hundred subsections. Organization: largely predetermined fields of knowledge against problem orientation. Linking: a reference on nearly every card against nearly every second card. And you name a further one yourself — the topical hierarchies encoded in the ZK II 3 branch — calling it one of the bigger differences.

Schmidt (2016) and Schmidt (2018) are the same account. "Subtle differences" is not what I replied to.

ZettelDistraction · August 9

@harr

You classify systems under a term you say you don't know. "Personally, I don't know what 'a Zettelkasten' is" (Aug 6). Then: "In my digital Zettelkasten I have a note..." (Aug 8); tomp's four attributes sorted into "[D]igital hypertext systems that have little recognizable connection to Luhmann's example," one of your "two major schools of 'Zettelkasten' practice" (sorting: 4:09AM; 'two schools': Aug 6); "my own analyses of ZK I and ZK II" (3:42AM). And when @Sascha wrote "godfather of Zettelkasten," you asked, "What exactly do you mean by the word 'Zettelkasten' in this sentence?" (Aug 7) — a standard your own uses here would not meet. Which is it: you know the term well enough to classify with it, or too little to answer for your own uses the question you put to Sascha about his?

harr · August 9

@ZettelDistraction said:
The other differences stand unanswered. Sectioning: 108 consecutively numbered sections against eleven top-level sections with roughly a hundred subsections. Organization: largely predetermined fields of knowledge against problem orientation. Linking: a reference on nearly every card against nearly every second card. And you name a further one yourself — the topical hierarchies encoded in the ZK II 3 branch — calling it one of the bigger differences.

I consider "Folgezettel" the single one feature that sets Luhmann's card index apart from other card indexes of the time. He consistently used the same formal rule for 40+ years. In my opinion the differences you point out don't make much of a difference compared to the consistency of Folgezettel.

ZettelDistraction · August 9

@harr said:

@ZettelDistraction said:
The other differences stand unanswered. Sectioning: 108 consecutively numbered sections against eleven top-level sections with roughly a hundred subsections. Organization: largely predetermined fields of knowledge against problem orientation. Linking: a reference on nearly every card against nearly every second card. And you name a further one yourself — the topical hierarchies encoded in the ZK II 3 branch — calling it one of the bigger differences.

I consider "Folgezettel" the single one feature that sets Luhmann's card index apart from other card indexes of the time. He consistently used the same formal rule for 40+ years. In my opinion the differences you point out don't make much of a difference compared to the consistency of Folgezettel.

Granted: Folgezettel persisted across both collections, and that is the defensible core of your consistency claim. It is not the claim I answered. "His process barely changed over decades" is about the process. Four differences stand uncontested — sectioning, organization, reference density, the topical hierarchies you named yourself. A process that keeps one rule and changes in four ways was refined over a working life. That is tomp's sentence. You were baffled by how little Luhmann's process changed over decades. The evidence supports @tomp.

tomp · August 9

@ZettelDistraction said:

A process that keeps one rule and changes in four ways was refined over a working life. That is tomp's sentence. You were baffled by how little Luhmann's process changed over decades. The evidence supports @tomp.

I can hardly credit that someone who works with a system for decades wouldn't adapt and improve how he operated. He would get better at moving through the cards, streamlining what he put into the notes, improving the cross references, eliminating things that didn't help him later, figuring out how to make better entry points.

Not all of those improvements would be obvious in the cards, and Schmidt's papers wouldn't have picked up on many of them. But that's how humans work.

harr · August 9

@ZettelDistraction said:
You classify systems under a term you say you don't know.

I differentiate between the thing and the label. I'm challenging the assumption that we talk about the same thing when we use the same label.

"Personally, I don't know what 'a Zettelkasten' is" (Aug 6).

This refers to the thing. What is the thing that people talk about, when they say that it "is" a Zettelkasten?

Then: "In my digital Zettelkasten I have a note..." (Aug 8);

I like the label "Zettelkasten". :-) But this doesn't necessarily mean, that you and I are talking about the same thing. When I think of "Zettelkasten" I think primarily of the many card indexes that aren't Luhmann's. I think of collecting interesting pieces of information, alphabetical order, topical clusters, bibliographical cards, Leitner boxes and much more. I think of digital index card emulators with hypertext features like Apple's HyperCard.

tomp's four attributes sorted into "[D]igital hypertext systems that have little recognizable connection to Luhmann's example,"

Luhmann's Zettelkasten is a very well defined physical thing with a clear boundary. If you claim that a digital hypertext system and Luhmann's wooden box both "are" a Zettelkasten, I'm curious how you make the connection.

one of your "two major schools of 'Zettelkasten' practice" (sorting: 4:09AM; 'two schools': Aug 6);

Here I'm proposing that we might be talking about at least two different things, when we talk about "zettelkasten".

