@GeoEng51 I have a question for you as a Logseq user.
My thinking is highly non-linear, most of the times one thought that comes to my mind is unrelated with the next one and they belong to different atomic notes. I just cannot force myself to think about the same thing for a long time, thus, I have problems in writing atomic notes in file-based software like Obsidian or The Archive.
Do you think outliners like Logseq and Tana are more advantageous for a thinking process like mine? How do you keep Zettels in Logseq? What can you advise me, do you experience something similar?
Selen. Psychology freak.
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.”
@c4lvorias said:
I just cannot force myself to think about the same thing for a long time, thus, I have problems in writing atomic notes in file-based software like Obsidian or The Archive.
I've always thought of Obsidian as being highly non-linear, so I'm a little surprised that you struggle using it. Are you maybe trying to work with a particular workflow that is inherently linear? Are you maybe focussed too much on creating some sort of folder structure, or something similar? When I used Obsidian I actually turned off the folder plugin. Everything went into one folder. I frequently used the canvas to structure and juxtapose cards, and I also embedded canvases in canvases for a sort of quasi-linear structure, but I never worried about any sort of strict linearity.
Note: I'm not trying to defend Obsidian or anything. I don't even use it myself anymore. I'm just curious. Also, if Obsidian didn't work for you, I'm not sure Logseq will either, since they aren't really that different. That is, unless the outliner features solve your "linearity problem" in a way that Obsidian's simple markdown notes do not. On the one hand, it would make it easier to think in short spurts without having to constantly create new files. On the other hand, the structure of outlines/bullets automatically suggests a kind of linearity. Maybe a canvas-based approach, in either Obsidian or Logseq or some other app, really would be the optimal strategy for you?
I was after writing everything in a daily journal with [['ing concepts and statements so that they can aggregate over time but it is also plausible in Obsidian. Moreover, I think it's better to force yourself, it's better for the quality of thinking even though no output is generated. I'm just tired of trying to push myself and cannot understand why I cannot achieve any workflow. I'm too motivated to benefit from the Zettelkasten Method but it's been a couple of years. Searching for a better way to handle things and wondered if someone else's workflow can create a magic wand effect.
I can try Canvas, you're right. After all I am trying new things and fail all the time... (Just too demotivated that it's funny, pff!)
Selen. Psychology freak.
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.”
My thinking is highly non-linear, most of the times one thought that comes to my mind is unrelated with the next one and they belong to different atomic notes. I just cannot force myself to think about the same thing for a long time, thus, I have problems in writing atomic notes in file-based software like Obsidian or The Archive.
Do you think outliners like Logseq and Tana are more advantageous for a thinking process like mine? How do you keep Zettels in Logseq? What can you advise me, do you experience something similar?
I can empathize with your "problem". My brain works similarly and I've resisted the very structured approach to developing zettels and a ZK that some people have described in this forum (I'm not criticizing their approach; just saying it doesn't work for me). I would describe their approach as starting with a structure note and then "peeling off" various zettels as subsets of an over-arching concept. This is a top-down approach with a strong hierarchy. While I sometimes use that process, I prefer the more organic approach where zettels develop on their own (so to speak), connect to other zettels, and then eventually, if there are enough of them, might suggest a structure note as a convenient entry point to the web of concepts.
However, I digress from your question.
I have stuck with and come to love Logseq because it is flexible and addresses at least part of your question. It felt odd, at first, to put everything into a daily journal. Then I realized that each day was simply a dumping ground, into which I could place anything that came to mind. This has great power. My mind also generates stuff randomly, but it has the additional problem that it forgets quickly (an issue with being in my 70s, I guess). So the daily dumping box is critical for capturing and retaining ideas that either pop into my head or that are appealing when I encounter them. I keep Logseq handy on my iPhone to facilitate quick capture.
I then heavily use tagging to make sure I don't lose the idea. Before anyone turns their figurative nose up in the air about tagging, consider the following. In Logseq, each tag operates as a page that collects all ideas attached to it (there is a subtle difference between thinking the tag is attached to the idea versus the idea is attached to the tag). If the idea is sufficiently simple, then tagging it may be enough to find it later and connect it to other related ideas. When using this approach, one adjusts one's thinking about what is a tag and what is a zettel. An accurately worded tag (I try to make mine specific) with several relevant attached ideas operates just as well as a zettel as does a separate note (or page, in Logseq terminology) that contains those ideas.
