"Luhmann, the godfather of the Zettelkasten Method himself, wrote that it is not important where you store a Zettel as long as you can reference it from every other point to the Zettelkasten.(1)". (emphasis mine)
I think he meant this primarily based on the fact that the entire Zettelkasten is linked. Each card is linked based on proximity to its neighboring cards. They’re all chain-linked. “Associative chaining” in human memory. This is thanks to the Numeric-alpha Card Addresses and Tree Structure.
Luhmann seems to be saying the remote linking capability is a fall-back and secondary measure, in light of the primary organizing feature of Zettelkasten, which revolves around Numeric-alpha addresses and Tree structures (Folgezettel)
You present two citations without further explanation. That's hardly an argument.
But let us reason about it…
We have, in the first of the two citations, the following:
is really beat and kinda lacking in creativity.
How this is
some kind of refutation
of your
supercessionist take on fz
is beyond my means of comprehension.
Here is the difference in my opinion:
1. He is not denying your supercessionist take on fz as being untrue.
2. He is asseverating your supercessionist take on fz as being really beat and kinda lacking in creativity.
You @Sascha seem to take the second line for the first one.
Again, I don't see any kind of refutation nor an attempt to do so in the second line.
It is instead asking us to move on with the discussion and giving reasons why we should do so.
I agree with you on this and think it would be interesting to see and hear more experiences of digital ZK Folgezettel systems. I use analog and prefer that medium for several reasons, yet I could see FZ benefiting those who employ it in digital form.
Can you share some pics or experiences of your ZK that uses the Folgezettel?
My contention is that, in the event that Luhmann seems to be saying the remote linking capability is a fall-back and secondary measure in light of the primary organizing feature of Zettelkasten (which revolves around Numeric-alpha addresses and Tree structures (Folgezettel)), then the statement that “No, Luhmann was not about the Folgezettel” is an overstatement.
1. Gives me a bird's eye view of my initial import connections before I even open up my notes. (I can see top level connections I made when importing the note just by scanning the titles of my notes)
2. Pushes me toward making at least one connection between a new note and other notes, since I am forced to situate the new note structurally among the others. (Reduces the number of "orphan notes" I end up with)
2.a Adds a bit of welcome friction to the process of importing new notes, which keeps me "in the note" longer when importing than if I simply dropped it in my ZK with a timestamp, hoping to come back to it later. (The likelihood that I might simply drop a note into my ZK without making a first-level connection is high).
3. Compounds the effects of the above when I set out to establish deeper connections between notes that were at first glance not apparent. (Taking a note and linking it outside its dominant thread reveals other, similarly "tree'd" or structured notes).
4. Allows me to jump to different areas of my notes without having to seek out structure notes, follow threads created in MOCs, or open up the search bar. (I really don't like using search. It always feels like I'm looking through a pin hole. I like to see notes in relation to other notes. Even ones that aren't connected. That said, I'm not against using structure notes or MOCs etc. I just don't have any use for creating them as permanent aspects of my ZK. I build broader, more established structures when I go to write an essay, blog post, article, book, etc. And, this I'll do outside my ZK. However, I should also note that many of my zettels end up becoming small structure notes in and of themselves, due to the linking that takes place, the fact that I give context for why the links are made, and the fact that I often find myself getting inspired while writing out the context. So much is this the case, that I sometimes start writing portions of an essay right there at the bottom of the note. Although, if it looks like that's what's happening, I'll stop and open up a writing doc so I can start properly fleshing things out).
So, while reasons given for Luhmann's use of FZ tend to err on the side of "Well, he didn't have computer, otherwise he would not have needed to use FZ," I find the argument impossible to prove, and not as interesting as exploring how the reasons for using FZ have changed since many of us went digital. For me, it's not a question of "Can FZ be abandoned now that we have Search?" But, what other benefits (experiential or technical) does FZ provide that feel unique to using FZ?" Assuming, of course, that even without the benefits, personal preference reigns supreme in either direction. I don't care whether someone else uses or does not use FZ.
