Zettelkasten - Term and Definition
My Zettelkasten is almost 3 years old. It's no longer a baby, it's already a toddler. Today I started my monthly review. My random note selector offered me a note with the title "Zettelkasten" for review. It's a note tagged with #type/term and I was expecting a proper definition for "Zettelkasten". Surprisingly, I a found a long list of terms and definitions:
A Zettelkasten (German: 'slipbox', plural Zettelkästen) or card file consists of small items of information stored on Zettels (German: 'slips'), paper slips or cards, that may be linked to each other through subject headings or other metadata such as numbers and tags. It has often been used as a system of note-taking and personal knowledge management for research, study, and writing.
A Zettelkasten is a personal tool for thinking and writing. It has hypertextual features to make a web of thought possible. The difference to other systems is that you create a web of thoughts instead of notes of arbitrary size and form, and emphasize connection, not a collection.
A Zettelkasten is a writing tool meant to create an external, dynamically linked notes environment (even database) riddled with varying trains of thought that can be pulled from and expanded on in written content. Emphasis on "written content."
The Zettelkasten method is a personal strategic process for thinking and writing.
A Zettelkasten is just a low-overhead, high-value way of creating, managing, and making use of a system of notes.
A Zettelkasten is a method of organising short, single-point notes and cross-referencing them.
What are my options for this review?
- Find my favorite definition.
- Create my own definition.
- Ask the community for a good definition.
Edmund Gröpl
100% organic thinking. Less than 5% AI-generated ideas.
- Your ideas?5 votes
- Favorite definition20.00%
- Own definition40.00%
- Good definition40.00%
Howdy, Stranger!
Comments
@Edmund Personally, I like @Sascha 's definition
I don't know if I'd actually "choose" one. I would, probably, explicitly mention that there are several definitions in use.
I would probably take one of two approaches.
A title with "What is a zettelkasten" or "Common definitions.. " , or something similar, with the actual definitions and attributions mentioned.
Finding a smaller set of definition categories and create notes like "Zettelkasten as ..."
I'd consolidate and try to come up with my own as to what Zettelkasten means to me at that point, basing on what others have said. Wikipedia, Sacha, and Bob have commonalities to build on, while the rest may be too generic. Three years of using and developing the method may be a good time to reflect on how things have evolved since I first adopted them.
Thank you.
- I now have three notes:
Zettelkasten - Defined by AI
I like the idea of Perplexity AI to show the sources for building up a definition. That also could be a good practice when creating my own definition.
Edmund Gröpl
100% organic thinking. Less than 5% AI-generated ideas.
Great advice. Thank you. I'll share my results.
Edmund Gröpl
100% organic thinking. Less than 5% AI-generated ideas.
In such cases, I'd tease out the "particles". Each particle (like: hypertextuality) adds to the concept, which is basically a construct to be a scheme to cut out a part of reality for your perception.
So, for example, some - mine included - are in a sense not "clean" concepts, since they include the purpose of the Zettelkasten, which is - hopefully a non-controversial claim - a tool. A tool doesn't change its nature if you change the purpose. A hammer, for example, doesn't stop being a hammer if I use it to train my grip.
A mix of descriptive and prescriptive elements is generally a warning sign and can resolved by contextualisation: Is the prescriptive meant to be part of the actual definition, or is it rather a suggested contextualisation or even merely are statement of original intent?
This "particle analyses" is in itself a (thinking tool). You can apply it and see where it leads you (exploration), you can use it a bit more intensely with added judgement to get more to the bottom of the "cut out part of reality", etc. Your intention will likely shape the resulting learning experience.
I, myself, tend to use it for exploration and in many cases come up with a definition of a concept that is closer to my goals than the concepts I encountered. However, my work is rather research-driven than review-driven.
I work with concepts with the particular intent of treating them as "cutting"-tools of reality. Attention is an example: Attention can be seen as a commodity, which unlocks thinking about the modern attention economy. It can also be seen as a phenomenological entity within the mind, which unlocks other lines of thoughts. My own work would involve the mapping of these two aspects of reality, which means that I have to come up with something that allows a coherent connection. This something could be a new concept of attention or some kind of "translation device" that maps something like an exchange of currency from one medium (mind) to another (economy).
But, coming back to the basic question, I'd start with the above-mentioned particle analysis, if you want to explore the reality underneath the concept constructs.
I am a Zettler
A value-adding reply. Thank you Sascha. I'll keep it in mind.
Today I started from scratch. My first idea was to define the context of the desired "Zettelkasten" definition.
Some of the "particles" from Zettelkasten are already included.
Edmund Gröpl
100% organic thinking. Less than 5% AI-generated ideas.
This is also my way
As a German speaker, I knew about "Zettelkasten" well before I had heard anything about the particulars of Luhmann's setup. For the longest time it never really meant anything more than "box of (index) cards"—usually, but not always, with some sort of ordering principle which might, or might not, resemble some sort of hypertext. See the German Wiktionary or DWDS to get a taste of what I mean.
The AI definitions partly depend on cultural/linguistic context, current trends, etc., which is why they contain nomative-ish claims about Zettelkasten being a "[PKM] system [...] developed by Niklas Luhmann". Interestingly, ChatGPT adds more nuance when we converse in German. While it still describes a strong link between Zettelkasten and Luhmann, it also clearly separates them by first stating that 1) Zettelkasten is simply "a card-based system for organizing knowledge" , and then later adding that 2) it was "popularized by Luhmann".
That said, I understand that a term can take on different, more specific meanings outside of its original language context. Still, for your purposes it might make sense to take the basic German definition as a starting point. I think such an approach would allow more room for a more broadly inclusive definition, one that accounts for individual strategies and preferences.
I want to point all of this out because I've often had conversations where it is implied that a system isn't proper Zettelkasten, or is merely Zettelkasten-inspired, simply because it doesn't strictly follow Luhmann's example. Many individuals show obvious frustration when they aren't able to effectively recreate Luhmann's specific system. I also keep hearing the mantra that Zettelkasten is only useful for the humanities, and is not good for learning technical subjects. I knew someone in college who used a paper-based, non-Luhmannian Zettelkasten to study math, programming, etc.—that is to say, quite technical. They wrote notes on one side, and on the other side they wrote questions that were answered by the notes—i.e. their notes were also flashcards. They kept their Zettelkasten sorted and categorized, but they never bothered with any sort of hypertext. The system was, and continues to be, very effective. The person never mentioned Luhmann.
Based on what I've written above, I would say that the Wikipedia definition is the most broadly accurate. The other definitions are much narrower in scope, specifically describing features of a Luhmannian Zettelkasten. Luhmann's system may currently be the most popular expression of the Zettelkasten (and for good reason), but I fear that the binary representation of it as being either "what Luhmann did", or not being Zettelkasten at all, might lead some to discard it as a medium when they aren't able to make Luhmann's specific system work for them. I've actually witnessed this a few times: Someone tells me that they switched back to regular notes because Zettelkasten didn't work for them, I tell them about other things one can do with the Zettelkasten medium, and they express surprise that something like that is possible.
A good definition in the sense of being clear, precise, and useful for its intended purpose should be:
Here is a collection of key terms ("particles" as @Sascha proposed) with their named relations. It's my summary from syntopical reading:
You have a good definition in mind? So let's start with a first relation:
Use our survey: Part 1 and Part 2
Edmund Gröpl
100% organic thinking. Less than 5% AI-generated ideas.