As an example of a very specific tag, one part of my ZK deals with emergency preparedness. I could have a tag "#preparedness". But that is not very useful because it would quickly have tens or even hundreds of items attached to it. But a tag such as "#72-hour_emergency_go_bag" or "[[72-hour emergency go bag]]" is much more useful. Why? Because it is very specific and because it naturally attracts related ideas and information.
Note in the previous paragraph that the two ways of designating a tag are equivalent in Logseq - they both produce a page for that term, that collects any ideas attached to the tag.
If the idea is more complex, I may later create one or more separate zettels and copy the idea to them. This is true when I am reading through an article or book, or listening to a lecture, or even taking meeting notes. At first, the ideas all get dumped into the daily journal and later they get parsed into zettels.
Logseq has another powerful feature that enables this "parsing", which is a very good bulleting/indenting system. Using various levels of indenting really helps me to decide what makes up one zettel (I mentioned this in a different post). With practice, I've become efficient at implementing a good indenting system as I write/capture the ideas (but not perfect; see next paragraph).
There is an ebb and flow to how I maintain my ZK. By this I mean, sometimes I am busy just getting ideas down into my daily journal and other times I am adjusting bullets and indenting, rearranging material, tagging, and occasionally creating zettels. I purposefully set aside time to do this second task, either after a meeting or lecture, or perhaps later in the day. The evening is an excellent time to review the daily dump and make adjustments as just described.
I hope this helps you, or at least gives you some ideas to try out. We all have to figure out ways of creating and maintaining a ZK that works with the way we think (and forget ). I admire the way your brain works and sincerely hope you can create an interface to your ZK that is both effective and satisfying.
Thanks for asking this question. It has motivated me to think more about how I work with my ZK and to more formally describe some processes that I have touched on lightly in the forum before. The most important of these is "tagging", whose potential I believe is misunderstood and highly under-rated and underappreciated in the ZK world. Logseq, by how it implements tagging, not only multiplies the power of tagging for creating and connecting zettels, but blurs the line between what makes up a tag and what a zettel in a most useful way.
As an example of a very specific tag, one part of my ZK deals with emergency preparedness. I could have a tag "#preparedness". But that is not very useful because it would quickly have tens or even hundreds of items attached to it. But a tag such as "#72-hour_emergency_go_bag" or "[[72-hour emergency go bag]]" is much more useful. Why? Because it is very specific and because it naturally attracts related ideas and information.
Thank a lot for the detailed answer! Tagging indeed seems valuable but I wonder if it creates a thinking pattern focusing on objects. Like the object-oriented programming concept.
You motivated me to diverse from general principles. Even though I really like atomic notes the only descriptive property of the ZKM is connecting knowledge to create new. Other than that, it is all about writing and finding what you've written again.
@vvirr said:
I can relate. I've jumped around a fair amount, too. Have you spent any time thinking about your "ideal" system, what that would look like?
I cannot envision the ideal since the application is generally not what I've thought before. I can only try and be mindful about whether the process is appropriate.
Selen. Psychology freak.
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.”
Thank a lot for the detailed answer! Tagging indeed seems valuable but I wonder if it creates a thinking pattern focusing on objects. Like the object-oriented programming concept.
>
The example I gave was indeed an object tag, but I use the same approach when using tags for topics. For example, I have several tags for spiritual topics, such as "[[Christ - comfort and strength]]".
You motivated me to diverse from general principles. Even though I really like atomic notes the only descriptive property of the ZKM is connecting knowledge to create new. Other than that, it is all about writing and finding what you've written again.
I totally agree with this statement. I lean toward having zettels that are coherent but don't worry excessively about them being atomic. That is, I follow the principle of atomicity but it isn't paramount in my practice. For instance, part of my Zettelkasten contains items that contribute to a personal history, such as memories of certain events in my life (this is a project I've been working on at the request of my kids). I record one memory per zettel. I could break them down a lot more if I was being obsessive about the atomicity principle, but that seems counter-productive.
The approach in Logseq of using bullets and several levels of indenting automatically encourages you to separate your material into logical chunks and also to present them in a logical order. Since I can link any bullet point to any other bullet point, and am not limited to linking to full zettels (or in Logseq, what they call "pages"), making each zettel atomic is less critical. To me, it is more important that my writing has logic and coherence.
