Zettel sharing here on the forum

Will

Fragmented ideas.

1. Occasionally, I feel a twitch, and something in the force beckons me to post a sample zettel.
2. Critique is educational.
3. If I start boldly, maybe you might follow?
4. I've shown you mine. Now it is your turn.
5. Why questions reveal secrets.
6. Secrets reveal how answers.

This zettel is atomic (145 words) and deeply linked. I was bowled over by the déjà vu when searching for a forum post to hang this on that I found a similar post, similarly formatted. and even on the same topic zettel from 2018?!

ZettelDistraction

Sediment or sentiment? I have been sedimentary--I mean sedentary--myself. My childhood wasn't too intellectually impoverished (though an early interest in music and foreign languages was neither encouraged nor discouraged). My working life has been sterile. Never could reach escape velocity, not for want of trying. My Zettelkasten and I look forward to my retirement. I owe you a Zettel.

Sascha

@Will What do you hope for your future self to gain if he will read this note?

@ZettelDistraction Dang. This was funny. Will share the notes I will create out of it.

Sascha

Here it is (German, though). It's part of a novella that plays in a supermarket. For more user friendliness: translated by google

---

202107011119 T So sesshaft wie Sediment

#Trägheit

"Warum hast du so schlammige Füße?"

"Die Engländer nennen unser modernes Leben sedentary lifestyle. Typische Übersetzungen ins Deutsche lauten "sitzende Lebensweise" oder etwas "Bewegungsarmut". Doch die bessere Übersetzung ist "abgesetzte Lebensweise".¹

Stellen sie sich vor, sie sind ein kleines Teilchen in einem plätschernden, frischen Bach. Sie wirbeln toll umher, so fröhlich wirbeln sie, wie der Bach plätschert. So könnten wir Menschen leben, wenn wir wüssten, wie man zu leben hat.

Doch irgendwann glauben wir, dass wir eine Pause brauchen. Wir gestalten unser Leben um. Aus einem lebendig sprudelnden Bach wird ein fauliger Tümpel. Mit anderen Teilchen setzen wir uns ab und sind Teil des Schlamms, der am Grund vor sich hinfault. Dabei übersehen wir, dass ein Bach immer in einen Tümpel fließen kann, doch der Tümpel wird allenfalls verlanden.

Und so können wir unser sehen, wir uns im Leben absetzen. Als Kinder sprudeln wir, auch als junge Erwachsene sind wir noch voller Tatendrang. Doch irgendwann beginnen wir zu spinnen und glauben, dass wir uns absetzen müssen. Wir nennen es vielleicht nicht Schlamm und fauliger Tümpel. Aber wir kriegen unseren Arsch nur noch schwerlich hoch. Wir könnten sprudeln,² wenn wir wollten. Doch wer einmal im Schlamm festsitzt, der kommt da so schnell nicht wieder raus. (Das ist übrigens kein Grund nicht langsam herauszukommen!)

Ich habe schlammige Füße, weil ich in den Bach muss."

"Aber du machst hier alles dreckig!" Der Zwerg deutete auf den schmutzigen Boden in der Gemüse- und Obstabteilung.

"Papperlapapp! Du warst das bestimmt selbst." Der mittelkriselnde Mann marschierte ohne ein weiteres Wort in Richtung Kasse.

---

1. Inspiriert durch https://forum.zettelkasten.de/discussion/comment/12308/#Comment_12308 ;↩︎

2. Buford, T. W., MacNeil, R. G., Clough, L. G., Dirain, M., Sandesara, B., Pahor, M., Manini, T. M., & Leeuwenburgh, C. (2014). Active muscle regeneration following eccentric contraction-induced injury is similar between healthy young and older adults. J Appl Physiol (1985), 116(11), 1481-90. ↩︎

Will

@Sascha said:
@Will What do you hope for your future self to gain if he will read this note?

Great question!
I can envision a time where my energy for reading will wain. I can't really see a time where the focus of my reading becomes captured by the trivial, but it could happen. I'd want my future self to read this and recommit to reading to enhance life. Life is open, expansive, and present in the books to be read.

I guess I'm prepping a personal huddle for the times I'll feel weak. Many of my zettel are written as "Letters from my younger self." I think I do this because I think my good habits will weaken with time, and I'll drop into bad habits.