"my own analyses of ZK I and ZK II" (3:42AM).

This refers to well defined parts of Luhmann's personal Zettelkasten.

And when @Sascha wrote "godfather of Zettelkasten," you asked, "What exactly do you mean by the word 'Zettelkasten' in this sentence?" (Aug 7)

The word "zettelkasten" was essential in the context: "The page is called zettelkasten.de for a reason and I call Luhmann the godfather of Zettelkasten for a reason, too."

— a standard your own uses here would not meet. Which is it: you know the term well enough to classify with it, or too little to answer for your own uses the question you put to Sascha about his?

I claim that we have no common understanding of the term.

I claim that Zettelkasten debates would be much more constructive, if we kept in mind that the same label "Zettelkasten" can refer to different things.

ZettelDistraction · August 9

@harr writes
"If you claim that a digital hypertext system and Luhmann's wooden box are both a 'Zettelkasten', I'm curious how you make the connection" (3:45PM).

For my use, the answer is public. My repository applies the label to a digital system and specifies what that system is: focused notes with stable IDs, WikiLinks between notes, SEE ALSO sections, reserved index notes. The connection to Luhmann's boxes is family resemblance to a paradigm — focused notes, links between notes, an organizing scheme, findability by identifier — each of which Luhmann's boxes instantiate; your own showcase displays the links and the numbering. No boundary is claimed. Your cited standard, Familienähnlichkeit, requires overlapping resemblances, not boundaries.

Your own conception includes the digital side of the pair: "digital index card emulators with hypertext features like Apple's HyperCard" (3:45PM).

harr · August 9

@ZettelDistraction said:
Systems with hypertext features are inside your stated conception

Yes. One of the proposed zettelkasten schools is in the digital hypertext tradition.

Apple's HyperCard, released in 1987, is a great example of the transition from paper index cards to digital hypertext. It still looks like the familiar cards and already implements unique digital features. Microsoft's Cardfile, released 1985, is another early example that brings index cards to personal computers, but cruder.

tomp · August 9

@harr said:

@tomp said:
(…) My group of core attributes of a "Zettelkasten" system (upper case) is much shorter:

A note collection where each note is focused ("atomic" if you like, but the focus can be broader);

Notes can be linked to other notes;

There is an ordering, numbering, or other organizing scheme such that related notes are either "near" each other in some sense, or related notes can be found in some convenient way.

Given a note's identifier, that note can be found easily.

That's what I called earlier "[D]igital hypertext systems that have little recognizable connection to Luhmann's example."

Each one of the four items has a direct and immediate connection to Luhmann's example. They are extracted to a higher level of abstraction.

If one insists that a Zettelkasten system must match Luhmann's in every way, then the system must be paper-based and use his numbering system. If so, we should just rename the thing and go home.

The idea is that you stand in a different tradition; the tradition of people like Vannevar Bush, Ted Nelson, Doug Engelbart, Jeff Conklin, Tim Berners-Lee, Ward Cunningham, …

Yes, to a degree, though less than you might think. Two traditions converging, what's not to like?

harr · August 9

@ZettelDistraction said:
The connection to Luhmann's boxes is family resemblance to a paradigm — focused notes, links between notes, an organizing scheme, findability by identifier — each of which Luhmann's boxes instantiate;

Just to make sure, if I understand you correctly:

there is a paradigm
features of the paradigm are: focused notes, links between notes, an organizing scheme, findability by identifier
this paradigm is what you call "Zettelkasten"

your own showcase displays the links and the numbering. No boundary is claimed.

If you refer to my experiments with Luhmann's zettels, the boundary should be obvious: I talk about this one concrete object. The label "Zettelkasten" doesn't refer to your paradigm, but to the label Luhmann used himself to refer to the wooden box and its contents. In German the word "Zettelkasten" has other connotations than your suggested paradigm.

Your cited standard, Familienähnlichkeit, requires overlapping resemblances, not boundaries.

I cited it in reference to the dehorsify-post, not because I find it useful.

I'd like to learn more about the paradigm. Where did it originate? What does it include, what does it exclude?

