Nice article. I hadn't seen Fixing the old Folgezettel referred to in Bob Doto's post previously. Perhaps it's just as well, since my own "Folgezettel IDs" are dotted Luhmann-style IDs with appended timestamps. This is documented in my Zettel github wiki under ID Format, in case anyone is interested. My system relies on Zettlr, which uses Pandoc for document export to LaTeX. The LaTeX source and PDF export configurations are modified, as is the default LaTeX template (lightly). All of this is documented at the above wiki and has remained stable for months.
GitHub. Erdős #2. Problems worthy of attack / prove their worth by hitting back. -- Piet Hein. Alter ego: Erel Dogg (not the first). CC BY-SA 4.0.
@Sascha Thanks for sharing that article! It was well written, not too long , and contained some intriguing ideas.
I liked this question:
The question, "Does folgezettel work?" must be superseded by one that asks how blind spots, getting lost, and the forgetting of ideas can be beneficial to our creativity.
@GeoEng51 Good point and thank you for reminding me--I meant to comment more about Bob Doto's post. The philosopher Raymond Geuss touches on an aspect of this in the second paragraph below. The preceding paragraph is included for context. I added the boldface below.
Many of us strive for clarity and we do this for many of the excellent reasons the philosophic tradition has expounded in great detail. We tend to attribute to others an equal striving for and attainment of clarity with respect to their own beliefs, although the apparent generosity of this impulse sometimes can be suspected to mask a certain slyness, because it warrants us to put words in others’ mouths, the better thereby to catch them out and trip them up. Socrates, of course, was an unsurpassed master of this technique, and his example remains in this regard paradigmatic for much of contemporary philosophy.
However, as Nietzsche very powerfully pointed out, humans do not always exhibit maximal interest in clarity and explicitness, and they are right not to. Clarity is often of no use to us at all, and can in some circumstances be a positive hindrance to attaining various important human goods. In addition to our desire for clarity and definiteness, humans exhibit a second set of properties that are perhaps equally important, are very inadequately understood, are very little under our control, and are seriously underappreciated. These are the powers of forgetting, ignoring, failing to ask questions.
-- Geuss, Raymond. Outside Ethics (p. 6). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.
GitHub. Erdős #2. Problems worthy of attack / prove their worth by hitting back. -- Piet Hein. Alter ego: Erel Dogg (not the first). CC BY-SA 4.0.
When I was on a break yesterday, walking along the river, I was thinking about the reason Luhmann used notecards, of all things, as the atomic structure of his ZK. I landed in a nearly identical place to Bob: the purpose of the folgezettel technique was to reintroduce chaos into the archive.
Emphasis mine:
Luhmann places a diminished importance on the physical proximity of notes as they were originally imported into the slip-box, considering the increased distance that occurred when new notes were placed between two others as a net positive. Breakdowns in proximity yield more than they take away
Folgezettel creates value from the position of a Zettel in the archive. But the technique of creating a link reduces the value of the position of a Zettel.
The agreement among various premises continues, with Bob and @sfast agreeing that Luhmann's "hubs" (or, in our forum, "Structure Notes") are akin to meaningful, synthesized outlines and are useful because they are full of intentional (and imposed) meaning.
Now, where I think conclusions differ is that Bob still advocates for Folgezettel, whereas @sfast believes it's an outdated technique. @sfast, I'd love to hear if my reading here tracks what your beliefs were at the time you've written about Folgezettel, and if Bob's writing has changed your perspective at all. I'd also love to know why you chose to share the post here!
Of course, I'm also partial to Bob's use of a cartographic metaphor
In order to build arguments out of his zettels, Luhmann made his way back through the alphanumeric IDs, following his markings as one would follow the dotted lines of a treasure map
I'm astounded that this post hasn't gotten more play in the forums!
Folgezettel creates value from the position of a Zettel in the archive. But the technique of creating a link reduces the value of the position of a Zettel.
In my digital Zettelkasten, the ordering of the IDs in the file display pane is the same ordering one would see in a physical Zettelkasten.
You increment an ID if the next one is a continuation of the prior one. You append a letter or a number if the next ID comments on an aspect of its predecessor. So no, the ability to link doesn't somehow diminish the value of adhering to this rule. Whatever. It's not an interesting debate.
GitHub. Erdős #2. Problems worthy of attack / prove their worth by hitting back. -- Piet Hein. Alter ego: Erel Dogg (not the first). CC BY-SA 4.0.
