@andang76 said:
Throughout the whole discussion I never really focused on the social aspects you mentioned.
The relationships and mutual considerations between the authors of different Zettelkastens are not particularly useful to me, to be honest :-).
I'm not a fan of any faction, I have no particular motivation to get involved in social dynamics.
The only human dynamic I’ve noticed—this applies in general Zettelkasten narrative—is that each author tends to place more value on the approach they personally believe in, whether consciously or unconsciously. This also happens because, mainly and quite simply, one uses one’s own method, while one observes the methods of others.
That’s human, perfectly legitimate—but when I need to analyze what I read, it’s something I have to take into account that something subjective could be contained in what I read.
I read and analyzed your essay with the aim of learning something more about the Zettelkasten.
From this perspective, I tried to identify the differences between the two proposed approaches, in the abstract.
I wasn’t particularly interested in how Bob Doto does his; even if he did it in a terrible way, that wouldn’t be my concern today, as my focus today isn’t there. It could just as well be a mediocre way of implementing a model, but I'm interested in the model, not in the particular implementation.
I spent many—really many—hours on this process of reconstructing the models, building a map of the two approaches: half based on what you wrote in your essay (thank you for the opportunity), and the other half by reflecting on the subject myself, using your statements as a kind of “stimulus” and reacting them :-).
It was a very constructive exercise.
In this process, by putting all the pieces together, I found some thoughts that seemed to be in conflict. And those are the ones I reported in the first post of the thread.
In short, then, in my reasoning there are no social dynamics involved. I simply find that some of the points you expressed about one of the two approaches, taken in the abstract, don’t quite add up.
Now, I am between a rock and hard place. I am not saying that this is what you were after consciously. I described the social layer which is one plausible explanation why you did some assumptions. Not maliciously or anything. But since I have the habit of monitoring the social layer of otherwise factual discussions, I thought to mention it for the mere reason to provide an explanation for what otherwise would look like a strange fallacy out of nowhere.
But we can rest this. Or, I have to let this go, because I'd have to deeply dissect what you've written which would be in part unfair, since we are writing rather casually and would take too much time.
I am saying that a Ferrari has more power and that you can drive slow or fast with it. With the Panda you can only drive slow. However, to drive the Ferrari you need to build your driving skills. I am not making a general statement about how to move better.
This is another tunnel vision aspect: In the article, I explicitly wrote:
The beauty of this implementation is that it is possible to follow both different approaches within the same Zettelkasten. From the perspective of atomicity as the input, the Zettelkasten would have domains in which notes are atomic and therefore proper, and other domains that are not atomic and thus improper. From the perspective of atomicity as the desired outcome, the domains are just on different stages in the process.
This is true for my Zettelkasten. In some areas, my notes contain concise statements, which is particularly true for my collection of mythologems.
I am consciously building substructures in my Zettelkasten that look very similar to the notes that I on surface level looked down upon.
So, my approach is exactly as flexible and divers as yours according to your description.
In my view of your example, this way you’re not using a Ferrari as if it were a Panda; rather, you have both the Ferrari and the Panda, and you use the vehicle that’s most suitable for the occasion :-)
If your reference model is the Full-Fledged System, and for a certain activity you’re building a Prompt System, then you’ve shifted from the Full-Fledged System to the Prompt-Based System—you’re no longer using the Full-Fledged :-)
Just capturing the statement is one of the first possible steps to fully develop the underlying idea. So, I don't change anything, since driving slow is part of driving fast: To drive fast, you have to accelerate, and you'll drive slow until you speed up enough to consider yourself driving fast.
I drive appropriate to the situation, fast on the Autobahn, slow in the city and anything in between, depending on the situation. But I don't switch approaches as I don't switch personalities when I talk to my grandmother. I merely don't use street language and talk about different things.
There is a car that can drive slow and fast and a driver, who nows when and how to drive fast and slow.
And that’s exactly what I do as well, after all.
It’s not that the paradigm of the Full-Fledged System adapts to another situation—it’s the shift in paradigm that allows you to handle the situation.
In this reflection, I’ve left aside the potential problems that come with having to properly master two different models—I think I already hinted at this earlier, anyway.
It implies a certain friction in making choices, for example.
Yes. But since I don't switch anything, there are no friction costs by choosing between approaches. There is just more fuel burned (mental energy) to move faster (process more deeply).
And in practice you end up having to learn two different ways of doing the Zettelkasten, at least if you want to do both of them at a high level. Having two, moreover, it’s hard to go in depth with both, unlike someone who specializes in just one.
No, there is but one continuum as there is just on gas pedal that I press down.
Something that often happens in computer programming, anyway, I can add. There are languages that support multiparadigms, but rarely in high level practice do you manage to adopt them all well, and when you become really good at one you can almost eliminate its theoretical limits of following only one.
The ability to go vertical can be seen as another declination of “power.”
Putting aside Bob Doto
Just for the record:
The entire point of writing short-ish, single-idea notes—so-called "atomic notes"—is because it’s easier to connect a single idea to many other single-ideas, then it is to connect a complex idea to other complex ideas. We do this, not to gain insight or make meaningful connections, but to write more. Writing is the place where insight is finally crystallized.Bob himself
Almost exactly what I am saying. To be fair, there is link-context in the links at the bottom of his notes, which is informed by this article according to his book, which involves some meaning in the connection.
and the other for a moment and focusing on Luhmann, I have reason to believe that if Luhmann had found any limits in the approach he was using, he would have included some other adaptations, and we would have seen a different slip box to study.
Then I am happy to hear that reason and the rejection of the reasons why he wouldn't change his system even facing the limitations.
Or it could be that he did do something, but it’s not recorded in the only thing capable of telling us what he did—his slip box. Probably adaptations remained in his mind.
Given how much he produced, using his method (whole pieces of sociology and systems theory, from what I learned about him), this method while apparently narrow, can actually be remarkably broad.
You're attributing the outcome to his system, but you miss to take into account other reasons of his productivity.
@andang76 said:
A wonderful exchange of ideas, by the way. It allows me to learn a lot. Thanks.
And thanks too for being patient with me
I am not patient. I have just one gas pedal, escalating through the various intensities. But I spare you the theory behind.
You're attributing the outcome to his system, but you miss to take into account other reasons of his productivity.
No, in general I tend not to consider the Zettelkasten as a "magic box" that produces valuable things in place of its author. And in fact, I confirmed this position again on Reddit a couple of days ago, clearly writing in a discussion opened by Bob Doto itself that simply having a slip box is by no means sufficient to write a book :-).
However, if we are discussing what one method allows compared to another, Luhmann himself teaches us that with an approach made up of constructs that may seem limited, if used appropriately, the author is still able to develop a remarkable capacity for thought. One can have significant practice in cognitive dynamics by using pieces of paper that are physically limited and therefore encourage being telegraphic. These will probably be different cognitive dynamics from those developed when writing each idea as a fully developed thought (I’m borrowing the term “micro-essay” from the video with Nori, very effective), but again, they will simply be different—not less effective or more limited. It is the author who ultimately determines their effectiveness.
I’d say it’s exactly the opposite: believing in the idea that, in the Zettelkasten, the author is the fundamental part of the method, the comparison between the various approaches (provided that they are properly understood and well executed by the author—this is essential) becomes, in my opinion, far less relevant.
I became particularly convinced of the power of Luhmann’s approach when Luhmann himself showed that he had truly “mastered” it, explaining its underlying dynamics in the paper Communicating with Zettelkasten. That reading made me realize that to achieve great things, what’s needed is my own well-thought-out system rather than simply the most sophisticated one available, and that it is crucial for every Zettelkasten author to strive as much as possible to reach that same mastery of their own method, rather than going in search of the “best” method presented by others.
This leads to the apparent paradox that, while I acknowledge Luhmann for having devised a formidable system, at the same time I strongly reject the idea that the only properly made Zettelkasten is the one done exactly as he did it—a thesis supported by a particular school of thought. Every author has the possibility of creating their own formidable system.
Just capturing the statement is one of the first possible steps to fully develop the underlying idea. So, I don't change anything, since driving slow is part of driving fast: To drive fast, you have to accelerate, and you'll drive slow until you speed up enough to consider yourself driving fast.