@Sascha, Back at you! What are you telling your future self?

I'm a bit confused by the second note at the bottom of your post. Active muscle regeneration following eccentric contraction-induced injury is similar between healthy young and older adults. How is this related to the pond sediment in the scene from your novella or @ZettelDistraction's sentiment?

Sascha

@Will said:

@Sascha said:
@Will What do you hope for your future self to gain if he will read this note?

Great question!
I can envision a time where my energy for reading will wain. I can't really see a time where the focus of my reading becomes captured by the trivial, but it could happen. I'd want my future self to read this and recommit to reading to enhance life. Life is open, expansive, and present in the books to be read.

I guess I'm prepping a personal huddle for the times I'll feel weak. Many of my zettel are written as "Letters from my younger self." I think I do this because I think my good habits will weaken with time, and I'll drop into bad habits.

Ah, ok. In that case: Why not make this the actual point of the note? I would, for example, write a dedicated letter to my future self and enrich it with links to ressources that inspire an demonstrate the truth of the call. With using a strong voice and pulling ressources together (embedded pictures are very nice for that reason), you could make something more impactful.

I think an all-in-approach would serve you more.

@Sascha, Back at you! What are you telling your future self?

Luckily, my note is part of a grotesque novella. So, I don't expect any high value for my future self but just a funny nag at me and the reader.

I'm a bit confused by the second note at the bottom of your post. Active muscle regeneration following eccentric contraction-induced injury is similar between healthy young and older adults. How is this related to the pond sediment in the scene from your novella or @ZettelDistraction's sentiment?

It is a study that showed that big part of the decreased regenerative capacity of older people stems from general inactivity. They forced the older people to be more active. The result was a big increase in regeneration power.

A perhaps more understandable translation could be:

German:
Wir könnten sprudeln, wenn wir wollten. Doch wer einmal im Schlamm festsitzt, der kommt da so schnell nicht wieder raus.

English:
We could prance around, if we really wanted. But, if you are stuck in the mud, you won't get out readily.

It is a bit difficult to translate. In German, there is an ambiguity build into the text. You can read it either as if because of the circumstances that we get complacent (= being in the mud) or we are complacent just arbitrary and self-imposed.

The novella will get quite some references to the real evidence for what I am writing. Just an hobby. The idea is to balance out the silliness of the book (one conflict of the book is between an adoptive father and his ex-child-soldier son who builds booby traps in the supermarket because he is triggered by a ongoing war between the cheese seller and the saucage seller) and make a meta-statement on (post-)modern art. (I hate it)

alscardoso

Hi @Will I like the idea. This is my first time sharing a zettel after a few weeks of using The Archive and trying to follow the method. Feedback is welcomed. Here it is:

Will

@alscardoso, thanks for participating.

Nice zettel from today. I'd let this incubate a day or so and return to it. You'd see it in a fresh light and may see so things you'd like to change. Taking at least a one-time pass at resting-then-editing is a good habit to get into.

The title is okay but not stellar. From an outsider's perspective, your note is about how BJJ practice is like play and how this play, randori, is not enough. Maybe these are two different ideas? Maybe not enough difference to make a separate note?

Brainstormed titles
1. Play develops the skills for survival
2. A key principle of BJJ is mindful randori

Is the title to the note [[202107031230]] "See principles"? I'd place the actual title here, and if it needed a comment in this note, I'd add it. Here is an example.

[[202107031230]] Principles of the art of BJJ
-Randori is necessary but not sufficient.

henrikenggaard

@Will said:
Will's zettel from the top of the thread.

What is the link to "Distractions"? and what is its relation to reading

---

And I'll share one of my recent ones:

T-shaped knowledge

T-shaped knowledge is the skill trait where one has deep specialization within a specific area and general knowledge in others. Thus, the "skill distribution" resembles a T.

The "single area of expertise" should probably not be taken literally. [[Π-shaped knowledge allows more flexibility]]. But the point is that there is sense in having specialized knowledge in a specific area, rather than just having a broad and trivial knowledge.

[[T-shaped knowledge reaches for fundamentals]] is one of the key characteristics of what makes T-shaped knowledge truly "T" shaped. It doesn't just reach deep -- it bottoms out.

