Paper or Plastic? I can't decide! combining analog and digital?

TWolf614

I'm writing my dissertation prospectus. Prior undergraduate writing was done in the last century--fundamentally a zettelkasten--but I hadn't heard that name back then. I physically ordered my notecards and then typed up a paper from the cards. Very satisfying

Now I'm setup with Obsidian and it's very fun but feels almost too frictionless. I prefer the tangible notecards. But, it all has to get into a document and be written and re-written. So it seems, I can do both? Any thoughts on how to implement that?

harr

@TWolf614 said:
I prefer the tangible notecards. (…) Any thoughts on how to implement that?

With a printer and scissors. Write your notes in Obsidian. Print them out, when you want to shuffle paper.

GeoEng51

Sounds like how I'd write an engineering report back in the early 1970s (before desktop computers):

1. I'd just let the thoughts flow, in a somewhat organized fashion but without too much worry about the exact order or structure. These would be hand-written.
2. Someone in our typist pool would type them up.
3. I'd take some scissors and cut up the report into single or multiple paragraphs. Partial paragraphs were also allowed.
4. I'd take the pieces and re-arrange them on my desk or a large table into a more sensible order.
5. There might be parts missing; I'd hand write those and add them into the overall story.
6. Some pieces would get thrown in the trash bin.
7. This is where the creative process really occurred. After some mucking around, when everything was about right, I'd paste or tape everything onto sheets of paper.
8. The new document would then be retyped, usually from scratch.
9. Draft #2 would be edited, first by me, usually just with a pencil.
10. That might be retyped (see below) or it might go to a senior reviewer, who would also edit it.
11. Back into the typist pool for the final version.

Typing was done on an IBM selectric with a magnetic card backup. Usually the changes in the first version were substantial and the report would have to be retyped, but if the edits in the second draft weren't too egregious, the typist could make the edits to the version on the magnetic card and then "print" the final (i.e., from the magnetic card to the typewriter).

Such was the state of the art back in 1970-75!

One of my senior colleagues had been doing this for so long that he had standard paragraphs stored on a magnetic card, which could be retrieved and added into a report he was writing (he tended to take the straight forward jobs that didn't require a lot of creative thinking).

I gained a certain satisfaction from the process - chopping everything up and re-arranging, and adding new content. I must admit, though, the first chance I got (when the company I was working for bought a PDP1170 mini-computer), I obtained a terminal in my office and did all that electronically, (this was before the days of desktop computers). It was less working with paper and more just being able to move material around and insert or delete material that was the key.

You might look at all those snippets of information that I was maniplating at a very rudimentary ZK, although I didn't know the term at the time. And they were all stored in my brain, or in the case of the senior colleague, on an IBM selectric mag-card.

tomp

@GeoEng51 said:
Sounds like how I'd write an engineering report back in the early 1970s (before desktop computers):

1. I'd just let the thoughts flow, in a somewhat organized fashion but without too much worry about the exact order or structure. These would be hand-written.
2. Someone in our typist pool would type them up.
3. I'd take some scissors and cut up the report into single or multiple paragraphs. Partial paragraphs were also allowed.
4. I'd take the pieces and re-arrange them on my desk or a large table into a more sensible order.
5. There might be parts missing; I'd hand write those and add them into the overall story.
6. Some pieces would get thrown in the trash bin.
7. This is where the creative process really occurred. After some mucking around, when everything was about right, I'd paste or tape everything onto sheets of paper.
8. The new document would then be retyped, usually from scratch.
9. Draft #2 would be edited, first by me, usually just with a pencil.
10. That might be retyped (see below) or it might go to a senior reviewer, who would also edit it.
11. Back into the typist pool for the final version.

We really relied upon (abused?) the typing staff back then, didn't we? And me with my lousy handwriting and finicky editing.

TWolf614

@GeoEng51 said:

Typing was done on an IBM selectric with a magnetic card backup.