I’ve been reflecting on this point over the past few days. In my view, making statements "sometimes" and “as a secondary option” can be very different from choosing to do so in a systematic and specialized way. Over time, I believe the two approaches tend to develop very different ways of reading, thinking, and generating ideas. I actually see completely different mental rhythms, which determine how long I dwell on the same idea rather than exploring new ones, or trying to connect and combine them with others—and probably also a different balance between intuitive or creative thinking and more logical thinking. If I create statements only occasionally, I don’t think I can achieve the same kind of thinking as someone who fully immerses themselves in this approach, to the point of even overcoming its expressive limitations.
I feel like making a comparison—surely an improper one, but maybe it conveys the idea. Different cognitive dynamics like different fiber types and physiological features for a runner. Different trainings, different ways of developing the ability of the runner and so different results.
I run on road, so "slow" :-), theoretically, I might have the option one day to run faster than usual, but I'll never be able to run as fast as a trained sprinter.
You're attributing the outcome to his system, but you miss to take into account other reasons of his productivity.
No, in general I tend not to consider the Zettelkasten as a "magic box" that produces valuable things in place of its author. And in fact, I confirmed this position again on Reddit a couple of days ago, clearly writing in a discussion opened by Bob Doto itself that simply having a slip box is by no means sufficient to write a book :-).
In general, no. Locally, here: Yes. The sentence "Given how much he produced, using his method (whole pieces of sociology and systems theory, from what I learned about him), this method while apparently narrow, can actually be remarkably broad." is the culprit.
You cannot infer from his productivity directly the quality of his system.
This is, btw., another problem of drawing the boundary of the Zettelkasten with the user included. Only if you isolate both, you can start learning what comes from the method and what comes from the user.
And keep in mind: Luhmann faced a different set of problems we are faced today: Source availability, opportunity costs and opening a path from the reading practice to the footnote apparatus were major concerns, which are not (or shouldn't be) today.
However, if we are discussing what one method allows compared to another, Luhmann himself teaches us that with an approach made up of constructs that may seem limited, if used appropriately, the author is still able to develop a remarkable capacity for thought. One can have significant practice in cognitive dynamics by using pieces of paper that are physically limited and therefore encourage being telegraphic. These will probably be different cognitive dynamics from those developed when writing each idea as a fully developed thought (I’m borrowing the term “micro-essay” from the video with Nori, very effective), but again, they will simply be different—not less effective or more limited. It is the author who ultimately determines their effectiveness.
This is akin to saying that doing calculus with the help of paper is not more or less effective than doing it just in your mind, just because there are amazing calculators out there.
The difference is being confronted with a prompt which is a task to create value or the already created value itself. And: Thinking in an integrated thinking environment or thinking on a manuscript. I think it should be pretty uncontroversial that you are better off in a workshop than in your living room if you want to do build furniture. Though, an industrious and talented carpenter will outperform me in his living room any day.
I’d say it’s exactly the opposite: believing in the idea that, in the Zettelkasten, the author is the fundamental part of the method, the comparison between the various approaches (provided that they are properly understood and well executed by the author—this is essential) becomes, in my opinion, far less relevant.
For sure, because you include a confounding variable.
I became particularly convinced of the power of Luhmann’s approach when Luhmann himself showed that he had truly “mastered” it, explaining its underlying dynamics in the paper Communicating with Zettelkasten.
I don't think that Luhmann sufficiently explained the underlying dynamics in his paper.
That reading made me realize that to achieve great things, what’s needed is my own well-thought-out system rather than simply the most sophisticated one available, and that it is crucial for every Zettelkasten author to strive as much as possible to reach that same mastery of their own method, rather than going in search of the “best” method presented by others.
One of the view quotes of mine that I am very happy about that they were gifted to me:
The individual in individualisation is the task at hand.
The challenge of knowledge work doesn't bend to our needs. We have to submit to the nature of knowledge and learn how to meet the challenge.
You're attributing the outcome to his system, but you miss to take into account other reasons of his productivity.
No, in general I tend not to consider the Zettelkasten as a "magic box" that produces valuable things in place of its author. And in fact, I confirmed this position again on Reddit a couple of days ago, clearly writing in a discussion opened by Bob Doto itself that simply having a slip box is by no means sufficient to write a book :-).
In general, no. Locally, here: Yes. The sentence "Given how much he produced, using his method (whole pieces of sociology and systems theory, from what I learned about him), this method while apparently narrow, can actually be remarkably broad." is the culprit.
You cannot infer from his productivity directly the quality of his system.
This is, btw., another problem of drawing the boundary of the Zettelkasten with the user included. Only if you isolate both, you can start learning what comes from the method and what comes from the user.
I think it's more difficult infer the quality of a system used by another person, when that person demonstrates clearly that he or she has no quality problems with that system.
I can consider a slip box made of paper cards limited or much less powerful, so valuable for me (and that system is limited for me: I would never have even dreamed of starting a zettelkasten if I had learned of its existence from a book like Antinet Zettelkasten, for example), but I can't consider the same system limited for another.
If you ask me or Luhman how is his zettelkasten, I answer that it is unusable, he says is perfect. So, who is right? :-)
We could establish that Luhmann's system is low valuable if he had also complained about his own system.
And in fact, in general, when users here or in Reddit ask something about his own systems that seem to not work, that's when we try to find solutions to the problems those authors have.
Nori's first try of having zettelkasten was a failure, so "contesting" his fragmented way of writing notes in that case made sense. But other authors don't have that problem.
In general and for the remaining part of the post, for me is almost impossibile propose the correct design of a Zettekasten without considering all the facets of the author side of the system. And, in particular, how the author explains, argues and tells his own zettelkasten.
I'm an engineer, I can hardly think of convincing a fantasy writer (who has a real benefit from his system, at least) that my Zettelkasten works better than his for both of us, and the vice versa still applies.
There is too much subjectivity involved, people tend to develop their own thinking process, so the choice and use of their tools, very differently from each other.
I'd still like to hear the opinions of people who actually use the system being discussed,
in a preferential or even foundational way. I can only make partial analyses and some of them are pretty speculative, I've a limited and unpreferential use of that approach.
A simple heuristic on when one discussion partner starts having "sticky attention"
@andang76 said:
I think it's more difficult infer the quality of a system used by another person, when that person demonstrates clearly that he or she has no quality problems with that system.
Luhmann has objective quality problems with his system:
He complained about his ZK being highly complicated to use and requiring a lot of effort. Embarrassingly, I lost the reference that he stopped using his ZK in his last years and mainly focused on retrieving and writing. If this holds true, it is a very strong indicator that he didn't use his ZK as a thinking machine, but truly as he described it: a conversation partner, which is a highbrow term for a prompt machine.
I can consider a slip box made of paper cards limited or much less powerful, so valuable for me (and that system is limited for me: I would never have even dreamed of starting a zettelkasten if I had learned of its existence from a book like Antinet Zettelkasten, for example), but I can't consider the same system limited for another.
If you ask me or Luhman how is his zettelkasten, I answer that it is unusable, he says is perfect. So, who is right? :-)
I am because I give you empirical evidence (two examples above) and arguments (e.g., the writing inherits the quality of the underlying notes if you stick to what the Zettelkasten gives you).
You are framing this problem as if the ultima ratio is the subjective evaluation. But we are asking objective questions.
We could establish that Luhmann's system is low valuable if he had also complained about his own system.
He did. But more importantly, there are objective problems with his system.
And in fact, in general, when users here or in Reddit ask something about his own systems that seem to not work, that's when we try to find solutions to the problems those authors have.
Nori's first try of having zettelkasten was a failure, so "contesting" his fragmented way of writing notes in that case made sense. But other authors don't have that problem.
Self-reports are highly unreliable, especially online. You need to take into consideration:
Local maxima: People seeing some improvement, but ultimately fall short.
Engagement reward: Incentives to support ideas because it validates past aha moments. (similar to confirmation bias.
You can be happy if people are happy. But happiness is not effectiveness. And we saw in the past countless examples of people convinced that they had found a system, yet abandoned it after they put it to the test.
It happened with Google ("now the problem of knowledge availability is solved!")
It happened with Evernote ("now the problem of personal knowledge availability is solved!")