The [[double brackets]] are links to other notes.

Will

@henrikenggaard, this idea of "T-shaped knowledge" has my wheels turning.
A deep specialization with arms that extend outward, dipping into a broad knowledge space.
Now imagine ten "T's" laid out in a circle with their ascenders pointing outward and the arms of the top arms touching their neighbors. You'd have multiple areas of specialty with interconnected general knowledge as support. I don't know what we'd call this, maybe polymath-shaped knowledge.

What is "Π-shaped knowledge allows more flexibility," and how did you create that symbol?

Here is the zettel Distractions 201903101304 as embarrassing as it is.

The link was referring supporting my idea that misdirected reading stagnates because it is a distraction.

henrikenggaard

@Will said:
@henrikenggaard, this idea of "T-shaped knowledge" has my wheels turning.
A deep specialization with arms that extend outward, dipping into a broad knowledge space.
Now imagine ten "T's" laid out in a circle with their ascenders pointing outward and the arms of the top arms touching their neighbors. You'd have multiple areas of specialty with interconnected general knowledge as support. I don't know what we'd call this, maybe polymath-shaped knowledge.

What is "Π-shaped knowledge allows more flexibility," and how did you create that symbol?

The "Π" is an uppercase Greek pi. Lowercase pi, π, could probably also be used, but the point of the visual pun is that there are several ascenders and not just one. If I understand your "polymath-shaped knowledge", then it is very related to that. Here is my note on it:

Π-shaped knowledge allows more flexibility

At least compared to T-shaped knowledge. The point with Π-shaped knowledge, is to have two areas of expertise, which can then complement each other. For example, signal processing and low-level programming knowledge.

Maybe I should have a "Ш-shaped knowledge" (Ш is the Cyrillic sha) for further areas of deep expertise

Here is the zettel Distractions 201903101304 as embarrassing as it is.

The link was referring supporting my idea that misdirected reading stagnates because it is a distraction.

[image]

I think that not has some really nice content and I think the title could be reworked to reflect the content better. The points about different kinds of distractions could be highlighted, or maybe "finer distractions".

Your thoughts on "finer distractions" reminded me of this article on procrastination: Structured Procrastination (Web archive)

Btw. I really like this thread format. Maybe the weekly "what are you doing" should be "share a note from the last week"

Will

This is exactly what I had hoped for when I started this tread. All the critiques, tips, and pointers help everyone. Let's keep it up.

@henrikenggaard said:
I think that note has some really nice content, and I think the title could be reworked to reflect the content better. The points about different kinds of distractions could be highlighted, or maybe "finer distractions".

Thanks for the pointers. This note needs refactoring. In my defense, this is the quality of a note that I was producing four months (UUID 201903101304) into my exposure to the zettelkasting world. My bad for not touching and improving it a little each of the fifteen times I visited this note to add links. I can't remember. Maybe I did, Dropbox didn't keep a complete history, and my old Time Machine backups don't cover Dropbox files. Again, my bad.

On your encouragement, I've placed this note in the #proofing oven and will work on it over then few days. I envision splitting this note into three zettel and maybe creating a structure note tieing them all together.

For now, I've retitled the zettel Once Coarse Distractions Contained, Finer Ones Surface. This is better but still not stellar. I'm applying what I learned about "How to tie the title with the note's idea"

Your thoughts on "finer distractions" reminded me of this article on procrastination: Structured Procrastination (Web archive)

I read and processed Structure Procratination back in April when someone, somewhere, probably you, mentioned it. It's great! I will look at it again during the refactoring of Distractions, seeing if any of it sparks.

Btw. I really like this thread format. Maybe the weekly "what are you doing" should be "share a note from the last week"

Will

I've given Distractions 201903101304 my newest and most improved zettelkasting treatment in refactoring it. It was quite old and my methods have changed. I thank @henrikenggaard for the kick-in-the-butt that started this refactoring and I hope this is helpful to someone, to see the outcome of this exercise. This zettel is still not and will never be a "Permanent Note" in the sense of being done.

