@Sukhovskii said:
I think the attachment with an analog zettelkasten is stronger than with the digital version. Interacting with it is simply more sensory-rich. The computer interface depersonalizes texts. The same phenomenon occurs when reading a book from a screen instead of a paper edition.
My experience is just the opposite - I have a much stronger emotional connection with what I write on my computer than what I write on paper. So, this will be different for each person.
@ZettelDistraction
I am among these people!
But machines are physical objects. My premise, and I could be mistaken, is that our brains have an easier time forming attachments to physical objects rather than computer programs, which are more abstract entities.
@GeoEng51
Can you please elaborate on how your emotional connection manifests itself?
I personally use a digital zettelkasten and feel a certain fondness for the program where my notes are stored. After all, I even wrote a book on how to use this application.
However, handwritten notes on paper cards contain additional "metadata" that relates to emotions. Perhaps this example will make it clearer: a handwritten paper letter holds more emotional significance compared to receiving the same text electronically via email.
@Sukhovskii said: @GeoEng51
Can you please elaborate on how your emotional connection manifests itself?
...handwritten notes on paper cards contain additional "metadata" that relates to emotions. Perhaps this example will make it clearer: a handwritten paper letter holds more emotional significance compared to receiving the same text electronically via email.
Our response to handwritten or electronic letters or other notes partly depends on our history with using different media. When young, I wrote by hand on paper; in my teens, I switched to a manual typewriter and paper; as an adult, I quickly moved on to various types of computers. I was an early adopter of technology. My thinking and feelings are not dictated by media type.
For example, as a child (in the 1950s), I wrote letters to my mother's father. These are invaluable because my mother died when I was 4 years old and my grandfather lived in England (I grew up in western Canada). There was no thought of visiting him in person or even phoning him and this was decades before email and videoconferencing. The handwritten letter was our only option for communicating. Clearly, when I pick up those letters and read them, they bring back powerful memories and emotions.
However, it is not the physical letters themselves that have this effect, but their content. I have transcribed some of those letters into text files. I have the same feelings when I read them on my computer as I do when reading the paper letters. The medium has no impact on my feelings; it is the words, thoughts and memories, and they carry the same weight, no matter the media.
When writing new zettels and reading, reviewing and updating old zettels, I carry on an internal discussion about the ideas, which can produce different emotions. There are times of nostalgia, happiness, sorrow, regret, excitement, and a most interesting one - inspiration! I do this work entirely on my computer, but it could just as easily happen with a paper ZK.
So, you might say I am "medium agnostic"
Note that I also have similar discussions with my wife and some friends, but the majority of my ZK discussions are with myself. Perhaps part of the idea of our ZK being a communications partner is that it helps us to communicate with ourselves (in the present; very important) and also with our past and possibly future selves. @Sascha has mentioned this in past posts.
Our ZK, with current technology and irrespective of media, is not intelligent or aware. However, it contains information organized in such a way as to facilitate our internal and external communications.
We need to protect this function. As we build AI into our Zettelkasten software, we will be at risk of losing our ability to carry on these internal communications or seriously compromise their integrity if we are not aware of the process.
As an example, I subscribe to "Readwise", which is an enhanced "read it later" app. You can highlight portions of what you read (and import all the highlights you have previously made in other apps, such as Kindle). Readwise then presents to you each day five highlights, as a reminder of what you found noteworthy in the past. Over time, I have accumulated a lot of highlights.
Now they have just introduced an AI-assisted "chat" with your past highlights. You can ask the AI to answer a random question using your highlights as its main database. And if you are reading one highlight, the AI assistant can search for other highlights that are connected in several intelligent ways.
This last process is eerily like writing zettels and then looking for connections. What is scary is that it is entirely devoid of your thoughts, your internal communications, and your effort to connect the zettels.
I'm not saying the service is "bad" - on the contrary, I find it very useful. However, I am pointing out that it has the potential to compromise the way we normally create and interact with our ZK, if we are not aware and consciously act to avoid that.
But machines are physical objects. My premise, and I could be mistaken, is that our brains have an easier time forming attachments to physical objects rather than computer programs, which are more abstract entities.
My brain cannot tell the difference. It thinks that most of the AI's it has worked with (with one or two exceptions) are Asshole Intelligences. It doesn't recognize an abstract—well; you get the idea.
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 there is a narrowed corridor of thinking by conceptualising the emotionality as a connection to a thing.
The process of uncovering hidden insights can be emotionally loaded, too.
To me, there is no emotional difference, as far as I can make this judgement, between the insight I had on this walk (there might be actually merit in counting the "repetitions" in endurance training) and the insight I had when I integrated this metric into my table in my ZK.
I am very conditioned to crave knowledge work. But it is not my Zettelkasten that I crave, but rather a specific situation (at my desk, surrounded by books, a cup of coffee, easy morning workout opposed to a strenuous one, etc.).
And there should be more detail in the kind of emotion that is at play. Is it liking or wanting?