Luhmann places a diminished importance on the physical proximity of notes as they were originally imported into the slip-box, considering the increased distance that occurred when new notes were placed between two others as a net positive. Breakdowns in proximity yield more than they take away
My problem with this position is that it is highly speculative. One need to massage it slowly out of the bits and pieces we have from Luhmann. And more: Even for me as a German with moderate familiarity with Luhmanns thinking and writing (I mean is actual work as a sociologist and systems theoretician) it is difficult to not put words in Luhmann's mouth. Most translations are not bad. An example is "weniger wichtig" wich is directly translated to "less important". But it is likely that it should rather translated as "not important" considering Luhmann's understating style of writing and speaking (which I think is due to his more introvert temperament).
When I was on a break yesterday, walking along the river, I was thinking about the reason Luhmann used notecards, of all things, as the atomic structure of his ZK. I landed in a nearly identical place to Bob: the purpose of the folgezettel technique was to reintroduce chaos into the archive.
Folgezettel creates value from the position of a Zettel in the archive. But the technique of creating a link reduces the value of the position of a Zettel.
The agreement among various premises continues, with Bob and @sfast agreeing that Luhmann's "hubs" (or, in our forum, "Structure Notes") are akin to meaningful, synthesized outlines and are useful because they are full of intentional (and imposed) meaning.
Now, where I think conclusions differ is that Bob still advocates for Folgezettel, whereas @sfast believes it's an outdated technique. @sfast, I'd love to hear if my reading here tracks what your beliefs were at the time you've written about Folgezettel, and if Bob's writing has changed your perspective at all. I'd also love to know why you chose to share the post here!
BOB: I am not sure if outdated encapsulates my position. Bob's position seems to be that Folgezettel have an effect and this is worth having. Although, he sometimes uses this line of thinking ("I don't care what Luhmann intended it has this effect"), sometimes he uses the other line of thinking ("Luhmann intended this and his intention is based on correct assumptions and logic"). But it might be that it is just a byproduct of the random nature of thinking about a topic.
So, the summarisation of his position to me is: There is a list of effects using this technique even in the digital realm and the effects are beneficial to many, so consider using Folgezettel.
SASCHA: My approach is to remove as much layers of interpretation as possible. So, I don't base my thinking on all the theoretical stuff in the background of the nature of Folgezettel, what chaos means etc. though I enrich my perspective with it almost as an epiphenomenon.
Instead, I ask myself:
(1) What the tasks are that I want to accomplish: Creating a line of thought, a complex argumentation, create the possibility of bottom-up thinking etc.
And more directly: How can I create coherent structure if I want to apply story-driven-explanation? How can connect two ideas in a way that the connection is understandable by my future self? What is the practical nature of concept work ("Begriffsarbeit", using concept as an epistemtic tool) and how can create a tool for it for myself.
(2) What is actually happening when I use techniques/implementations: Tags are not clouds they are search results displayed as a unstructured list. Folgezettel a structured list that is created bottom-up and displayed in the file viewer on the left side of the editor.
The weakness of Folgezettel is actually shown by the example of @ZettelDistraction. Imagine working for a long time within this area of the Zettelkasten. the "2.2c" to "2.2h" will be pulled further and further apart and it will be more and more difficult to follow 2.2c to 2.2h. This issue is the main reason, in my opinion, why folding editors exist. A growing structured list introduces a growing difficulty of access to the structure. The folding feature is a way of slowing the increase in difficulty down (though it cannot remove the issue).
There is an accompanying load for the working memory. Folgezettel forces you to hold a lot in your working memory which in turn is an issue that is well known in the world of software: Working memory should always have free space to perform the intended task instead of being occupied with background tasks which are just making the system and its apps run.
Part of the Zettelkasten Method (my version) is the deliberate loading of the working memory to create a pressure cooking effect that allows for the creative potential of working with the Zettelkasten. Therefore, the ratio of meaningful (e.g. the actual ideas you want to think of) and the meaningless (e.g. formalities about the method like IDs or tagging conventions) items in your working memory should be optimised.
This is the technical reason why I (a) always try to relate the way of applying formalities to the actual thinking process. (e.g. the beneficial effect of the one sentence summary is not just due to the usability of the ZK but as an incentive to deepening the understanding by compressing). And (b) automate as much as the formalities away. (Which is one of the main benefits of the time-based IDs)
Ok, I got carried away. But these are some of my premises and lines of thinking about the Folgezettel technique.
A summary could be: I am operating at the limits of my mental capability in my work. Therefore, I design each step of the processes and the thinking environment not so much in a theoretical, nonchalant (or playful?) approach. But I design it with the limits of my mind (and the human mind in general) as a very important factor.
Folgezettel share a trait with tags: They are not self-scaling to the complexity of the knowledge. Instead, they both introduce a mental load that increases with the complexity and therefore occupy the mind increasingly with non-knowledge related tasks. Tags have this downside pretty obviously. The more you use a tag the bigger the search result list becomes and the more difficult it is to use the tag as a container. Therefore, tags as an alternative to folders are a losing game. Folgezettel share this trait for most of their proclaimed effects and use cases.
