Zettelkasten Forum

Home› Random

What's A "Zettlekasten" (Oh, no, not again!)?

tomptomp
in Random

We seem to be having a lot of discussion (argument?) about what a "Zettelkasten" is or should be or if it's even a well-defined concept. Is it "the Method"? It's probably foolish of me but I'm going to chip in with my own take.

Here is my current thinking, right off its z-card:

A note system should -

  • Align with peoples' minds fit well with how a person's mind works;
  • Be associative notes should associate with others;
  • Building blocks notes should act like building blocks;
  • Restore The Context notes and structure should remind one of
    and restore one's concepts;
  • Keep attention apply principles of cognitive and psychological
    science to overcome attention drift;

  • Surface tacit semantic information.

    To have a note system we should have it work well with how a person's mind works. That is partly associatively. So notes should associate with others. Humans have learned that using building blocks is useful. So notes should act like building blocks. Humans attention is easy to divert, so notes should try to overcome this tendency by applying principles of cognitive and psychological science.

    People have a great deal of semantic information that is usually tacit. A notes system should try to surface some of it.

    Both notes and the structure should help to restore the conceptual context of the captured thoughts.

Luhmann seems to have gotten about half of these items, I would say. Pretty good given how the paper system constrained him. He got some association with links, some with propinquity using fogelzettel. He used cards like building blocks to some extent. He obviously had some ability to restore his working context, though IMHO not as effectively as he could have. I think he must have had an unusually strong ability to focus, which was a way of countering attention drift.

As we all know, he used focused cards, a system for making links between cards, and a numbering system to make sure he could find cards again. Naturally he had a way of creating and working with cards that probably got refined over his working life. His focus was on working out ideas to the point of getting them published in an academic (or bureaucratic) context.

Let's say that a capital-Z Zettelkasten is a system that more or less adopts a linked building block, associative type of approach, in the hopes of increasing productivity and creativity. With modern technology we can approach more of the six bulleted items I listed above. The manner of working with the system can be system, purpose, and user- customized. The purpose of the note system can be broader than Luhmann's

If we leave it at that, we can avoid most of the discussion or arguments, while keeping the starting point, namely (as I take it), "I want some of what Luhmann got".

Comments

  • SaschaSascha

    I agree with all of your points. However, each element needs to be justified if you want to create more than an affirmative personal definition.

    I assume you aim to define a Luhmannian Zettelkasten, not just any Zettelkasten?

    Sadly, when I wrote that Don't Dehorsify the Horse I wasn't aware of Andy Coggins who produced the perfect example of a term that doesn't need a clean definition in practice (the anaerobic threshold). I think they didn't even use the same term always (sometimes LT1, somethims anerobic threshold, etc.) For context: It is a specific threshold in exercise intensity. This is the podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/perspectives-18-overcoming-historical-inertia-with/id1457497693?i=1000579722563

    However, this goal:

    If we leave it at that, we can avoid most of the discussion or arguments, while keeping the starting point, namely (as I take it), "I want some of what Luhmann got".

    will not be achieved in my estimation. Reasons for that are:

    1. A lot of people jump to the first pattern match they find and cling to it.
    2. There is a regular influx of people who read a bunch of stuff and like to come up with their own take without integrating other perspectives into it (e.g. rejecting or accepting already made points)
    3. There is a regular influx of people who need their own definition to promote a distinct product. (Sometimes, Zettelkasten is just a label used to make the product appealing to an already existing audience)
    4. Lots of people are motivated by the process of talking about the concept, less because of the value of having a definition.

    I am a Zettler

  • tomptomp

    @Sascha said:
    I agree with all of your points. However, each element needs to be justified if you want to create more than an affirmative personal definition.

    I assume you aim to define a Luhmannian Zettelkasten, not just any Zettelkasten?

    "Luhmannian", in the sense I tried to set forth. If not that, it seems to me that the term "zettelkasten" is much too generic. I would be using the English phase "card catalog" which isn't a bad translation of "slip case" (I think, me not being a German speaker), or "index file".

    Yes, use of index cards in some way has a long history. It took off once mass-produced practical index cards came on the market - that was around the 1880s, wasn't it? Some writers even class commonplace books in the same category. And probably Luhmann learned something of his way from teachers or mentors, who can be sure? But at least in English writings about "Zettelkasten", it's always Luhmann, great productivity, linked cards.

    I'm not interested in defining a "school of Luhmannian card catalogs". I'm interesting in learning what made his system successful to the extent it was, and using that and other information to create a system that works well - at least for me and hopefully for others. I'm trying to ground it in well-known principles. I'm being guided by how I think a system ought be to be of assistance.