As an aside, I don't like the term "outliner" when writing in bullet style with indenting (which is the term some people use when referring to how Logseq works). It suggests you are simply skimming the surface and not capturing everything important, which is nonsense. Each bullet is just one paragraph, but the indenting allows you to indicate relative status. In Logseq, you can collapse deeper level indents and you can easily move paragraphs around by clicking and dragging on a bullet point. This minimizes the friction when moving ideas around, which I do to get a better sense of flow and when I'm composing a longer article or post.
Comments
@GeoEng51 I have a question for you as a Logseq user.
My thinking is highly non-linear, most of the times one thought that comes to my mind is unrelated with the next one and they belong to different atomic notes. I just cannot force myself to think about the same thing for a long time, thus, I have problems in writing atomic notes in file-based software like Obsidian or The Archive.
Do you think outliners like Logseq and Tana are more advantageous for a thinking process like mine? How do you keep Zettels in Logseq? What can you advise me, do you experience something similar?
Selen. Psychology freak.
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.”
― Ursula K. Le Guin
I've always thought of Obsidian as being highly non-linear, so I'm a little surprised that you struggle using it. Are you maybe trying to work with a particular workflow that is inherently linear? Are you maybe focussed too much on creating some sort of folder structure, or something similar? When I used Obsidian I actually turned off the folder plugin. Everything went into one folder. I frequently used the canvas to structure and juxtapose cards, and I also embedded canvases in canvases for a sort of quasi-linear structure, but I never worried about any sort of strict linearity.
Note: I'm not trying to defend Obsidian or anything. I don't even use it myself anymore. I'm just curious. Also, if Obsidian didn't work for you, I'm not sure Logseq will either, since they aren't really that different. That is, unless the outliner features solve your "linearity problem" in a way that Obsidian's simple markdown notes do not. On the one hand, it would make it easier to think in short spurts without having to constantly create new files. On the other hand, the structure of outlines/bullets automatically suggests a kind of linearity. Maybe a canvas-based approach, in either Obsidian or Logseq or some other app, really would be the optimal strategy for you?
I was after writing everything in a daily journal with [['ing concepts and statements so that they can aggregate over time but it is also plausible in Obsidian. Moreover, I think it's better to force yourself, it's better for the quality of thinking even though no output is generated. I'm just tired of trying to push myself and cannot understand why I cannot achieve any workflow. I'm too motivated to benefit from the Zettelkasten Method but it's been a couple of years. Searching for a better way to handle things and wondered if someone else's workflow can create a magic wand effect.
I can try Canvas, you're right. After all I am trying new things and fail all the time... (Just too demotivated that it's funny, pff!)
Selen. Psychology freak.
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.”
― Ursula K. Le Guin
I can empathize with your "problem". My brain works similarly and I've resisted the very structured approach to developing zettels and a ZK that some people have described in this forum (I'm not criticizing their approach; just saying it doesn't work for me). I would describe their approach as starting with a structure note and then "peeling off" various zettels as subsets of an over-arching concept. This is a top-down approach with a strong hierarchy. While I sometimes use that process, I prefer the more organic approach where zettels develop on their own (so to speak), connect to other zettels, and then eventually, if there are enough of them, might suggest a structure note as a convenient entry point to the web of concepts.
However, I digress from your question.
I have stuck with and come to love Logseq because it is flexible and addresses at least part of your question. It felt odd, at first, to put everything into a daily journal. Then I realized that each day was simply a dumping ground, into which I could place anything that came to mind. This has great power. My mind also generates stuff randomly, but it has the additional problem that it forgets quickly (an issue with being in my 70s, I guess). So the daily dumping box is critical for capturing and retaining ideas that either pop into my head or that are appealing when I encounter them. I keep Logseq handy on my iPhone to facilitate quick capture.
I then heavily use tagging to make sure I don't lose the idea. Before anyone turns their figurative nose up in the air about tagging, consider the following. In Logseq, each tag operates as a page that collects all ideas attached to it (there is a subtle difference between thinking the tag is attached to the idea versus the idea is attached to the tag). If the idea is sufficiently simple, then tagging it may be enough to find it later and connect it to other related ideas. When using this approach, one adjusts one's thinking about what is a tag and what is a zettel. An accurately worded tag (I try to make mine specific) with several relevant attached ideas operates just as well as a zettel as does a separate note (or page, in Logseq terminology) that contains those ideas.