@scottscheper said:
My contention is that, in the event that Luhmann seems to be saying the remote linking capability is a fall-back and secondary measure in light of the primary organizing feature of Zettelkasten (which revolves around Numeric-alpha addresses and Tree structures (Folgezettel)), then the statement that “No, Luhmann was not about the Folgezettel” is an overstatement.
Yes, but he doesn't.
It is not a fall-back but the very solution for the multiple-storage problem. One of the corner stones of Luhmann's thinking is that choices are somewhat arbitrary. It was always a "you can do it like this but also like this":
(1) Given this technique, it is less important where we place a new note. (2) If there are several possibilities, we can solve the problem as we wish and just record the connection by a link [or reference]. Often the context in which we are working suggests a multiplicity of links to other notes. This is especially the case when the card index is already voluminous. (3) In such cases it is important to capture the connections radially, as it were, but at the same time also by right away recording back links in the slips that are being linked to. (4) In this working procedure, the content that we take note of is usually also enriched (source)
The corner stone of the system is to reduce positioning, make it less fixed.
Those possibilities are not in any particular order of better fitting. The connection by link is equal to the relationship to the neighboring notes. In fact, it is part of the content enriching (4) to provide alternatives to the single connection by Folgezettel.
Luhmann needed those ways that raised above the to strict paths of the Folgezettel.
The primary role of Folgezettel is never stated, doesn't fit into Luhmann's thinking in general and through out his article he stresses that Folgezettel are not the core feature (by providing the ever luring possible alternative connection).
The main focus of his article is not even what he did but what he tried to accomplish. It is not about Folgezettel or linking. It is about solving the issue of multiple storage. He himself is laying the foundation of the sentiment of: Don't link notes but connect knowledge.
That does not mean that Folgezettel can't or shouldn't be the foundation of any Zettelkasten. But it is not a position that can be based on Luhmann.
"The main focus of his article is not even what he did but what he tried to accomplish. It is not about Folgezettel or linking. It is about solving the issue of multiple storage. He himself is laying the foundation of the sentiment of: Don't link notes but connect knowledge.
"That does not mean that Folgezettel can't or shouldn't be the foundation of any Zettelkasten. But it is not a position that can be based on Luhmann."
This is good. I think you'll get a lot less unnecessary push back if you emphasize the above when people ask you about fz here and elsewhere. I know you think this is what you're saying when you answer the question. It may be what's in yr head. But, it's not what's on the page. To be a solid mentor, teacher, thought leader for newcomers (and old timers), you gotta show that you can show the full scope. The range of approach. It's A. more inclusive and gives people options, B. reminds people that you've got comprehensive knowledge and aren't just an ideologue, C. More people will be more likely to listen (and I think they should), and D. is just more accurate. I've brought the importance of this up to you in other areas as well. Show the scope of practice. Only takes a sentence or two. I think it will work wonders for you. And, I mean that in a very non-sarcastic way.
@Sascha thanks for sharing more details and rationale! To me, it seems like Luhmann was both about Folgezettel and about remote linking. I think the issue with the article is the title. It’s reflects that of an ideologue as @taurusnoises termed it. Based on Luhmann’s solution to multiple storage, perhaps the title should be: “No, Luhmann was not about Folgezettel: He was about Folgezettel AND Remote Links”
Luhmann himself said that computers solve the multiple storage problem yet they’re not out and available yet (in his ZK notes from the 1980s). He also said, in the last chapter of Shortcuts (I believe when computers were available in the 90s) that one should use a Zettelkasten system like his, or a computer.
Because computers solve the multiple storage problem, there’s a chance that if Luhmann used a computer today for his notes, he wouldn’t even use Obsidian or any app with linking ability.