It happens with AI ("now every problem is resolved" -> I don't know how formulate this )
It happens with users like Nori ("I have discovered the Zettelkasten method only recently, but I wouldn’t hesitate to say that it was life-changing. I have been a scientist at heart my whole life and now I work as one too and I have always struggled with organising my notes. I love the organically organised chaos that is Zettelkasten, because it really works.")
The Zettelkasten Method is not a tool to feel nice, but to think better.
In general and for the remaining part of the post, for me is almost impossibile propose the correct design of a Zettekasten without considering all the facets of the author side of the system. And, in particular, how the author explains, argues and tells his own zettelkasten.
I'm an engineer, I can hardly think of convincing a fantasy writer (who has a real benefit from his system, at least) that my Zettelkasten works better than his for both of us, and the vice versa still applies.
My Zettelkasten has both, since it is based on universal principles and specific applications. Luhmann would say: "We chose the method of generalisation and respecification, instead of analogisation." (somewhere in "Soziale Systeme" (1984) in the beginning)
This is one major aspect of the Zettelkasten Method. Each area inherits the quality of your input, and each area is as connected or separate as you like it to be. The Zettelkasten Method is indeed a universal tool if done right.
Many discussions are similar to the 90s mixed martial arts discussion. Back then, it was still possible for a Karate guy to say that Karate is better than Kung Fu or BJJ. All debate was resolved when the UFC gave everyone the opportunity for the test.
There is too much subjectivity involved, people tend to develop their own thinking process, so the choice and use of their tools, very differently from each other.
I agree. There is too much subjectivity involved. But the solution is not to lie back and say: It is good if it feels good.
I agree. There is too much subjectivity involved. But the solution is not to lie back and say: It is good if it feels good.
My thought is rather "it's good if it works for what you do". Much more objective, I'd say. It's something you can make evident to others.
(feeling good about your way, in any case, is a significant aspect of functioning well. Boring and tedious systems, those that don't engage you, tend to fail, from what I've seen. I wouldn't underestimate the feeling aspect :-) )
Regarding Luhman problems with his system, I don't remember ever reading something particular about it.
I remember reading that he did it all over again a second time.
I can suppose that at a certain point, that enormous volume of cards no longer made sense to be fed. I can also suppose that he reached the limits of the system or he saturated his own capacity and will to go futher in development. If I remember well, I think I read that when approaching the end of his life he wanted to close his loops, rather than open new ones.
But even if we recognize that process reached a limit that forced to stop, what it has achieved until the last card he wrote is definitely beyond the reach of an even above-average zettelkaster, I would say.
Trying to closing another loop regarding the discussion, regarding bad quality of writing a book attributed to Luhman, having a good zettelkasten is only half of the work if you want to publish something good. You can be a good thinker and a very bad writer (written the same thing into Bob Doto thread on reddit some days ago).
I've read some works that I know for sure have a zettelkasten behind them, and they're very mediocre (I won't name names :-)). They do not lack quality of ideas developed, but quality of writing. the Ability to transfer ideas to your audience.
Zettelkasten narrative, in particular, has this big issue. It's full of very smart ideas, but almost nobody understand them :-).
The last chance is to read your book, which I will read as soon as it comes out in English. If even after your book the Zettelkasten remains still hard to understand, one has to acknowledge that the Zettelkasten is not good for writing books :-)
Update
I think I can anticipate the objection: if Luhmann’s books are poorly written, and you know that, how can you claim that you can derive the effectiveness of his method from his results?
Because when I consider Luhmann’s results, I take into account (at least) three different things as "result":
His books (poor quality—I’ve never read them, but I can trust that), but also
All the theory he developed in his fields (what I read on wikipedia about is quite impressive)
Himself became an expert, even a luminary, in that fields (which seems to be widely recognized)
"Thanks" to Zettelkasten? I can consider for him his Zettelkasten at least not less relevant that mine in my days. And for me doing a zettelkasten has been a truly strategic discovery for this second phase of my life, and I’ve only known about it, I think, for three years...
Observing how it has changed the way I practice thinking, I'm sure that a practice like this had a valuable impact in his case.
Question 1: If Zettelkasten's fundamental purpose isn't to be a prompting machine, and if Zettelkasten doesn't have atomicity, what differentiates it from other note-taking methods?
Growing notes based on points of focus is like writing a book, and many people have done it.
There's also domain transferability. (Domain transferability refers to the ability to apply what you learn from one domain to another.)
That is, as you continue to write notes, you may find that one idea connects to another. In fact, in such cases, new ideas are often created by context, so you can simply move to another note and write the idea. In this case, even though you haven't linked, the link context has already been established. The purpose of the link context is to apply the idea.
So, what are the advantages of Zettelkasten, aside from managing massive amounts of data?
Question 2: What are the minimum requirements for Zettelkasten to be called Zettelkasten? Currently, everyone has a different definition of Zettelkasten.
However, I believe there are certain points that distinguish Zettelkasten from other note-taking methods.
So, what are the minimum requirements for Zettelkasten to be distinguished as Zettelkasten?
This question likely shares its roots with question 1.
@iylock said:
This may be redundant, but I want to clarify.
Question 1: If Zettelkasten's fundamental purpose isn't to be a prompting machine, and if Zettelkasten doesn't have atomicity, what differentiates it from other note-taking methods?
Growing notes based on points of focus is like writing a book, and many people have done it.
There's also domain transferability. (Domain transferability refers to the ability to apply what you learn from one domain to another.)
That is, as you continue to write notes, you may find that one idea connects to another. In fact, in such cases, new ideas are often created by context, so you can simply move to another note and write the idea. In this case, even though you haven't linked, the link context has already been established. The purpose of the link context is to apply the idea.
So, what are the advantages of Zettelkasten, aside from managing massive amounts of data?
This question is too broad, since the benefits of the Zettelkasten need to be tracked down to the individual type of action.
For example, creating a one-sentence summary enables a feedback triangle:
The principle of atomicity has specific effects, linking as other effects, etc.
>
Question 2: What are the minimum requirements for Zettelkasten to be called Zettelkasten? Currently, everyone has a different definition of Zettelkasten.
However, I believe there are certain points that distinguish Zettelkasten from other note-taking methods.
So, what are the minimum requirements for Zettelkasten to be distinguished as Zettelkasten?
@iylock said:
This may be redundant, but I want to clarify.
Question 1: If Zettelkasten's fundamental purpose isn't to be a prompting machine, and if Zettelkasten doesn't have atomicity, what differentiates it from other note-taking methods?
Growing notes based on points of focus is like writing a book, and many people have done it.
There's also domain transferability. (Domain transferability refers to the ability to apply what you learn from one domain to another.)
That is, as you continue to write notes, you may find that one idea connects to another. In fact, in such cases, new ideas are often created by context, so you can simply move to another note and write the idea. In this case, even though you haven't linked, the link context has already been established. The purpose of the link context is to apply the idea.
So, what are the advantages of Zettelkasten, aside from managing massive amounts of data?
Question 2: What are the minimum requirements for Zettelkasten to be called Zettelkasten? Currently, everyone has a different definition of Zettelkasten.
However, I believe there are certain points that distinguish Zettelkasten from other note-taking methods.
So, what are the minimum requirements for Zettelkasten to be distinguished as Zettelkasten?
This question likely shares its roots with question 1.
I think important answers about can be found into the first video between Sascha and Nori.
I've formulated that as an answer to the question "What is the core of Zettelkasten?" writing a specific Zettel on my own words. but it is in italian, so instead of traslated it, I prefer roughly summarize:
To have a network of notes
The network of notes built over time enables its author to think
The network of notes brings its author face to face with the thinking exercised in the past
Zettelkasten is a thinking system in which you can find these three behaviours. For example, if you don't recognize a network into your system (Not necessarily made with hypertexts and hyperlinks, but in a more abstract sense), I think you don't have a Zettelkasten. In the same way, if you don't use your system for activate your brain, it's not a Zettelkasten.
This is "what I need to obtain", rather "how I need to do".
These requirements is perfectly coherent to my view of a Zettelkasten and perfecly identify how my Zettelkasten works (and many different kind of notes works in this way inside there, from prompts to longform notes), and for me are the minimum requirements for a zettelkasten as a thinking system.