@Sascha I didn’t imply that emotions are solely connected to objects.
@GeoEng51 Thank you for such a detailed answer! I think you would have very interesting conversation with Marshall McLuhan about "medium agnosticism."
What are your thoughts on art? Do you have the same feelings towards replicas as you do towards originals?
@Sukhovskii said: @GeoEng51 Thank you for such a detailed answer! I think you would have very interesting conversation with Marshall McLuhan about "medium agnosticism."
What are your thoughts on art? Do you have the same feelings towards replicas as you do towards originals?
Hmm..it depends. Regarding paintings, I enjoy both although I admit in some cases there is a special feeling from seeing an original in its actual size and colour (although the Mona Lisa is its actual size is underwhelming). For music, I can equally enjoy a live or recorded performance.
Recently, an article of mine was published in a monograph. The article explores the role of the card index in philosophical studies and is titled: Ex Machina: Card Index Machinery in the Play of Ideas
One of the sections is dedicated to the phenomenon of the interlocutor. I do not claim to have fully understood Luhmann, but I attempt a phenomenological play with the theme.
I used the metaphor of the homunculus and referred to Luhmann’s case as the "homunculus effect."
In short, I arrived at several possible interpretations, which do not necessarily exclude one another:
The card index can serve as a medium in a dialogue between different subpersonalities. It becomes a projection of our psychic life—not just different versions of our "self" separated by time, but also a space where the unconscious speaks through texts. The card index allows for the recording of ideas that would be dismissed in the linear discourse of a book as inconsistent or contradictory. In other words, the card index enables a polyphony of voices.
The card index as an interlocutor can also be understood through Ukhtomsky’s concept of a "functional organ."
In the book "Mindwise: How We Understand What Others Think, Believe, Feel, and Want" Nicholas Epley notes that people tend to animate objects that behave in unpredictable ways. Similarly, Luhmann suggested that for a communicative partner to emerge, an element of randomness, disorder, and the capacity to surprise is essential.
The article is in Russian, but if anyone is interested, I can provide a link.
Link it. AI will help us and if something is not clear we can ask you here.
Side quest: How would you compare the Russian discourse and the one in English? Are there other aspects that seem to become the center of attention? Is there another approach to get to the gist of note-taking?
@Sascha said:
Link it. AI will help us and if something is not clear we can ask you here.
Alright, I will publish the article in my journal in the next few days and provide the link.
How would you compare the Russian discourse and the one in English?
In academic circles, the topic of note-taking has received little attention. The predominant interest in this subject comes from people working in creative industries.
During the Soviet era, many outstanding scholars used card indexes, but the method itself was rarely reflected upon. Most likely, much of it seemed self-evident to them. Card indexes became an integral part of literary and scientific life in Russia in the 19th century.
Interesting conceptual aspects of understanding card indexes are linked to cybernetics and self-organizing systems, which is close to what Luhmann wrote about. There are several articles on the productive role of "Constrained Chaos" and serendipity in note-taking.
The topic of card indexes is also popular among supporters of TRIZ
Comments
My experience is just the opposite - I have a much stronger emotional connection with what I write on my computer than what I write on paper. So, this will be different for each person.
Some of us are emotionally sensitive to machines.
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.
@ZettelDistraction
I am among these people!
But machines are physical objects. My premise, and I could be mistaken, is that our brains have an easier time forming attachments to physical objects rather than computer programs, which are more abstract entities.
@GeoEng51
Can you please elaborate on how your emotional connection manifests itself?
I personally use a digital zettelkasten and feel a certain fondness for the program where my notes are stored. After all, I even wrote a book on how to use this application.
However, handwritten notes on paper cards contain additional "metadata" that relates to emotions. Perhaps this example will make it clearer: a handwritten paper letter holds more emotional significance compared to receiving the same text electronically via email.
🗄 My blog on substack
Our response to handwritten or electronic letters or other notes partly depends on our history with using different media. When young, I wrote by hand on paper; in my teens, I switched to a manual typewriter and paper; as an adult, I quickly moved on to various types of computers. I was an early adopter of technology. My thinking and feelings are not dictated by media type.
For example, as a child (in the 1950s), I wrote letters to my mother's father. These are invaluable because my mother died when I was 4 years old and my grandfather lived in England (I grew up in western Canada). There was no thought of visiting him in person or even phoning him and this was decades before email and videoconferencing. The handwritten letter was our only option for communicating. Clearly, when I pick up those letters and read them, they bring back powerful memories and emotions.
However, it is not the physical letters themselves that have this effect, but their content. I have transcribed some of those letters into text files. I have the same feelings when I read them on my computer as I do when reading the paper letters. The medium has no impact on my feelings; it is the words, thoughts and memories, and they carry the same weight, no matter the media.
When writing new zettels and reading, reviewing and updating old zettels, I carry on an internal discussion about the ideas, which can produce different emotions. There are times of nostalgia, happiness, sorrow, regret, excitement, and a most interesting one - inspiration! I do this work entirely on my computer, but it could just as easily happen with a paper ZK.
