Introduction to the Zettelkasten Method

zettelsan

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.

andang76

@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

@andang76 said:

@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.

Will

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.

andang76

@zettelsan said:

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

Will

@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.

GeoEng51

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.

Gameboy70

Is the bracketed citation here, [#epstein2019range], a live link that opens in BibDesk?

Sascha

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.

patrick080967

I'm confused with the example given. The title says "Struggling when you acquire a skill could be important to become great in your field", but the body seems to discuss "Being good at something is not enough to be an innovator". This seems something different.
I experience sometimes the same issue. I start with a title, but after working with the body it turns into something different.
How do you cope with this?

Martin

@patrick080967 said:
I experience sometimes the same issue. I start with a title, but after working with the body it turns into something different.

I see the contradiction as a signal that my thinking has changed. Sometimes that's a reason to rejoice - because I realise: I have discovered something that I didn't know at the beginning. Then I change the title.

Sometimes, however, I stick with the original title - and revise the text so that it answers the initial question more precisely again. This is particularly important if the title has already been used elsewhere or is part of a larger structure. Or when I want to reorganise my thinking through reajusting.

And sometimes - especially in the open writing format of my Zettelkasten - I leave the tension, taking note of it. It makes clear that thinking is not linear. And you could write another Zettel about those changes you observe. There really are no boundaries within your Zettelkasten.

ctietze

@patrick080967 said:
I'm confused with the example given. The title says "Struggling when you acquire a skill could be important to become great in your field", but the body seems to discuss "Being good at something is not enough to be an innovator". This seems something different.
I experience sometimes the same issue. I start with a title, but after working with the body it turns into something different.
How do you cope with this?

That note is mine, so:

• Yes, the introductory paragraph captures the contents better than the title!
• I run into issues like this, too, where I believe I know where I'll be going, but then don't get there; this is one of them.

To cope with that -- rename the note.

All notes are malleable:
https://zettelkasten.de/posts/literature-notes-vs-permanent-notes/

Random recent example by @Will:
https://forum.zettelkasten.de/discussion/comment/23340/#Comment_23340

Sometimes you nail it, sometimes you don't. I didn't in 2019

Tweaking it a bit:

# 201910091801 Being good at something is not enough to be an innovator
#expertise #innovation

Struggling when you acquire a skill could be important to become great in your field 
and push it forward. 

For example, savants who are exceptionally good at a specific thing do not innovate 
and improve that thing. Innovation doesn't automatically follow from excellence.

- Savants excel at their skill without innovating.[[201910091746]] So merely being good at 
   something is not enough to innovate and be creative.
- Self-taught jazz musicians sound more interesting than their peers from jazz music school.
   [[201910091737]] "More interesting" can entail being more creative, too; Epstein writes 
   about a lot of great musicians being self-taught.[chapter 3][#epstein2019range]

[#epstein2019range]: David Epstein (2019):  _Range. why generalists triumph in a specialized world_, New York: Riverhead Books.

This rewriting presents me with a title candidate that's even more to the point: Innovation doesn't automatically follow from excellence.

harr

Did anyone else notice this update?

The original version of the article explained the Principle of Atomicity (emphasis added):

Second, a Zettelkasten needs to adhere to the Principle of Atomicity. That means that each Zettel only contains one unit of knowledge and one only. These units are the atoms to which the principle of atomicity refers. To figure out what the atoms are, it helps when we ask ourselves what we want the molecules that we create from our note atoms to look like. What are the units that have their own address? The answer is: One thought. Let us explore some examples that do not use thought as their atoms. (…)

In contrast, referring to an atomic note is unambiguous: when you reference it, you will know what the ‘thought’ is. There should be no room for guesswork. That is what the rule of atomicity means: Make sure that the layer of content and the boundaries between notes match and are well defined. Then and only then can it be a reference to an address identical to referencing a thought.

The Zettelkasten is a tool for thought, thus it needs to treat individual thoughts as its base unit. In order to connect individual thoughts, give each thought an address to refer to. In the words of us “Zettlers”: Create one Zettel per thought.

Whereas the current version reads (emphasis added):

Second, the principle of atomicity is one of the core tenets of the Zettelkasten Method. Atomicity refers to the idea that knowledge is made up of discrete building blocks. The Principle of Atomicity is a processing direction in note-taking, aiming for one knowledge building block per note. It is not a rigid law, but a guiding compass. It needs to be contextualised for each application.

This is a big change. What used to be "unambiguous" with "no room for guesswork" and "well defined" boundaries is now considered "not a rigid law, but a guiding compass".

Could we make this update more visible to readers?

The Principles post from 2025 explicitly marks the "threshold date", when the principle of atomicity was redefined as "desired outcome". Apparently the Introduction was updated around October 2025 to match the new thinking.

However this update isn't visible in the Introduction. It's still dated "Oct 27th, 2020". Suggestions:

• add an editorial note at the bottom of the text,
• add a footnote next to the current definition,
• add a "last updated" date.

Today's principle of atomicity is not the same as it was in 2020.