After recognizing this basic behavior of a Zettelkasten, it is possible to identify the underlying principles (like atomicity) that make it possible to achieve certain desired behaviors when followed (I had reflected on what the principles of the Zettelkasten are, and I wanted to open a discussion about it)
Conceptual structure of a Zettelkasten could be
Core
Principles
Techniques (with which every author implements principles according to your attitudes and needs)
@andang76 said:
I've formulated that as an answer to the question "What is the core of Zettelkasten?" writing a specific Zettel on my own words. but it is in italian, so instead of traslated it, I prefer roughly summarize:
To have a network of notes
The network of notes built over time enables its author to think
The network of notes brings its author face to face with the thinking exercised in the past
@andang76 said:
I've formulated that as an answer to the question "What is the core of Zettelkasten?" writing a specific Zettel on my own words. but it is in italian, so instead of traslated it, I prefer roughly summarize:
To have a network of notes
The network of notes built over time enables its author to think
The network of notes brings its author face to face with the thinking exercised in the past
I like that definition; thanks!
More than mine, it’s actually @Sascha ’s — I just extracted it from his words. At most, I could say that I feel it was already inside me, written in very convoluted way, and thanks to the video it came out in a great, effective, formulation.
@Sascha
I'm so dumb, so I'm asking questions based on my understanding like a child. (To be honest, most of the comments on the forum are incredibly difficult for me to understand.)
@Sascha said:
This question is too broad, since the benefits of the Zettelkasten need to be tracked down to the individual type of action.
For example, creating a one-sentence summary enables a feedback triangle:
The principle of atomicity has specific effects, linking as other effects, etc.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying that the benefits of Zettelkasten should be tracked by individual type of action. Does it mean that each individual action, such as 'One-Sentence Summary' or 'The principle of Atomicity', has its own benefits, and that the advantages of Zettelkasten are the sum of these?
However, I was curious about the comprehensive advantages of Zettelkasten compared to other note-taking methods. Why should I use Zettelkasten when there are so many other excellent methods? What is this tool suitable for? That's what I was wondering.
It seems to me that you have a rough direction of thinking that I can't get yet. So, did I wrote answers in the direction of your thinking?
I read the article above. I'm not sure if I understood it correctly, but if I did, we can know that poetry is poetry, but we can't define it. If we were to define it, it would be very difficult, and there are certainly poems that we recognize as poetry even if they do not fit the definition. And if we cling to a definition, as Nassim Taleb called, we're likely to commit the platonification, judging reality by our own ideals.
But what I was wondering was this: while we can't define poetry, we can at least distinguish it from novel. Similarly, I thought there might be some vague criteria for distinguishing Zettelkasten from other note-taking methods.
If mind maps can be called a note-taking method, then for me at least, they are not Zettelkasten, even though they connect and create hierarchies like Zettelkasten.
Reading your blog post, I was reminded of Stuart Brown's "Play." He is a scientist who has spent his life studying play. He refuses to define play because it is so diverse. Furthermore, the most primitive forms of play don't involve complex intellectual systems. Therefore, he argues that play defies definition. However, when he was preparing a presentation on play for engineers at Hewlett-Packard, he heard from business consultant Lanny Vincent, who was also preparing, that he needed to define play.
He was like, "You can't go out there without a definition of play. These people are engineers. They design machines. They chew through mountains of specifications and bathe in rivers of data. If you don't come up with a proper definition, they'll eat you alive."
Upon hearing this, Brown reportedly realized that if he didn't provide a basic definition of play, engineers would view it as a swampy, muddy field, difficult to build on. So, he created a slide show that presented the properties of play: The 7 Properties of Play. The problem Brown faced, and the problem of defining Zettelkasten, seemed similar to mine. Brown solved this problem by providing seven properties. I'd like to hear your thoughts.
I believe that to build a thought on something, you need to know what that something is. Without knowing that something, you can't build a thought on it. In that respect, I was curious to know roughly what "something" you were talking about.
@andang76 said:
I think important answers about can be found into the first video between Sascha and Nori.
I've formulated that as an answer to the question "What is the core of Zettelkasten?" writing a specific Zettel on my own words. but it is in italian, so instead of traslated it, I prefer roughly summarize:
To have a network of notes
The network of notes built over time enables its author to think
The network of notes brings its author face to face with the thinking exercised in the past
Yours are quite similar to my zettels. And if I understand correctly, the context in which I asked Sascha the question and your comment seem to be the same.
But what I was wondering was this: while we can't define poetry, we can at least distinguish it from novel. Similarly, I thought there might be some vague criteria for distinguishing Zettelkasten from other note-taking methods.
Try to develop my reflection about this point.
The big issue is that what we often try to define might not even exist: a Zettelkasten meaning recognized and accepted by a large number of people.
Historically, Zettelkasten is a term that refers to a specific way a specific person did a certain thing, and he himself never formally defined what that way and thing actually was, allowing to decide what can be considered inside or outside.
All the people who have tried to study what Luhmann did attempted to reverse-engineer his work in order to reconstruct his method, starting from the slip box he left behind and the very few descriptions available. And within the subjectivity of each person who tried, interpretations emerged that were often quite different, which later even overlapped with each other. Almost certainly, Luhmann himself, when building his own Zettelkasten, reinterpreted something even older to his advantage.
The best one can probably do, I think, is try to form a reasonable idea, attempting to piece together methods and effects that seem very similar, while separating methods and effects that seem very different. Starting from broad approximations and, if possible, gradually becoming more precise.
For example, one “very different” factor that could distinguish two models is whether, when I use it, I am simply collecting information or developing my own ideas (and even defining “idea” is as complicated as defining Zettelkasten, but that’s another story…).
If I recognize that a person with his method builds a database while the other builds a network of ideas, I can reasonably conclude that the database is not a Zettelkasten if I’ve called the second one, which deals with ideas, a Zettelkasten. But as one tries to be more precise, the discussion becomes increasingly complex.
By interacting with others over time, reading books and articles, but especially through conversations like those on this forum, one comes to more or less understand what a Zettelkasten is, without being able to define it formally.
That very definition I posted a little earlier could be highly debatable—too broad, too narrow, or even incorrect; it is simply an attempt to make it clearer than before.
Perhaps, after all, it is not even essential to fully understand what a Zettelkasten exactly is. What matters is that, through these attempts we are doing, we develop and build our own “unnamed” system that actually works.
@iylock said:
I'm so dumb, so I'm asking questions based on my understanding like a child. (To be honest, most of the comments on the forum are incredibly difficult for me to understand.)
Don't worry, you are not alone :-)
I've broken my head many times try to learn from these discussions. It's a kind of gym.
Sometimes I understand something only after I’ve gone back to it a second or third time, after finding a key to understand it.
@iylock I think your anecdote about the play is very spot-on, and in my opinion, it shows that you’re on the right track much more than you think.
P.S. I’m an engineer :-)
And yes, thanks to the process of trying to understand the properties and dynamics, rather than focusing on defining what the system is, I was able to use the system long before and without knowing “what it that.” Defining it became easier for me after a lot of practice.
Even today, I could be completely wrong in my definitions of “Idea” and “Zettelkasten,” but I enjoy using a Zettelkasten and developing many ideas.
@andang76 Thank you. It certainly seems like sharing thoughts with others can be a positive way to broaden each other's perspectives.
What's interesting is that the Bible doesn't define love, but simply presents its characteristics: 1 Corinthians 13.
Seeing that attributes determine whether something falls into a category or not, I wonder if this could also be possible in Zettelkasten. However, I'm not sure if that's the right approach.
Disclaimer: I might complicate the issue for the following reasons: Most people seem to approach definitions with the same approach that the analytical philosophy tries to find the definition for knowledge: You create an inventory of features that individually are necessary to apply and collectively are sufficient to define a concept.
Based on this approach, any deviation from just one feature means that the concept doesn't apply to the instance at hand.
Evidence for that is the typical "this is not a real Zettelkasten", when some feature expectation is violated. This is why I wrote Don't dehorsify the horse
@iylock said: @Sascha
I'm so dumb, so I'm asking questions based on my understanding like a child. (To be honest, most of the comments on the forum are incredibly difficult for me to understand.)
@Sascha said:
This question is too broad, since the benefits of the Zettelkasten need to be tracked down to the individual type of action.