Doesn’t matter much, however; People get value out of remote linking, and they get use out of Folgezettel—especially for the analog Zettelkasten implementation, and apparently even for digital implementation.
You're writing a book about Zettelkasten.
When is it going to be published - soon?
I shall answer in the manner of Jordan Peterson: It depends on what you mean by “soon”
Haha, in reality my goal is around six months. I’m hustling every day. I’ll be releasing more content in the meantime on my website (scottscheper.com).
"The main focus of his article is not even what he did but what he tried to accomplish. It is not about Folgezettel or linking. It is about solving the issue of multiple storage. He himself is laying the foundation of the sentiment of: Don't link notes but connect knowledge.
"That does not mean that Folgezettel can't or shouldn't be the foundation of any Zettelkasten. But it is not a position that can be based on Luhmann."
This is good. I think you'll get a lot less unnecessary push back if you emphasize the above when people ask you about fz here and elsewhere. I know you think this is what you're saying when you answer the question. It may be what's in yr head. But, it's not what's on the page. To be a solid mentor, teacher, thought leader for newcomers (and old timers), you gotta show that you can show the full scope. The range of approach. It's A. more inclusive and gives people options, B. reminds people that you've got comprehensive knowledge and aren't just an ideologue, C. More people will be more likely to listen (and I think they should), and D. is just more accurate. I've brought the importance of this up to you in other areas as well. Show the scope of practice. Only takes a sentence or two. I think it will work wonders for you. And, I mean that in a very non-sarcastic way.
I think you miss the context.
With Scott, I write just if Luhmann actually was about Folgezettel or not. It is not correct to state that Folgezettel can't or shouldn't be the foundation if you can't base it on Luhmann. It would be negating the antecedence:
(1) If Luhmann was about Folgezettel, Folgezettel are valid.
(2) Luhmann was not about Folgezettel
(3) Therefore: Folgezettel are valid
This is a fallacy. And I don't commit it (here).
I am neither mentoring nor teaching here. I am discussing.
I know you think this is what you're saying when you answer the question. It may be what's in yr head. But, it's not what's on the page.
I am sorry, but you failed every attempt to represent my positions. This is another case of misrepresentation. (A) I neither included any positions that I excluded before nor excluded any position I once included. (D) I am as acurate or inacurate as before. I didn't present any position I didn't hold before.
It may be what's in yr head. But, it's not what's on the page.
You are affirming the consequent btw.
@scottscheper said: @Sascha thanks for sharing more details and rationale! To me, it seems like Luhmann was both about Folgezettel and about remote linking. I think the issue with the article is the title. It’s reflects that of an ideologue as @taurusnoises termed it. Based on Luhmann’s solution to multiple storage, perhaps the title should be: “No, Luhmann was not about Folgezettel: He was about Folgezettel AND Remote Links”
No. The title is acurate. If the title would be rephrased it would be something like "Luhmann, was not about Folgezettel. He was about connection"
If it is a reflection of ideology, how so?
Because computers solve the multiple storage problem, there’s a chance that if Luhmann used a computer today for his notes, he wouldn’t even use Obsidian or any app with linking ability.
Speculation, but: Judging from his other writings, I think he would love a combination of linking and transclusion. (He complained as I remember that any chapter could be part of every other chapter)
Doesn’t matter much, however; People get value out of remote linking, and they get use out of Folgezettel—especially for the analog Zettelkasten implementation, and apparently even for digital implementation.
It depends on what you mean by "much". I am trying to improve the digital tools as much as possible. To me, even a little bit is "much".
@Sascha said:
No. The title is acurate. If the title would be rephrased it would be something like "Luhmann, was not about Folgezettel. He was about connection"
Or perhaps, it would be best to say, "He was about Communication" as, his paper literally centered around "Communicating with Noteboxes".
Communication through connection. The numeric-alpha addresses on each card provides the ability to communicate with remote parts of one's brain; they
If it is a reflection of ideology, how so?