Not the selectric! My first real job was a weekend receptionist and I was using one for large merge/prints for the high ups. LOL, the mag card eject mechanism was broken and I would just take the back panel off to push it out and then put it back together. hahaha I got in trouble for it when someone saw me

The analog part needs to be up front for me. It's the actual writing by hand that I don't want to give up, something about that helps me quite a lot. I may just need to keep mostly analog and then only type into Obsidian as I begin my drafting process.

thank you!!

erikh

@TWolf614 : kudos to you for going into the PhD trajectory and good luck!

For some time I considered something like what you’re asking. I started a transition to paper (see this thread https://forum.zettelkasten.de/discussion/3178/from-digital-to-paper-based#latest, of which, by the way, I now see I never provided the promised update - will do) but I’m back to using The Archive now.

With paper, the friction for creating (that is: writing) cards is much higher, so for me the ZK became more a network of short pointers for thoughts. Or: a thinking and communication tool only, not unlike Luhmann’s. The danger is that sometimes you (well, I) forget the context in which a thought occurred. So that a few months later you read the short Zettel and you wonder “what was that all about?”

With digital, the friction is much lower. It’s much easier to collect and connect thoughts, so you (well, I) produce even more rubbish. It is also easier however, to provide a bit of context to thoughts, say copy-pasting a paragraph of the original source, or to work out thoughts a bit more by writing a few full sentences.

Even when you have a paper ZK, you will probably have a connected digital repository for things like longer quotes, digital attachments (ever tried writing down an internet or YouTube link on paper?) or slightly longer contextual material that would require forever to copy by hand. I started developing such a dual system but I quickly discovered that it created significant complexity: what is on paper, vs what is digital? and what is the criterion based on which you make that decision. You now have two systems to search instead of one.

I also considered printing out ZK cards. This is a fairly clumsy process to begin with. A6 printing is not something typical desktop printers like doing, and neither is printing on heavy paper. Putting 4 cards A6 on a piece of A4 paper can be done but is not easy, and when you cut them up with scissors and you go skewed the cut cards will not fit well into your physical A6 “Kasten”.

More serious through, once I had the cards printed out, I found myself writing on the cards, or changing the order or cards (easily done with paper), which then didn’t correspond anymore with the digital ZK.

So, both approaches ended in two systems, with me as the human admin desperately trying to keep them in sync. Therefore, unless you can think of something really clever and elegant for integrating systems, I’d advise you against combining digital and paper.

harr

@erikh said:
So, both approaches ended in two systems, with me as the human admin desperately trying to keep them in sync. Therefore, unless you can think of something really clever and elegant for integrating systems, I’d advise you against combining digital and paper.

That matches my experience. Trying to "keep them in sync" eats up too much time. I think that time is better spent on doing one system well.

Amontillado

@GeoEng51 said:
One of my senior colleagues had been doing this for so long that he had standard paragraphs stored on a magnetic card, which could be retrieved and added into a report he was writing (he tended to take the straight forward jobs that didn't require a lot of creative thinking).

There you go, the dawn of transclusion!

Sascha

My solution is to use paper where it shines the most. I use paper for developing ideas when I feel that it needs developing. I have stack of paper on my desk and burn through a lot of sheets when I use it as a thinking canvas.

Another experiment of mine is the traditional notebook in which I dedicate one page per idea (A4). I am experimenting with mini-essays and chose to add the spacial limitation as an additional input.

JasperMcFly

Consider a hybrid system that combines the best of both worlds. Main notes are paper, everything else is digital. Obsidian - digital - is a great place for source notes, structure notes, and an alphabetical keyword index that points to your paper notes. You retain the searchability of digital and the ability to write main notes on paper.

Keep the terms in the index at a higher level when able - for example, an entry on democracy points to notes on voter's rights, political literacy, and the constitution. At writing time this broader index will point you to related ideas you had not considered.

Edmund

@harr said:
Write your notes in Obsidian. Print them out, when you want to shuffle paper.

That's a brilliant idea! Put your printouts on your desk or on your outline wall. Visit them often and rearrange them.

More about: https://forum.zettelkasten.de/discussion/comment/20858/