Arguments, unknowns, claims, and breaking up narratives.
Hello everyone,
I've honestly avoided writing this post because I don't think I am accurately conveying the issues I'm having but I do really want feedback from you all - Here are some things I'm struggling with.
So first of all, I notice that I'm really stuck in my ways and often seem to write essays rather than notes. In order to avoid stressing about a note being atomic, I try to allow my notes to build up until they naturally can be broken down. However, by then, I feel like the statements are too intertwined and codependent and then I struggle to break things down. This is mainly referring to things I write about from background knowledge but happens with referenced things too.
I really want to know how other people structure arguments, claims they don't believe, and things they don't know much about yet.
Structuring an argument seems like it would be easy but I always seem to overcomplicate it and am conflicted on how to break it down. Especially when there are multiple view points and ideas or if I don't fully understand a very complex subject. How neutral do I stay and how do I track my evolving beliefs on subjects - or should I have opinions in my zettelkasten to begin with?
I read a lot of Andy Matuschak's notes where is always seems like he is writing positive and sturdy notes and that there aren't many opposing opinions or arguments he is working through.
I feel like I want to track alternative views even if I provide evidence against them but writing a statement I don't believe in as a note title stresses me out for some reason.
Further on this, I probably shouldn't see a Zettelkasten as a reflection of my beliefs - I think this is a left over viewpoint from writing notes the normal way and always writing mini essays. (What do you see your zettelkasten as?)
I try to tell myself, just write and it will come but I find myself making constant revisions and then feeling anxious every time I look at an old note.
I think it's quite possible that I am writing too conjoined and with too much of an agenda or predefined narrative of where I am going to use these pieces of information (althought I still want to be able to include these narratives somehow). I become attached to the point I'm trying to make and can't see the notes separated or don't know if they have value alone at all. I'm thinking I should potentially just break everything down a bit more and try my best to write solid notes before linking them or pulling them together.
I want to use a zettelkasten as a tool for thought, learning, and idea creation - I think I may be looking at it too much like a traditional note-taking system or knowledge management tool.
I'm going to just keep experimenting but I'm curious to any feedback you all may have.
Thank you for your time and help!
Howdy, Stranger!
Comments
I feel like you are changing paradigm but you're stuck in some stage of your journey. You know where you want to go, but maybe you can't see the road because you have a too much rigid vision of how this road must look like instead of observing the road for itself? Maybe you are stuck because you don't successfuly switch your state of mind?
Is Zettelkasten radicaly different from traditional note-taking system?
At core, it is your notes, bi-directionnal links and the conventions you find usefull.
Let's say you want to keep track of your believes through times. This is, indeed, a really interesting idea. How could you proceed?
You have your notes with believes in there. You probably have tags or a keyword to keep them tie together. By themselves, they are already useful, especialy if you use a timestamp as a UID or a date metadata.
But you want to see an evolution. So what I'd do if I was you : I would create a big structure note, link to previous notes and would comment all of my evolution in thinking :
"What I use to think is that
[note timestamps]but I find some counterargument there[notetimestamp]which totaly contradict anything. Later, thisstudyandthis onebring new element and I began to think..." - you see the idea.There is no "should" here, I think. Your ZK is a personal tool that you tailor for your own personal needs and desires. If you wish to work with your believes... There it is. If you want to make it elvove to support ideation and creativity, the two function are compatible and can cohabit with each other. You'd just have to develop some tools to support ideation and creativity.
What kind of input stimulate you? Do you need to record your insights, or to record some leads, some babies-ideas? Do you need to record what you learnt from an author, a visual artist? Do you need to immerge yourself into your inner world of feelings?
Remember : notes, links, conventions. You can make listings, list of your notes, commented structure notes, whatever you want.
Advices and books about ZK are frameworks. They are useful because they are written by people who walk the way through and encounter any problems we also encounter. But they can be useless or create noises if they talk about problems you don't have, you don't have encounter yet, or give you to many informations you can't use now.
Give you some rest. Take your time.
I understand. Some notes can be garbage. A lot of members here, including myself, found themselves creating two or more copies of the same note, forgetting the previous one already exists. Some of my notes seem redacted while I'm still sleeping, while other one are so convoluted that I can barely understand them now.
Not everything you create or you write has to be valuable. It is okay. It is totaly normal. You want to create the maximum value, but in practice, you'll create a lot of things and some of them will be okay, some will be junks and some will be so precious! This is normal.
@Will wrote in this thread :
And uses the metaphor of a ZK as a proofing oven.
Seems like there is little difference between your notes in your slip box and your written output outside of the slip box.
Keep working on learning the difference between building blocks and final, comprehensive, coherent output.
If you find yourself writing long, nuanced essays, then do that in your favorite, optimal medium for writing essays; don't feel obligated to keep everything in the slip box.
For "claim modeling" I've found just yesterday this discussion in obsidian forum:
https://forum.obsidian.md/t/atomic-notes-about-myths/70816/2
The second post gives very good ideas about
The full model is perhaps too sophisticated as a starting point, but gives inspirations.
Before using hard things like excalibrain and a term like claim ontology, a good start could be:
I have applied first two things so far, now I'm aware that the third point,
even if it seems silly, can become really effective.
If I can't find anything that I can write as support, am I really sure that what I consider a principle isn't only an opinion? Having sections force me to think these questions.
Another tool I use and can be used is composing claims in a structure (I call the structure that I use always with the same name, train of thought, but could be used a structure note, a folgezettel, a map of content, any construct that allows you to make a composition of notes).
Claim note are building blocks, the composition is the "reasoning", the "theorem", in general the organization of a set of claims that provide a meaning of together.
When we find an idea or concept "complex" to represent in a whole, we must keep in mind that we can try to describe it as a composition of simpler ideas, having tools that enable us to create compositions.
@sam453 said:
@sam453: You said that you "often seem to write essays rather than notes". "Essay" and "note" are very vague and general terms. It may help if you familiarize yourself with a few more specific ways of classifying modes of discourse. The Wikipedia article has some basic information. Carlota Smith's book Modes of Discourse: The Local Structure of Texts (Cambridge UP, 2003) is a more advanced academic study.
Your previous post "Critique my game design Zettel" is an example of mixing different modes of discourse such as description, narration, and argumentation. When you can identify different modes of discourse in your own thinking and writing, you may be more able to separate them and restructure them when it's helpful.
Another practice that I've often recommended, but that does not seem to interest most people, is the use of a discourse schema or discourse ontology of discourse units and their relations. Knowing about such structures, even if you don't use them to label your notes, can help you analyze your own thinking and writing. Above, @andang76 pointed to a relevant post on the Obsidian Forum from November 2023. There are some previous discussions about the subject in this forum, such as "Discourse graph and Zettelkasten" (February 2023).
A basic introduction to a simple discourse schema for a Zettelkasten is Joel Chan's "Knowledge synthesis: a conceptual model and practical guide" (December 2020). Philosophy professor Maralee Harrell created a very basic guide to argument diagramming for first-year students that may be helpful if you haven't done that kind of analysis of argumentation before: "Creating argument diagrams" (August 2010).
On the subject of "unknowns", this previous discussion may be helpful: "Question, evolving ideas, contradictions: how to manage non-truth in a Zettelkasten?" (December 2023).
@Loni @JasperMcFly @andang76 @Andy - Thank you all for your comments. I've been taking my time to read over them and also read more about how others do the things I mentioned.