For example, creating a one-sentence summary enables a feedback triangle:
The principle of atomicity has specific effects, linking as other effects, etc.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying that the benefits of Zettelkasten should be tracked by individual type of action. Does it mean that each individual action, such as 'One-Sentence Summary' or 'The principle of Atomicity', has its own benefits, and that the advantages of Zettelkasten are the sum of these?
Yes, with added synergy.
However, I was curious about the comprehensive advantages of Zettelkasten compared to other note-taking methods. Why should I use Zettelkasten when there are so many other excellent methods? What is this tool suitable for? That's what I was wondering.
Ryan Holiday doesn't even have links, still I think this counts as a Zettelkasten in German. (In the article I wrote Zettelkasten with quotation marks)
Luhmann has a specific analog version. Fixed addresses + linking are the defining features. In English, this is a necessary feature for the application of the concept Zettelkasten.
Bob Doto's Zettelkasten is a digital version of Luhmann's approach.
Each of these instances have different benefits, downsides and costs.
They are caused by the individual implementations and features.
So, the question about the comprehensive advantages of the Zettelkasten Method is too broad of a question. It is akin to asking what you can do with dogs. They can do anything and everything. But their abilities come from specific traits. A German Shepard for example often likes harshness and they double their effort after a correction. A Border Collie (another herding dog) hates harshness and will often shut down after a correction.
It seems to me that you have a rough direction of thinking that I can't get yet. So, did I wrote answers in the direction of your thinking?
I read the article above. I'm not sure if I understood it correctly, but if I did, we can know that poetry is poetry, but we can't define it. If we were to define it, it would be very difficult, and there are certainly poems that we recognize as poetry even if they do not fit the definition. And if we cling to a definition, as Nassim Taleb called, we're likely to commit the platonification, judging reality by our own ideals.
You got it.
But what I was wondering was this: while we can't define poetry, we can at least distinguish it from novel. Similarly, I thought there might be some vague criteria for distinguishing Zettelkasten from other note-taking methods.
If mind maps can be called a note-taking method, then for me at least, they are not Zettelkasten, even though they connect and create hierarchies like Zettelkasten.
Reading your blog post, I was reminded of Stuart Brown's "Play." He is a scientist who has spent his life studying play. He refuses to define play because it is so diverse. Furthermore, the most primitive forms of play don't involve complex intellectual systems. Therefore, he argues that play defies definition. However, when he was preparing a presentation on play for engineers at Hewlett-Packard, he heard from business consultant Lanny Vincent, who was also preparing, that he needed to define play.
He was like, "You can't go out there without a definition of play. These people are engineers. They design machines. They chew through mountains of specifications and bathe in rivers of data. If you don't come up with a proper definition, they'll eat you alive."
Upon hearing this, Brown reportedly realized that if he didn't provide a basic definition of play, engineers would view it as a swampy, muddy field, difficult to build on. So, he created a slide show that presented the properties of play: The 7 Properties of Play. The problem Brown faced, and the problem of defining Zettelkasten, seemed similar to mine. Brown solved this problem by providing seven properties. I'd like to hear your thoughts.
So, let's maliciously go through some of these traits:
Purposelessness. What if I engage in play to elevate my status? Or I play with my daughter to improve our relationship (being tired and engaging with play because of my responsibility)?
Voluntary. What if I deem it my duty to engage myself, since I believe that it brings me closer to my arete? Or, see above, play with my daughter out of duty? What if I am an artist and have to play to perform my art?
Inherent Attraction. Is the phrase "I stopped playing, because it was not fun?" meaningless? Or did I stop playing, before I quit the game? When I play with my daughter, I sometimes don't have fun. Yet, I think I am playing with her, both objectively and subjectively.
...
I could rip into each of the aspects. Why? Because we are not talking about a legal definition but the meaning of a word of human language.
The reason why engineers fail to play is the very reason why they crave such a framework. They should read the later Wittgenstein.
It is like going to artists and then avoiding all frameworks because of the assumption that artists reject rigidity and are all about play.
But yes, such a framework might be a crutch. And I provided such in the book:
One Zettelkasten for you and your life (one place for everything)
Connected writing (individual notes and links)
I gave more like "Digital Gardening", however they are not part of the core principles, but rather logical conclusions of the behavior of a Zettelkasten.
In training science, you encounter a similar problem:
You can't train endurance. Instead, you apply a stimulus that elicits an acute reaction, which then leads into structural changes that are called chronic adaptations.
If you operate on these abstractions like endurance and strength, you can't think properly about how to conduct a good training.
For didactic purposes, it is fine to start from simpler terms. However, here you can't answer a lot of questions.
If you do, for example, alternate exercises in the gym, so your heart rate is constantly elevated, you still don't train your heart properly. But you might think because you are engaging in some form of endurance training or at least increase the endurance stimulus of your time in the gym. And yes, something that has to do with endurance training is trained.
However, people then think that this is enough to be healthy, leaving their heart improperly trained.
A much directer on-the-ground view is needed.
Benefits of the Zettelkasten Method are connected to the individual aspects. Many of the benefits I claim the Zettelkasten method creates will not be created by either Luhmann's or Bob Doto's practice.
@Sascha said: Disclaimer: I might complicate the issue for the following reasons: Most people seem to approach definitions with the same approach that the analytical philosophy tries to find the definition for knowledge: You create an inventory of features that individually are necessary to apply and collectively are sufficient to define a concept.
Based on this approach, any deviation from just one feature means that the concept doesn't apply to the instance at hand.
Evidence for that is the typical "this is not a real Zettelkasten", when some feature expectation is violated. This is why I wrote Don't dehorsify the horse
I'm not sure if I fully understand, but I see that this simple approach, like setting the conditions for a set, has its limitations.
Also, I only have a superficial understanding of early and later Wittgenstein, so I'm not sure if my understanding is correct, but I see the error of viewing the issue of defining Zettelkasten linguistically only within the framework of early Wittgenstein. It's a rather difficult and complex issue.
In that sense, if we simply define Zettelkasten in legal terms and categorize it as "this is Zettelkasten" and "that is not Zettelkasten," then we can talk about the benefits and downsides based on that, but since the definition of Zettelkasten itself is unclear(Dehorsify the horse), we have no choice but to talk about the benefits, downsides, and costs of individual actions separately.
Ryan Holiday doesn't even have links, still I think this counts as a Zettelkasten in German. (In the article I wrote Zettelkasten with quotation marks)
Luhmann has a specific analog version. Fixed addresses + linking are the defining features. In English, this is a necessary feature for the application of the concept Zettelkasten.
Bob Doto's Zettelkasten is a digital version of Luhmann's approach.
As you said, Ryan Holiday's note-card systems are literally called Zettelkasten in German, so if we look at it linguistically, they are Zettelkasten even without the link. (I haven't seen Michael Ende's Zettelkasten, but I have a feeling there wouldn't be a link.) Also, Zettelkasten doesn't necessarily have to incorporate the Principle of Atomicity to be called Zettelkasten.
If all three users' methods are Zettelkasten, then the benefits, downsides, and costs vary depending on what actions are added to the Zettelkasten. I seem to have only considered the Zettelkasten discussed on your blog and in this forum to be within the Zettelkasten category.
And I read the Introduction again after a long time, and it answered my questions. Thank you
So, in the end, is the best we can do now to be content with a practical definition of Zettelkasten (I'm not sure if the term 'practical definition' is appropriate, but here's a short definition of Zettelkasten that you mentioned in the Introduction.) and enjoy the process while finding practical ways(or actions) to maximize the benefits and minimize the costs?
@iylock said: @andang76 Thank you. It certainly seems like sharing thoughts with others can be a positive way to broaden each other's perspectives.
What's interesting is that the Bible doesn't define love, but simply presents its characteristics: 1 Corinthians 13.
A good point to think about, this bible excerpt.
Regarding Zettelkasten, I don't know if it's the best way, but I've found it as a good way for learning and using it without getting stuck on issues that might even be secondary. I need to use Zettelkasten in my daily tasks, rather than formalize it.
As stated, I continue to develop "ideas" even without knowing the exact, formal definition of "idea". I've a very rough model about it :-)
In my personal journey into Zettelkasten world, I've found and I've formulated definitions of idea and Zettelkasten that I consider "decent" after almost three years of my own practice.
