Comments

• Sascha

  February 25

  Very nice effort. But keep in mind that German speakers are in the absolute minority in this forum.

  I am a Zettler
• zettelsan

  February 25

  Just out of curiosity, has anyone researched on the maximum number of zettels Luhmann ever connected in one string of thoughts? What I mean is the longest path in a directed (and acyclic) way. This has some implication on Folgezettel in Luhmann's style vs. Bob Doto's style.
• harr

  February 25 edited February 25

  @zettelsan said:
  Just out of curiosity, has anyone researched on the maximum number of zettels Luhmann ever connected in one string of thoughts?

  Interesting question. I don't know of such an analysis. Some of the longest zettel sequences I found so far:

  • 21/3d7a to 21/3d7n
  • 21/3d18a19a to 21/3d18a19y

  • 21/3d8c16c1 to 21/3d8c29
    

  • 21/3d18a1 to 21/3d18a60

  • 21/3d18c1 to 21/3d18c76
  • 21/3d26g1 to 21/3d26g127
  • 21/3d5b11a to 21/3d5b11z. Seems to continue as 21/3d5b11z/a to 21/3d5b11z/z

  An example of the deepest level I could find is 21/3d5b11w19z6a.

  Post edited by harr on February 25
• harr

  February 25 edited February 25

  @zettelsan said:
  This has some implication on Folgezettel in Luhmann's style vs. Bob Doto's style.

  Bob Doto's recommendation is compatible with Luhmann's technique. Doto writes in his 2024 book:

  Folgezettel forces you to connect newly imported ideas.
  Aside from scanability, using folgezettel can also influence your note-making practice. This is particularly apparent when converting notes from fleeting to main notes. Forced to try and establish at least one connection between new notes and those already stored in the zettelkasten begins the process of creating trains of thought and making meaning of your captures.

  Luhmann seems to prefer counting up within one long sequence (see examples above), whereas Doto tends to branch off new shorter sequences.

  Post edited by harr on February 25
• Sascha

  February 26

  @harr said:

  @zettelsan said:
  This has some implication on Folgezettel in Luhmann's style vs. Bob Doto's style.

  Bob Doto's recommendation is compatible with Luhmann's technique. Doto writes in his 2024 book:

  Folgezettel forces you to connect newly imported ideas.
  Aside from scanability, using folgezettel can also influence your note-making practice. This is particularly apparent when converting notes from fleeting to main notes. Forced to try and establish at least one connection between new notes and those already stored in the zettelkasten begins the process of creating trains of thought and making meaning of your captures.

  In practice, you will amass quite a lot of loose association and not so many trains of thought. Luhmann's ZK is a very good showcase for that.

  I am a Zettler
• zettelsan

  February 26

  @harr said:
  Interesting question. I don't know of such an analysis. Some of the longest zettel sequences I found so far:

  Thank you for the summary. It looks like Luhmann did have fairly long sequence of notes at times. A string of 100 notes seems like a fairly big trunk of thoughts. Unfortunately I cannot read German so don't know the nature of long sequences.

  Luhmann's Folgezettel (X in the figure) handles long sequences better, whereas Doto's (Y in the figure) handles branching better:

  

  In fact, I don't think Luhmann's can handle more than two follow-up zettels from a common parent. (I wonder how this was done, as it seems such a common thing to do.) Doto's can have as many follow-up zettels as desired, but supporting a very long string of follow-up zettels would be awkward, since their Folgezettel IDs keep growing in their lengths (and likely with lots of 1's and a's...).

  For my personal experiment, I went with Doto's since currently I have a wide-and-shallow zettelkasten for which branches are much more common than long strings of follow-up zettels. But if I were more adept in stringing together related notes, I'd see the merit of Luhmann's Folgezettel.
• harr

  February 26 edited February 26

  @zettelsan said:
  Luhmann's Folgezettel (X in the figure) handles long sequences better, whereas Doto's (Y in the figure) handles branching better:

  Doto's numbering scheme is identical with Luhmann's basic numbering scheme. Doto removed exceptions (like the red numbers) and kept the basic principle (alternate numbers and letters). If you understand Doto's numbering scheme, you understand Luhmann's numbering scheme.

  The trick is that zettels don't have a simple parent-child-relationship. There are two different kinds of links:

  • follow within a sequence (same level) and
  • branch off a new sequence (next level, diagonal arrows).