My Zettelkasten for example wouldn't be much less usable if I would dump 100k garbage notes in it. In theory, the amount of garbage notes could be infinite (if you disregard the impossibilty because the universe would collaps or explore or what not) and I'd continue working with my Zettelkasten (almost) as if nothing happened.
Of course, I'm also partial to Bob's use of a cartographic metaphor
In order to build arguments out of his zettels, Luhmann made his way back through the alphanumeric IDs, following his markings as one would follow the dotted lines of a treasure map
I'm astounded that this post hasn't gotten more play in the forums!
A nice metaphor. But there are quite some instances in his ZK in which there is no connection between the dots (notes) but he seems to just add notes at places that seem to be fitting just a little bit. (e.g. 9/8,2 and 9/8,3)
And Folgezettel establish a connection and not the connection between notes. If we keept the cartographic metaphor it is more akin to seeing two notes as landmarks on the map that could be stations on a journey but don't have to. This is more in line with his concept of "understanding" within his model of communication. Understanding does not mean that you understand what is intended but it is part of a selection process. If I'd say to you "Uh, it is cold.", you could understand it as a call to close the windows or as a hint of my emotional state. Both are "understanding".
EDIT: I shared his post in part because he informed me about it. But I am not enslaved to my confirmation bias. So, though I still disagree with his writings, they are a relevant part of the collective thinking process happening in this forum. Or in another way: I think the correct way of collective thinking is primary (e.g. discussing things as a community) and what I personally think is secondary to my decision making of sharing content.
The agreement among various premises continues, with Bob and @sfast agreeing that Luhmann's "hubs" (or, in our forum, "Structure Notes") are akin to meaningful, synthesized outlines and are useful because they are full of intentional (and imposed) meaning.
Those kind of notes are not all they are if you mean "outline" literally. Some of my structure notes are governed by bottom-up tables or even images.
@Sascha said:
The weakness of Folgezettel is actually shown by the example of @ZettelDistraction. Imagine working for a long time within this area of the Zettelkasten. the "2.2c" to "2.2h" will be pulled further and further apart and it will be more and more difficult to follow 2.2c to 2.2h.
How odd that the distance between notes, which is presumably a virtue in Luhmann's system, becomes a liability when faithfully represented in a digital system. In a digital system you can add links to follow. I'm more interested in where a new note belongs.
There is an accompanying load for the working memory. Folgezettel forces you to hold a lot in your working memory which in turn is an issue that is well known in the world of software: Working memory should always have free space to perform the intended task instead of being occupied with background tasks which are just making the system and its apps run.
Such pitiful short-term memories! The Folgezettel are read from right to left, not left to right. You look at the end digits. With my IDs, 2.2d6a is a comment on 2.2d6. Not much of a strain on working memory. The zero-separator $(\mathbf{.0.})$ isn't included, but that's in long-term memory, so no strain there: it signifies that the portion to its right is the timestamp. Timestamps can be understood by critics of Folgezettel, so there is no greater cognitive load. I can tolerate timestamps if I have some idea of what they refer to at a glance, which I can see by reading the leftmost digit of the Folgezettel portion of the ID. This is the top-level category.
Every top-level category has its own structure note. The top-level categories are numbered so that they arrange themselves into an index at the top of the display, like so.
The right-most digit of the top-level category is the left-most digit of the IDs of Zettels.
The TOC is a structure note with references to top-level-category notes and a few category notes that aren't top-level category notes.
Here is a non-top-level category note.
Also not shown in the previous comment is the right-hand pane, which shows what links to the note. This unburdens the working memory further. And there are internal links, just as in structure notes. Now it is shown.
But you're not supposed to see the full context, lest the selective, out-of-context argument against Folgezettel loses its force. There is money on the line, after all.
Post edited by ZettelDistraction on
GitHub. Erdős #2. Problems worthy of attack / prove their worth by hitting back. -- Piet Hein. Alter ego: Erel Dogg (not the first). CC BY-SA 4.0.
This just a note to mention that @Sascha 's post, with its less than enthusiastic evaluation of my "work"--if one were to dignify it with that term--has been posted in the Reddit r/Zettelkasten subreddit.
That subreddit is one place where I refrain from commenting for various reasons, including a tendency for collaborative work written under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license not to be cited in subsequent work by former collaborators. Perhaps the subsequent writings have so far eclipsed the collaborative work that to cite it even by way of contrast would seem retrograde and silly.