As an example of a very specific tag, one part of my ZK deals with emergency preparedness. I could have a tag "#preparedness". But that is not very useful because it would quickly have tens or even hundreds of items attached to it. But a tag such as "#72-hour_emergency_go_bag" or "[[72-hour emergency go bag]]" is much more useful. Why? Because it is very specific and because it naturally attracts related ideas and information.
Note in the previous paragraph that the two ways of designating a tag are equivalent in Logseq - they both produce a page for that term, that collects any ideas attached to the tag.
If the idea is more complex, I may later create one or more separate zettels and copy the idea to them. This is true when I am reading through an article or book, or listening to a lecture, or even taking meeting notes. At first, the ideas all get dumped into the daily journal and later they get parsed into zettels.
Logseq has another powerful feature that enables this "parsing", which is a very good bulleting/indenting system. Using various levels of indenting really helps me to decide what makes up one zettel (I mentioned this in a different post). With practice, I've become efficient at implementing a good indenting system as I write/capture the ideas (but not perfect; see next paragraph).
There is an ebb and flow to how I maintain my ZK. By this I mean, sometimes I am busy just getting ideas down into my daily journal and other times I am adjusting bullets and indenting, rearranging material, tagging, and occasionally creating zettels. I purposefully set aside time to do this second task, either after a meeting or lecture, or perhaps later in the day. The evening is an excellent time to review the daily dump and make adjustments as just described.
I hope this helps you, or at least gives you some ideas to try out. We all have to figure out ways of creating and maintaining a ZK that works with the way we think (and forget
). I admire the way your brain works and sincerely hope you can create an interface to your ZK that is both effective and satisfying.
Thanks for asking this question. It has motivated me to think more about how I work with my ZK and to more formally describe some processes that I have touched on lightly in the forum before. The most important of these is "tagging", whose potential I believe is misunderstood and highly under-rated and underappreciated in the ZK world. Logseq, by how it implements tagging, not only multiplies the power of tagging for creating and connecting zettels, but blurs the line between what makes up a tag and what a zettel in a most useful way.
I can relate. I've jumped around a fair amount, too. Have you spent any time thinking about your "ideal" system, what that would look like?
@GeoEng51
That's also an excellent example of specific object tags!
https://zettelkasten.de/posts/object-tags-vs-topic-tags/
(Would love to know more about your 72h bag contents some day
)
Author at Zettelkasten.de • https://christiantietze.de/
Thank a lot for the detailed answer! Tagging indeed seems valuable but I wonder if it creates a thinking pattern focusing on objects. Like the object-oriented programming concept.
You motivated me to diverse from general principles. Even though I really like atomic notes the only descriptive property of the ZKM is connecting knowledge to create new. Other than that, it is all about writing and finding what you've written again.
I cannot envision the ideal since the application is generally not what I've thought before. I can only try and be mindful about whether the process is appropriate.
Selen. Psychology freak.
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.”
― Ursula K. Le Guin
>
The example I gave was indeed an object tag, but I use the same approach when using tags for topics. For example, I have several tags for spiritual topics, such as "[[Christ - comfort and strength]]".
I totally agree with this statement. I lean toward having zettels that are coherent but don't worry excessively about them being atomic. That is, I follow the principle of atomicity but it isn't paramount in my practice. For instance, part of my Zettelkasten contains items that contribute to a personal history, such as memories of certain events in my life (this is a project I've been working on at the request of my kids). I record one memory per zettel. I could break them down a lot more if I was being obsessive about the atomicity principle, but that seems counter-productive.
The approach in Logseq of using bullets and several levels of indenting automatically encourages you to separate your material into logical chunks and also to present them in a logical order. Since I can link any bullet point to any other bullet point, and am not limited to linking to full zettels (or in Logseq, what they call "pages"), making each zettel atomic is less critical. To me, it is more important that my writing has logic and coherence.
As an aside, I don't like the term "outliner" when writing in bullet style with indenting (which is the term some people use when referring to how Logseq works). It suggests you are simply skimming the surface and not capturing everything important, which is nonsense. Each bullet is just one paragraph, but the indenting allows you to indicate relative status. In Logseq, you can collapse deeper level indents and you can easily move paragraphs around by clicking and dragging on a bullet point. This minimizes the friction when moving ideas around, which I do to get a better sense of flow and when I'm composing a longer article or post.