In terms of having a strong polarizing position. It works, it's what politicians do. It's what I spent fifteen years doing as a copywriter (even though I'm trying to ween myself out of some of its negative tendencies). The headline captures attention. It's a great headline from that perspective. A boring headline would not have captured nearly as much attention, and as a result, paradoxically, we'd probably not even be discussing it—and because I find value in such discussions, there's a part of me actually that is grateful for the headline—even if I disagree with what it implies.
Luhmann was about the Communication of ideas, and he used both Folgezettel and Remote Linking to achieve such. Fogezettel provides a type of local communication within a given branched context. The context organically collects thoughts over time. To insinuate that he was not about Folgezettel at all is quite controversial given the fact that... he did use the system, and even listed it as a requirement in his paper Communicating with Noteboxes.
Speculation, but: Judging from his other writings, I think he would love a combination of linking and transclusion. (He complained as I remember that any chapter could be part of every other chapter)
Interesting; I wasn't familiar with the term transclusion. Yes, I think he might even do the Jordan Peterson route of just starting with a Word Doc outline and building it over years based on his readings. 1 What Luhmann may or may not do if he were alive today doesn't matter much (again) because I think people gain value out of the analog Zettelkasten instantiation, and also the digital Zettelkasten instantiations.
@Sascha said:
No. The title is acurate. If the title would be rephrased it would be something like "Luhmann, was not about Folgezettel. He was about connection"
Or perhaps, it would be best to say, "He was about Communication" as, his paper literally centered around "Communicating with Noteboxes".
I think this would be a step to far in the level of abstraction. Communication is the result of the whole set up. The object of interest is if the Folgezettel Technique is what the Zettelkasten Method is about. Or: Is it an essential aspect or not?
If it is a reflection of ideology, how so?
In terms of having a strong polarizing position.
I don't think strength or polarization of position are qualifiers for ideology. Approximations for ideology would be the exclusion of new empirical evidence or arguments on the grounds that they contradict what is already decided to be true.
In this case, I hold the following positions for example:
The Zettelkasten Method does not depend on the use of the Folgezettel Technique.
The Folgezettel Technique is a subpar solution to problems that the Zettelkaste tries to solve (e.g. providing context)
The Folgezettel Technique has merit in specific cases (as Dan Sheffler use it)
The Folgezettel Technique is a solution to avoid strict categories and enables organic growth of connections.
That Luhmann didn't state the essentialism of Folgezettel does not mean that Folgezettel isn't essential to the Zettelkasten Method
All positions are compatible with each other and I can give you both my empirical and rational justifications for them. There is nothing axiomatic about my position.
But I can see the need to put a label on a position or the position holder like ideological since we don't live in a culture in which principle or rational argumentation and clear (this would be the word I'd be using) positioning is suspicious for a good reason. Sadly, a positive feedback loop in a low trust environment.
It works, it's what politicians do. It's what I spent fifteen years doing as a copywriter (even though I'm trying to ween myself out of some of its negative tendencies). The headline captures attention. It's a great headline from that perspective. A boring headline would not have captured nearly as much attention, and as a result, paradoxically, we'd probably not even be discussing it—and because I find value in such discussions, there's a part of me actually that is grateful for the headline—even if I disagree with what it implies.
Sadly, this headline is not a byproduct of me trying to be interesting but to replying to Daniel LĂĽdecke directly. If you compare my headlines: Most of them are boring.
Luhmann was about the Communication of ideas, and he used both Folgezettel and Remote Linking to achieve such. Folgezettel provides a type of local communication within a given branched context. The context organically collects thoughts over time. (My highlight)
There are some posts in the pipe to explore the concept of context. I postpone my answer until their are finished. (Folgezettel provide context but in a subpar way)
To insinuate that he was not about Folgezettel at all is quite controversial given the fact that... he did use the system, and even listed it as a requirement in his paper Communicating with Noteboxes.