Sascha

The introduction will not show the evolution of my thinking, but just the latest iteration. It is solely for beginners who want to get introduced to the method.

Rather, the date should be removed alltogether.

ctietze

@harr that sounds like a fringe interest for historians of zk.de, and you folks can freely mine https://github.com/Zettelkasten-Method/zettelkasten.de/commits/master/content/introduction/index.md the revision history is available online for everything.

harr

If I had to write an Introduction to The Zettelkasten Method (TZKM), it would look different. I would emphasize history. ;-)

Luhmann's wooden boxes vs. The Archive

"(…) the most famous user of the Zettelkasten method wouldn’t even recognise the rules that now seem to define the method he is credited with inventing." — Nori

I would start by explaining that The Zettelkasten Method is not a continuation of Luhmann's work. I would mention the name Luhmann, because he came chronologically before TZKM and because the Luhmann hype is driving traffic to zettelkasten.de. But I'd immediately clarify how much TZKM differs from Luhmann's famous paper slips in wooden boxes and their unique ordering principle:

• TZKM removes Luhmann's unique numbering system. TZKM uses timestamps instead. Luhmann's numbers encode a permanent structure of branching note sequences. TZKM drops this structural foundation.
• TZKM introduces content and formatting rules that Luhmann didn't have. Luhmann's zettels have only one thing in common. Each paper slip has a unique number in the upper left corner that encodes its permanent place in a note sequence.
• TZKM is designed for digital tools, not for paper index cards. It uses The Archive as reference implementation. I find many posts here on zettelkasten.de easier to understand when I have The Archive in mind.

I would keep the screenshots from The Archive. They help the readers recognize that TZKM is about a particular way of note-taking. The screenshots nicely illustrate elements like title, keyword section and reference footer that are typical for TZKM.

Principle of Atomicity

In my experience, the principle of atomicity has caused much confusion. There have been endless discussions here in the forum and elsewhere. But why is it so confusing?

Ancestry

The Introduction points to an unhelpful ancestor. Luhmann had a unique style of organizing information that prioritized fixed note sequences over self-contained pieces of information. I find two other ancestral lines more instructive.

First, the earlier standard practice with card indexes (German: Zettelkästen) was much more atomic than Luhmann's idiosyncratic method. For example, the prolific legal scholar Johann Jacob Moser already described in "einige Vortheile für Canzley-Verwandte und Gelehrte" (1773) how he prepared his writing projects by systematically collecting small pieces of information in his Zettelkasten (literally: Zettelkaestgen, p. 45). Beatrice Webb famously described her sociological work with index cards in "My Apprenticeship" (1926). She had "the rule that only one subject, or one category of facts, even only a single fact, should be recorded on each sheet" (p. 414). Some of her fans shortened this principle later to "one fact, one note". It doesn't get much more atomic than that. :-)

Second, digital hypertext had already taken off in the 1980s. While Luhmann was still filing away paper slips, computer scientists have explored how to organize atomic nodes in hypertext. Since the 1990s, with the popularization of the World Wide Web, and later Wikipedia, the principles of hypertext have become widely known. Everybody who has ever navigated a website in a browser has personal experience with hypertext, even if they are not aware of it.

The 2020 version of the Introduction stated: "Make sure that the layer of content and the boundaries between notes match and are well defined." This doesn't fit Luhmann's style of writing zettels at all. In Luhmann's boxes a single zettel could contain multiple pieces of content and a single piece of content could span multiple zettels. However, this principle matches perfectly how Beatrice Webb and many others worked with card indexes.

Evolution of The Zettelkasten Method

TZKM's approach to atomicity has changed over the years. I would distinguish at least three phases.

When the term was introduced in 2013, the separation of concerns was emphasized, along with a recommendation to put together what belongs together. That mirrors well-known challenges in digital hypertext. It's difficult to find a good size for nodes so that they can be flexibly linked yet still make enough sense on their own.

When Sascha introduced the inventory of knowledge building blocks in 2016, the conversation became more philosophical. It became more about ideas, propositions, truth, epistemology and the philosophy of knowledge. The system became more rigid, with the inventory's typology as recommended standard.

The threshold post in 2025 marked a fundamental redefinition of the principle of atomicity. The cookie cutter was replaced by a compass. ;-) On one hand the underlying philosophy became more complex. On the other hand, something genuinely innovative seems to be happening, even if I still find it difficult to wrap my head around it.

I think that the Introduction should document this development. It makes the current stage of development easier to understand.

And it makes it easier to read other texts in their proper context. For example, in Evergreen notes should be atomic Andy Matuschak quotes the 2013 definition of atomicity. If readers look up the Introduction to TZKM, they should be made aware that this definition is a part of TZKM's history—and that TZKM has since moved on to more refined concepts.

Sascha

I would emphasize history.

The introduction is not for one's who are primarily interested in the history of the ZKM's development, but for those who want to actually start the method with basic background knowledge.

harr

@Sascha said:
The introduction is not for one's who are primarily interested in the history of the ZKM's development, but for those who want to actually start the method with basic background knowledge.

I agree. I suggest: less Luhmann and more Fast, Tietze and The Archive. :-)