Struggling to grasp the basic concepts
Hi, I'm new to the method and I'm struggling to grasp the concepts of "one unit of knowledge per note" and the central role of ideas per se
As far as I understand now, each note is supposed to have only one "unit of knowledge" in it, and it is supposed to be a single idea.
But I'm confused because commentary on a given situation or feeling or action, an argument, a resolution of goals, raw information/data on a given topic, questions, they could all be notes with connections, but it seems to me they don't quite fit the criteria for a main note in the zettelkasten method, either because they are not exactly knowledge or because they are several ideas that make sense together as a whole rather than making sense individualy. So what is the point of restricting the scope of the main notes to single ideas only?
And on the value of ideas per se, ideas can sometimes be only imagination. I mean, ideas may have no value if they are not related to something of substance. My question then is: if I stick to ideas only, what will I have that is worth more than a group of connected made up scribbles?
I can understand the structure of the method and how it is supposed to work, and I see the value of it, but I'm stuck with these questions in my mind and couldn't start building my zettelkasten yet because I couldn't find an answer to them. I feel I may be missing something basic...
Big thanks to everyone who can spare some time to help!
Howdy, Stranger!
Comments
I would say think in more pragmatic way about the concept of atomicity (one note = one idea etc). Consider what is FOR YOU one consistent (and separate) unit of knowledge (= for your current context regarding this content, what it means for you now) . E.g. for area of our specialisation (or if you are researching some area for writing a scientific book or study) this might be very detailed. ("Ability of emotional regulation is hindered by XY in 15-18 y.o. adolescents living in suboptimal socioeconomic conditions")
In other areas of your knowledge system, it can be very broad, because you just start to orient in this knowledge area, or it is just peripheral knowledge for you, it is important just generally or such granularity is enough for you. E.g. I can have only one Zettel/note named "History of Brazil" because I am not interested in it much now and one note with what I consider the most important/interesting points for me about the history of this country will more than suffice for me at the moment.
In other situations, there are other logical groupings - one article might be "unit of knowledge" or one video or whole book summary (many people do not save such information in their ZK system, but I have rather broad PKM system (and ZK is only part of it), so I just tag these types of notes differently to be able to differ among them).
Or - table of content (map of content) or structural note of one specific topic can be considered also "one unit of knowledge" with links to other, more specific.
So it is up to you how you feel (need, use) about the granularity level. You can always generalise (join the notes or create structural note/MoC) or create more detailed notes/units and split the current note if you need/wish so. It is not necessary to decide in the beginning. Your system is still evolving, based on your needs and evolving goals.
As for "idea" part, you can of course save everything else - from sources, to data, to citations of other people, not only your ideas. But it is also important to decide how you will differ between such units of knowledge so that you will know later what was your idea and what is idea cited somewhere else to avoid plagiarism = it is good to have some system of tags or different formats or some people use different databases/apps for different types of knowledge - other for original articles, other for their own ideas etc. I use only one system for everything (so my system is not strictly ZK) but I have strict ways how to differ between type of data/knowledge as for its source.
@fernandolasman, @daneb is right on. I'd like to add that you must overcome inertia and start. Your method will grow, and like everyone, you will look back at these early days with nostalgia. Think about you as a first grader. You’d want to encourage that young person to start now and be nonjudgmental of progress.
What is your field of study? This helps set the scope of one idea. Consider one idea to be one object of attention. Different areas of study, human virology or poetry, have obvious differences in areas of attention. This doesn’t mean a poet won’t find some idea in the realm of human virology note-worth. It just means the scope of what is considered "atomicity" is vastly different.
Don’t worry about initial atomicity. Iterate towards atomicity, where it’s important. Expanding on the example @daneb presented, when I capture a research paper on an area of my focus, blind protagonists in young adult literature, I’ll scrap all the highlights into a single note. I’ll process each note, keeping all the ideas from that paper in a single note. When capturing ideas from Lecture on Nothing, I so far atomized it into seven notes. This started 201905100924. It takes time to iterate each thought.