But in the meantime, I used it, before arriving at these :-)
And even today, they are not set in stone. If there’s an opportunity to improve them further, I will. Not yet knowing things as formally as possible is not necessarily a point to get stuck on.
This is possible, of course, if you learn that a thing like the Zettelkasten is not something that needs to have such precise mechanisms as a mechanical watch to work.
Comments
A wonderful exchange of ideas, by the way. It allows me to learn a lot. Thanks.
And thanks too for being patient with me
Now, I am between a rock and hard place. I am not saying that this is what you were after consciously. I described the social layer which is one plausible explanation why you did some assumptions. Not maliciously or anything. But since I have the habit of monitoring the social layer of otherwise factual discussions, I thought to mention it for the mere reason to provide an explanation for what otherwise would look like a strange fallacy out of nowhere.
But we can rest this. Or, I have to let this go, because I'd have to deeply dissect what you've written which would be in part unfair, since we are writing rather casually and would take too much time.
Just capturing the statement is one of the first possible steps to fully develop the underlying idea. So, I don't change anything, since driving slow is part of driving fast: To drive fast, you have to accelerate, and you'll drive slow until you speed up enough to consider yourself driving fast.
I drive appropriate to the situation, fast on the Autobahn, slow in the city and anything in between, depending on the situation. But I don't switch approaches as I don't switch personalities when I talk to my grandmother. I merely don't use street language and talk about different things.
There is a car that can drive slow and fast and a driver, who nows when and how to drive fast and slow.
Yes. But since I don't switch anything, there are no friction costs by choosing between approaches. There is just more fuel burned (mental energy) to move faster (process more deeply).
No, there is but one continuum as there is just on gas pedal that I press down.
Just for the record:
Almost exactly what I am saying.
To be fair, there is link-context in the links at the bottom of his notes, which is informed by this article according to his book, which involves some meaning in the connection.
Then I am happy to hear that reason and the rejection of the reasons why he wouldn't change his system even facing the limitations.
You're attributing the outcome to his system, but you miss to take into account other reasons of his productivity.
I am not patient.
I have just one gas pedal, escalating through the various intensities. But I spare you the theory behind.
I am a Zettler
No, in general I tend not to consider the Zettelkasten as a "magic box" that produces valuable things in place of its author. And in fact, I confirmed this position again on Reddit a couple of days ago, clearly writing in a discussion opened by Bob Doto itself that simply having a slip box is by no means sufficient to write a book :-).
However, if we are discussing what one method allows compared to another, Luhmann himself teaches us that with an approach made up of constructs that may seem limited, if used appropriately, the author is still able to develop a remarkable capacity for thought. One can have significant practice in cognitive dynamics by using pieces of paper that are physically limited and therefore encourage being telegraphic. These will probably be different cognitive dynamics from those developed when writing each idea as a fully developed thought (I’m borrowing the term “micro-essay” from the video with Nori, very effective), but again, they will simply be different—not less effective or more limited. It is the author who ultimately determines their effectiveness.
I’d say it’s exactly the opposite: believing in the idea that, in the Zettelkasten, the author is the fundamental part of the method, the comparison between the various approaches (provided that they are properly understood and well executed by the author—this is essential) becomes, in my opinion, far less relevant.
I became particularly convinced of the power of Luhmann’s approach when Luhmann himself showed that he had truly “mastered” it, explaining its underlying dynamics in the paper Communicating with Zettelkasten. That reading made me realize that to achieve great things, what’s needed is my own well-thought-out system rather than simply the most sophisticated one available, and that it is crucial for every Zettelkasten author to strive as much as possible to reach that same mastery of their own method, rather than going in search of the “best” method presented by others.
This leads to the apparent paradox that, while I acknowledge Luhmann for having devised a formidable system, at the same time I strongly reject the idea that the only properly made Zettelkasten is the one done exactly as he did it—a thesis supported by a particular school of thought. Every author has the possibility of creating their own formidable system.
I’ve been reflecting on this point over the past few days. In my view, making statements "sometimes" and “as a secondary option” can be very different from choosing to do so in a systematic and specialized way. Over time, I believe the two approaches tend to develop very different ways of reading, thinking, and generating ideas. I actually see completely different mental rhythms, which determine how long I dwell on the same idea rather than exploring new ones, or trying to connect and combine them with others—and probably also a different balance between intuitive or creative thinking and more logical thinking. If I create statements only occasionally, I don’t think I can achieve the same kind of thinking as someone who fully immerses themselves in this approach, to the point of even overcoming its expressive limitations.
I feel like making a comparison—surely an improper one, but maybe it conveys the idea. Different cognitive dynamics like different fiber types and physiological features for a runner. Different trainings, different ways of developing the ability of the runner and so different results.
I run on road, so "slow" :-), theoretically, I might have the option one day to run faster than usual, but I'll never be able to run as fast as a trained sprinter.
In general, no. Locally, here: Yes. The sentence "Given how much he produced, using his method (whole pieces of sociology and systems theory, from what I learned about him), this method while apparently narrow, can actually be remarkably broad." is the culprit.
You cannot infer from his productivity directly the quality of his system.
This is, btw., another problem of drawing the boundary of the Zettelkasten with the user included. Only if you isolate both, you can start learning what comes from the method and what comes from the user.
And keep in mind: Luhmann faced a different set of problems we are faced today: Source availability, opportunity costs and opening a path from the reading practice to the footnote apparatus were major concerns, which are not (or shouldn't be) today.
This is akin to saying that doing calculus with the help of paper is not more or less effective than doing it just in your mind, just because there are amazing calculators out there.
The difference is being confronted with a prompt which is a task to create value or the already created value itself. And: Thinking in an integrated thinking environment or thinking on a manuscript. I think it should be pretty uncontroversial that you are better off in a workshop than in your living room if you want to do build furniture. Though, an industrious and talented carpenter will outperform me in his living room any day.
For sure, because you include a confounding variable.
I don't think that Luhmann sufficiently explained the underlying dynamics in his paper.
One of the view quotes of mine that I am very happy about that they were gifted to me:
The challenge of knowledge work doesn't bend to our needs. We have to submit to the nature of knowledge and learn how to meet the challenge.
I am a Zettler
I think it's more difficult infer the quality of a system used by another person, when that person demonstrates clearly that he or she has no quality problems with that system.
I can consider a slip box made of paper cards limited or much less powerful, so valuable for me (and that system is limited for me: I would never have even dreamed of starting a zettelkasten if I had learned of its existence from a book like Antinet Zettelkasten, for example), but I can't consider the same system limited for another.
If you ask me or Luhman how is his zettelkasten, I answer that it is unusable, he says is perfect. So, who is right? :-)
We could establish that Luhmann's system is low valuable if he had also complained about his own system.
And in fact, in general, when users here or in Reddit ask something about his own systems that seem to not work, that's when we try to find solutions to the problems those authors have.
Nori's first try of having zettelkasten was a failure, so "contesting" his fragmented way of writing notes in that case made sense. But other authors don't have that problem.
In general and for the remaining part of the post, for me is almost impossibile propose the correct design of a Zettekasten without considering all the facets of the author side of the system. And, in particular, how the author explains, argues and tells his own zettelkasten.
I'm an engineer, I can hardly think of convincing a fantasy writer (who has a real benefit from his system, at least) that my Zettelkasten works better than his for both of us, and the vice versa still applies.
There is too much subjectivity involved, people tend to develop their own thinking process, so the choice and use of their tools, very differently from each other.
I'd still like to hear the opinions of people who actually use the system being discussed,
in a preferential or even foundational way. I can only make partial analyses and some of them are pretty speculative, I've a limited and unpreferential use of that approach.
A simple heuristic on when one discussion partner starts having "sticky attention"
Luhmann has objective quality problems with his system:
I am because I give you empirical evidence (two examples above) and arguments (e.g., the writing inherits the quality of the underlying notes if you stick to what the Zettelkasten gives you).
You are framing this problem as if the ultima ratio is the subjective evaluation. But we are asking objective questions.
He did. But more importantly, there are objective problems with his system.
Self-reports are highly unreliable, especially online. You need to take into consideration:
You can be happy if people are happy. But happiness is not effectiveness. And we saw in the past countless examples of people convinced that they had found a system, yet abandoned it after they put it to the test.