Whatever--this is hardly my first rodeo. Authors beware: the Internet has always been a grey zone of appropriation.† I am used to it by now. To be clear, our hosts on the forum here have been very careful with attribution. I am grateful to them for encouraging me to take advantage of the CC BY-SA licenses, and for their valuable comments and criticism.
My interest is to note that Internet authors elsewhere may not adhere to citation norms, including norms adopted by parts of the Internet, implicit in the Creative Commons Attribution licenses such as the CC BY-SA 4.0, under which my writing is distributed here. I have no desire to promote any of my own writing on this subject, offer instruction on it or become known for it. But now I am more careful with work that I consider significant.
†Internet protest over "cultural appropriation" is a reaction formation among the Internet's otherwise silent, routine appropriators.
Post edited by ZettelDistraction on
GitHub. Erdős #2. Problems worthy of attack / prove their worth by hitting back. -- Piet Hein. Alter ego: Erel Dogg (not the first). CC BY-SA 4.0.
Your ID-format is something that I don't understand fully.
I am making my arguments in an atomistic non-integrated way. That means that the downsides might be outweight by upsides that I don't take into consideration properly or just by individual preferences I don't consider either.
@Sascha said:
The weakness of Folgezettel is actually shown by the example of @ZettelDistraction. Imagine working for a long time within this area of the Zettelkasten. the "2.2c" to "2.2h" will be pulled further and further apart and it will be more and more difficult to follow 2.2c to 2.2h.
How odd that the distance between notes, which is presumably a virtue in Luhmann's system, becomes a liability when faithfully represented in a digital system. In a digital system you can add links to follow. I'm more interested in where a new note belongs.
It is a big liability in the analog version as well:
The assumption is that this is a net positive. But I never saw a proper weighing of pros and cons ever.
The growing distances increase randomness which may or may not increase serendipity.
But the increases in consumption of time-, energy (and mental space) is quite high and increases over time. My central point is that any practice that is fragile to complexity or even just amount of notes is not worth it if it is foreseeable that your system will grow to a certain complexity and mass.
The objection that Luhmann showed at least in N=1 works is not valid since I am not arguing that a system based on Folgezettel is not a net-benefit to anyone. It mostly is a huge net positive. I argue that it wields less might than a Zettelkasten that isn't.
Luhmann places a diminished importance on the physical proximity of notes as they were originally imported into the slip-box, considering the increased distance that occurred when new notes were placed between two others as a net positive. Breakdowns in proximity yield more than they take away, allowing for new trains of thought and potential connections. As Johannes Schmidt states, "a sequence of cards leading thematically and conceptually farther and farther away from the initial subject constitute their own subsection." - Folgezettel is not an outline
This is conflating proximity of the physical cards and their content, for example.
For Luhmann, the increased distance that occurred when new notes were placed between two older ones brought serendipity and chance into the process of ideation. As Schmidt states in his essay, "Niklas Luhmann’s Card Index: Thinking Tool, Communication Partner, Publication Machine," "Luhmann himself considered this [breakdown in proximity]...to be of crucial significance" even if it "counteracted the collection’s primary system of organization." Luhmann echoes this sentiment in his own slip-box stating that "the references...must selectively pull away the material collected under them." (emphasis added).
Schmidt does not state that Luhmann considered the increasing physical distance is beneficial but the ability to create references that transcend the limits of the Folgezettel system. Luhmann linked this to the multiple storage problem in his original article which is a method to overcome the physicality of his Zettelkasten.
Again, it is a conflation of content of the notes and their physicality.
One of the central goals of his system is to overcome the physical limitations of his system or at least reduce them, so he could transcend them at the cost of a lot of work (which he indirectly states: When he admits that just managing the ZK takes up most of his time and energy while it is still worth it for the benefits).
There is an accompanying load for the working memory. Folgezettel forces you to hold a lot in your working memory which in turn is an issue that is well known in the world of software: Working memory should always have free space to perform the intended task instead of being occupied with background tasks which are just making the system and its apps run.
Such pitiful short-term memories!
That is in fact a factor that needs to be considered. Physicists and mathematicians normally have a brain that is exeptionally well suited and trained for keeping and manipulating abstract entities in their minds. That means that you can make things work that the rest of us cannot.
The Folgezettel are read from right to left, not left to right. You look at the end digits. With my IDs, 2.2d6a is a comment on 2.2d
Not much of a strain on working memory. The zero-separator $(\mathbf{.0.})$ isn't included, but that's in long-term memory, so no strain there: it signifies that the portion to its right is the timestamp. Timestamps can be understood by critics of Folgezettel, so there is no greater cognitive load. I can tolerate timestamps if I have some idea of what they refer to at a glance, which I can see by reading the leftmost digit of the Folgezettel portion of the ID. This is the top-level category.