I think I gave my reasoning to hold the position. I don't mind it being controversial. I just mind if the position is true or not.
What Luhmann may or may not do if he were alive today doesn't matter much (again) because I think people gain value out of the analog Zettelkasten instantiation, and also the digital Zettelkasten instantiations.
Comments
Bring shade get shade 🤷🏻‍♂️
I think he meant this primarily based on the fact that the entire Zettelkasten is linked. Each card is linked based on proximity to its neighboring cards. They’re all chain-linked. “Associative chaining” in human memory. This is thanks to the Numeric-alpha Card Addresses and Tree Structure.
Luhmann seems to be saying the remote linking capability is a fall-back and secondary measure, in light of the primary organizing feature of Zettelkasten, which revolves around Numeric-alpha addresses and Tree structures (Folgezettel)
Scott P. Scheper
Website | Twitter | Reddit | YouTube
https://skosmos.loterre.fr/P66/en/page/-SLPWKCWM-3
Scott P. Scheper
Website | Twitter | Reddit | YouTube
You present two citations without further explanation. That's hardly an argument.
But let us reason about it…
We have, in the first of the two citations, the following:
How this is
of your
is beyond my means of comprehension.
Here is the difference in my opinion:
1. He is not denying your supercessionist take on fz as being untrue.
2. He is asseverating your supercessionist take on fz as being really beat and kinda lacking in creativity.
You @Sascha seem to take the second line for the first one.
Again, I don't see any kind of refutation nor an attempt to do so in the second line.
It is instead asking us to move on with the discussion and giving reasons why we should do so.
@taurusnoises
I agree with you on this and think it would be interesting to see and hear more experiences of digital ZK Folgezettel systems. I use analog and prefer that medium for several reasons, yet I could see FZ benefiting those who employ it in digital form.
Can you share some pics or experiences of your ZK that uses the Folgezettel?
Scott P. Scheper
Website | Twitter | Reddit | YouTube
My contention is that, in the event that Luhmann seems to be saying the remote linking capability is a fall-back and secondary measure in light of the primary organizing feature of Zettelkasten (which revolves around Numeric-alpha addresses and Tree structures (Folgezettel)), then the statement that “No, Luhmann was not about the Folgezettel” is an overstatement.
Scott P. Scheper
Website | Twitter | Reddit | YouTube
If Luhmann’s notebox was not numbered and ordered (which it was) yet had remote linking capabilities, then maybe he wasn’t about Folgezettel.
Scott P. Scheper
Website | Twitter | Reddit | YouTube
@scottscheper Sure...
FZ benefits me because it:
1. Gives me a bird's eye view of my initial import connections before I even open up my notes. (I can see top level connections I made when importing the note just by scanning the titles of my notes)
2. Pushes me toward making at least one connection between a new note and other notes, since I am forced to situate the new note structurally among the others. (Reduces the number of "orphan notes" I end up with)
2.a Adds a bit of welcome friction to the process of importing new notes, which keeps me "in the note" longer when importing than if I simply dropped it in my ZK with a timestamp, hoping to come back to it later. (The likelihood that I might simply drop a note into my ZK without making a first-level connection is high).
3. Compounds the effects of the above when I set out to establish deeper connections between notes that were at first glance not apparent. (Taking a note and linking it outside its dominant thread reveals other, similarly "tree'd" or structured notes).
4. Allows me to jump to different areas of my notes without having to seek out structure notes, follow threads created in MOCs, or open up the search bar. (I really don't like using search. It always feels like I'm looking through a pin hole. I like to see notes in relation to other notes. Even ones that aren't connected. That said, I'm not against using structure notes or MOCs etc. I just don't have any use for creating them as permanent aspects of my ZK. I build broader, more established structures when I go to write an essay, blog post, article, book, etc. And, this I'll do outside my ZK. However, I should also note that many of my zettels end up becoming small structure notes in and of themselves, due to the linking that takes place, the fact that I give context for why the links are made, and the fact that I often find myself getting inspired while writing out the context. So much is this the case, that I sometimes start writing portions of an essay right there at the bottom of the note. Although, if it looks like that's what's happening, I'll stop and open up a writing doc so I can start properly fleshing things out).
