Zettelkasten Forum


Introduction to the Zettelkasten Method

Discuss the introduction by @sfast here!

https://zettelkasten.de/introduction

Author at Zettelkasten.de • https://christiantietze.de/

Comments

  • . . . you learn to swim by aiming to be fast and gracious.

    Source: https://zettelkasten.de/introduction/

    "fast and graceful"?

  • @Nido said:

    . . . you learn to swim by aiming to be fast and gracious.

    Source: https://zettelkasten.de/introduction/

    "fast and graceful"?

    @ctietze ...haha. (Thanks @Nido )

    I am a Zettler

  • Fixed :)

    Author at Zettelkasten.de • https://christiantietze.de/

  • Just add a back link.

    I find there is more discussion on Hack New: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24916536

  • This was very good and helpful--thanks!

  • @djdrysdale said:
    This was very good and helpful--thanks!

    Thanks.

    @learning_ran said:
    Just add a back link.

    I find there is more discussion on Hack New: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24916536

    Oh, cool. Thanks.

    I am a Zettler

  • This is a great introduction*, and an inspiration to re-start my (attempts at creating a) Zettelkasten in The Archive. Thanks Sacha and Christian for championing Luhmann’s work.
    *I followed the link from MacSparky https://www.macsparky.com/blog/2020/12/zettelkasten-defined).

  • Concise, logical, and structured, detailed explanation of the approach.
    It is like the "Method/1" of Zettelkasten.

    Very good.

    "Method/1" was one of the consulting methodologies of a big global consulting firm in the 1980's.

  • Following the anatomy of a Zettel, this means that the title and the abstract as well as the tags belong to the body of the Zettel. Is my interpretation correct?

  • For formal reasons, I kept anything unnessecary out of the first part. So, I model a zettel:

    1. The header (ID, title, tags)
    2. The body (abstract, content)
    3. Footer/References

    I am a Zettler

  • @sfast said:
    For formal reasons, I kept anything unnessecary out of the first part. So, I model a zettel:

    1. The header (ID, title, tags)
    2. The body (abstract, content)
    3. Footer/References

    I don't understand. :smile:

    You say that you "keep anything unnecessary out of the first part." I guess you're referring to the unique identifier. Makes sense. You already have a unique identifier, so adding extra stuff to it, like an abstract, doesn't make sense.

    But how does that relate to how you model the anatomy?

  • Ah:

    The basic model of having the ID at the top and nothing else is a minimal model. A title is optional, the ID is not.

    But if you include more in the top part of the note the tags and the title as meta-data belong either in the top or in the bottom. Since, I reserve the bottom for the references which is a whole other type of item I put them in the top (which I call the header).

    Other people made the decision to put the tags in the bottom which is also fine.


    What is the problem you are trying to solve?

    I am a Zettler

  • edited October 2021

    @sfast

    Now I understand your reason. Thanks for elaborating!

    What is the problem you are trying to solve?

    To develop a model that accurately represents how my Zettels are.

    I too include a title, tags, and an abstract in my Zettels. I realized that the model described in the introduction didn't mention anything about extra pieces like those. That's why I chimed in.

  • To develop a model that accurately represents how my Zettels are.

    I don't think that this will be as of great service to you as you might hope.

    The introduction works if you start working and then experience what the Zettelkasten Method does.

    I am a Zettler

  • @sfast
    I got that covered now, sort of. And sorry for the late response. I didn't have notifications enabled for discussions I participated in.

    Another question. Could you elaborate on the statement below?

    there is one Zettelkasten per person, and one person per Zettelkasten. Thinking is a different process from communicating with another person. You want your Zettelkasten to be a personal thinking tool.

    The important part is what I emphasized. The rest is there to include the context of the statement. I can't wrap my head around it. I'm researching into it, but I thought that perhaps you could elaborate or give me some pointers? That would cut down my research a lot. Thanks in advance.