    I only use the term "Zettelkasten" like that, presuming that it will give other people that idea, and the realization that there is some heritage here. Arguing about exactly what "the Zettelkasten system" or "the Zettelkasten method" is leaves me cold.

    Yes, a violinist needs to learn technique, a lot of technique. But the point of it all is the music, and there are many players with great technique that don't make very interesting music. My interest is in the music and the instrument, and trying to make it so playable that good music doesn't demand excessive technique. Like any instrument, one will need to practice, sure.

  • harrharr
    edited August 6

    I suggest a different wording for the question.

    1. Not: What is a zettelkasten?
    2. Instead: How do we define zettelkasten?

    The first question tends to lead to fallacies, where people assume they talk about the same thing, but actually don't. @Sascha once wrote about the Beetle-in-the-box phenomenon. I think it applies also to the term "Zettelkasten".

    The second question emphasizes that definitions are socially constructed. We might never come up with one definition that becomes widely accepted as lexical definition. But at least we'll learn during the process, what definitions have been proposed and by whom. Some of those definitions will catch on, others won't. And if someone wants to try out their own definition, they can simply stipulate one.

    Personally, I don't know what "a Zettelkasten" is.

    I'm curious to learn about the definitions out there. What is your personal definition of "zettelkasten"? Where do you draw the line between "this is a zettelkasten" and "this is not a zettelkasten"? What definitions have you read or heard that make sense to you?

  • harrharr

    @tomp said:
    Luhmann seems to have gotten about half of these items, I would say. Pretty good given how the paper system constrained him.

    Interesting, how some parts of Zettelkasten discourse have moved beyond Luhmann. Nori Parelius summarized the paradox nicely in her blog: "(…) the most famous user of the Zettelkasten method wouldn’t even recognise the rules that now seem to define the method he is credited with inventing."

    I'd say that we have at least two major schools of "Zettelkasten" practice:

    1. Paper systems and digital system that mimick Luhmann. Some very closely (Scheper), some more loosely (Ahrens, Doto).
    2. Digital hypertext systems that have little recognizable connection to Luhmann's example.

    @tomp said:
    As we all know, he used focused cards, a system for making links between cards, and a numbering system to make sure he could find cards again. Naturally he had a way of creating and working with cards that probably got refined over his working life. His focus was on working out ideas to the point of getting them published in an academic (or bureaucratic) context.

    For all I know, Luhmann did not work that way. His process barely changed over decades. I'm baffled by the consistency of his zettelkasten practice.

    @tomp said:
    Let's say that a capital-Z Zettelkasten is a system that more or less adopts a linked building block, associative type of approach, in the hopes of increasing productivity and creativity. With modern technology we can approach more of the six bulleted items I listed above. The manner of working with the system can be system, purpose, and user- customized. The purpose of the note system can be broader than Luhmann's

    If we leave it at that, we can avoid most of the discussion or arguments, while keeping the starting point, namely (as I take it), "I want some of what Luhmann got".

    We can make the discussion even simpler, if we completely separate such a "capital-Z Zettelkasten" from Luhmann. If you treat it as a separate and unrelated concept, many points of conflict should disappear.

  • AmontilladoAmontillado

    Is it Machiavellian heresy to say that the ends justify the indexing?

    In other words, a requisite for a Zettelkasten is a body of knowledge. Any one method of indexing and categorization is secondary as long as you can navigate the inventory of facts.

    Library card catalogs of yore presented the same collection indexed three ways, author, title, and subject.

    Multiple indexes referencing a single Zettelkasten sound justifiable.

    Some methods of organization will work better than others, but if an alternate contributes to usefulness, why not?

  • tomptomp

    @harr said:

    We can make the discussion even simpler, if we completely separate such a "capital-Z Zettelkasten" from Luhmann. If you treat it as a separate and unrelated concept, many points of conflict should disappear.

    Yes, that's so, but then there would be little reason to use the term at all, and let's face it, there is a line back to Luhmann's system in most of the material that get people interested in the first place.

    A new good name would be all right with me, if its good enough. Quibbling about whether or not Luhmann's work is or is not a factor in a system isn't something I want to spend energy on.

  • tomptomp

    @Amontillado said:
    Is it Machiavellian heresy to say that the ends justify the indexing?

    In other words, a requisite for a Zettelkasten is a body of knowledge. Any one method of indexing and categorization is secondary as long as you can navigate the inventory of facts.