Amontillado · August 9

@harr said:

I find it noteworthy, how you describe "Begriffsarbeit" in your book:[^book24]

Engage with the terms and their definitions that you encounter in texts. Working with concepts holds a great deal of potential. Intellectual work in the stricter sense begins when we argue for or against particular terms.

There is great wisdom in this. I'm using math exercise against what the calendar might want to do to my brain. It is so much more instructional to take a math lesson and stretch it beyond the parameters of the text than to just solve offered challenges.

tomp · August 9

@Amontillado said:

@harr said:

Engage with the terms and their definitions that you encounter in texts. Working with concepts holds a great deal of potential. Intellectual work in the stricter sense begins when we argue for or against particular terms.

Only when the discussion takes place at the appropriate level. Remember those composite pictures that feature the face of a well-known person? If you zoom in far enough, you see that each pixel is actually a tiny photograph in its own right. When you have zoomed in enough to examine the little pictures, there is no sign of the large face. When you zoom out far enough to recognize the face, you can't make out the little photos.

There's no value in arguing at the wrong scale. There's no value in trying to describe the overall face in terms of the little pictures. Either scale might be a fine topic in itself but the scale needs to be established.

When I talk about "Zettelkasten" here I'm using a broad scale. I get enough picky details writing code to make it work well.

ZettelDistraction · August 10

@harr said:

@ZettelDistraction said:
The connection to Luhmann's boxes is family resemblance to a paradigm — focused notes, links between notes, an organizing scheme, findability by identifier — each of which Luhmann's boxes instantiate;

Just to make sure, if I understand you correctly:

there is a paradigm

features of the paradigm are: focused notes, links between notes, an organizing scheme, findability by identifier

this paradigm is what you call "Zettelkasten"

Just to make sure, if I understand you correctly:

"paradigm" in my sentence names an exemplar — Luhmann's boxes; you have converted the exemplar into a feature-set and attributed the feature-set to me. Your questions concern the feature-set, not the exemplar. Feature-sets include and exclude; exemplars are resembled.

Sascha · August 10

@harr said:

@Sascha said:
A mere meta-statement about the epistemic work you have done is not showing and sharing the epistemic work itself. Showing and sharing the epistemic work would be the right thing to do, if you want to cooperate instead of skipping your part of the work.

Like this, this or this? :-)

Referring to other threads in which you presented something of your own doesn't do the trick.

From my point of view, I'm following your advice and "engage with the terms and their definitions" that I encountered in your writing.

From my point of view, you are flooding me with questions and paradoxically working hard to avoid the work of engaging with the concept. The last link you provided is a wonderful example of that. It is a long list of requests, hopes, wishes, etc., for me to do epistemic work.

This is, I guess, why @tomp wrote "No, it's time you write what you think they are."It seems to me that he picked up the vibe like I did. Sadly, he was satisfied with your statement what you would do.

===================================================

@tomp said:

@Amontillado said:

@harr said:

Engage with the terms and their definitions that you encounter in texts. Working with concepts holds a great deal of potential. Intellectual work in the stricter sense begins when we argue for or against particular terms.

Only when the discussion takes place at the appropriate level. Remember those composite pictures that feature the face of a well-known person? If you zoom in far enough, you see that each pixel is actually a tiny photograph in its own right. When you have zoomed in enough to examine the little pictures, there is no sign of the large face. When you zoom out far enough to recognize the face, you can't make out the little photos.

There's no value in arguing at the wrong scale. There's no value in trying to describe the overall face in terms of the little pictures. Either scale might be a fine topic in itself but the scale needs to be established.

When I talk about "Zettelkasten" here I'm using a broad scale. I get enough picky details writing code to make it work well.

Just to make sure that my point didn't get lost in the flood of posts: While I share most of the commitment to the principles that you laid out (I am pretty certain that there is little controversy around any of them), the gap lies in securing the epistemic foundation of each of these principles. For example: Atomicity is not another injected principle. The inclusion is based on bringing what Luhmann started to its conclusion, partly based on Christian's intuition based on coding, partly on extending the trail of the Zettelkasten's history, and most importantly the nature of knowledge itself. That is the reason why there are quite some posts just on atomicity on this site: https://zettelkasten.de/posts/tags/atomicity/

Zettelkasten101 · August 10

@harr said:
Why did Luhmann start a new ZK in the early 1960s? Schmidt (2016) speculates that it "had to do with his turn toward sociology in the early 1960s" after Luhmann had spent a year in the USA.