So, while reasons given for Luhmann's use of FZ tend to err on the side of "Well, he didn't have computer, otherwise he would not have needed to use FZ," I find the argument impossible to prove, and not as interesting as exploring how the reasons for using FZ have changed since many of us went digital. For me, it's not a question of "Can FZ be abandoned now that we have Search?" But, what other benefits (experiential or technical) does FZ provide that feel unique to using FZ?" Assuming, of course, that even without the benefits, personal preference reigns supreme in either direction. I don't care whether someone else uses or does not use FZ.
Yes, but he doesn't.
It is not a fall-back but the very solution for the multiple-storage problem. One of the corner stones of Luhmann's thinking is that choices are somewhat arbitrary. It was always a "you can do it like this but also like this":
The primary role of Folgezettel is never stated, doesn't fit into Luhmann's thinking in general and through out his article he stresses that Folgezettel are not the core feature (by providing the ever luring possible alternative connection).
The main focus of his article is not even what he did but what he tried to accomplish. It is not about Folgezettel or linking. It is about solving the issue of multiple storage. He himself is laying the foundation of the sentiment of: Don't link notes but connect knowledge.
That does not mean that Folgezettel can't or shouldn't be the foundation of any Zettelkasten. But it is not a position that can be based on Luhmann.
I am a Zettler
This is good. I think you'll get a lot less unnecessary push back if you emphasize the above when people ask you about fz here and elsewhere. I know you think this is what you're saying when you answer the question. It may be what's in yr head. But, it's not what's on the page. To be a solid mentor, teacher, thought leader for newcomers (and old timers), you gotta show that you can show the full scope. The range of approach. It's A. more inclusive and gives people options, B. reminds people that you've got comprehensive knowledge and aren't just an ideologue, C. More people will be more likely to listen (and I think they should), and D. is just more accurate. I've brought the importance of this up to you in other areas as well. Show the scope of practice. Only takes a sentence or two. I think it will work wonders for you. And, I mean that in a very non-sarcastic way.
https://bobdoto.computer/good-teacher
@Sascha thanks for sharing more details and rationale! To me, it seems like Luhmann was both about Folgezettel and about remote linking. I think the issue with the article is the title. It’s reflects that of an ideologue as @taurusnoises termed it. Based on Luhmann’s solution to multiple storage, perhaps the title should be: “No, Luhmann was not about Folgezettel: He was about Folgezettel AND Remote Links”
Luhmann himself said that computers solve the multiple storage problem yet they’re not out and available yet (in his ZK notes from the 1980s). He also said, in the last chapter of Shortcuts (I believe when computers were available in the 90s) that one should use a Zettelkasten system like his, or a computer.
Because computers solve the multiple storage problem, there’s a chance that if Luhmann used a computer today for his notes, he wouldn’t even use Obsidian or any app with linking ability.
Doesn’t matter much, however; People get value out of remote linking, and they get use out of Folgezettel—especially for the analog Zettelkasten implementation, and apparently even for digital implementation.
Scott P. Scheper
Website | Twitter | Reddit | YouTube
@scottscheper
You're writing a book about Zettelkasten.
When is it going to be published - soon?
I shall answer in the manner of Jordan Peterson: It depends on what you mean by “soon”
Haha, in reality my goal is around six months. I’m hustling every day. I’ll be releasing more content in the meantime on my website (scottscheper.com).
Scott P. Scheper
Website | Twitter | Reddit | YouTube
I think you miss the context.
With Scott, I write just if Luhmann actually was about Folgezettel or not. It is not correct to state that Folgezettel can't or shouldn't be the foundation if you can't base it on Luhmann. It would be negating the antecedence:
(1) If Luhmann was about Folgezettel, Folgezettel are valid.