I'd need to see your system in action to be able to make a judgement that I am truly confident in. Refering to my disclaimer that I made in the beginning: I argue deliberately atomistic. The point of inflection for me is if something is fragile to complexity or amount.
Every top-level category has its own structure note. The top-level categories are numbered so that they arrange themselves into an index at the top of the display, like so.
Your system feels weird in a good way to me. It is still on my list to make myself familiar with your system and its behavior since my understanding of the Zettelkasten Method for Mathematicians is still too limited.
Your ID-format is something that I don't understand fully.
I am making my arguments in an atomistic non-integrated way. That means that the downsides might be outweight by upsides that I don't take into consideration properly or just by individual preferences I don't consider either.
I'd need to see your system in action to be able to make a judgement that I am truly confident in. Refering to my disclaimer that I made in the beginning: I argue deliberately atomistic. The point of inflection for me is if something is fragile to complexity or amount.
...
Your system feels weird in a good way to me. It is still on my list to make myself familiar with your system and its behavior since my understanding of the Zettelkasten Method for Mathematicians is still too limited.
But for these disclaimers, including the "weird in a good way" comment (I'll take that as a compliment) I might have quoted @chrisaldrich:
Luhmann changed the internal structure of his particular zettelkasten that created a new variation on the older traditions. It is this Luhmann-based tradition that many in r/Zettelkasten follow. Since many who used the prior (commonplace-based) tradition were also highly productive, attributing output to a particular practice is wrongly placed. Each user approaches these traditions idiosyncratically to get them to work for themselves, so ignore naysayers and those with purist tendencies…
– Chris Aldrich. Comment on Does anyone else work in project-based systems instead? : Zettelkasten (reddit.com).
But I lack experimental evidence that my system is anything more than my own idiosyncratic take on Luhmann's system. I have no evidence that it offers something repeatable and worthwhile to others (likewise for anyone else's system). People feel free to invent their own standards. It's hard to know how to act on criticism. What are you supposed to do differently?
Post edited by ZettelDistraction on
GitHub. Erdős #2. Problems worthy of attack / prove their worth by hitting back. -- Piet Hein. Alter ego: Erel Dogg (not the first). CC BY-SA 4.0.
People feel free to invent their own standards. It's hard to know how to act on criticism. What are you supposed to do differently?
I think it comes down to your personal goals and the means available to you. Someone asked me if he should go digital since I deem it more efficient. I asked him what the purpose of his ZK was. He said that he is retired and uses the ZK to support his hobbies. I asked him why he decided to go analog in the first place. He said because he loves to work with physical cards and prefers it to the digital world. Then, I answered, why should you go digital and chose an inferior tool to achieve your goal?
There are the following aspects to thinking about the details of the method I see:
How far are you invested? If you already built a bigger ZK and the necessary habits you try to work from within. One benefits of the ZK is that you even can have multiple ID-Formats. Imagine having you journal with the format "2022-10-22 + [TITEL]", the timestamp (tm) "202210220728 + [TITLE]" for content notes and a Folgezettel format for Structure notes. It still works since the ID is unique, doesn't change and can be produced with reasonable means. Then you decide to change the format of the content notes to a hexatridecimal system to shorten the ID. The benefit immediately manifests by a shortened ID that saves screen real-estate. The rest of your workflow does not change in the slightest.
Are you in search of the most effective and efficient habits/methods/techniques? Then you need to be very real about the results of each method. You need to count the necessary steps that are needed to achieve a specific outcome and immediately ditch the inferior way. Remove all thinking like "I am unique and my needs are to be put frist". Knowledge and information have traits independent from us and have needs independent from us. So, we need to adapt to the needs and not the other way around. Also: We are much more alike than we are different. So, even the indivual differences shouldn't result in so big differences.
Being mindful of the thresholds of satisfaction. One of the fallacies that feels strangest to me is the belief that anything should be optimised instead of oriented to the threshold of satisfaction. Optimisation just leads to suboptimisation and either a part takes over the whole or each parts develops a cancerous life on its own and the whole begins to fragment. (Which often results in a feeling of paralysed on the psychological/phenomenological level) The question still remains on how to estimate the correct level that should result in satisfaction. The above problem highlights one side of the issue. Falling into the optimisation trap means to high levels of satisfaction or even a level that constantly is creaping away. The other side is not being mindful of what the potential is what could be achieved.
Geeking out and doing it for joy. Why are people so invested who is the best running back or pitcher or fighter and argue for hours about it? It's geeking out and fun. A shouting match on such a meaningless matter can be a great time.
I lost myself in writing. I hope this it at least in part useful.