So, you might say I am "medium agnostic"
Note that I also have similar discussions with my wife and some friends, but the majority of my ZK discussions are with myself. Perhaps part of the idea of our ZK being a communications partner is that it helps us to communicate with ourselves (in the present; very important) and also with our past and possibly future selves. @Sascha has mentioned this in past posts.
Our ZK, with current technology and irrespective of media, is not intelligent or aware. However, it contains information organized in such a way as to facilitate our internal and external communications.
We need to protect this function. As we build AI into our Zettelkasten software, we will be at risk of losing our ability to carry on these internal communications or seriously compromise their integrity if we are not aware of the process.
As an example, I subscribe to "Readwise", which is an enhanced "read it later" app. You can highlight portions of what you read (and import all the highlights you have previously made in other apps, such as Kindle). Readwise then presents to you each day five highlights, as a reminder of what you found noteworthy in the past. Over time, I have accumulated a lot of highlights.
Now they have just introduced an AI-assisted "chat" with your past highlights. You can ask the AI to answer a random question using your highlights as its main database. And if you are reading one highlight, the AI assistant can search for other highlights that are connected in several intelligent ways.
This last process is eerily like writing zettels and then looking for connections. What is scary is that it is entirely devoid of your thoughts, your internal communications, and your effort to connect the zettels.
I'm not saying the service is "bad" - on the contrary, I find it very useful. However, I am pointing out that it has the potential to compromise the way we normally create and interact with our ZK, if we are not aware and consciously act to avoid that.
Then we are brothers.
My brain cannot tell the difference. It thinks that most of the AI's it has worked with (with one or two exceptions) are Asshole Intelligences. It doesn't recognize an abstract—well; you get the idea.
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 there is a narrowed corridor of thinking by conceptualising the emotionality as a connection to a thing.
The process of uncovering hidden insights can be emotionally loaded, too.
To me, there is no emotional difference, as far as I can make this judgement, between the insight I had on this walk (there might be actually merit in counting the "repetitions" in endurance training) and the insight I had when I integrated this metric into my table in my ZK.
I am very conditioned to crave knowledge work. But it is not my Zettelkasten that I crave, but rather a specific situation (at my desk, surrounded by books, a cup of coffee, easy morning workout opposed to a strenuous one, etc.).
And there should be more detail in the kind of emotion that is at play. Is it liking or wanting?
I am a Zettler
@Sascha I didn’t imply that emotions are solely connected to objects.
@GeoEng51 Thank you for such a detailed answer! I think you would have very interesting conversation with Marshall McLuhan about "medium agnosticism."
What are your thoughts on art? Do you have the same feelings towards replicas as you do towards originals?
🗄 My blog on substack
Hmm..it depends. Regarding paintings, I enjoy both although I admit in some cases there is a special feeling from seeing an original in its actual size and colour (although the Mona Lisa is its actual size is underwhelming). For music, I can equally enjoy a live or recorded performance.
I didn't say that you had implied that. I just pointed to a narrowed corridor of thinking (collective thinking as in communication).
I am a Zettler
Or between your present and your future self:
PDF at GitHub: https://github.com/groepl/Take-Useful-Notes/blob/main/Assets/future_self_2025-02-02.pdf
More about the future self from @sascha : https://zettelkasten.de/posts/develop-empathy-future-self/
Edmund Gröpl
100% organic thinking. Less than 5% AI-generated ideas.
Recently, an article of mine was published in a monograph. The article explores the role of the card index in philosophical studies and is titled:
Ex Machina: Card Index Machinery in the Play of Ideas
One of the sections is dedicated to the phenomenon of the interlocutor. I do not claim to have fully understood Luhmann, but I attempt a phenomenological play with the theme.
I used the metaphor of the homunculus and referred to Luhmann’s case as the "homunculus effect."
In short, I arrived at several possible interpretations, which do not necessarily exclude one another:
The article is in Russian, but if anyone is interested, I can provide a link.
🗄 My blog on substack
Link it. AI will help us and if something is not clear we can ask you here.
Side quest: How would you compare the Russian discourse and the one in English? Are there other aspects that seem to become the center of attention? Is there another approach to get to the gist of note-taking?
I am a Zettler
Alright, I will publish the article in my journal in the next few days and provide the link.
In academic circles, the topic of note-taking has received little attention. The predominant interest in this subject comes from people working in creative industries.
During the Soviet era, many outstanding scholars used card indexes, but the method itself was rarely reflected upon. Most likely, much of it seemed self-evident to them. Card indexes became an integral part of literary and scientific life in Russia in the 19th century.
Interesting conceptual aspects of understanding card indexes are linked to cybernetics and self-organizing systems, which is close to what Luhmann wrote about. There are several articles on the productive role of "Constrained Chaos" and serendipity in note-taking.
The topic of card indexes is also popular among supporters of TRIZ
🗄 My blog on substack