A simple Zettelkasten is the best way to start
The tool doesn’t make the artist.
It’s the artist, thanks to their understanding of the principles, who can create art with any tool.
The same is true with Zettelkasten: it’s not the app or the implementation that gives you the ability to think/write better, but your mastery of the method’s principles.
Today I use a relatively complex system (Vim + Bash scripts). But if I had to go back to a very simple and limited Zettelkasten, I wouldn’t lose anything essential: it would be more inconvenient, yes, but it would still be just as useful for thinking and writing.
That’s why I believe the best way to start is with a simple implementation, something you can master quickly, and focus on what really matters: learning and practicing the method’s principles.
I’ve written more about this idea here: A simple Zettelkasten is the best way to start
“If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” —Isaac Newton
eljardindegestalt.com
Howdy, Stranger!
Comments
I totally Agree.
Just in these past few days I have personally been reflecting further on the simplicity of the Zettelkasten. I'll cite you into my notes :-)
It's a two face coin.
What you say remains to be written in stone; in the title, you highlighted it as a start.
But if expectations grow over time, if the Zettelkasten grows to thousands of notes, if this Zettelkasten has to survive years of practice, complexities emerge that one must learn to manage. And the message "Zettelkasten is simple" could become a trap we have built for ourselves.
The complete suggestion, for me, should be: we must start simple, but with the awareness that along the long journey we will often need to study to improve our practice, and we will also need to question what we have done before and changing things. Just as you have already done, and as I have done dozens of times :-)
Even when an advanced Zettelkasten it will be necessary, this does not necessarily imply complicated apps or techniques. In fact, in my experience, the opposite is true: greater knowledge of the method leads to more fluid and essential techniques, but with the ability to use them correctly thanks to better understanding the principles. More zettel I produce with the time, fewer constructs and features I use. The Zettelkasten is more advanced, but the tools are simpler.
In Reddit (some days ago there was a discussion about Zettelkasten as Rocket Science, surely bornth as a reaction to one of the latest Sascha writing) I've made an analogy between Zettelkasten and running, two practice I do.
When I started running the only things I needed was a couple of shoes and motivation. And it worked.
But over time, that my aspiration become run much better, much faster and much longer. That two things today aren't enough. So, In addition to running, I started studying how to train in a structured way, how to eat, how to tackle all the smallest details of a challenging race. Using the Zettelkasten, by the way
My two cents. In this three points I think I've distilled what I've developed about Zettelkasten and Simplicity.
Exactly :-)
The best recommendation is to start at a simple point (both in terms of Zettelkasten as an object and Zettelkasten as a method) that allows you to take action. Taking action activates learning because you get feedback on whether what you’re doing works or not.
After that, it’s expected that you’ll gradually improve and add complexity. However, I believe it’s more worthwhile to complicate and deepen things at the level of the method (for example, learning the Barbell reading method) rather than at the level of improving the physical/digital features of your Zettelkasten (for example, the note search function).
That said, there have been times when I’ve needed to improve my Zettelkasten as an object in order to enhance my practice—for example, by adding tag autocompletion. This autocompletion reduces friction and allows me to use tags more consistently. But this new feature is not what enables me to create value with my Zettelkasten.
So in summary, my message is: “The Zettelkasten (as an object) can be simple; the valuable complexity lies at the level of the method.”
This is a really nice example :-)
“If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” —Isaac Newton
eljardindegestalt.com
I think the comparison is very good.
The only aspect that doesn't match is that the majority of people who are interested in the Zettelkasten Method are not in the situation of a total beginner overall. They are the engineers, blogger, youtuber, college professors, master students, PhD students, scrum masters, life-long learners etc.
Most have left their beginner status way behind regarding knowledge work.
A fairer comparison is the ambitious runner, who is already doing a lot and now needs to clean his whole approach up: Cleaning up the nutrition, incorporating fatigue management techniques, learn about supplements, engage in mental conditioning, start to plan long-term, etc.
I have a hard time to say that a non-fiction author who wrote three books already is the equivalent of a runner who picks up the shoes for the first time.
I am a Zettler
Mmm yes. Reflecting about that (I made a zettel about :-)), anyway, I can say that using metaphors, maybe, you need to find a compromise between perfect accuracy and simplicity, so that the message is clear and gets across as straight as possible. :-)
I' ve used my own experience to formulate it in a spontaneous mode.
I don't think you failed in choosing a good metaphor for what you tried to say. I think that you chose a good metaphor that illustrated a misconception on how to view the level of expertise of many people who are interested in the Zettelkasten Method.
I am a Zettler