What I changed

1. The title is for now "Once Coarse Distractions Contained, Finer Ones Surface"
2. Formed a YAML header
3. I added a subtitle to expound in a short phrase what this idea is about
4. Added #mind-science
5. I restructured the format pushing my haiku to the top and the note about the blog post after the section that was the blog post rather than in front of it.
6. Wordsmithed the text, hopefully improving the communication of the idea by 1%.
7. Put the focused connections above the --- and somewhat less focused links below. This was a value judgment.

Stats

8 first-tier zettel connections
40 second-tier zettel connections
229 words

emps

Maybe I should have a "Ш-shaped knowledge" (Ш is the Cyrillic sha) for further areas of deep expertise

Why stop there? Make it Ж-shaped!

henrikenggaard

@Will said:
[Re-worked note]

I think it has shaped up quite nicely. It both offers something in terms of making a point and it also points in several directions to explore.

I'm struggling a lot with distractions these days, so it is quite intriguing to read your note and what other notes it is referencing

Will

@henrikenggaard said:
I'm struggling a lot with distractions these days, so it is quite intriguing to read your note and what other notes it is referencing

I too struggle with controlling distraction. Here are a couple of deeper references from the "Once Coarse Distractions Contained, Finer Ones Surface" refactored zettel.

I have 5 hubs that mention distraction. The main distraction hub "Directional And Indirectional Procrastination" has 14 first-level and 106 second-level links. distract OR distracting OR distraction are mentioned in 155 zettel.

---

Opportunity Costs Of Finer Distractions

---

Disconnecting Distraction

• Graham, Paul. Disconnecting Distraction. May 2008, http://www.paulgraham.com/distraction.html.

henrikenggaard

@Will Thanks a lot for sharing them and sorry for taking a few days get back.

I like the idea of different levels of distractions. I should be working on some math-stuff I have to solve, but I also have a presentation which needs to be put in shape -- and I have to reply here! Of these the "math-stuff" is definitely the most "noble" and the presentation a "finer" distraction. I'll abstain from commenting on hanging out on the forum

djdrysdale

I feel a bit intellectually naked posting one of my notes, but would love some feedback to help me learn and get better at this. I picked one more or less at random.

This was at one point entitled "Adjacent possible." After reading this thread and some others here I revised the title as well as providing more contextual information around the related links. I found going through my zettelkasten that I have a number of notes that are more or less descriptions of concepts or ideas; I tried to update them so they more explicitly point to why I found the idea interesting (e.g. what my future self might need to know) but there are still a few that are very definitional. I don't know if that's a practice to be discouraged or not, though.

I am not sure if I go far enough with this particular note in terms of "making it my own," though I make a connection to something else I read (which, alas, I do not seem to have a separate note for yet).

Will

@djdrysdale said:
I feel a bit intellectually naked posting one of my notes, but would love some feedback to help me learn and get better at this. I picked one more or less at random.

Thanks for posting this example. I haven't read this book but have read How We Got to Now by Steven Johnson back in 2014. I remember I liked it but it was pre-zettelkasten and I can't remember any particulars. I did find this one snippet in my journal - "just started and the chapter on Glass was fascinating. Can’t wait to see what is next."

I, too, feel "intellectually naked" when posting my notes. Unlike you, I expose my intellectual smallness. I am but a beginner, my comments are meant to help if I can. I don't think this note contains any grand faux pas.

Your example is a fine one. I think you have upped your game by retitling the zettel. When titling, I try to think in terms of a complete sentence as a title, then I shorten it a bit rather than thinking of a one or two-word phrase and letting it go at that.

You don't have any quotes other than the key phrases your idea is about. This note all your ideas and that is a good thing. You have a simple format that will help your future self find stuff.

Two things I'd do differently. Not that your presentation won't work.

1. I'd put the links interstitial. Not quite sure how you'd do this. As an example, I might put the first link behind "...open space of direction that the future may take." and the second "... to far past the adjacent possible".

Does the app you are using allow you to change the phrase in the link and still let it target the correct zettel? If so, I wouldn't limit myself to what I called the zettel in another context. I'd feel free to rename it in this instance. I sometimes give links a name/link title that seems more appropriate than the original. If the link takes you where you want to go, freely changing its associated rhetoric won't matter.

Innovation thrives in open environments becomes open space of direction that the future may take - both taking you to the same note.