  • The difference is the same as the difference between a private conversation and a public one.

    Thinking is (or should be) less restrictive than communication with another person.

    I am a Zettler

  • edited February 12

    I think that's what I needed to hear, @sfast. Thanks. :smile:

    It's like playing a video game that was intended for one player, but have two players control the same character. If it were only one player, they'd do what they want without anything hindering their journey. But if there are two players, they have to decide what to do, who does what, and when. That makes their journey a bit of a mess, specially when they disagree about what to do.

    The similarity is that you can approach the thing of focus in one of two ways: By yourself or along with someone else. Approaching it on your own means the path forward is clear. In contrast, approaching it with another person implies that there will be roadblocks in your path because of working together.

  • @Annabella said:
    I think that's what I needed to hear, @sfast. Thanks. :smile:

    It's like playing a video game that was intended for one player, but have two players control the same character. If it were only one player, they'd do what they want without anything hindering their journey. But if there are two players, they have to decide what to do, who does what, and when. That makes their journey a bit of a mess, specially when they disagree about what to do.

    The similarity is that you can approach the thing of focus in one of two ways: By yourself or along with someone else. Approaching it on your own means the path forward is clear. In contrast, approaching it with another person implies that there will be roadblocks in your path because of working together.

    This is not what I was thinking about but it is a very fair point: You make the case about the need of coordination and its ressource needs.

    I was thinking in the direction of appropriateness:

    • If one just speaks anything out what one is thinking in the moment, one turns into a very annoying conversational partner. At least, one should filter thoughts according to their relevance to the conversation since it is shared time and (social) space.
    • One should speak with the goal of furthering the shared goal of the conversation. (That is why conflict is just a necessary evil sometimes but should mostly avoided or if one starts a conversation with a conflict-like frame work one will add a distractive layer of ressource draining problems)
    • What is appropriate in intimate social relationships is often considered harmful in non-intimate relationships and often even evil.
    • What is needed to further coherence, peace and kindness in one culture can result in the opposite in another culture (I grew up in a social hotspot and the turks and the russians were in this kind of conflict)

    Perhaps, more direct illustration would be the case of a diary. If you don't keep your diary absolutely private you wouldn't write somethings down and filter other things, therefore distorting them.

    I am a Zettler

  • @sfast

    Thank you! That clears things up even more.

    May I request adding what we've discussed to the post? I think that future readers would appreciate that if they have the same doubts as me.

  • Yes.

    I am a Zettler

  • To manage the references, use reference management software like BibDesk. It will contain the bibliographical data and provides you with citekeys. Citekeys are similar to IDs. They are identifiers by which you can point to the reference you are using (One common format for a citekey is [#lastnameYEAR]).

    I just starting to set up a zettelkasten, but I'm lost as to why reference management apps like BibDesk and Zotero are frequently recommended, rather than just creating another zettel of bibliographic information. Does having a separate repository for reference manage provide some advantage, like automating the extraction of metadata like ISBNs, publisher name, and publication date?

  • edited March 21

    @Gameboy70

    Using a reference manager like Zotero lets you (eventually) export the single reference you have written into a number of different formats, depending on where you are publishing a paper, for example.

    If you do not need this capability, then you can put your references in the same zettel as their parent material (my practise) or in a linked zettel, as you suggest.

  • @Gameboy70 said:
    Does having a separate repository for reference manage provide some advantage, like automating the extraction of metadata like ISBNs, publisher name, and publication date?

    Exactly. And it makes the Zettelkasten more clean by keeping dry information out of it.

    I am a Zettler

  • @plam4u said:
    ...write in your own words and not copy-paste what you read.

    If you took that literally, you'd be forced to make your own graphs, tables, and photographs. That can be time-consuming and unnecessary. You can copy-paste, but try to add to the discussion. Like GeoEng51 said, you could include "a brief description of what they do and why they are useful..."

Sign In or Register to comment.