    Not a heresy at all. The needs are to be able to find things, to be able to navigate to them, and preferably to see a broader view of the (semantic) territory than a single card or pair of linked cards can provide. Luhmann couldn't run searches so he had to make do with the numbering system, index cards, and the like. Or rather, the kind of search he could do was to remember or look up a likely entry point and then to riffle through the cards. We don't have those limitations (if we are using a digital system) so we can try other ways.

    The needs are the same.

  • andang76andang76

    Funny thing: I've always considered Andy Matushak's system one of the best examples of a Zettelkasten, even though he himself says it isn't one.

  • tomptomp

    @vikbrain said:

    @tomp said:
    We seem to be having a lot of discussion (argument?) about what a "Zettelkasten" is or should be or if it's even a well-defined concept. Is it "the Method"? It's probably foolish of me but I'm going to chip in with my own take.

    Here is my current thinking, right off its z-card:

    Excellent! I love the way you describe what a good note-taking system should be from your perspective; and the added value I see in this is that it's based solely on Luhmann's research and all the work he managed to implement on paper.

    Thanks for the kind words. I wouldn't say "based solely on Luhmann's research", though. There's 20+ years of experience with systems that in retrospect have a lot in common with the general ideas behind my current Zettelkasten system. And putting together many elements from completely outside the world of note-taking.

  • SaschaSascha

    @tomp

    My points are in no particular order

    1. As said in my first post: each element needs to be justified if you want to create more than an affirmative personal definition.
    2. Here, there is not just some heritage. The page is called zettelkasten.de for a reason and I call Luhmann the godfather of Zettelkasten for a reason, too. Exploring the concept of (a Luhmannian) Zettelkasten is different from pointing towards good principles of a note system. The former is the platform of extensive debate what is essential and what not. This requires a particular toolkit (e.g. what is an essential property and how to establish essentiality).
    3. If you just want to establish good principles of how to create a note system then framing this with the label "Zettelkasten" is counterproductive framing as you mix in the former question.

    In hindsight, they are in a particular order. I think the most productive line is the first point. :)

    I am a Zettler

  • harrharr
    edited August 7

    @Sascha said:
    (…) I call Luhmann the godfather of Zettelkasten for a reason, too.

    What exactly do you mean by the word "Zettelkasten" in this sentence? And what is the reason?

  • RyukRyuk

    @tomp said:
    We seem to be having a lot of discussion (argument?) about what a "Zettelkasten" is or should be or if it's even a well-defined concept. Is it "the Method"? It's probably foolish of me but I'm going to chip in with my own take.

    Here is my current thinking, right off its z-card:

    A note system should -

    • Align with peoples' minds fit well with how a person's mind works;
    • Be associative notes should associate with others;
    • Building blocks notes should act like building blocks;
    • Restore The Context notes and structure should remind one of
      and restore one's concepts;
    • Keep attention apply principles of cognitive and psychological
      science to overcome attention drift;

    • Surface tacit semantic information.

      To have a note system we should have it work well with how a person's mind works. That is partly associatively. So notes should associate with others. Humans have learned that using building blocks is useful. So notes should act like building blocks. Humans attention is easy to divert, so notes should try to overcome this tendency by applying principles of cognitive and psychological science.

      People have a great deal of semantic information that is usually tacit. A notes system should try to surface some of it.

      Both notes and the structure should help to restore the conceptual context of the captured thoughts.

    Luhmann seems to have gotten about half of these items, I would say. Pretty good given how the paper system constrained him. He got some association with links, some with propinquity using fogelzettel. He used cards like building blocks to some extent. He obviously had some ability to restore his working context, though IMHO not as effectively as he could have. I think he must have had an unusually strong ability to focus, which was a way of countering attention drift.

    As we all know, he used focused cards, a system for making links between cards, and a numbering system to make sure he could find cards again. Naturally he had a way of creating and working with cards that probably got refined over his working life. His focus was on working out ideas to the point of getting them published in an academic (or bureaucratic) context.

    Let's say that a capital-Z Zettelkasten is a system that more or less adopts a linked building block, associative type of approach, in the hopes of increasing productivity and creativity. With modern technology we can approach more of the six bulleted items I listed above. The manner of working with the system can be system, purpose, and user- customized. The purpose of the note system can be broader than Luhmann's

    If we leave it at that, we can avoid most of the discussion or arguments, while keeping the starting point, namely (as I take it), "I want some of what Luhmann got".

    I like this way of framing it! I especially agree with the idea of notes as associative building blocks, and with the importance of being able to restore the context behind an idea later.