Innovation accrues in small incremental steps becomes to far past the adjacent possible - both taking you to the same note.

providing more contextual information around the related links.

It is a bit harder to surround a link with contextual information when putting the link interstitial. But I find this to be a noble goal when writing a zettel. When I do this, I let the phrasing of the zettel work to entice my future self and place a link formatted with a UUID. I find this easier and quicker than placing a full-text title link.

Here is a sample snippet.

Rhythmic scheduling may not active the deepest levels of thinking 
that are available in the day-long retreats of the bimodal philosophy 
but has four advantages. First, this mode fits in with modern life. 
Second, once established you can pretty much go off of autopilot. 
Third, using this mode, incremental advancement [[201911151629]] 
of the work more gets done over time because of the regularity. 
Fourth, "the rhythmic scheduler will often log a larger total number 
of deep hours per year." [^2]

2. You mentioned three authors but only cited one. This trifecta of ideas sparks my interest to look for the Stewart Kauffman and the Richard Rumelt references. The adjacent possible and proximate objectives seem tied together, and an interesting connection between the feasible and the possible. There could be some exciting subtleties to explore here.

I am not sure if I go far enough with this particular note in terms of "making it my own,"

I'd say that you've gone pretty far making this zettel your own. You can go farther, now or in the future. Who knows? As you create more zettel and some of them find resonance with this one, it might get refactored. Maybe not.

henrikenggaard

I'd also extend on Will's suggestions for including links in the text. Sometimes I feel that a link fits into the note twice -- and then I just include it twice because why not? Your note on "Innovation accrues in small incremental steps" could possibly also be referenced wrt. your comment on "proximate objective".

The reason why I would just include the link twice is that it a lot easier than reworking the paragraphs. It can be a little clunky having the same link multiple times, but I think it is practical enough to not get in the way.

ctietze

Good point, @henrikenggaard -- I know I place multiple links to the same notes in e.g. lists of reason for/against X, just like I'd reference another author's work multiple times in a list of evidence or arguments, if warranted. I haven't even stopped myself in the process to think about it, yet.

Will

Superlative @henrikenggaard - placing a link where ever it warranted, even if twice in the same zettel! Why not! Place links within the relational text, and who cares if it occurs twice in two paragraphs—preps refactoring. If in future refactoring, the two paragraphs are split apart, the link is not lost.

There are a couple of ways to make linking a bit more granular and focused. Interstitial linking is a key one.

The only problem I see with this is when selecting a link that has multiple targets, the app takes you to the first reference to the link, and unless the second reference is visible, you have no way of knowing about the second reference. The note list is no help here because the zettel will be only listed once even though there are two matching links in the same zettel. It would be nice if there were a visible indicator when 2 or more search results or links matched in the zettel that was displayed in the editor. One would know if one did a thorough enough scan. Maybe this is a problem because of the larger zettel?

I'm still doing this because the pluses outweigh the minuses.

djdrysdale

Unlike you, I expose my intellectual smallness. I am but a beginner, my comments are meant to help if I can.

You sell yourself short! You're among those whose sage advice I always look for on this forum.

I'd put the links interstitial

I had at one point included the links inline, such as by linking the words "skip too far ahead" to the note about innovating accruing in small steps. I found that that sometimes concealed the why behind the link, but interstitials might be an effective compromise. Thanks for that tip!

You mentioned three authors but only cited one.

Yes--I have processed the Rumelt book but I didn't have a note on the proximate objective specifically. I probably should. I haven't read the Kaufmann book but included it as a prompt to explore it at some point. Johnson's book leans heavily on borrowing concepts from biology and applying them to the circulation and development of ideas.

I would just include the link twice

Great suggestion--I guess it is one of those things that now, seeing it suggested, I can't imagine why I wouldn't have done it in the first place. Thanks!

emps

My turn to give back to the community.
Most of my notes are bilingual, so I've chosen one of the few ones that were completely in English. I haven't seen anyone here to discuss Luhmann notemaking productivity in concrete numbers, so below is my note with a quick rundown of it.

Niklas Luhmann, Zettelkasten throughput
tags: #ZK
past: [[About ZK]]
next:

ZK1 - at age 24-36
23k cards, 108 sections, 2k book references.
213 cards per section, 11.5 notes per title.
5.25 notes/day, 0.46 books/day.