  You don't go directly from 1.1a2 to 1.1a2c. You go from 1.1a2 to 1.1a2a by branching off a new sequence. Then you add 1.1a2b as a second note in that sequence. Then you add 1.1a2c as the third.

  I made some changes to your Y chart. I x-ed non-existing parent-child links and added the important follow links. ("Folgezettel" literally means "zettel that follows".) The overlaid boxes indicate zettel sequences:

  

  The number of levels remains the same. The chart is still "wide-and-shallow".

  Maybe the zettel sequences in Logseq are easier to recognize, when the chart is rotated:

  

  Same chart, same levels, different vertical alignment:

  

  The same structure in Logseq. All zettels:

  

  This is, by the way, the filing order in Luhmann's box.

  Logseq make it easy to look only at zettel sequence 1.1a1 to 1.1a2:

  

  Or at zettel sequence 1.1a2a to 1.1a2c:

  

  This is still the same numbering scheme that you use. It's just a different visualization.

  Post edited by harr on February 26
• zettelsan

  February 26

  You can interpret Doto's Folgezettel IDs that way (they are both alternating alphanumeric sequence, after all), but that's not exactly how Bob explain his usage, though.

  From "5 Using Alphanumeric IDs to Identify Your Notes" of A System for Writing, he writes:

  

  Since the notes are directly connected, the "follow-up" note is given a new alphanumeric digit. (Luhmann would increment the least-significant digit here.)

  

  Here, the existing place in digits is incremented for an idea related but not directly connected. Such a note isn't a follow-up note.

  

  Here, for an entirely new topic, the most-significant digit is incremented. (This part is the same for both Luhmann's and Doto's.)

  So, I think the ways that IDs grow based on the follow-up behavior are different. And this is the difference I was writing about.
• harr

  February 26 edited February 26

  May I point out similarities? Doto writes:

  Note 1.1a branches off note 1.1 (…)

  Adding a new level is called branching off.

  (…) give the new note the next consecutive numeric ID (see notes 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 below)

  Consecutive numbers and branching off are different things. (That's the point in my previous post.)

  Here's Doto's example rendered in Logseq:

  

  Doto writes:

  In the above example, notes `1.2` through `1.4` speak to the subject developing off the number 1, but because they don’t speak to the idea captured in note `1.1a`, were given alphanumeric IDs to reflect this.

  You connect the note to the branch, where it fits. (However you might determine the fit.)

  @zettelsan
  Here, the existing place in digits is incremented for an idea related but not directly connected. Such a note isn't a follow-up note.

  Connection is a technical thing. 1.4 is connected to 1.3 simply because it is the next number in the sequence. Branching off also creates a connection. 1.2a is connected to 1.2 because it's branched off.

  

  The reason why you choose to connect where is highly subjective. Doto says so himself:

  As may be obvious, this is all very subjective. Any of the ideas contained in notes 1.2 through 1.4 could’ve been written in light of note 1.1a. It all depends on where your mind was at when creating the notes (…)

  @zettelsan
  Since the notes are directly connected, the "follow-up" note is given a new alphanumeric digit. (Luhmann would increment the least-significant digit here.)

  Where do you get the idea from, that Luhmann would do it differently than Doto? Do you have an example or a literary reference?

  Just for fun, some other examples from Doto's book. I think the main difference to Luhmann is not the numbering, but the addition of titles and a more "atomic" writing style.

  

  

  Post edited by harr on February 26
• zettelsan

  February 27 edited February 27

  Hmm. I'm still not convinced the branching scheme is identical between Luhmann's and Doto's.

  In Bob's example, I can hardly see 1.1 -> 1.2 -> 1.3 -> 1.4 as a train of thoughts. They are loosely related (hence the common most-significant figure), but they are notes which "don't necessarily speak to ones previously captured" in his words. When he is incrementing the least-significant figure for this purpose, why should I think 1.2a -> 1.2b -> 1.2c or 1.2a1 -> 1.2a2 constitutes a train of particular thought? It seems to me that their relations implied by numbering of least-significant figures are parallel, in the same sense 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 are parallel (loosely related but not connected via a train of thought).

  

  (This is another example from Bob's page; a little more extended version to illustrate how Folgezettel structure might grow.)

