On the zettelkasten subreddit I came across a post linking to an article on the method (shared by the author of the article). In it he was making some bold proclamations, so I thought I'd ask what this community thought?
The core argument seems to be
Today, however, I shall provide one fundamental component of Luhmann's system. This fundamental component is missing from an estimated 96% of digital zettelkastens.
Luhmann outlines this fundamental component in the very beginning of his paper on how his zettelkasten works.
Information is an intra-systematic event. It results when one compares one message or entry with regard to other possibilities. Information, accordingly, originates only in systems which possess a comparative schema—even if this amounts only to: "this or something else."
You see, built into every single note in Luhmann's system is one requirement: he must decide where the note belongs. It forces associations, and associations stand as the fundamental building block of human memory. One must decide if the note is associated with this or something else. It is a comparative schema built into the very root of Luhmann's antinet zettelkasten, which surfaces the magic of his system.
Unfortunately, this fundamental component is watered down to near extinction in the world of digital zettelkastens.
The idea of "must decide where the note belongs", while true, misses the point of multiple context within the zettelkasten, as Luhmann was trying to come up with an alternative to filing notes using folders. Or is he just rehashing the classic Folgzettel Debate?
Edited by @ctietze: Added source link for attribution