Der Nachteil ist: daß der ursprünglich laufende Text oft durch Hundene von Zwischenzettel unterbrochen ist; aber wenn man die Nummerierung systematisch handhabt, lagt sich der ursprüngliche Textzusammenhang leicht wiederfinden.
to
The downside is that the original text is interrupted by hundreds of inbetween notes frequently; but if you are methodological with the numbering you can easily recover the original text.
Comments
Nice article. I hadn't seen Fixing the old Folgezettel referred to in Bob Doto's post previously. Perhaps it's just as well, since my own "Folgezettel IDs" are dotted Luhmann-style IDs with appended timestamps. This is documented in my Zettel github wiki under ID Format, in case anyone is interested. My system relies on Zettlr, which uses Pandoc for document export to LaTeX. The LaTeX source and PDF export configurations are modified, as is the default LaTeX template (lightly). All of this is documented at the above wiki and has remained stable for months.
GitHub. Erdős #2. Problems worthy of attack / prove their worth by hitting back. -- Piet Hein. Alter ego: Erel Dogg (not the first). CC BY-SA 4.0.
@Sascha Thanks for sharing that article! It was well written, not too long
, and contained some intriguing ideas.
I liked this question:
@GeoEng51 Good point and thank you for reminding me--I meant to comment more about Bob Doto's post. The philosopher Raymond Geuss touches on an aspect of this in the second paragraph below. The preceding paragraph is included for context. I added the boldface below.
GitHub. Erdős #2. Problems worthy of attack / prove their worth by hitting back. -- Piet Hein. Alter ego: Erel Dogg (not the first). CC BY-SA 4.0.
This. This is it.
When I was on a break yesterday, walking along the river, I was thinking about the reason Luhmann used notecards, of all things, as the atomic structure of his ZK. I landed in a nearly identical place to Bob: the purpose of the folgezettel technique was to reintroduce chaos into the archive.
Emphasis mine:
@sfast also mentioned this all the way back in "No, Luhmann Was Not About Folgezettel":
The agreement among various premises continues, with Bob and @sfast agreeing that Luhmann's "hubs" (or, in our forum, "Structure Notes") are akin to meaningful, synthesized outlines and are useful because they are full of intentional (and imposed) meaning.
Now, where I think conclusions differ is that Bob still advocates for Folgezettel, whereas @sfast believes it's an outdated technique. @sfast, I'd love to hear if my reading here tracks what your beliefs were at the time you've written about Folgezettel, and if Bob's writing has changed your perspective at all. I'd also love to know why you chose to share the post here!
Of course, I'm also partial to Bob's use of a cartographic metaphor
I'm astounded that this post hasn't gotten more play in the forums!
In my digital Zettelkasten, the ordering of the IDs in the file display pane is the same ordering one would see in a physical Zettelkasten.
You increment an ID if the next one is a continuation of the prior one. You append a letter or a number if the next ID comments on an aspect of its predecessor. So no, the ability to link doesn't somehow diminish the value of adhering to this rule. Whatever. It's not an interesting debate.
GitHub. Erdős #2. Problems worthy of attack / prove their worth by hitting back. -- Piet Hein. Alter ego: Erel Dogg (not the first). CC BY-SA 4.0.
Hey! That's very nifty. Book marked, thanks.
Tinybase: plain text database for BSD, Linux, Windows (& hopefully Mac soon)
My problem with this position is that it is highly speculative. One need to massage it slowly out of the bits and pieces we have from Luhmann. And more: Even for me as a German with moderate familiarity with Luhmanns thinking and writing (I mean is actual work as a sociologist and systems theoretician) it is difficult to not put words in Luhmann's mouth. Most translations are not bad. An example is "weniger wichtig" wich is directly translated to "less important". But it is likely that it should rather translated as "not important" considering Luhmann's understating style of writing and speaking (which I think is due to his more introvert temperament).
My question is: What does chaos mean?
BOB: I am not sure if outdated encapsulates my position. Bob's position seems to be that Folgezettel have an effect and this is worth having. Although, he sometimes uses this line of thinking ("I don't care what Luhmann intended it has this effect"), sometimes he uses the other line of thinking ("Luhmann intended this and his intention is based on correct assumptions and logic"). But it might be that it is just a byproduct of the random nature of thinking about a topic.
So, the summarisation of his position to me is: There is a list of effects using this technique even in the digital realm and the effects are beneficial to many, so consider using Folgezettel.
SASCHA: My approach is to remove as much layers of interpretation as possible. So, I don't base my thinking on all the theoretical stuff in the background of the nature of Folgezettel, what chaos means etc. though I enrich my perspective with it almost as an epiphenomenon.
Instead, I ask myself:
(1) What the tasks are that I want to accomplish: Creating a line of thought, a complex argumentation, create the possibility of bottom-up thinking etc.
