Why Consecutive Numbers (IDs) for Zettelkasten?
For those who want to start a Zettelkasten the good old trusty way with pen and paper, here are 6 arguments in favor of using consecutive numbering.
1) Well, the advantage of Luhmann's numeric-alpha ID-System is, you can grab a full stream of thoughts (Zettelfolge) at once and throw it onto your desk. How comfortable is this! With consecutive numbers you cannot do this. Here we will be confronted by the need to take a little more time to pick all Zettel belonging to one topic or stream of thoughts.
Sounds like a disadvantage. Hm, yes and no.
The good in the bad is this: It forces to slow down even a bit more and heightens the chance for serendipity to say hello to you. While flipping through the parts of your Kasten in search of a wanted Zettel, neighboring (and, in many cases totally unconnected) Zettel could attract the attention. New and unexpected ideas may kick in.
Anyways - more time to spend here. But - less time there:
2) With the use of consecutive numbers you avoid the sometimes painful thinking about where to put a Zettel. When ever you want to expand the idea documented on a Zettel you just write another Zettel and put it to the very end of your Kasten with a (or more) link(s). That's it. No need to expand tapeworm-IDs even further. It's as simple as 'just put it at the very end'.
3) In case of Zettel with yet uncertain connections: First mark it in the INDEX. You even can leave it like this first. At any time later you can do the linking, when your muse is ready to let the cat out of the bag.
4) I don't know about you, but for me it is much easier to remember a simple number than an numeric-alpha mishmash (like 28,10l5c2) - clean and simple numbers offer a (nearly) painless search for the best connection(s).
5) In case your Zettelkasten eventually has grown over some more boxes, then maybe you already had to face that uncomfortable moment, where your brand new written Zettel turns out to be the last straw for one branch to become physically too big for the size of the box it's housed in.
In the need to relocate a stack of Zettel into another box, maybe this one also will be too small, and you have to take another bunch from that second to repack it into a third box and so on. With consecutive numbers this never ever can happen. Promised.
6) Luhmann's numeric-alpha approach often leaves people behind with the false impression, this numbering scheme represents a kind of hierarchical, outline-like layout. I think there are discussions about that in the forum as well, showing that this is not the case. Consecutive numbering avoids this false impression for beginners and makes it easier to let got for the mazy adventure a Zettelkasten supposed to be.
+
That works for me, maybe not for you. I think it is important to realize, that METHOD emerges from the SUBJECT one wants to work on. I get the impression, that nowadays at every corner one gets the offer of methods promised to be 'perfect'. If method comes first¹, you will shape and change your subject. And even more, ironically many will stuck in trying method after method instead of starting to work on their subject.
There are many examples, where people even did not use a sophisticated numbering scheme: Jean Paul, Walter Benjamin, Hans Blumenberg, Vladimir Nabokov, Arno Schmidt, just to mention a few. And you know what? It worked for them!
¹ This even is standard in the humanities at German universities, that for a paper, thesis etc. you have to discuss your method FIRST. That's complete - to use a technical term - bullshit.
Edit @ctietze: Fixed footnote formatting/italics with ¹.
Howdy, Stranger!
Comments
Marginal fun fact (for statistics freaks):
With consecutive numbers in the Zettelkasten, you ALWAYS know how many slips are already in the box.
If that's even important...