  Bob's note template includes "- previous: <... link item ...>" so that we should be able to identify train of notes as they are meant to be. I wish I could see how the "previous" entries look like for the notes mentioned here.

  Again, I do understand that Folgezettel IDs shouldn't be taken as denoting a rigid structure. But the underlying assumption still needs to be understood. (And to me, the biggest issue with Luhmann's Folgezettel is not being able to make a single note a branching point for multiple follow-up notes.)

  The relevant section of Bob's book is actually publicly accessible:

  https://writing.bobdoto.computer/how-to-use-folgezettel-in-your-zettelkasten-everything-you-need-to-know-to-get-started/

  (I don't mean to contaminate the thread with something off-topic though. Please feel free to drop this line of discussion. The topic isn't very important.)

  Post edited by zettelsan on February 27
• Sascha

  February 27

  You are facing the problem that you are assuming that there is a set of understandable rules that goes beyond loose association. The examples both by Luhmann and Doto are quite telling that this is a wrong assumption.

  I am a Zettler
• harr

  February 27 edited February 27

  @zettelsan said:
  In Bob's example, I can hardly see 1.1 -> 1.2 -> 1.3 -> 1.4 as a train of thoughts.

  The question is what you mean by "train of thought".

  You are correct, if you mean a sequence of thoughts that supports a particular argument, like in a good essay or speech.

  But neither Bob Doto nor Niklas Luhmann promise that kind of train of thought.

  @zettelsan said:
  They are loosely related (hence the common most-significant figure), but they are notes which "don't necessarily speak to ones previously captured" in his words.

  Yes, they are only "loosely related". That looseness is an important aspect of the system:

  • The thoughts in a sequence don't have to form strictly logical "trains of thought".
  • There are no objective criteria that determine where to place a note.

  @zettelsan said:
  When he is incrementing the least-significant figure for this purpose, why should I think 1.2a -> 1.2b -> 1.2c or 1.2a1 -> 1.2a2 constitutes a train of particular thought?

  You shouldn't, because it doesn't.

  But you should take a closer look at the algorithm. Doto and Luhmann describe the same basic rules. There are strict rules about the numbering, but no rules about the notes' content.

  @zettelsan said:
  It seems to me that their relations implied by numbering of least-significant figures are parallel, in the same sense 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 are parallel (loosely related but not connected via a train of thought).

  That's an important point!

  a) Does the sequence of thoughts imply a sequence of argument?

  No. It doesn't. The sequence is not necessarily a "train of thought".

  b) Does the sequence of notes always matter?

  No. It doesn't. Nobody would notice, if you reordered Doto's apple statements (1.1 … 1.4).

  In real examples (see above) I find it interesting that Doto and Luhmann explicitly reference "previous" zettels. They are both aware of the sequence and both reference that sequence.

  Sequences don't necessarily encode a logical sequence, but they definitely encode a temporal sequence. Zettel 1.4 was added after zettel 1.3. So the term "previous" implies "previously added" or "at the time of writing already existing".

  That's also something Bob Doto and Niklas Luhmann agree on. You don't just assign random numbers. You don't delete numbers. You don't reassign numbers. You follow a strict set of rules.

  @zettelsan said:
  Bob's note template includes "- previous: <... link item ...>" so that we should be able to identify train of notes as they are meant to be. I wish I could see how the "previous" entries look like for the notes mentioned here.

  It helps to use a visualization, where you can see multiple connected (as in formally connected) zettels at the same time. In an earlier post I added branch 7 of Doto's notes (as published in the book). I think you can trace quite well, how he got from 7.1 to 7.27a2.

  I don't like the visuals in Doto's book and I wouldn't use the software he uses, because you can't see the bigger picture. But the numbering makes sense.

  @zettelsan said:
  Again, I do understand that Folgezettel IDs shouldn't be taken as denoting a rigid structure. But the underlying assumption still needs to be understood.

  One underlying assumption is, that you need rigid formal rules to create a stable yet flexible structure, that can support a life time of research. Luhmann succeeded with that goal! He maintained the system for decades.

  Another assumption is, that you should be flexible with the content. (Sascha considers this a weakness of the system. He thinks it's "underpowered". I find it a strength, because it allows you to capture thoughts that aren't yet developed. Sascha uses a separate feeder system for those thoughts. Luhmann integrated them in his Zettelkasten. One goal of the original post was to show the messiness of Luhmann's notes. It worked for Luhmann. Others have other priorities.)

