What is the problem situation of the Zettelkasten Method?

rwrobinson

"The vital first step towards understanding a theory,' Popper (1972, p. 182) said, "is to understand the problem situation in which it arises."¹

In the spirit of this quote, I was thinking to myself, "What is the problem situation that the ZKM was created for?"

In the Introduction to the ZKM article @Sascha said that it, "is a holistic method on how to deal with knowledge in your life." So, it would seem that it is, in part, helping with managing your knowledge outside of our memory system. I think elsewhere it is referred to as "a personal tool for thinking and writing." Which, I think helps to see more of the picture of the problem situation. Knowledge. Thinking. Writing.

I'd love to hear some thoughts from others in this forum on how they'd answer this question.

---

1. Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. L. Erlbaum Associates. ↩︎

Nido

To write without ZKM, I must exert x units of mental energy. If I fall short of the threshold, I do not write.

To write with ZKM, I must exert x minus k units of mental energy (where k > 0).

ZKM lowers the threshold because linking notes occurs more or less continuously. Without ZKM, linking occurs less frequently but for longer, more difficult sessions, and thus requires more cognitive exertion.

rwrobinson

Thanks for sharing!

Would it be fair to say that "not writing" and "high cognitive exertion" are the main problems that it helps to mitigate? And, why is it a problem to not write and have high cognitive exertion? I think you state for the latter that it is just wasteful in energy and time.

Sascha

@rwrobinson

I think the problem is the problem of knowledge complexity, which needs to be addressed if you want to generate knowledge-based value.

So, my take on this problem is that the human cognition is too limited and either is incapable of solving many problems or it takes a lot of time or people.

---

@Nido Nerd-Level 9000. This is my beat.

rwrobinson

@Sascha, would you mind elaborating on "the problem of knowledge complexity" when you get a chance? I'd love to hear your thoughts on that further. I think that would help me to see where ZKM addresses that problem.

Nick

In terms of zettelkasten as developed by Luhmann:

From Luhmann's essay on reading

"The problem of reading theoretical texts seems to consist in the fact that ==they do not require just short-term memory but also long-term memory== in order to be able to distinguish between what is essential and what is not essential and what is new from what is merely repeated. ==But one cannot remember everything== This would simply be learning by heart. In other words, ==one must read very selectively and must be able to extract extensively networked references== One must be able to understand recursions. But how can one learn these skills, if no instructions can be given; or perhaps only about things that are unusual like “recursion” in the previous sentences as opposed to “must”?

==Perhaps the best method would be to take notes—not excerpts, but condensed reformulations of what has been read==. The re-description of what has already been described leads almost automatically to a training of paying attention to “frames,” or schemata of observation, or even to noticing conditions which lead the text to offer some descriptions but not others. What is not meant, what is excluded when something is asserted? If the text speaks of “human rights,” what is excluded by the author? Non-human rights? Human duties? Or is it comparing cultures or historical times that did not know human rights and could live very well without them?

==This leads to another question: what are we to do with what we have written down? Certainly, at first we will produce mostly garbage.== But we have been educated to expect something useful from our activities and soon lose confidence if nothing useful seems to result. ==We should therefore reflect on whether and how we arrange our notes so that they are available for later access.== At least this should be a consoling illusion. This requires a computer or a card file with numbered index cards and an index. The constant accommodation of notes is then a further step in our working process. It costs time, but it is also an activity that goes beyond the mere monotony of reading and incidentally trains our memory."

Then you also have from Johannes F.K. Schmidt Essay "Niklas Luhmann’s Card Index: The Fabrication of Serendipity"

"he was already conscious of the fact that the notes he took from his readings at the time,2 would not be collected for a limited publication project but for a far more extensive endeavour, eventually for a lifelong project. The shortcomings of the common methods of organizing notes by collecting them in folders motivated him early on to start a card-based filing system."