And more directly: How can I create coherent structure if I want to apply story-driven-explanation? How can connect two ideas in a way that the connection is understandable by my future self? What is the practical nature of concept work ("Begriffsarbeit", using concept as an epistemtic tool) and how can create a tool for it for myself.
(2) What is actually happening when I use techniques/implementations: Tags are not clouds they are search results displayed as a unstructured list. Folgezettel a structured list that is created bottom-up and displayed in the file viewer on the left side of the editor.
The weakness of Folgezettel is actually shown by the example of @ZettelDistraction. Imagine working for a long time within this area of the Zettelkasten. the "2.2c" to "2.2h" will be pulled further and further apart and it will be more and more difficult to follow 2.2c to 2.2h. This issue is the main reason, in my opinion, why folding editors exist. A growing structured list introduces a growing difficulty of access to the structure. The folding feature is a way of slowing the increase in difficulty down (though it cannot remove the issue).
There is an accompanying load for the working memory. Folgezettel forces you to hold a lot in your working memory which in turn is an issue that is well known in the world of software: Working memory should always have free space to perform the intended task instead of being occupied with background tasks which are just making the system and its apps run.
Part of the Zettelkasten Method (my version) is the deliberate loading of the working memory to create a pressure cooking effect that allows for the creative potential of working with the Zettelkasten. Therefore, the ratio of meaningful (e.g. the actual ideas you want to think of) and the meaningless (e.g. formalities about the method like IDs or tagging conventions) items in your working memory should be optimised.
This is the technical reason why I (a) always try to relate the way of applying formalities to the actual thinking process. (e.g. the beneficial effect of the one sentence summary is not just due to the usability of the ZK but as an incentive to deepening the understanding by compressing). And (b) automate as much as the formalities away. (Which is one of the main benefits of the time-based IDs)
Ok, I got carried away. But these are some of my premises and lines of thinking about the Folgezettel technique.
A summary could be: I am operating at the limits of my mental capability in my work. Therefore, I design each step of the processes and the thinking environment not so much in a theoretical, nonchalant (or playful?) approach. But I design it with the limits of my mind (and the human mind in general) as a very important factor.
Folgezettel share a trait with tags: They are not self-scaling to the complexity of the knowledge. Instead, they both introduce a mental load that increases with the complexity and therefore occupy the mind increasingly with non-knowledge related tasks. Tags have this downside pretty obviously. The more you use a tag the bigger the search result list becomes and the more difficult it is to use the tag as a container. Therefore, tags as an alternative to folders are a losing game. Folgezettel share this trait for most of their proclaimed effects and use cases.
My Zettelkasten for example wouldn't be much less usable if I would dump 100k garbage notes in it. In theory, the amount of garbage notes could be infinite (if you disregard the impossibilty because the universe would collaps or explore or what not) and I'd continue working with my Zettelkasten (almost) as if nothing happened.
A nice metaphor. But there are quite some instances in his ZK in which there is no connection between the dots (notes) but he seems to just add notes at places that seem to be fitting just a little bit. (e.g. 9/8,2 and 9/8,3)
And Folgezettel establish a connection and not the connection between notes. If we keept the cartographic metaphor it is more akin to seeing two notes as landmarks on the map that could be stations on a journey but don't have to. This is more in line with his concept of "understanding" within his model of communication. Understanding does not mean that you understand what is intended but it is part of a selection process. If I'd say to you "Uh, it is cold.", you could understand it as a call to close the windows or as a hint of my emotional state. Both are "understanding".
EDIT: I shared his post in part because he informed me about it. But I am not enslaved to my confirmation bias. So, though I still disagree with his writings, they are a relevant part of the collective thinking process happening in this forum. Or in another way: I think the correct way of collective thinking is primary (e.g. discussing things as a community) and what I personally think is secondary to my decision making of sharing content.
I am a Zettler
Addition:
Those kind of notes are not all they are if you mean "outline" literally. Some of my structure notes are governed by bottom-up tables or even images.
I am a Zettler
How odd that the distance between notes, which is presumably a virtue in Luhmann's system, becomes a liability when faithfully represented in a digital system. In a digital system you can add links to follow. I'm more interested in where a new note belongs.
Such pitiful short-term memories! The Folgezettel are read from right to left, not left to right. You look at the end digits. With my IDs, 2.2d6a is a comment on 2.2d6. Not much of a strain on working memory. The zero-separator $(\mathbf{.0.})$ isn't included, but that's in long-term memory, so no strain there: it signifies that the portion to its right is the timestamp. Timestamps can be understood by critics of Folgezettel, so there is no greater cognitive load. I can tolerate timestamps if I have some idea of what they refer to at a glance, which I can see by reading the leftmost digit of the Folgezettel portion of the ID. This is the top-level category.