  @zettelsan said:
  (And to me, the biggest issue with Luhmann's Folgezettel is not being able to make a single note a branching point for multiple follow-up notes.)

  Actually you can! Luhmann uses red numbers for that. See zettel 1.2 in the original post. Or check out 21/3d8c with nine red numbers. Number 4 can be found an 21/3d8ce. From there Luhmann branches of to 21/3d8ce1 and so on.

  But for most purposes, Doto's simplified version should work just fine.

  Remember, that the numbering scheme is only one way to connect notes. It's just the basic structure, that gives notes a fixed place. For additional linking you could use links (see examples in the screenshots above).

  Post edited by harr on February 27
• Sascha

  February 27

  I find it a strength, because it allows you to capture thoughts that aren't yet developed. Sascha uses a separate feeder system for those thoughts. Luhmann integrated them in his Zettelkasten.

  Both is incorrect in different ways

  1. I develop my ideas in my Zettelkasten. In fact, I explicitly state that I do this in my Zettelkasten and that it is no problem to leave ideas undeveloped. You may reread the atomicity guide.
  2. Luhmann didn't also integrate undeveloped ideas in his ZK. Developed ideas were the rare exceptions. His Zettelkasten was based on undeveloped ideas (or prompts or idea pointers)

  Again: Your examples contradict that there is a strict set of rules. Luhmann used a number of methods to lump together notes (I refrain from the term "trains of content", since undeveloped ideas don't form a train of thought that is communicable. The ideas have to be developed, so you establish a train of thought, unless associative babbling qualifies). Doto reduced the number, but equally doesn't adhere to strict rules.

  I am a Zettler
• harr

  February 27

  @Sascha said:
  1. I develop my ideas in my Zettelkasten.

  The operating word was "capture" thoughts.

  @Sascha said:
  In fact, I explicitly state that I do this in my Zettelkasten and that it is no problem to leave ideas undeveloped. You may reread the atomicity guide.

  I didn't get the "feeder system" from the atomicity guide, but from How to Increase Knowledge Productivity: Combine the Zettelkasten Method and Building a Second Brain (emphasis added):

  In contrast, the core of ZKM is precisely this processing of resources into individual ideas by extracting them from the resource and connect them to other ideas. Preparing the resource for later use is indeed a feeder method, and publishing content with the help of the Zettelkasten contributes to using and integrating the Zettelkasten. But both of them nevertheless belong to the periphery of the Zettelkasten.

  Maybe I misunderstood your article? My impression was, that you consider some tasks peripheral to or even outside of the scope of your Zettelkasten, that Luhmann handles within his Zettelkasten.

  @Sascha said:
  2. Luhmann didn't also integrate undeveloped ideas in his ZK. Developed ideas were the rare exceptions. His Zettelkasten was based on undeveloped ideas (or prompts or idea pointers)

  We agree on this one. Everything in one system. No separate feeder.

  Again: Your examples contradict that there is a strict set of rules.

  Of course there are strict rules. How can't you see them?

  There are no strict rules for content, but very strict rules for the numbering scheme.

  In Luhmann's own words:

  (…) Reduction to a fixed, but purely formal positional order (…)
  (…) Reduktion auf eine feste, aber nur formale Stellordnung (…)

  With this technique it is ensured that the order — which is only formal, after all — does not become a shackle, but instead adapts itself to the development of thoughts.
  Es ist mit dieser Technik gewährleistet, daß die Ordnung — sie ist ja nur formal — nicht zur Fessel wird, sondern sich der Gedankenentwicklung anpaßt.

  The keyword here is "formal". Strict formal rules create an order that can adapt to any kind of content.

  @Sascha said:
  (…) unless associative babbling qualifies (…)

  It does. See Zettel II 9/8i:

  Any arbitrary idea, any chance occurrence in one’s reading, can be brought in.
  Alle arbiträren Einfälle, alle Zufälle der Lektüren, können eingebracht werden. 

  @Sascha said:
  (I refrain from the term "trains of content", since undeveloped ideas don't form a train of thought that is communicable. (…))

  We agree on this one. Folgezettels don't form a train of thought in that sense (see my previous post).