"Luhmann’s card index allows the production of new and often unexpected knowledge by relating concepts and thoughts that do not have much in common at first sight: One could say that it makes — to use Robert Merton’s term5 — serendipity possible in a systemically and theoretically informed way."

rwrobinson

@Nick So what is your interpretation from those excerpts of what the problem the ZK for Luhmann was seeking to solve?

Andy

When we consider that a Zettelkasten was originally just a box of paper slips or cards, the set of problem situations in which the Zettelkasten as a tool could be useful is indefinitely large. A hundred years ago, card files were used for many of the problems for which computer databases are used today. When building your own Zettelkasten, it doesn't hurt to think of it as a kind of database and to learn about database models.

As for the Zettelkasten Method as it is understood on zettelkasten.de, I think that what @rwrobinson said at the start is a good enough simple answer, although much more could be said, and perhaps others will say more.

A few months ago in the discussion "Discourse graph and Zettelkasten", @daviddelven introduced me to the work of computer scientist Joel Chan. I like what Chan said in his document "Knowledge synthesis: a conceptual model and practical guide" (2020), where he identifies the central problem as the problem of knowledge synthesis:

This is a future that I want: a research group can confidently aim their sights at a complex, interdisciplinary problem area, and construct an effective synthesis together with minimal "busywork overhead": they can just focus on the core task of synthesis, instead of fighting to extract the "trapped data" (Knight, Wilson, Brailsford, & Milic-Frayling, 2019) in PDFs and long documents! The results and intermediate products of their synthesis work also provide a stronger foundation for themselves and others in the future to build on. For this to be true, we need a system that helps us achieve a generative dialectic between compression/divergence/abstraction/theory and context/convergence/particulars/data. We also need the system to enable us to accrete insight over boundaries of time and projects/disciplines. We don't always have the luxury of being able to devote (funded) time and attention at an intense level for a given project. We often have multiple irons in the fire (good for creativity), and we often want to reuse and remix ideas from the past (Blake & Pratt, 2006). Finally, we need the system to enable us to distribute work across multiple people.

Chan is thinking about a research group instead of an individual, but much of what he says about knowledge synthesis is relevant to individual work with a personal knowledge base or Zettelkasten. In order to achieve the goals of knowledge synthesis with minimal "busywork overhead", we can't be "fighting to extract the 'trapped data' in PDFs and long documents"; the data needs to well encoded in a much more granular structure. Chan emphasizes the usefulness of a semantic schema that he calls QCE, which is similar to IBIS, which inspired the schema that I use.

By the way, @rwrobinson, since your inspiration for this discussion was a quote by Karl Popper in a book by Carl Bereiter, you may be interested in this comment that I made in this forum a couple of months ago, mentioning both Popper and Bereiter.

rwrobinson

When I started to think through this question, I quickly realized that I needed to think through this first for a note. Here is a copy and pasting of my note from my ZK.

---

202306060428 The Problem Situation of a Note

Forgetting and Intruding on Memories

Forgetting is one of the central problems that a note is helping to solve. However, it doesn't solve the problem of recall from memory, but rather it helps to counter act errors that forgetting or intrusion cause. [[202306051146]]

Also, it does enable retrieval. It's just a retrieval from another memory storage than one's mind.

Memories can also intrude on one another. [[202306051122]]

Sharing with others. Persistence.

We might want to share our thoughts to others or record the happenings of something so that others can know. This relates to us forgetting memories or transmission.

Helping with Thinking.

Working Memory is limited in it's capacity. So, cognitive offloading is a normal solution to this problem. [[202306060419]] This ultimately should help one to think better.

The ability to write out the information allows one to analyze one's own thoughts more carefully.

We get thoughts out, then we are able to come back and refine them. If I couldn't get it out, and then refine it, then it would be hard to keep everything organized and straight due to forgetting or a lack of assimilation.

---

Still more to think through here though on the ZKM. It's a good start.

Feel free to share any thoughts or criticize.

Andy

@rwrobinson said:

Here is a copy and pasting of my note from my ZK.