Or he also writes later in his Zettelkasten description ( https://niklas-luhmann-archiv.de/nachlass/zettelkasten ) that it was simply because Luhmann couldn't take the first ZK with him to Cambridge ("Der äußere Anlass für den Beginn einer zweiten Sammlung bestand in der Tatsache, dass der erste Kasten in Deutschland geblieben war.").

harr · August 10

@Sascha said:
For example: Atomicity is not another injected principle. The inclusion is based on bringing what Luhmann started to its conclusion, partly based on Christian's intuition based on coding, partly on extending the trail of the Zettelkasten's history, and most importantly the nature of knowledge itself.

I appreciate the answer, because it helps understand your point of view.

@Sascha said:
From my point of view, you are flooding me with questions (...)

To make it easier for you, I'll pick one:

How would you define the concept "Zettelkasten" as a proper concept knowledge building block?

harr · August 10

@ZettelDistraction said:
"paradigm" in my sentence names an exemplar — Luhmann's boxes; (…) Feature-sets include and exclude; exemplars are resembled.

Thanks for the clarification, I had understood it differently.

I'm interested in a feature set that includes and excludes.

I'm looking for a definition that lets us determine, if the statement "The object in the photo is a Zettelkasten" is true or false.

tomp · August 10

@Sascha said:

@harr said:

From my point of view, you are flooding me with questions and paradoxically working hard to avoid the work of engaging with the concept. The last link you provided is a wonderful example of that. It is a long list of requests, hopes, wishes, etc., for me to do epistemic work.

This is, I guess, why @tomp wrote "No, it's time you write what you think they are."It seems to me that he picked up the vibe like I did. Sadly, he was satisfied with your statement what you would do.

I wouldn't say I was satisfied. I just wasn't interested in probing it further, since the statement seemed to be another example of evading the issue by demanding unwarranted complexity.

Sascha · August 10

@harr said:

@Sascha said:
For example: Atomicity is not another injected principle. The inclusion is based on bringing what Luhmann started to its conclusion, partly based on Christian's intuition based on coding, partly on extending the trail of the Zettelkasten's history, and most importantly the nature of knowledge itself.

I appreciate the answer, because it helps understand your point of view.

@Sascha said:
From my point of view, you are flooding me with questions (...)

To make it easier for you, I'll pick one:

How would you define the concept "Zettelkasten" as a proper concept knowledge building block?

It is exactly this reframing that won't get you anywhere.

But I hit three birds with two stones:

The Zettelkasten is an integrated thinking environment.
The Zettelkasten is a note-taking method.

harr · August 10

@Sascha said:
But I hit three birds with two stones:

The Zettelkasten is an integrated thinking environment.

The Zettelkasten is a note-taking method.

Thanks. Do you mind adding a few words, why you write "The" Zettelkasten and not "A" Zettelkasten? The defnite article sounds to me that you are referring to a particular Zettelkasten.

harr · August 10

@tomp said:
I wouldn't say I was satisfied. I just wasn't interested in probing it further, since the statement seemed to be another example of evading the issue by demanding unwarranted complexity.

I think the complexity is warranted. :-)

Let me give you some examples of things called "Zettelkasten".

A transparent box filled with empty paper. Why is it a Zettelkasten? Because it is literally a box with paper and because it says so on the label. :-)
The display boxes for playbills in front of the Staatsoper Berlin. Why are they Zettelkasten? Because they are the example given in one definition of Zettelkasten in Deutsches Wörterbuch.¹
A box that contains alphabetically sorted paper slips with notes and excerpts. Why is this a Zettelkasten? Because it's the other definition of Zettelkasten in Deutsches Wörterbuch.
The idea of zettelkasten, as Luhmann has (mostly) realized it. Why is the idea of a Zettelkasten a Zettelkasten? Because that's how Sascha explains the usage of the term in his book.² (I hope I understood it correctly.)
Luhmann's personal Zettelkasten as a physical object. Why is this a Zettelkasten? Because Luhmann himself referred to it as such and because the researchers working on it also refer to it as such.
Daniel Lüdecke's app Zettelkasten, also known as Zkn3. I don't know if this "is" a Zettelkasten or just a note-taking app called "Zettelkasten".
… and many more.³

So when you ask broadly, what a Zettelkasten "is", I don't have an answer. (The closest thing to an answer is: a collection of notes, but that implies already some assumptions that I prefer to be made explicit.)