  @Sascha said:
  Doto reduced the number, but equally doesn't adhere to strict rules.

  Doto adheres to strict formal rules. I'm not aware of any examples where he took liberties with the numbering scheme.

  One could argue, that Doto's rules are even stricter than Luhmann's, because he also considers the content rule of atomicity.

  In comparison, Luhmann's zettels look remarkably un-atomic. :-)

  @Sascha said:
  Luhmann used a number of methods to lump together notes (…)

  Yes. And most of them are boring, because everybody used them. Luhmann didn't invent formal numbering. He didn't invent indexes. He didn't invent references. He didn't invent card indexes. These were well established methods.

  Only one method is different — the Folgezettel. Not many people used that method. Most productive researchers and authors at the time, who used index cards successfully, did it without Folgezettel.

  So what is it about Folgezettel, that made it so central to Luhmann's personal technique? Why didn't he stick to the same methods as everybody else?

  We agree, that Folgezettels don't form "trains of thought" in a coherent communicable sense.

  We seem to disagree on the relevance of his sequential writing style. I believe, that Luhmann really cared about continuous text. I believe, that fixed sequentiality was not a bug, but a feature. So here's a new perspective:

  What if Luhmann's Zettelkasten isn't a card index at heart, but a notebook? A notebook with branching capability ("Verzweigungsfähigkeit")? Or in today's terminology — an outliner?

  While experimenting with Logseq, I was suprised how well it fits Luhmann's Zettelkasten. I've experimented with other visualization techniques and interaction models before. Logseq is the first tool that made it really easy to capture Luhmann's Zettelkasten in great detail, including text continuations and red numbers. Navigating Luhmann's Zettelkasten in Logseq just feels natural.

  This is even more surprising, because I don't like Logseq for my own note-making. I prefer personal wikis to outliners. But in this case, an outliner just fits. Maybe this is a clue to better understand Luhmann's technique?
• cyberelk11

  February 28

  @harr said:
  What if Luhmann's Zettelkasten isn't a card index at heart, but a notebook? A notebook with branching capability ("Verzweigungsfähigkeit")? Or in today's terminology — an outliner?

  This definitely chimes with my interpretation of it. A hyperlinked notebook where each note fits within a tree hierarchy. You can flip forwards through the notebook by just turning the page, but "forwards" is a depth-first traversal. You can search forwards to find "sibling" notes continuing a conversation by skipping over deeper branches (by checking the numbering).

  You can insert new pages but only following certain rules: you can create new branches, but you can't insert a new "older sibling".

  This is exactly how my own Zettelkasten works on a Supernote, although without the numbering (I use a different system).
• harr

  February 28 edited March 1

  @zettelsan said:
  (I don't mean to contaminate the thread with something off-topic though. Please feel free to drop this line of discussion. The topic isn't very important.)

  I find Bob Doto's Apple example interesting, because it can be read as a topical hierarchy. Notes 1.1 to 1.4 can be read as exploring apples in general. Notes 1.2a to 1.2c can be read as exploring kinds of apples. Notes 1.2a1 to 1.2a2 can be read as exploring McIntosh apples. Your screenshot from the book shows a nested list of headings, that looks very much like a hierarchy.

  Here's a visualization of the same example. It visually distinguishes between branching off (adding a new level, orange) and consecutive numbering (counting up on the same level, blue).

  

  This rendering feels strange. But why? I think because the example is mostly hierarchical. It doesn't explore the non-hierarchical aspect of Luhmann's system. Luhmann allowed to break out of hierarchies at will. However in this example there's no obvious need to break out of the hierarchy.

  If I wanted to add a note "The most popular kind of apple for pies is Granny Smith", I might pick the number 1.2d, because it's conceptually close to the thought "1.2 There are many kind of apples" and because the numbers 1.2a to 1.2c are already taken.

  Do I have to add the note there? No. Luhmann gives us permission to add it where we want. I could add the thought as zettel 1.4b for example, if that place "speaks to me".

  Luhmann's rules limit our options. Within the Apple branch we can only choose between one of the available consecutive numbers (1.5, 1.1b, 1.2d, 1.3b, 1.4b, 1.2a3) or one of the available new branches (1.1a1, 1.2b1, 1.2c1, 1.3a1, 1.4a1, 1.2a1,a, 1.2a2a) or a red number.

