Definitions in Literature Note vs. Zettel Note
I am a PhD student and often the papers I review have formal definitions (Computing & Maths). I figure it will be useful to keep these definitions in my notes for quick reference without having to go back to a textbook when I want to reference them. As far as I can figure there are two possible ways to integrate this goal into the Zettelkasten method:
- Define in Zettel, reference Literature
This is the approach seemingly taken here[^1] where the Zettel notes contain the mathematical definition in its entirety and then may hold links to other relevant definitions and perhaps the piece of literature it was extracted from. This method is useful for:
- Linking to specific definitions from other Zettel notes
- Quick, simple reading of a specific definition (atomicity)
- Reading in parts (you don't have to update the Literature note, just add more Zettel notes)
The main problem I see with this approach is it seems to violate the spirit of the Zettel notes being (1) your own ideas, (2) not just exact quotes from a piece of literature you have read, and (3) you may end up filling what is supposed to be your vault of your ideas with other people's definitions.
- Define in Literature
The second approach I could imagine is keeping all the definitions extracted from, say, a textbook in the Literature note for that book. This perhaps keeps more in the spirit of how I understand the Literature vs. Zettel note split to be. The idea being that exact quotations (which definitions are by technicality) should go in the Literature note, that is what it is for! But then it becomes harder to reference specific definitions, and in the case of a textbook, you may end up with an enormous Literature note filled with 10s if not 100s of definitions, which may be difficult to reference.
Please experienced zettler's, give me guidance! How have you/would you handle(d) this?
Howdy, Stranger!
Comments
In your case that is not a bad thing. Don't you want to access other people's definitions? :-)
Agree. It makes sense conceptually. And it is a fast method to capture material for future reference.
I consider bibliographical/literature/reading/source notes an integral part of the Zettelkasten. I find extensive quotations and excerpts very useful. (Others see it differently.)
Not necessarily.
Should you need to reference a particular definition, you could move it to the zettel, where you need it.
Should you need to reference dozens of definitions, then you have a different situation. I wouldn't optimize for a use case, that isn't clear yet.
For now, when you just want to make the definitions accessible in your Zettelkasten, I'd simply copy them to the source note.
In my experience long notes aren't a problem, if you use software that handles them well (which is pretty much every contemporary software) and if you find a system to structure them with headings, bullet lists and blockquotes.
Thank you @harr that really helps me clear up my thoughts on it. Appreciate the guidance, I have done a trial run with some study doing option 2 and it seems to work well!
Keep in mind that the concept of literature notes and their difference to so-called permanent notes (as Sönke Ahrens called them originally) is not based on systematic construction, but on the historical record of what Luhmann actually practiced.
The widespread adoption of these terms as something quickly to grasp led to the following chinese whisper chain: "Luhmann did this." -> "This is how it is done in the Zettelkasten Method." -> "This is how it should be done."
For a counter position: I see taking literature notes as a standard workflow step as wasteful. I, myself, rarely take them, and almost everything that I process comes directly from the original source.
I highly recommend the first approach, especially for your subject. The more formal the material is, the better the first approach is suited because the difference between so-called "your ideas" and "other people's ideas" doesn't even make sense if you go all the way. How would you put basic proofs in your "own" words?
Of these, I think (1) and (2) are not well-justified. The mechanics of the lack of justification are what I lined out above.
(3) seems like a conclusion to me. This points in the right direction:
Don't think of your Zettelkasten as something that should follow a specific procedure. First, ask yourself what specific tools and constructs you want to build to support your work. Then you aim to build these structures. If exact quotes are useful or essential parts, you should or even have to use them to bring into being what you want.
I am a Zettler
I would add here that the distinction between "permanent" and "literature" notes as "your thoughts" and "thoughts of others" was introduced by Sönke Ahrens, not Luhmann. If you look into Luhmann's archive, you will quickly find many lengthy quotations in the main part of his Zettelkasten, and his bibliographic notes weren't restricted to "just retelling" but contained Luhmann's own remarks on what he read as well. For Luhmann this distinction was purely formal. Whether he would write bibliographic notes or cite the book/article directly in the main part of the Zettelkasten (many bibliographic entries don't contain any notes at all) depended on what was more convenient for him at the given moment.
Yes, good add.
This is interpretation at this point. Could be, could be otherwise.
I am a Zettler
In Ahrens's system both notes are permanent. He writes 2022 in chapter 6 of the 2nd edition of How to take smart notes (emphasis mine):
Both note types are permanent, but they are stored in different places. One in stored in the "reference system". The other is stored in the "slip-box" (which reminds me of Sascha's distinction between Zettelkasten and "actual Zettelkasten".).
I think the confusion arose, because Ahrens uses the term "permanent note" ambiguously, eg in the same paragraph:
In much of the Zettelkasten conversation "permanent notes" has became a synonym for "main notes". Ahrens' however introduced the term "permanent notes" to distinguish notes by life-span. Only a few notes are permanent, the rest are "fleeting notes" or "project notes".