I suggest to reduce complexity by narrowing the scope of the question. For example:

Focus on note-taking. That eliminates blank paper and bill board boxes.
Focus on individual note-taking. That eliminates the features related to collaboration.
Have separate discussions for paper-based systems and digital systems. Use language that matches the medium. For example "card" and "reference" for paper cards, "note" and "link" for digital systems. That should reduce recurring discussions about structural similarities and differences.
Focus on individual systems. Don't talk about Zettelkasten in general, but about person X's Zettelkasten and person Y's Zettelkasten. That should reduce recurring discussions about who's more correct, X or Y. :-)

I hope this addresses the complexity issue.

- - -

S. Hensel familie Mendelssohn 3, 22 refers to this chronology of the Mendelssohn family with the title Die Familie Mendelssohn 1729-1847. Nach Briefen und Tagebüchern. Edited by Sebastian Hensel and first published in 1879 in Berlin. The Internet Archive has a digitized version of a later edition. A letter from 1843 describes the Berlin opera house after a fire (emphasis added): "Die Façade steht noch an allen Seiten, Stücke der Balustrade fehlen, (…); dabei ist die Jahreszahl 1743 in allen goldenen Buchstaben über dem Haupteingang stehn geblieben und die beiden Zettelkasten mit Drahtgittern hängen mit den unversehrten Anzeigen der letzten Vorstellung neben der Eingangsthür." — Machine translation: "The façade is still standing on all sides, though pieces of the balustrade are missing, (…); the date 1743 has remained in gilded letters above the main entrance, and the two notice boards with wire grilles still hang beside the entrance door, with the posters for the last performance undamaged." ↩︎
Sascha Fast: Die Zettelkasten Methode, 2025. Page 11: "Die Frage, was ein Zettelkasten ist, lässt sich so leicht nicht beantworten. Wortwörtlich meint das Wort, ein Kasten mit Zetteln drin. Wenn ich in diesem Buch das Wort benutze, beziehe ich mich ausdrücklich auf die Idee des Zettelkastens, wie Luhmann sie realisiert hat. Das heißt nicht, was wir imitieren werden, was Luhmann getan hat. Vielmehr werden wir seine Idee zu Ende denken. Oder zumindest sehen, wie weit wir kommen." — Machine translation: "The question of what a Zettelkasten is cannot be answered so easily. Literally, the word means a box with notes in it. When I use the word in this book, I am referring expressly to the idea of the Zettelkasten, as Luhmann realized it. That does not mean we will imitate what Luhmann did. Rather, we will think his idea through to its conclusion. Or at least see how far we get." ↩︎
https://forum.zettelkasten.de/discussion/3193/zettelkasten-term-and-definition/p1 ;↩︎

Edmund · August 10

Zettelkasten Evolution Map

@harr said:

Focus on individual systems. Don't talk about Zettelkasten in general, but about person X's Zettelkasten and person Y's Zettelkasten. That should reduce recurring discussions about who's more correct, X or Y. :-)

I feel exactly the same way.

Maybe it will help. Then again, it might just cause even more confusion. To visualise the Zettelkasten evolution, I put all the different systems I’ve read about on a timeline:

My own Zettelkasten is located at 2026. It is not an exact replica of any existing systems. I believe it is worth contributing to its evolution.

tomp · August 10

@harr said:
[snip]
I suggest to reduce complexity by narrowing the scope of the question. For example:

Focus on note-taking. That eliminates blank paper and bill board boxes.

Focus on individual note-taking. That eliminates the features related to collaboration.

Have separate discussions for paper-based systems and digital systems. Use language that matches the medium. For example "card" and "reference" for paper cards, "note" and "link" for digital systems. That should reduce recurring discussions about structural similarities and differences.

Focus on individual systems. Don't talk about Zettelkasten in general, but about person X's Zettelkasten and person Y's Zettelkasten. That should reduce recurring discussions about who's more correct, X or Y. :-)

I hope this addresses the complexity issue.

Yes, by the classic stratagem of paralysis by analysis.

ZettelDistraction · August 10

@Edmund said:
Zettelkasten Evolution Map

The term "main note" appears in Ahrens, incidentally. I will quote myself:

Main notes: a subcategory of permanent notes

Main notes are the permanent notes in the slip-box. Ahrens refers to “the main notes in the slip-box” in exactly one place (Ahrens 2017, 44). Ahrens’s categories imply the definition: a main note is a permanent note that is not a literature note.

The first edition of How to Take Smart Notes does not provide examples of main notes or a standard template for them (Ahrens 2017). The second edition of How to Take Smart Notes provides samples of Luhmann's note cards but does not provide a standard template (Ahrens 2022).

tomp · August 10

@tomp said:

@harr said:
[snip]
I suggest to reduce complexity by narrowing the scope of the question. For example:

Focus on note-taking. That eliminates blank paper and bill board boxes.