  But the rules also give us complete freedom within those options. If you prefer 1.2d, because it scratches an hierarchical itch, why not? If you're more into exploring why you eat too many apples, 1.4b or 1.4a1 might be an option. Or you might write:

  • "1.4b Apples contain lots of fructose"
  • "1.4c Apple pies have even more sugar"
  • "1.4d Apple pies taste great"
  • "1.4e The most popular kind of apple for pies is Granny Smith" with a link to 1.2

  A less obvious example might be:

  • "1.5 Apples appear in commercial logos"
    • "1.5a Apple Records published The Beatles"
    • "1.5b Apple Computers named the computer model Macintosh after Mcintosh apples" with a link to 1.2a1
    • "1.5c There are no skateboard brands with an apple logo"
      • "1.5c1 Skateboard brands use motifs of rebellion, risk, irony, tribal identity" with a link to somewhere in the skateboard branch.
    • "1.5d Apples symbolize knowledge, wisdom, learning, simplicity, health"

  Zettel 1.5c1 is completely outside the subject area "apple", but still connected.

  In the words of Schmidt (2018):

  The relationship between the top-level subject area and the lower-level subjects cannot be described in terms of a strictly hierarchical order, it is rather a form of loose coupling insofar as one can find lower-level subjects which do not fit systematically to the top-level issue but show only marginally connections.

  One might deride this process as "associative babbling". But that is how Luhmann's Folgezettels seem to work.

  Not sure, where I'm going here… Maybe it's about conceptual looseness. Luhmann's zettel sequences are neither coherent trains of thought nor are all zettels within the same sequence conceptually direct children of a parent zettel.

  Luhmann explains the overall structure of his Zettelkasten:

  It exhibits (…) no deliberately constructed overall order, no hierarchy, and certainly no linear structure like that of a book.
  Es weist (…) keine durchkonstruierte Gesamtordnung auf, auch keine Hierarchie und erst recht keine lineare Struktur wie ein Buch.

  I called this looseness in an earlier post "messiness". Luhmann's writes:

  The entirety of the notes can only be described as disorder—but at least as disorder with a non-arbitrary internal structure.
  Die Gesamtheit der Notizen läßt sich nur als Unordnung beschreiben, immerhin aber als Unordnung mit nichtbeliebiger interner Struktur.

  That "non-arbitrary internal structure" is made up of Folgezettels.

  Maybe Folgezettel is about freedom and space. The numbering system with its strict formal rules opens up unlimited space to explore one's thoughts, however arbitrary they might seem at first.

  Post edited by harr on March 1
• Sascha

  March 3

  @harr said:

  @Sascha said:
  1. I develop my ideas in my Zettelkasten.

  The operating word was "capture" thoughts.

  To develop ideas, they have to be captured first.

  @Sascha said:
  In fact, I explicitly state that I do this in my Zettelkasten and that it is no problem to leave ideas undeveloped. You may reread the atomicity guide.

  I didn't get the "feeder system" from the atomicity guide, but from How to Increase Knowledge Productivity: Combine the Zettelkasten Method and Building a Second Brain (emphasis added):

  In contrast, the core of ZKM is precisely this processing of resources into individual ideas by extracting them from the resource and connect them to other ideas. Preparing the resource for later use is indeed a feeder method, and publishing content with the help of the Zettelkasten contributes to using and integrating the Zettelkasten. But both of them nevertheless belong to the periphery of the Zettelkasten.

  Maybe I misunderstood your article? My impression was, that you consider some tasks peripheral to or even outside of the scope of your Zettelkasten, that Luhmann handles within his Zettelkasten.

  To make somewhat educated assumptions on how I work (instead of permanently assuming, you could ask), you have to take all of the published material into consideration.

  @Sascha said:
  2. Luhmann didn't also integrate undeveloped ideas in his ZK. Developed ideas were the rare exceptions. His Zettelkasten was based on undeveloped ideas (or prompts or idea pointers)

  We agree on this one. Everything in one system. No separate feeder.

  His literature notes (the 15k) are the rough equivalent of the PARA-system I laid out in the article.

  Again: Your examples contradict that there is a strict set of rules.

  Of course there are strict rules. How can't you see them?