My first thought about what you wrote is similar to what I said in response to @Will's note in Meta zettelkasting note review "The Power of the ZK Method": How much of what you are saying here is specific to the ZKM, and how much can be generalized to the more general process of writing and reviewing what you have written?

Are you really talking about the problem situation of writing? What is the specific problem situation of a granular note system?

rwrobinson

I went more general and spoke to the problem situation of a note, not a note system or ZKM in the note above.

And, I am describing a thing (note) and not an action (writing), if that makes sense.

Writing is a part of note, but there are other potential parts (visualizations/drawings).

Andy

If a note is defined as something written for oneself (or something recorded for oneself in the case of other visual or audio information), then the problem situation of a note is basically the problem situation of writing for oneself (or recording for oneself).

If a note is defined as an element in a personal knowledge system, it seems something more is needed, something about how a note fits in a system: the issue of systematization and systematicity of knowledge.

rwrobinson

@Andy said:
If a note is defined as something written for oneself (or something recorded for oneself in the case of other visual or audio information), then the problem situation of a note is basically the problem situation of writing for oneself (or recording for oneself).

Agreed.

If a note is defined as an element in a personal knowledge system, it seems something more is needed, something about how a note fits in a system: the issue of systematization and systematicity of knowledge.

Agreed. But, I haven't gotten there yet. I don't think we have to engage the note system in order to engage a note (or writing) as a distinct artifact. Would you agree?

Andy

@rwrobinson said:

Agreed. But, I haven't gotten there yet. I don't think we have to engage the note system in order to engage a note (or writing) as a distinct artifact. Would you agree?

Yes, agreed. Logically, one can define a note without a note system; and developmentally, unsystematic note making precedes systematic note making in most contexts, I imagine. I've been compulsively making notes since high school, but I didn't become systematic about it until after college/university.

But, at least for me, the shift is huge, like a paradigm shift, from unsystematic to systematic note making. I remember the confusion and frustration I felt with (what I would now call) my knowledge practices just before the shift. Before the shift, one doesn't think of one's notes or one's knowledge as a system. After the shift, one realizes that systematicity is intrinsic to one's definition of notes and knowledge.

rwrobinson

I definitely agree that I need to get to the note system step. We are on the same page there.

Doesn't seem like many were super interested in discussing this "problem situation" Which is totally fine!

Thanks for everyone who did throw out some thoughts though!

dandennison84

ZK provides a deferred processing model. It stores information in a way that provides context for your future self to access it, remember what was important about it, relate it and contrast it to other pieces of knowledge and form new insights and connection.

A ZK is a like a kaleidoscope. Depending on how you look at it (question it), you will see different patterns and meanings. This is its superpower for helping you write.

Andy

@rwrobinson said:

Doesn't seem like many were super interested in discussing this "problem situation" Which is totally fine!

An ambiguity in the question "What is the problem situation of the Zettelkasten Method?" is that it can be interpreted very generally (what is the problem situation for people in general?), in which case one could write a doctoral dissertation in response, drawing from fields such as cognitive anthropology, information science, knowledge organization, methodology (as the study of research methods), etc., or the question can be interpreted very narrowly (what is the problem situation for a particular person?), in which case every person will have a somewhat different answer corresponding to their particular purpose for using a ZK, and that narrow question has been answered repeatedly in the forum already.

@Andy said:

But, at least for me, the shift is huge, like a paradigm shift, from unsystematic to systematic note making. I remember the confusion and frustration I felt with (what I would now call) my knowledge practices just before the shift. Before the shift, one doesn't think of one's notes or one's knowledge as a system. After the shift, one realizes that systematicity is intrinsic to one's definition of notes and knowledge.