To be more precise, it's based on Ahrens' interpretation of Luhmann's practice. Ahrens writes in chapter 1.3:
Ahrens might have oversimplified Luhmann's practice. :-)
Thanks for stating the counter position so clearly!
As a possible counter-counter position, I'd like to refer to Umberto Eco, who explicitly recommends taking reading notes (Chapter 4.2.3 in the 2015 english edition of How to write a thesis):
Interesting question!
My smart machine translates Luhmann's recommendation "strikte Trennung eigenen und fremden Gedankenguts" as "strict separation of one’s own and others’ intellectual content" or even "intellectual property".
Unless you had an original idea on your own, you've got the idea from someone else. In subject areas like maths and philosophy, with thousands of years of history, you're most likely standing on the shoulder of giants.
Even basic proofs in mathematics have a history. Someone discovered/invented/devoloped them. Someone rewrote them. Someone passed them on to you.
There are many way's how you could attempt your own wording (Luhmann: "eigene Formulierungen versuchen"). You could explain it in actual words. You could draw charts. You could use a formal notation.
At the end of the process your proof might look like something you might find in a textbook or like something very personal. It doesn't change the fact that you used your own words to capture someone else's idea. (This is a different process than copy-and-pasting excerpts into reading notes for future reference. Personally I combine both.)
Yes! For example as in ZK I 57,7c2 with a combination of literal quote and personal comments.
No. Luhmann explicitly distinguished between own thoughts and thoughts of others (see previous post). And Luhmann had a distinct section in his Zettelkasten for bibliographical notes.
That part is pretty much standard stuff in most sciences. You keep track of (potential) sources with a bibliography (today maybe with Zotero). And you properly credit your sources.
Yes, because this is also pretty much standard procedure for most scientific work.
Ahrens (2022) recommends what many teachers in academia recommend: rewriting as a tool for better understanding. It's good advice for people who copy-paste quotes instead of reading and processing them. Ahrens gives examples where literal quotes are useful.
I don't know, at what point the sound advice "try to rewrite in your own words" became the absurd dogma "you must not quote, ever".
Not sure, what you mean by that. His bibliographical notes contained mostly boring bibliographical data.
The interesting part is that some also contained short reading notes. (Personally, I think that's a rather obvious location to keep those notes, if you want to find them later. :-) For that reason I don't distinguish between bibliographical notes and reading notes in my own notes.)
I don't know what Luhmann was thinking. Looking at my own notes, I can relate. I don't create bibliographical notes for every reference either.
In section V. 3) of the above mentioned talk, Luhmann gives advice on how to deal with bibliographical notes and references in text (machine translation):
Personally I prefer Eco's advice in How to write a thesis (2015):
This interpretation seems pretty obvious to me based on everything I said before it in my post, but oh well.
I know that he distinguished between his own thoughts and thoughts of others by specifying the source when there was one. What I meant to say was that this distinction was not tied to a specific area of his Zettelkasten or a specific type of note.
What you call reading notes here is what I meant by "bibliographic notes" in my post. We think the same thing.
I don't see what you tried to tell me in the other parts of your post, to be honest. It sounds as if you assume I know nothing about Luhmann's bibliography, which is not the case.
I guess I may contribute something else to the discussion if I mention that Luhmann
1) sometimes marked those bibliographic (or reading) notes that he already processed,
2) wrote "Lit" in a note for a page of the book where he (presumably) found some interesting bibliographical data,
3) could write multiple notes for a single page,
4) used "f." and "ff." abbreviations after page numbers to write notes about multiple pages (I took note of this technique but I personally use two page numbers with a hyphen, e.g. "1-3" for a note about pages 1 to 3).
A permanent note is a specific term based on the English translation of Sönke Ahrens. It is a technicus terminus not general term for notes that is permanently stored. In German, there are different words for "permanent" (e.g. "permanent", "dauerhaft").
This translation issues are part of the confusion.
I can live with the notion that arises with the use of the same word as part of the natural language and termini technici.
My copy of Ahrens' book is vacant. So, I can't provide exact quotes.
Luhmann showed the practice in Beobachter im Krähennest. Reading (in library) -> Literature Note -> Zettelkasten note (avoiding the confusion).
Eco wrote his book in the 70s. Bibliographical work was a nightmare compared today. Today, most of the work is mostly automated via software.
There are specific benefits to specific practices in specific cases. In German, exzerpieren is not identical with excerpting in English. In university, I learned it as a specific practice of creating writing and research tools that (optimally) make the original source obsolete, but also create a bridge from the source to your own work. It was especially useful in history. (I learned it also in this context)
But breaking down the individual components and the mechanisms by which they elicit specific (hopefully beneficial) effects, you can remove a lot and therefore save valuable time and mental energy.
The emphasis of my position is as standard practice. I still create excerpts. But rarely and only for specific use cases.
I am a Zettler