(2) Luhmann was not about Folgezettel
(3) Therefore: Folgezettel are valid
This is a fallacy. And I don't commit it (here).
I am neither mentoring nor teaching here. I am discussing.
I am sorry, but you failed every attempt to represent my positions. This is another case of misrepresentation. (A) I neither included any positions that I excluded before nor excluded any position I once included. (D) I am as acurate or inacurate as before. I didn't present any position I didn't hold before.
It may be what's in yr head. But, it's not what's on the page.
You are affirming the consequent btw.
No. The title is acurate. If the title would be rephrased it would be something like "Luhmann, was not about Folgezettel. He was about connection"
If it is a reflection of ideology, how so?
Speculation, but: Judging from his other writings, I think he would love a combination of linking and transclusion. (He complained as I remember that any chapter could be part of every other chapter)
It depends on what you mean by "much". I am trying to improve the digital tools as much as possible. To me, even a little bit is "much".
I am a Zettler
Or perhaps, it would be best to say, "He was about Communication" as, his paper literally centered around "Communicating with Noteboxes".
Communication through connection. The numeric-alpha addresses on each card provides the ability to communicate with remote parts of one's brain; they
In terms of having a strong polarizing position. It works, it's what politicians do. It's what I spent fifteen years doing as a copywriter (even though I'm trying to ween myself out of some of its negative tendencies). The headline captures attention. It's a great headline from that perspective. A boring headline would not have captured nearly as much attention, and as a result, paradoxically, we'd probably not even be discussing it—and because I find value in such discussions, there's a part of me actually that is grateful for the headline—even if I disagree with what it implies.
Luhmann was about the Communication of ideas, and he used both Folgezettel and Remote Linking to achieve such. Fogezettel provides a type of local communication within a given branched context. The context organically collects thoughts over time. To insinuate that he was not about Folgezettel at all is quite controversial given the fact that... he did use the system, and even listed it as a requirement in his paper Communicating with Noteboxes.
Interesting; I wasn't familiar with the term transclusion. Yes, I think he might even do the Jordan Peterson route of just starting with a Word Doc outline and building it over years based on his readings. 1 What Luhmann may or may not do if he were alive today doesn't matter much (again) because I think people gain value out of the analog Zettelkasten instantiation, and also the digital Zettelkasten instantiations.
Touché!
Scott P. Scheper
Website | Twitter | Reddit | YouTube
I think this would be a step to far in the level of abstraction. Communication is the result of the whole set up. The object of interest is if the Folgezettel Technique is what the Zettelkasten Method is about. Or: Is it an essential aspect or not?
I don't think strength or polarization of position are qualifiers for ideology. Approximations for ideology would be the exclusion of new empirical evidence or arguments on the grounds that they contradict what is already decided to be true.
In this case, I hold the following positions for example:
All positions are compatible with each other and I can give you both my empirical and rational justifications for them. There is nothing axiomatic about my position.
But I can see the need to put a label on a position or the position holder like ideological since we don't live in a culture in which principle or rational argumentation and clear (this would be the word I'd be using) positioning is suspicious for a good reason. Sadly, a positive feedback loop in a low trust environment.
Sadly, this headline is not a byproduct of me trying to be interesting but to replying to Daniel LĂĽdecke directly. If you compare my headlines: Most of them are boring.
There are some posts in the pipe to explore the concept of context. I postpone my answer until their are finished.
(Folgezettel provide context but in a subpar way)
I think I gave my reasoning to hold the position.
I don't mind it being controversial. I just mind if the position is true or not.
Agreed.
I am a Zettler
@scottscheper
Thanks for the link to the short interview of Jordan Peterson, about his process of thinking and writing - that was fascinating!
Of course. Glad you found it helpful!
Scott P. Scheper
Website | Twitter | Reddit | YouTube