The Zettelkasten Method is not a tool to feel nice, but to think better.
My Zettelkasten has both, since it is based on universal principles and specific applications. Luhmann would say: "We chose the method of generalisation and respecification, instead of analogisation." (somewhere in "Soziale Systeme" (1984) in the beginning)
This is one major aspect of the Zettelkasten Method. Each area inherits the quality of your input, and each area is as connected or separate as you like it to be. The Zettelkasten Method is indeed a universal tool if done right.
Many discussions are similar to the 90s mixed martial arts discussion. Back then, it was still possible for a Karate guy to say that Karate is better than Kung Fu or BJJ. All debate was resolved when the UFC gave everyone the opportunity for the test.
I agree. There is too much subjectivity involved. But the solution is not to lie back and say: It is good if it feels good.
I am a Zettler
My thought is rather "it's good if it works for what you do". Much more objective, I'd say. It's something you can make evident to others.
(feeling good about your way, in any case, is a significant aspect of functioning well. Boring and tedious systems, those that don't engage you, tend to fail, from what I've seen. I wouldn't underestimate the feeling aspect :-) )
Regarding Luhman problems with his system, I don't remember ever reading something particular about it.
I remember reading that he did it all over again a second time.
I can suppose that at a certain point, that enormous volume of cards no longer made sense to be fed. I can also suppose that he reached the limits of the system or he saturated his own capacity and will to go futher in development. If I remember well, I think I read that when approaching the end of his life he wanted to close his loops, rather than open new ones.
But even if we recognize that process reached a limit that forced to stop, what it has achieved until the last card he wrote is definitely beyond the reach of an even above-average zettelkaster, I would say.
Trying to closing another loop regarding the discussion, regarding bad quality of writing a book attributed to Luhman, having a good zettelkasten is only half of the work if you want to publish something good. You can be a good thinker and a very bad writer (written the same thing into Bob Doto thread on reddit some days ago).
I've read some works that I know for sure have a zettelkasten behind them, and they're very mediocre (I won't name names :-)). They do not lack quality of ideas developed, but quality of writing. the Ability to transfer ideas to your audience.
Zettelkasten narrative, in particular, has this big issue. It's full of very smart ideas, but almost nobody understand them :-).
The last chance is to read your book, which I will read as soon as it comes out in English. If even after your book the Zettelkasten remains still hard to understand, one has to acknowledge that the Zettelkasten is not good for writing books :-)
Update
I think I can anticipate the objection: if Luhmann’s books are poorly written, and you know that, how can you claim that you can derive the effectiveness of his method from his results?
Because when I consider Luhmann’s results, I take into account (at least) three different things as "result":
"Thanks" to Zettelkasten? I can consider for him his Zettelkasten at least not less relevant that mine in my days. And for me doing a zettelkasten has been a truly strategic discovery for this second phase of my life, and I’ve only known about it, I think, for three years...
Observing how it has changed the way I practice thinking, I'm sure that a practice like this had a valuable impact in his case.
This may be redundant, but I want to clarify.
Question 1: If Zettelkasten's fundamental purpose isn't to be a prompting machine, and if Zettelkasten doesn't have atomicity, what differentiates it from other note-taking methods?
Growing notes based on points of focus is like writing a book, and many people have done it.
There's also domain transferability. (Domain transferability refers to the ability to apply what you learn from one domain to another.)
That is, as you continue to write notes, you may find that one idea connects to another. In fact, in such cases, new ideas are often created by context, so you can simply move to another note and write the idea. In this case, even though you haven't linked, the link context has already been established. The purpose of the link context is to apply the idea.
So, what are the advantages of Zettelkasten, aside from managing massive amounts of data?
Question 2: What are the minimum requirements for Zettelkasten to be called Zettelkasten? Currently, everyone has a different definition of Zettelkasten.
However, I believe there are certain points that distinguish Zettelkasten from other note-taking methods.
So, what are the minimum requirements for Zettelkasten to be distinguished as Zettelkasten?
This question likely shares its roots with question 1.
This question is too broad, since the benefits of the Zettelkasten need to be tracked down to the individual type of action.
For example, creating a one-sentence summary enables a feedback triangle:
The principle of atomicity has specific effects, linking as other effects, etc.
>
This question is quite difficult to answer. So difficult that I dedicated a blog post to the problem: https://zettelkasten.de/posts/dont-dehorsify-the-horse/
It seems to me that you have a rough direction of thinking that I can't get yet. So, did I wrote answers in the direction of your thinking?
I am a Zettler
I think important answers about can be found into the first video between Sascha and Nori.
I've formulated that as an answer to the question "What is the core of Zettelkasten?" writing a specific Zettel on my own words. but it is in italian, so instead of traslated it, I prefer roughly summarize:
Zettelkasten is a thinking system in which you can find these three behaviours. For example, if you don't recognize a network into your system (Not necessarily made with hypertexts and hyperlinks, but in a more abstract sense), I think you don't have a Zettelkasten. In the same way, if you don't use your system for activate your brain, it's not a Zettelkasten.
This is "what I need to obtain", rather "how I need to do".
These requirements is perfectly coherent to my view of a Zettelkasten and perfecly identify how my Zettelkasten works (and many different kind of notes works in this way inside there, from prompts to longform notes), and for me are the minimum requirements for a zettelkasten as a thinking system.
After recognizing this basic behavior of a Zettelkasten, it is possible to identify the underlying principles (like atomicity) that make it possible to achieve certain desired behaviors when followed (I had reflected on what the principles of the Zettelkasten are, and I wanted to open a discussion about it)
Conceptual structure of a Zettelkasten could be
I like that definition; thanks!
More than mine, it’s actually @Sascha ’s — I just extracted it from his words. At most, I could say that I feel it was already inside me, written in very convoluted way, and thanks to the video it came out in a great, effective, formulation.
@Sascha
I'm so dumb, so I'm asking questions based on my understanding like a child. (To be honest, most of the comments on the forum are incredibly difficult for me to understand.)
I'm not sure what you mean by saying that the benefits of Zettelkasten should be tracked by individual type of action. Does it mean that each individual action, such as 'One-Sentence Summary' or 'The principle of Atomicity', has its own benefits, and that the advantages of Zettelkasten are the sum of these?
However, I was curious about the comprehensive advantages of Zettelkasten compared to other note-taking methods. Why should I use Zettelkasten when there are so many other excellent methods? What is this tool suitable for? That's what I was wondering.
I read the article above. I'm not sure if I understood it correctly, but if I did, we can know that poetry is poetry, but we can't define it. If we were to define it, it would be very difficult, and there are certainly poems that we recognize as poetry even if they do not fit the definition. And if we cling to a definition, as Nassim Taleb called, we're likely to commit the platonification, judging reality by our own ideals.
But what I was wondering was this: while we can't define poetry, we can at least distinguish it from novel. Similarly, I thought there might be some vague criteria for distinguishing Zettelkasten from other note-taking methods.
If mind maps can be called a note-taking method, then for me at least, they are not Zettelkasten, even though they connect and create hierarchies like Zettelkasten.
Reading your blog post, I was reminded of Stuart Brown's "Play." He is a scientist who has spent his life studying play. He refuses to define play because it is so diverse. Furthermore, the most primitive forms of play don't involve complex intellectual systems. Therefore, he argues that play defies definition. However, when he was preparing a presentation on play for engineers at Hewlett-Packard, he heard from business consultant Lanny Vincent, who was also preparing, that he needed to define play.
He was like, "You can't go out there without a definition of play. These people are engineers. They design machines. They chew through mountains of specifications and bathe in rivers of data. If you don't come up with a proper definition, they'll eat you alive."
Upon hearing this, Brown reportedly realized that if he didn't provide a basic definition of play, engineers would view it as a swampy, muddy field, difficult to build on. So, he created a slide show that presented the properties of play: The 7 Properties of Play. The problem Brown faced, and the problem of defining Zettelkasten, seemed similar to mine. Brown solved this problem by providing seven properties. I'd like to hear your thoughts.
I believe that to build a thought on something, you need to know what that something is. Without knowing that something, you can't build a thought on it. In that respect, I was curious to know roughly what "something" you were talking about.
Yours are quite similar to my zettels.
And if I understand correctly, the context in which I asked Sascha the question and your comment seem to be the same.