Will Simpson
My zettelkasten is for my ideas, not the ideas of others. I don’t want to waste my time tinkering with my ZK; I’d rather dive into the work itself. My peak cognition is behind me. One day soon, I will read my last book, write my last note, eat my last meal, and kiss my sweetie for the last time.
kestrelcreek.com
Don't worry. You have raised two points that are discussed very much here :-)
Later Il' try to write something.
For the first point I can suggest you this topic
https://forum.zettelkasten.de/discussion/2846/one-note-one-object-of-attention/p1
Seeing the video in the first post above all
For your point about several ideas that makes their sense as a whole... the "whole idea" is another atomic idea that can be added to elementary ideas that are parts of the main idea.
I always find useful the metaphor of photography.
A landscape photo represents "a landscape" as a single concept. Even if into a landscape you find sky, mountains, trees and so on, a landscape photo is not about "sky and mountains and trees". A photo in which you recognize a landscape expresses the concept of a whole and it is that concept that matter.
Atomic doesn't necessary mean short, elementary, simple and so on.
The important thing is that your photo doesn't trivially represent "the sky and mountains and trees", but the whole thing: "oh, it's a sunset".
I apply the same concept to atomic notes/ideas/thougths.
In the practice, one example of "landscape note" can be simply a small structure note, that often represents a "whole idea" on its own, too, not only an entry point for other notes.
update
For the second point, I don't feel very comfortable with the term "idea", in my native language idea has a pretty specific meaning. Maybe "thought" is better, but still a little problematic.
I prefer above all the term "point", taken from Dan Allosso. It's broader and more appropriate for me.
About this I've recently written my thought about:
https://forum.zettelkasten.de/discussion/3120/keeping-own-ideas-in-zettelkasten
https://forum.zettelkasten.de/discussion/2564/thought-definition#latest
Even for this I feel good with the photography metaphor.
I can develop a point for my zettelkasten, meaning that I can imagine, develop and express a reflection or observation about a single aspect of external or my inner world, in the same way I can ideate, plan, setup (choosing subject, scene composition, lens, framing, lights,...) and take a snapshot of the world with my camera.
In both processes my mind applies and combines intention, goal pursuing, technical skills, taste and ispiration to obtain a valuable and useful result.
To take a photo I don't necessarily have to create a physical scene from nothing (an original idea), I can even simply find an interesting slice of the world in front of me and create a subjective image of it. The key terms here are "interesting" and "subjective". So, I don't create and own the sun, mountains, sky and trees, but I create and own "the sunset" concept above them applying my process to them.
I don't know if it is clear enough. It took me more than two years to develop this interpretation of the zettelkstasten, I don't know if it can be grasped in two minutes :-)
And this is how I develop my notes after two years of practice after hundreds of tries, not at the very beginning...
Feel free to ask if you have any doubts, I'll be very happy to answer
Just a short addition to what @andang76 described spot on in his metaphor of photo of landscape (sunset): There might me many levels of granularity on what is useful to focus when making this photo (on sunset? or one object colorised by the sun? or somebody watching the sunset? on the photographer trying to make photos of this scene?). So maybe better term than "atomicity" is German term GESTALT (which was heavily used in Gestalt psychology of perception exactly in the sense of the issue we discuss here). But thanks to its difficult and not precise translations, it will never be used more often. But that is why IMO "atomicity" is confusing as it connotes "atoms" as "the simplest parts of the matter" as old Greeks thought about it. But of course each even "correctly atomised/defined" ZK note (Zettel) theoretically consists of many further levels of sub-units of knowledge (points, sentences, examples) and so and so till individual words/lemmas or even letters, which are still and still other more specific layers (units) of knowledge/abstractions etc.
Yes, this is another point of photo metaphor that I've realized many weeks ago. If I remember correctly, it was presented by Bianca Pereira in her video, too.
I don't think anyway that this is alternative to atomicity concept. It's something orthogonal.
I feel very comfortable with atomicity, maybe because being a software developer this concept maps very well to many programming principles. Well done atomicity is a very effective enabling factor for reuse, extension and composition, in both idea development and software development. I realize that for many people it is really problematic
Thanks for Gestalt reference, it could be a very interesting concept to explore for me.
About atomicity, reviewing my atomicity note I've found this already taken discussion:
https://forum.zettelkasten.de/discussion/3004/specific-query-about-creating-a-useful-note