Every top-level category has its own structure note. The top-level categories are numbered so that they arrange themselves into an index at the top of the display, like so.
The right-most digit of the top-level category is the left-most digit of the IDs of Zettels.
The TOC is a structure note with references to top-level-category notes and a few category notes that aren't top-level category notes.
Here is a non-top-level category note.
Also not shown in the previous comment is the right-hand pane, which shows what links to the note. This unburdens the working memory further. And there are internal links, just as in structure notes. Now it is shown.
But you're not supposed to see the full context, lest the selective, out-of-context argument against Folgezettel loses its force. There is money on the line, after all.
GitHub. Erdős #2. Problems worthy of attack / prove their worth by hitting back. -- Piet Hein. Alter ego: Erel Dogg (not the first). CC BY-SA 4.0.
This just a note to mention that @Sascha 's post, with its less than enthusiastic evaluation of my "work"--if one were to dignify it with that term--has been posted in the Reddit r/Zettelkasten subreddit.
That subreddit is one place where I refrain from commenting for various reasons, including a tendency for collaborative work written under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license not to be cited in subsequent work by former collaborators. Perhaps the subsequent writings have so far eclipsed the collaborative work that to cite it even by way of contrast would seem retrograde and silly.
Whatever--this is hardly my first rodeo. Authors beware: the Internet has always been a grey zone of appropriation.† I am used to it by now. To be clear, our hosts on the forum here have been very careful with attribution. I am grateful to them for encouraging me to take advantage of the CC BY-SA licenses, and for their valuable comments and criticism.
My interest is to note that Internet authors elsewhere may not adhere to citation norms, including norms adopted by parts of the Internet, implicit in the Creative Commons Attribution licenses such as the CC BY-SA 4.0, under which my writing is distributed here. I have no desire to promote any of my own writing on this subject, offer instruction on it or become known for it. But now I am more careful with work that I consider significant.
†Internet protest over "cultural appropriation" is a reaction formation among the Internet's otherwise silent, routine appropriators.
GitHub. Erdős #2. Problems worthy of attack / prove their worth by hitting back. -- Piet Hein. Alter ego: Erel Dogg (not the first). CC BY-SA 4.0.
Two remarks up front:
It is a big liability in the analog version as well:
This is conflating proximity of the physical cards and their content, for example.
Schmidt does not state that Luhmann considered the increasing physical distance is beneficial but the ability to create references that transcend the limits of the Folgezettel system. Luhmann linked this to the multiple storage problem in his original article which is a method to overcome the physicality of his Zettelkasten.
Again, it is a conflation of content of the notes and their physicality.
One of the central goals of his system is to overcome the physical limitations of his system or at least reduce them, so he could transcend them at the cost of a lot of work (which he indirectly states: When he admits that just managing the ZK takes up most of his time and energy while it is still worth it for the benefits).
That is in fact a factor that needs to be considered. Physicists and mathematicians normally have a brain that is exeptionally well suited and trained for keeping and manipulating abstract entities in their minds. That means that you can make things work that the rest of us cannot.
I'd need to see your system in action to be able to make a judgement that I am truly confident in. Refering to my disclaimer that I made in the beginning: I argue deliberately atomistic. The point of inflection for me is if something is fragile to complexity or amount.
Your system feels weird in a good way to me.
It is still on my list to make myself familiar with your system and its behavior since my understanding of the Zettelkasten Method for Mathematicians is still too limited.
I am a Zettler
...
But for these disclaimers, including the "weird in a good way" comment (I'll take that as a compliment) I might have quoted @chrisaldrich:
But I lack experimental evidence that my system is anything more than my own idiosyncratic take on Luhmann's system. I have no evidence that it offers something repeatable and worthwhile to others (likewise for anyone else's system). People feel free to invent their own standards. It's hard to know how to act on criticism. What are you supposed to do differently?
GitHub. Erdős #2. Problems worthy of attack / prove their worth by hitting back. -- Piet Hein. Alter ego: Erel Dogg (not the first). CC BY-SA 4.0.
I think it comes down to your personal goals and the means available to you. Someone asked me if he should go digital since I deem it more efficient. I asked him what the purpose of his ZK was. He said that he is retired and uses the ZK to support his hobbies. I asked him why he decided to go analog in the first place. He said because he loves to work with physical cards and prefers it to the digital world. Then, I answered, why should you go digital and chose an inferior tool to achieve your goal?
There are the following aspects to thinking about the details of the method I see:
I lost myself in writing. I hope this it at least in part useful.
I am a Zettler
Love that quote!
Translating this right now:
to
I am a Zettler