I remembered that philosopher Nicholas Rescher has a name for the shift that I mentioned earlier; he called it the Hegelian inversion, which he described in many publications. The following passage is from his book Epistemology: An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge (Albany: SUNY Press, 2003, p. 127):

only a short and easy step separates a program of cognitive systematization (be it of the Euclidean or of the network type) from a full-fledged criteriology of knowledge, namely that of accepting a thesis as an item of proper knowledge if it can be accommodated in smooth systematic fit with the remainder of our purported (or putative) knowledge. This step amounts to what might be called "the Hegelian Inversion"—the step from the implication claim KNOWABLE → SYSTEMATIZABLE, or its cognate [PRESUMABLY] KNOWN → [DULY] SYSTEMATIZED, to the reverse implication claim: [DULY] SYSTEMATIZED → [PRESUMABLY] KNOWN.

Here's a summary by Tom Rockmore in a chapter in the edited collection Rescher Studies: A Collection of Essays on the Philosophical Work of Nicholas Rescher (Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag, 2008, p. 304):

Rescher suggested that importance of what he called a Hegelian inversion in working out a viable concept of system. At a time when philosophy has largely turned away from system, hence forgetting an important theme in Kant, in describing a generally Hegelian approach Rescher identifies the importance of turning from a conception of system as built up out of previously secured items of knowledge toward a view of system in which what counts as knowledge depends on the relation of items to an overall, or holistic framework.

This is an orienting ideal that is probably never completely realized in a note system. And there are probably some people for whom systematization is unimportant, and a ZK is just a random collection of cognitive detritus.

ZettelDistraction

Here is chatGPT4's revised summary, given the prompt to improve the intelligibility of Tom Rockmore's summary.

Rescher introduced the notion of what he refers to as a 'Hegelian inversion' when developing a workable understanding of a 'system.' He emphasized this concept when Anglophone philosophy shifted away from systemic thinking, neglecting a significant theme in Kant's philosophy. In explicating a broadly Hegelian approach, Rescher moved from the idea that a system comprises previously established knowledge toward a holistic perspective in which 'knowledge' is determined by the relation of individual elements to the overall framework of the system.

The revision is equally interesting.

amahabal

The “system” in notes has proven important to me. For example, many of my notes concerned “categories” (that is, a large pile of objects such as “dogs”) and “meaning”. At some point, I tried to make sense of the two, and ended up with “meaning is the evocation of a category in one mind”. What this led to was a shifting and reconfiguring dozens of other notes, and I hope a deepening of my understanding of how I use those terms.

Sascha

@rwrobinson said:
@Sascha, would you mind elaborating on "the problem of knowledge complexity" when you get a chance? I'd love to hear your thoughts on that further. I think that would help me to see where ZKM addresses that problem.

Knowledge complexity is a term that I sometimes use to address aspects of knowledge that push our mind to its limits or over it.

Examples are:

• Thinking about an issue that needs months and years of elaboration.
• Trying to solve many problems in parallel. (e.g. writing an article but also having to file taxes)
• Writing a book.
• Needing more knowledge available in explicit form that being able to wield.

Nick

@rwrobinson said:
@Nick So what is your interpretation from those excerpts of what the problem the ZK for Luhmann was seeking to solve?

Sorry for just copy/pasting without adding any extra vaule. The question (formulating the problem that led to the zettelkasten method) you asked is one that stood out to me because it ocassionally pops into my mind and I think it is an important one. I think I wanted to contribute but was too tired to elaborate when I posted.

The two questions that the text blocks I pasted were answering is

1. Why keep a large collection of highly interconnected notes?
2. Why do the above using note cards instead of other systems such as folders or notebooks?

The reason for keeping a large collection of highly interconnected notes is to create a form of long-term memory. This helps you track what information you think is important vs. unimportant. It also aids in tracking what ideas are new (more useful) vs. old (less useful). Reason for this being is there must be a bottle-neck in terms of creating the same network of information in our brain that externalizing solves.

The reason for using notecards instead of folders or notebooks is because it is not very efficient in terms of space or time. That is having to decide what folder the note goes in or if its worth creating a new folder. Keeping everything on one level with small note cards makes that process a lot easier. A new entry only takes up the space of one note card.

What is more interesting is how these issues are no longer relevent with digital zettelkasten. It makes me think how Luhmann would alter his practice if he had access to todays technology.