Object tags allow you to clearly discern

FernandoNobel

In Hinduism an example is given: it is like separating milk from cream. It looks the same, but it is not the same. One thing is milk and another is cream. It is learning to see in order to distinguish. And, through that distinction, you distinguish: this is correct, this is wrong; this is timely, this is not; this is suitable, this is negative. And if you discern very clearly, the right and proper action takes place. Now, if your discernment is chaotic, it is understood that the subsequent action will always be totally wrong, wrong or inadequate.

—Ramiro Calle in #169: Estrategia completa para el cambio interior, con Ramiro Calle (Los Yoguis de Occidente) (the translation into english is mine)

One of the steps of the Zettelkasten method is to write the object tags of a note. This step consists of identifying which objects (whether real or theoretical) are present in the idea of the note and recording them using a tag (which is why it is called an object tag).

For several months, I have been using the terms “convention” and “standard” interchangeably in my Zettelkasten. Some notes had one tag and some the other. A “convention” is something similar to a “standard”, but it is not the same. In the same way that milk is not cream.

Today I finally understood the difference between these two terms and updated their usage in my Zettelkasten. Now, thanks to making an effort to identify object tags, my discernment is clearer.

Note: I just wanted to share this reflection in case it is useful to someone else :-)

KillerWhale

This is something I am still unable to apply. Most of my notes encompass notes on storytelling or fictional elements, which are constructs and the border between topic and object breaks down for me.

What are the objects concerned by a note on, say, Aaron Sorkin's Walk and Talk technique? (Have the characters always go somewhere and do something as they speak to create intensity and make them appear busy – used especially in The West Wing series.) Walking? Talking? Characters? These seem exceedingly broad and therefore useless.

It seems to me like the most useful category here would be to tag things according to the use of that technique, but that's a topic, not an object and anyway that note can appear on a relevant structure note.

So I'm not using tags. 😆

FernandoNobel

@KillerWhale said:
What are the objects concerned by a note on, say, Aaron Sorkin's Walk and Talk technique? (Have the characters always go somewhere and do something as they speak to create intensity and make them appear busy – used especially in The West Wing series.) Walking? Talking? Characters? These seem exceedingly broad and therefore useless.

When we think of a “hammer,” we do not think of a “stick” and a “piece of metal”. The object is the hammer, not its separate elements. In this case, it is the same: the object is the “walk and talk technique”. We are not thinking of a “characters”, “talking” and “walking”. We are thinking about the combination of all elements that form a totally new thing: the “walk and talk technique”.

So, I would use the tag #walk-and-talk-technique in all the following scenarios:

• A note that describes step-by-step how to apply this technique
• A note about the definition of this technique
• A note about the benefits of this technique
• A tool that implements this technique
• etc

It seems to me like the most useful category here would be to tag things according to the use of that technique, but that's a topic, not an object and anyway that note can appear on a relevant structure note.

As you mentioned, you could also tag the notes where you apply this technique in a fictional dialog (since the idea is present in the note's content). However, I think these situations have less value than the previous ones. In my opinion, the value is in identifying the technique and having it ready to use when you need it, not in tagging every time the technique appears in your fiction writing.

In fact, you could even use the tag #walk-and-talk-technique-application. This way, you will have a repository of examples in your Zettelkasten of all the times you applied this technique.

KillerWhale

@FernandoNobel Thank you for your answer. The thing, in this situation, there are zillions of such techniques, which are just tools to use and recycle at times – the way color works for a painting. Which does agree with your argument of tagging the technique thus. But at the same time, that does not make it very practical.

What are tags used for – is it an entry point in the system? This looks more like it behaves like an index (and then an index should be preferable). Is it for search? The words of the Zettel themselves can be found, tags are not needed for this.

Maybe that's what I should be asking you. What is the use case of your tags? I believe they are ways to cluster notes in different ways, which is why I've always traditionally thought of them as topics (but, as we know, that does not scale). Object tagging seems superfluous as the objects I deal with are too often unique.

FernandoNobel

@KillerWhale said:
@FernandoNobel Thank you for your answer. The thing, in this situation, there are zillions of such techniques, which are just tools to use and recycle at times – the way color works for a painting. Which does agree with your argument of tagging the technique thus. But at the same time, that does not make it very practical.

In my experience, it is not a problem that the objects tags are too unique. In my Zettelkasten I have 1700 notes and about 800 object tags. I'm sure there are many tags that I have only used once.

For example, in the past I wrote a single note about the Dragon Kill Points (DKP) technique to more fairly allocate a game-master's attention in a tabletop roleplaying game. That note is the only one with the tag #dragon-kill-point. If I have to think about that technique again in the future, I'll find it very easy to come back to it (just search for #dragon-kill-point).

For me the problem is not that there are too many colors that, in practice, it is not worth spending time learning how to use them all and, therefore, the object tags are not worth it.

I totally agree that in practice we can only focus on a very reduced set of all the possible techniques.

However, for me the real problem is not knowing how to distinguish colors: confusing the milk with the cream. And it is for this problem that object tags bring the most value.

What are tags used for – is it an entry point in the system? This looks more like it behaves like an index (and then an index should be preferable). Is it for search? The words of the Zettel themselves can be found, tags are not needed for this.

Maybe that's what I should be asking you. What is the use case of your tags? I believe they are ways to cluster notes in different ways, which is why I've always traditionally thought of them as topics (but, as we know, that does not scale). Object tagging seems superfluous as the objects I deal with are too often unique.

The main benefit of writing object tags, in my personal case, is to give more clarity to my thinking. The act of identifying which objects interact in an idea is valuable in itself. So the habit of writing object tags is a way of constantly reminding me to identify the objects in my ideas.

Then there are many secondary benefits. Following the ideas you mentioned:

• Efficient access to your Zettelkasten. If you use Sascha's convention of using double hashtags (##walk-and-talk-technique), tags become a really efficient way to access the main structural notes of your Zettelkasten.

• Improved search. Instead of doing full-text searches of your whole Zettelkasten, you can focus on a narrower set of notes (which increases the likelihood that such a search will be useful).

Anyway, object tags are just one tool. I'm sure there are other ways to accomplish the same thing by other means (for both main and secondary benefits).

KillerWhale

Thank you, @FernandoNobel . That's very clear and gives me a lot to think about – much appreciated. I tend to overcomplicate systems way too quickly so I have to think about this and see the value that it would bring me (and if it's worth doing) but you make a clear argument: thanks. Now I have to think. 🙂