I've been refreshing on the Zettelkasten as a method and just finished reading the article. I like how the approach is outlined succinctly in the article.
One statement in the Structure Notes section: "Whenever I write a new Zettel on the Zettelkasten Method, I make sure that I place a link to it on this Structure Note, or on a Structure Note that is itself referred to by the main Structure Note on the Zettelkasten Method."
Is putting down a link in a Structure Note a general rule that you employ with every single new Zettel related to the topic of the Structure Note? Or is this just for a new Zettel written as the "top-level" idea that belongs to the topic?
I guess my confusion is that in some cases new Zettels are written mostly in relation to the existing Zettels within the same topic. For those, the links already exist in the Structure Notes. For those new Zettels, you wouldn't necessarily need to create explicit links in the Structure Notes, since they are already connected to the Structure Notes through the existing Zettels.
I am just wondering how rigidly I should take that short statement about the new Zettels, as I try to improve my skills creating structure notes.
@zettelsan said:
I've been refreshing on the Zettelkasten as a method and just finished reading the article. I like how the approach is outlined succinctly in the article.
One statement in the Structure Notes section: "Whenever I write a new Zettel on the Zettelkasten Method, I make sure that I place a link to it on this Structure Note, or on a Structure Note that is itself referred to by the main Structure Note on the Zettelkasten Method."
Is putting down a link in a Structure Note a general rule that you employ with every single new Zettel related to the topic of the Structure Note? Or is this just for a new Zettel written as the "top-level" idea that belongs to the topic?
I guess my confusion is that in some cases new Zettels are written mostly in relation to the existing Zettels within the same topic. For those, the links already exist in the Structure Notes. For those new Zettels, you wouldn't necessarily need to create explicit links in the Structure Notes, since they are already connected to the Structure Notes through the existing Zettels.
I am just wondering how rigidly I should take that short statement about the new Zettels, as I try to improve my skills creating structure notes.
Personally I don't follow a strict rule.
I link a note in a structure note if that link in that position makes sense. When the zettel is directly part of the concept or the purpose represented by the structure note.
Oher times zettels are linked only to other zettels. For example, when the zettel has a relevance only related with another zettel (is a direct detail of another zettel, for example).
It's only my personal interpretation of the structure notes, anyway. They don't represent "indexes of all the notes", but (higher level) concepts itself.
@zettelsan said:
I am just wondering how rigidly I should take that short statement about the new Zettels, as I try to improve my skills creating structure notes.
Personally I don't follow a strict rule.
I don't follow a strict rule either and tend to use structure notes as you described, but when someone has one and appears to follow it to a good effect, I'd like to know the rationale. It might give me an idea to improve my process.
I don't know the rationale here, but I could imagine someone using the rule that each and every Zettel should be referenced in its relevant Structure Note in strict adherence to the practice that each Zettel needs to be discoverable (i.e., connected). Having a link in the Structure Note certainly makes it most discoverable, while Zettels only connecting to another Zettel might lose that connection, when it gets removed from the reference, even accidentally.
Of course, I don't know if that's the actual rationale here, hence my question.
I with @andang76. Most notes get hung on a structure note, sometimes more than one. When I refactor a note by atomizing it with the source note on a structure note, I don't usually put the other notes on a structure note.
That was my workflow until recently. I'm experimenting with investing more attention into what I'm now calling "Thinking Canvases." I stole this idea from @djdrysdale. My idea is to use a structure note format to think (write) about topics that excite me. One of the first ideas to get this treatment is Creating Equivalence Thinking Canvas 202408110601. It has links to notes originating from articles, but it is mostly my thinking about the relationship between the ideas expressed in the articles and how they can be applied to note-making.
The idea of a structure note is to gather notes that circle an idea into a place where their concentration can create synergy. I think the mindset afforded by the name change just might kickstart a deeper dive into these ideas. So far, it is working.