Focus on individual note-taking. That eliminates the features related to collaboration.

Have separate discussions for paper-based systems and digital systems. Use language that matches the medium. For example "card" and "reference" for paper cards, "note" and "link" for digital systems. That should reduce recurring discussions about structural similarities and differences.

Focus on individual systems. Don't talk about Zettelkasten in general, but about person X's Zettelkasten and person Y's Zettelkasten. That should reduce recurring discussions about who's more correct, X or Y. :-)

I hope this addresses the complexity issue.

A parable -

There was a king in a faraway land. He must have been learned because he had studied Philosophy, Metaphysics, and Epistemology. The kind said to his servant "Bring me a goose!" and a goose was brought.

The king studied the animal and said "I'm not sure you have brought me a goose. How can I know that you have?" His advisors said that it was a large waterfowl that was shaped like a goose. The king said "Perhaps it is a duck; some ducks are large. Perhaps it is a small swan. I want a goose."

The advisors thought and pointed out certain details about the webbed feet that they said geese had. The king kept questioning them, insisting on verifying more and more details, not being satisfied by the answers.

Finally the youngest, most naive courtier asked why the king had ordered a goose. The king replied that he wanted roast goose for dinner. The cook was immediately called. She took a look at the bird and said "Aha! What a nice big waterfowl! You shall have it for dinner at 6 o'clock tonight!"

At 6 o'clock the roasted bird was served and the king was very happy.

harr · August 11

@tomp said:
A parable -

What can we learn from the story?

Don't ask specifically for a goose, when all you want is to eat a big bird for dinner.

Applied to our conversation topic: don't ask specifically for a Zettelkasten, when all you want is a tool for taking notes. :-)

harr · August 11

@tomp said:

I hope this addresses the complexity issue.

Yes, by the classic stratagem of paralysis by analysis.

No. It's a process to identify features that work as inclusion and exclusion criteria. It's a process that helps identify, what the participants of this thread want and don't want to discuss.

At this point it appears that most are interested in Zettelkasten as a Platonic ideal. Niklas Luhmann's artefacts and methods are interpreted as an early, still imperfect realization of this ideal. Sascha Fast's, Sönke Ahrens's and many other author's contributions are considered as attempts to capture and realize the ideal even better.

ZettelDistraction · August 11

@tomp said:
A parable -

There was a king in a faraway land. ...

Moral: There is no Boolean predicate $(Z(x))$ that holds if and only if $(x)$ is a Zettelkasten. The non-existence of such a predicate does not yield the absence of common understanding: the term "Zettelkasten" is a prototype/exemplar term, and objects resemble the exemplar to a greater or lesser extent.

tomp · August 11

@harr said:

@tomp said:
A parable -

What can we learn from the story?

Don't ask specifically for a goose, when all you want is to eat a big bird for dinner.

Applied to our conversation topic: don't ask specifically for a Zettelkasten, when all you want is a tool for taking notes. :-)

If you think all I want is a tool for taking notes you haven't been paying attention.

harr · August 11

@tomp said:
If you think all I want is a tool for taking notes you haven't been paying attention.

As far as I know, you're interested in building a Personal Knowledge Management Systems (PKMS) using some principles that you trace back to Niklas Luhmann.

However, the "you" in my earlier reply didn't refer to you personally. I was meant as a moral.

* * *

I find the roles of the cook and the courtier interesting.

The cook has the taxonomic expertise to know that geese and ducks are both waterfowl.

The courtier has the human skills to recognize and resolve the conflict. It's about two questions:

Is this particular bird a goose? (Taxonomy)
What does the king really want? (Personal requirements)

The story doesn't answer the first question. It doesn't tell us, if this particular bird is a goose or some other waterfowl "shaped like a goose".

The story does answer the second question. The king is happy with roasted waterfowl on his plate, that may or may not be a goose.

Applied to our domain of interest: When Zettelkasten is the goose, what is the waterfowl? In my mind waterfowl refers to a wide range of PKMS. In a taxonomy of such systems, I'd use the label "Zettelkasten" for a few sub-sub-branches, like "alphabetically sorted card indexes".

Something I don't understand about the story: Why did the king ask specifically for a goose and not more broadly for large waterfowl?

Zettelkasten Forum

What's A "Zettlekasten" (Oh, no, not again!)?

Comments

Main notes: a subcategory of permanent notes

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories

In this Discussion