ZK2 - at age 36-70
67k cards, 100 sections, 15k book references.
670 cards per section, 4.5 notes per title.
5.24 notes/day, 1.2 books/day.

Conclusions
Luhmann's full Zettel is up to about 550 letters sized. Probably about 225-250 on average.
5.25 notes per day -> 1200-1400 letters/day, about 2 A4 sheets weekly.
First Luhmann's books were published from 1963 onwards, at the same time as he began transfering to the ZK2 (they probably were a "subproduct" of that transfer).
Academical success came after 12 years of data organization. [[Compound interest in knowledge]]
If one "book reference" equals one book, Luhmann obviously didn't read a book a day. A book a week might be a stretch.

N.B. Volume != quality! [[Goodhart's Law]]
Sociologists stopped trying to formulate a unified theory.
Luhmann's sociological theories were harshly criticized.
"ZK clarity" didn't save him from accusations of unreadability, even for Germans.

ZK data
Niklas Luhmann, born at 1927.

The first collection, approximately created between 1951 and 1962 a time when Luhmann was on his way from a legal expert with interests especially in constitutional law and administrative sciences to a systems theoretical sociologist, is based primarily on his readings in political science, administrative studies, organization theory, philosophy, and sociology. It consists of approximately 23,000 cards, which are divided into 108 sections by subjects and numbered consecutively, two bibliographies comprising about 2,000 titles, and a keyword index with roughly 1,250 entries.

The second collection (1963-1997), now clearly reflecting a sociological approach, is divided into eleven top-level sections with a total of about 100 subsections. It consists of approximately 67,000 cards, including a sizeable but obviously incomplete bibliographical apparatus with roughly 15,000 references and a keyword index with 3,200 entries.

https://sociologica.unibo.it/article/view/8350/8270
Niklas Luhmann’s Card Index: The Fabrication of Serendipity
Sociologica. V.12 N.1 (2018)
ISSN 1971-8853
Symposium: Heuristics of Discovery
https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1971-8853/8350

Will

@emps, great to have you participating in the sharing.

Your example is biographical and makes a statement on Luhmann's "ZK clarity." How you stand is a bit ambiguous.

I'm curious about what you use the "past:" and "next:" in the header for?
What does "N.B." stand for?
How is "ZK data" used?."

emps

@Will,
Yeah, I had to alter some markdown, because it turned out that markdown from my software doesn't match the one on the forum.

I'm curious about what you use the "past:" and "next:" in the header for?

"past:" and "next:" are rows for linking notes together in a logical chain. Right now they're not completely functional, because "past:" is autofilled, while "next:" isn't. So I have to do it manually and tend to omit it (unless the chain of arguments is well defined).
I have a half-assed python script that I intend to complete in the future. It would construct ordered graphs out of notes and fill those rows with tags automatically.
I'm ok with a partial functionality of those two rows right now, because my archive is still in its infancy. I can find any note and that's the thing that counts. I can live with the fact that the process requires some additional clicks right right now.

What does "N.B." stand for?

"Nota bene".

How is "ZK data" used?."

It's a "basement" for all the citations and random facts that I don't wan't to include in the main body of the note. Sometimes I call it "ZK data" or "Bibliography" or something else. I hadn't codified it, again, because I'm still altering the structure of my notes and check what turns out to be comfortable.
I'm pretty sure that I'll be able to standardize all of that in bulk in the future.

Your example is biographical and makes a statement on Luhmann's "ZK clarity." How you stand is a bit ambiguous.

Well, the main advantage of structural notes, as I see it, is a modularity of thought. One thesis per note should lead to unambiguousness of conclusions (or at least strive to reach it).
At the same time Luhmann was widely critisized by German sociologists for "not well defined thoughts" and "hard to read books". I have no idea why that happened. Maybe his readers couldn't keep up with his thought process. Maybe it was an envy and competition bashing. Maybe he did wrote badly. I don't know, because I don't remember hearing about him in univercity at all (I'm Master of Sociology). And I'm sure I won't read his books in the near future.
So the only conclusion I can make now is that using zettelcasten doesn't necessary lead to a clarity of thought. Some additional effort is required.