Will Simpson
My zettelkasten is for my ideas, not the ideas of others. I don’t want to waste my time tinkering with my ZK; I’d rather dive into the work itself. My peak cognition is behind me. One day soon, I will read my last book, write my last note, eat my last meal, and kiss my sweetie for the last time. kestrelcreek.com
I don't know the rationale here, but I could imagine someone using the rule that each and every Zettel should be referenced in its relevant Structure Note in strict adherence to the practice that each Zettel needs to be discoverable (i.e., connected).
Of course, I don't know if that's the actual rationale here, hence my question.
Yes, one of the main reasons could be this, I think. It's a dynamic that makes structure notes similar to Folgezettel.
On the other side, this rule creates some drawbacks if I see how I use structure notes during time.
Very little relevant links in a structure note risks to "lower" the internal cohesion of the structure note itself and tend to create noise into the structure note. So, I prefer asking my self "is it useful to insert this link into the structure note" before for preserving the qualities of the structure note itself.
That rule tends, I think, to develop few bigger, central structure notes than many smaller and distributed structure notes. The second model is what I feel more comfortable.
It's a balance of pro and cons.
It's interesting, anyway, if emerge other points than what I think
@andang76 said:
This rule creates some drawbacks if I see how I use structure notes during time.
Very little relevant links in a structure note risks to "lower" the internal cohesion of the structure note itself and tend to create noise into the structure note. So, I prefer asking my self "is it useful to insert this link into the structure note" before for preserving the qualities of the structure note itself.
Right, over time, structure notes built in this way become just lists of roughly sorted links diluting their cohesion. One way to attack this is to give more attention to the structure of a structure note. Spend more time in the open space of the mind, writing and thinking. This is a refactoring and atomization of structure notes. The step leads to creating a thinking canvas to explore an idea, bringing together various notes to analyze their connections and investigate their coherence. A thinking canvas can include zettels, mind maps, outlines, grafts, and other visuals. Not limited to notes like structure notes.
Thanks, @andang76, for mentioning this idea of note cohesion. Cohesion represents a logical connection and close harmony.
Time and attention are precious, so this kind of treatment of ideas has to be done judiciously. Slow, incremental work is key. Not every note or idea has to be treated this way.
That's enough philosophy about structure notes. Now, back to the work and the fun stuff.
Will Simpson
My zettelkasten is for my ideas, not the ideas of others. I don’t want to waste my time tinkering with my ZK; I’d rather dive into the work itself. My peak cognition is behind me. One day soon, I will read my last book, write my last note, eat my last meal, and kiss my sweetie for the last time. kestrelcreek.com
There are no rules about whether or not a zettel should be started with or attached to a Structure note. Sometimes, it is helpful to do so, and sometimes, it is not. Don't get yourself burdened with this kind of rule. Consider whether you need some top-down structure in a particular area, and govern yourself accordingly. And be diligent about otherwise making direct connections between your zettels.
No, it is a by-product of The Archive treating any phrase with a "#" as a tag. Like this, you can search for all the notes that refer to a source with one click.
Comments
I've been refreshing on the Zettelkasten as a method and just finished reading the article. I like how the approach is outlined succinctly in the article.
One statement in the Structure Notes section: "Whenever I write a new Zettel on the Zettelkasten Method, I make sure that I place a link to it on this Structure Note, or on a Structure Note that is itself referred to by the main Structure Note on the Zettelkasten Method."
Is putting down a link in a Structure Note a general rule that you employ with every single new Zettel related to the topic of the Structure Note? Or is this just for a new Zettel written as the "top-level" idea that belongs to the topic?
I guess my confusion is that in some cases new Zettels are written mostly in relation to the existing Zettels within the same topic. For those, the links already exist in the Structure Notes. For those new Zettels, you wouldn't necessarily need to create explicit links in the Structure Notes, since they are already connected to the Structure Notes through the existing Zettels.
I am just wondering how rigidly I should take that short statement about the new Zettels, as I try to improve my skills creating structure notes.
Personally I don't follow a strict rule.
I link a note in a structure note if that link in that position makes sense. When the zettel is directly part of the concept or the purpose represented by the structure note.
Oher times zettels are linked only to other zettels. For example, when the zettel has a relevance only related with another zettel (is a direct detail of another zettel, for example).