    However, I'm not sure about that a note system should simply “align with how the mind works”. Our minds are associative, but they’re also easily distracted and pretty good at making arbitrary connections. So I think a good system should sometimes compensate for how our minds work, rather than just mirror them.

    I also think that “Some of what Luhmann got” is probably a much more useful starting point than arguing over a single canonical definition of Zettelkasten.

  • tomptomp

    @Ryuk said:

    Here is my current thinking, right off its z-card:

    A note system should -
    ...
    - Keep attention apply principles of cognitive and psychological
    science to overcome attention drift;

    I like this way of framing it! I especially agree with the idea of notes as associative building blocks, and with the importance of being able to restore the context behind an idea later.

    However, I'm not sure about that a note system should simply “align with how the mind works”. Our minds are associative, but they’re also easily distracted and pretty good at making arbitrary connections. So I think a good system should sometimes compensate for how our minds work, rather than just mirror them.

    Seems to me I included that, didn't I? Since I posted the above, I sharpened up the card a little:

    • Apply principles of cognitive and psychological science to
      • Improve readability, restoration of context;
      • overcome attention drift;
  • RyukRyuk

    @tomp said:

    @Ryuk said:

    Here is my current thinking, right off its z-card:

    A note system should -
    ...
    - Keep attention apply principles of cognitive and psychological
    science to overcome attention drift;

    I like this way of framing it! I especially agree with the idea of notes as associative building blocks, and with the importance of being able to restore the context behind an idea later.

    However, I'm not sure about that a note system should simply “align with how the mind works”. Our minds are associative, but they’re also easily distracted and pretty good at making arbitrary connections. So I think a good system should sometimes compensate for how our minds work, rather than just mirror them.

    Seems to me I included that, didn't I? Since I posted the above, I sharpened up the card a little:

    • Apply principles of cognitive and psychological science to
      • Improve readability, restoration of context;
      • overcome attention drift;

    Ooh, I see what you mean now. Great, I think your clarification about applying cognitive and psychological principles makes the distinction much clearer.

    I also really like the idea of “I want some of what Luhmann got.” I'm still fairly new to the Zettelkasten world and I want to learn as much as possible of this method!

    Thanks for clarifying!

  • tomptomp

    @Ryuk said:
    Ooh, I see what you mean now. Great, I think your clarification about applying cognitive and psychological principles makes the distinction much clearer.

    I also really like the idea of “I want some of what Luhmann got.” I'm still fairly new to the Zettelkasten world and I want to learn as much as possible of this method!

    Maybe you would like to read the paper I presented yesterday at a conference:

    https://balisage.net/Proceedings/vol31/html/Passin01/BalisageVol31-Passin01.html#d12410e23

    Or (quicker and easier), the slides for its presentation:

    https://tompassin.net/pub/balisage2026/balisage_zk_slides_files.html

    Not everyone here will agree with it all but it sounds like it may give you something fun to think about.

  • RyukRyuk

    @tomp said:

    @Ryuk said:
    Ooh, I see what you mean now. Great, I think your clarification about applying cognitive and psychological principles makes the distinction much clearer.

    I also really like the idea of “I want some of what Luhmann got.” I'm still fairly new to the Zettelkasten world and I want to learn as much as possible of this method!

    Maybe you would like to read the paper I presented yesterday at a conference:

    https://balisage.net/Proceedings/vol31/html/Passin01/BalisageVol31-Passin01.html#d12410e23

    Or (quicker and easier), the slides for its presentation:

    https://tompassin.net/pub/balisage2026/balisage_zk_slides_files.html

    Not everyone here will agree with it all but it sounds like it may give you something fun to think about.

    I have read the paper, thanks for sharing it! I loved the idea about Zettelkasten as something that should help reconstruct the mental context in which an idea was formed, rather than simply helping me retrieve the note itself.

    I also liked the distinction between a note repository and a “cognitive instrument.” That seems to connect really well with what we were discussing about cognitive science and attention.

    In the way I see it, the ZettleKasten is likely one of the best systems for taking notes! I mean, the heart of ZettleKasten resides in how much you can connect notes to each other!

    For a ZettleKasten to work for you, you will need to create new notes based on other notes and developing new ideas, is like a hierarchy but they are not lineal. You can connect notes that talks about "one" topic from different perspectives and points of view... The goal is not to read and memorize your notes, is to develop deep ideas more and more to get involved with your notes and so you will learn them for real!

    So yes, we can use them for everything in life and make them work for us, and as Luhmann used to say... "Talk with them"! 😌

Sign In or Register to comment.