Try to develop my reflection about this point.
The big issue is that what we often try to define might not even exist: a Zettelkasten meaning recognized and accepted by a large number of people.
Historically, Zettelkasten is a term that refers to a specific way a specific person did a certain thing, and he himself never formally defined what that way and thing actually was, allowing to decide what can be considered inside or outside.
All the people who have tried to study what Luhmann did attempted to reverse-engineer his work in order to reconstruct his method, starting from the slip box he left behind and the very few descriptions available. And within the subjectivity of each person who tried, interpretations emerged that were often quite different, which later even overlapped with each other. Almost certainly, Luhmann himself, when building his own Zettelkasten, reinterpreted something even older to his advantage.
The best one can probably do, I think, is try to form a reasonable idea, attempting to piece together methods and effects that seem very similar, while separating methods and effects that seem very different. Starting from broad approximations and, if possible, gradually becoming more precise.
For example, one “very different” factor that could distinguish two models is whether, when I use it, I am simply collecting information or developing my own ideas (and even defining “idea” is as complicated as defining Zettelkasten, but that’s another story…).
If I recognize that a person with his method builds a database while the other builds a network of ideas, I can reasonably conclude that the database is not a Zettelkasten if I’ve called the second one, which deals with ideas, a Zettelkasten. But as one tries to be more precise, the discussion becomes increasingly complex.
By interacting with others over time, reading books and articles, but especially through conversations like those on this forum, one comes to more or less understand what a Zettelkasten is, without being able to define it formally.
That very definition I posted a little earlier could be highly debatable—too broad, too narrow, or even incorrect; it is simply an attempt to make it clearer than before.
Perhaps, after all, it is not even essential to fully understand what a Zettelkasten exactly is. What matters is that, through these attempts we are doing, we develop and build our own “unnamed” system that actually works.
In my case, for example, I experienced a significant shift when I realized that within Obsidian I can not only collect other people’s content, but actually think.
What I do might not be "the Zettelkasten ©", but having a method for thinking rather than a method of collecting is a fundamental milestone.
This is for me the criterium that distinguish poetry from novel in this context, recalling your example :-). After that, we could try to investigate different way of doing poetry.
Don't worry, you are not alone :-)
I've broken my head many times try to learn from these discussions. It's a kind of gym.
Sometimes I understand something only after I’ve gone back to it a second or third time, after finding a key to understand it.
@iylock I think your anecdote about the play is very spot-on, and in my opinion, it shows that you’re on the right track much more than you think.
P.S. I’m an engineer :-)
And yes, thanks to the process of trying to understand the properties and dynamics, rather than focusing on defining what the system is, I was able to use the system long before and without knowing “what it that.” Defining it became easier for me after a lot of practice.
Even today, I could be completely wrong in my definitions of “Idea” and “Zettelkasten,” but I enjoy using a Zettelkasten and developing many ideas.
@andang76 Thank you. It certainly seems like sharing thoughts with others can be a positive way to broaden each other's perspectives.
What's interesting is that the Bible doesn't define love, but simply presents its characteristics: 1 Corinthians 13.
Seeing that attributes determine whether something falls into a category or not, I wonder if this could also be possible in Zettelkasten. However, I'm not sure if that's the right approach.
Disclaimer: I might complicate the issue for the following reasons: Most people seem to approach definitions with the same approach that the analytical philosophy tries to find the definition for knowledge: You create an inventory of features that individually are necessary to apply and collectively are sufficient to define a concept.
Based on this approach, any deviation from just one feature means that the concept doesn't apply to the instance at hand.
Evidence for that is the typical "this is not a real Zettelkasten", when some feature expectation is violated. This is why I wrote Don't dehorsify the horse
Yes, with added synergy.
The problem with this question is that you lose the cause-effect-chain. Take the Zettelkastens of the fellas that I mentioned in the article about the difference between two implementations of the principle of atomicity.
Each of these instances have different benefits, downsides and costs.
They are caused by the individual implementations and features.
So, the question about the comprehensive advantages of the Zettelkasten Method is too broad of a question. It is akin to asking what you can do with dogs. They can do anything and everything. But their abilities come from specific traits. A German Shepard for example often likes harshness and they double their effort after a correction. A Border Collie (another herding dog) hates harshness and will often shut down after a correction.
You got it.
So, let's maliciously go through some of these traits:
I could rip into each of the aspects. Why? Because we are not talking about a legal definition but the meaning of a word of human language.
The reason why engineers fail to play is the very reason why they crave such a framework. They should read the later Wittgenstein.
It is like going to artists and then avoiding all frameworks because of the assumption that artists reject rigidity and are all about play.
But yes, such a framework might be a crutch. And I provided such in the book:
I gave more like "Digital Gardening", however they are not part of the core principles, but rather logical conclusions of the behavior of a Zettelkasten.
I am reviewing the introduction and I think I answered both of your questions: https://zettelkasten.de/introduction/
I am a Zettler
In training science, you encounter a similar problem:
You can't train endurance. Instead, you apply a stimulus that elicits an acute reaction, which then leads into structural changes that are called chronic adaptations.
If you operate on these abstractions like endurance and strength, you can't think properly about how to conduct a good training.
For didactic purposes, it is fine to start from simpler terms. However, here you can't answer a lot of questions.
If you do, for example, alternate exercises in the gym, so your heart rate is constantly elevated, you still don't train your heart properly. But you might think because you are engaging in some form of endurance training or at least increase the endurance stimulus of your time in the gym. And yes, something that has to do with endurance training is trained.
However, people then think that this is enough to be healthy, leaving their heart improperly trained.
A much directer on-the-ground view is needed.
Benefits of the Zettelkasten Method are connected to the individual aspects. Many of the benefits I claim the Zettelkasten method creates will not be created by either Luhmann's or Bob Doto's practice.
I am a Zettler
I'm not sure if I fully understand, but I see that this simple approach, like setting the conditions for a set, has its limitations.
Also, I only have a superficial understanding of early and later Wittgenstein, so I'm not sure if my understanding is correct, but I see the error of viewing the issue of defining Zettelkasten linguistically only within the framework of early Wittgenstein. It's a rather difficult and complex issue.
In that sense, if we simply define Zettelkasten in legal terms and categorize it as "this is Zettelkasten" and "that is not Zettelkasten," then we can talk about the benefits and downsides based on that, but since the definition of Zettelkasten itself is unclear(Dehorsify the horse), we have no choice but to talk about the benefits, downsides, and costs of individual actions separately.
As you said, Ryan Holiday's note-card systems are literally called Zettelkasten in German, so if we look at it linguistically, they are Zettelkasten even without the link. (I haven't seen Michael Ende's Zettelkasten, but I have a feeling there wouldn't be a link.) Also, Zettelkasten doesn't necessarily have to incorporate the Principle of Atomicity to be called Zettelkasten.
If all three users' methods are Zettelkasten, then the benefits, downsides, and costs vary depending on what actions are added to the Zettelkasten. I seem to have only considered the Zettelkasten discussed on your blog and in this forum to be within the Zettelkasten category.
And I read the Introduction again after a long time, and it answered my questions. Thank you
So, in the end, is the best we can do now to be content with a practical definition of Zettelkasten (I'm not sure if the term 'practical definition' is appropriate, but here's a short definition of Zettelkasten that you mentioned in the Introduction.) and enjoy the process while finding practical ways(or actions) to maximize the benefits and minimize the costs?
A good point to think about, this bible excerpt.
Regarding Zettelkasten, I don't know if it's the best way, but I've found it as a good way for learning and using it without getting stuck on issues that might even be secondary. I need to use Zettelkasten in my daily tasks, rather than formalize it.
As stated, I continue to develop "ideas" even without knowing the exact, formal definition of "idea". I've a very rough model about it :-)
In my personal journey into Zettelkasten world, I've found and I've formulated definitions of idea and Zettelkasten that I consider "decent" after almost three years of my own practice.
But in the meantime, I used it, before arriving at these :-)
And even today, they are not set in stone. If there’s an opportunity to improve them further, I will. Not yet knowing things as formally as possible is not necessarily a point to get stuck on.
This is possible, of course, if you learn that a thing like the Zettelkasten is not something that needs to have such precise mechanisms as a mechanical watch to work.