It's only my personal interpretation of the structure notes, anyway. They don't represent "indexes of all the notes", but (higher level) concepts itself.
I don't follow a strict rule either and tend to use structure notes as you described, but when someone has one and appears to follow it to a good effect, I'd like to know the rationale. It might give me an idea to improve my process.
I don't know the rationale here, but I could imagine someone using the rule that each and every Zettel should be referenced in its relevant Structure Note in strict adherence to the practice that each Zettel needs to be discoverable (i.e., connected). Having a link in the Structure Note certainly makes it most discoverable, while Zettels only connecting to another Zettel might lose that connection, when it gets removed from the reference, even accidentally.
Of course, I don't know if that's the actual rationale here, hence my question.
I with @andang76. Most notes get hung on a structure note, sometimes more than one. When I refactor a note by atomizing it with the source note on a structure note, I don't usually put the other notes on a structure note.
That was my workflow until recently. I'm experimenting with investing more attention into what I'm now calling "Thinking Canvases." I stole this idea from @djdrysdale. My idea is to use a structure note format to think (write) about topics that excite me. One of the first ideas to get this treatment is Creating Equivalence Thinking Canvas 202408110601. It has links to notes originating from articles, but it is mostly my thinking about the relationship between the ideas expressed in the articles and how they can be applied to note-making.
The idea of a structure note is to gather notes that circle an idea into a place where their concentration can create synergy. I think the mindset afforded by the name change just might kickstart a deeper dive into these ideas. So far, it is working.
Will Simpson
My zettelkasten is for my ideas, not the ideas of others. I don’t want to waste my time tinkering with my ZK; I’d rather dive into the work itself. My peak cognition is behind me. One day soon, I will read my last book, write my last note, eat my last meal, and kiss my sweetie for the last time.
kestrelcreek.com
Yes, one of the main reasons could be this, I think. It's a dynamic that makes structure notes similar to Folgezettel.
On the other side, this rule creates some drawbacks if I see how I use structure notes during time.
Very little relevant links in a structure note risks to "lower" the internal cohesion of the structure note itself and tend to create noise into the structure note. So, I prefer asking my self "is it useful to insert this link into the structure note" before for preserving the qualities of the structure note itself.
That rule tends, I think, to develop few bigger, central structure notes than many smaller and distributed structure notes. The second model is what I feel more comfortable.
It's a balance of pro and cons.
It's interesting, anyway, if emerge other points than what I think
Right, over time, structure notes built in this way become just lists of roughly sorted links diluting their cohesion. One way to attack this is to give more attention to the structure of a structure note. Spend more time in the open space of the mind, writing and thinking. This is a refactoring and atomization of structure notes. The step leads to creating a thinking canvas to explore an idea, bringing together various notes to analyze their connections and investigate their coherence. A thinking canvas can include zettels, mind maps, outlines, grafts, and other visuals. Not limited to notes like structure notes.
Thanks, @andang76, for mentioning this idea of note cohesion. Cohesion represents a logical connection and close harmony.
Time and attention are precious, so this kind of treatment of ideas has to be done judiciously. Slow, incremental work is key. Not every note or idea has to be treated this way.
That's enough philosophy about structure notes. Now, back to the work and the fun stuff.
Will Simpson
My zettelkasten is for my ideas, not the ideas of others. I don’t want to waste my time tinkering with my ZK; I’d rather dive into the work itself. My peak cognition is behind me. One day soon, I will read my last book, write my last note, eat my last meal, and kiss my sweetie for the last time.
kestrelcreek.com
There are no rules about whether or not a zettel should be started with or attached to a Structure note. Sometimes, it is helpful to do so, and sometimes, it is not. Don't get yourself burdened with this kind of rule. Consider whether you need some top-down structure in a particular area, and govern yourself accordingly. And be diligent about otherwise making direct connections between your zettels.
Is the bracketed citation here,
[#epstein2019range]
, a live link that opens in BibDesk?No, it is a by-product of The Archive treating any phrase with a "#" as a tag. Like this, you can search for all the notes that refer to a source with one click.
I am a Zettler