  There are no strict rules for content, but very strict rules for the numbering scheme.

  The numbering scheme cannot be governed by strict rules if they don't map to the content. If you want to reduce the numbering scheme just to the mere rule how to add another number you lose all meaning and significance. So, I hope you didn't mean to go there.

  In Luhmann's own words:

  (…) Reduction to a fixed, but purely formal positional order (…)
  (…) Reduktion auf eine feste, aber nur formale Stellordnung (…)

  With this technique it is ensured that the order — which is only formal, after all — does not become a shackle, but instead adapts itself to the development of thoughts.
  Es ist mit dieser Technik gewährleistet, daß die Ordnung — sie ist ja nur formal — nicht zur Fessel wird, sondern sich der Gedankenentwicklung anpaßt.

  The keyword here is "formal". Strict formal rules create an order that can adapt to any kind of content.

  "formal" doesn't mean strict here. It means "pro forma". This is why he wrote "NUR formal"

  @Sascha said:
  (…) unless associative babbling qualifies (…)

  It does. See Zettel II 9/8i:

  Any arbitrary idea, any chance occurrence in one’s reading, can be brought in.
  Alle arbiträren Einfälle, alle Zufälle der Lektüren, können eingebracht werden. 

  1. A mere statement by Luhmann isn't proper justification.
  2. The note doesn't support this. The arbitrariness of the source of the idea doesn't imply arbitrariness of their connection and coherence.

  @Sascha said:
  (I refrain from the term "trains of content", since undeveloped ideas don't form a train of thought that is communicable. (…))

  We agree on this one. Folgezettels don't form a train of thought in that sense (see my previous post).

  @Sascha said:
  Doto reduced the number, but equally doesn't adhere to strict rules.

  Doto adheres to strict formal rules. I'm not aware of any examples where he took liberties with the numbering scheme.

  One could argue, that Doto's rules are even stricter than Luhmann's, because he also considers the content rule of atomicity.

  Bob can't consider the rule of atomicity, since he never created a proper approach to atomicity and he is in the process of abondoning it.

  And as you can see by his own examples: There are now rules if you create a sibling or a child depending on the content which is true to the Folgezettel mechanics. The rule is "it doesn't matter".

  I am a Zettler
• harr

  March 3 edited March 3

  @Sascha said:
  His literature notes (the 15k) are the rough equivalent of the PARA-system I laid out in the article.

  No. They are an integral part of the permanent record, not some separate "feeder" system. They are stored in the same big wooden boxes.

  @Sascha said:
  The numbering scheme cannot be governed by strict rules if they don't map to the content.

  Why not?

  @Sascha said:
  If you want to reduce the numbering scheme just to the mere rule how to add another number you lose all meaning and significance.

  I don't say, that I like it.

  But that's how Luhmann seems to have worked.

  He didn't assign the numbers completely at random of course. In that case he could have used timestamps instead. He chose very carefully, where he'd connect a new note.

  But there's no fixed rule on how to map content to numbers.

  @Sascha said:
  So, I hope you didn't mean to go there.

  You're missing out on valuable insights by not going there.

  "formal" doesn't mean strict here. It means "pro forma". This is why he wrote "NUR formal"

  "Formal" means that the strict rules only apply to outer form.

  @Sascha said:
  1. A mere statement by Luhmann isn't proper justification.
  2. The note doesn't support this. The arbitrariness of the source of the idea doesn't imply arbitrariness of their connection and coherence.

  Can you appreciate it at least as a hint?

  Where do you get the idea from that "coherence" mattered to Luhmann?

  Bob can't consider the rule of atomicity, since he never created a proper approach to atomicity and he is in the process of abondoning it.

  Thanks for the link. I share Bob Doto's opinion:

  The more (and more and more) people I encounter totally confused by the terms "atomic," "atomic note," and "atomicity" in regard to note-taking, the more I feel these terms should be retired. We don't need them. There are far better and more interesting ways to discuss what constitutes the "single idea" captured in a main note.

  @Sascha said:
  And as you can see by his own examples: There are now rules if you create a sibling or a child depending on the content which is true to the Folgezettel mechanics. The rule is "it doesn't matter".

  If you mean "no rules", I'm happy to see that you understand the examples as intended. There are no content rules, just formal rules for the numbering plus a highly subjective choice of connection points.

  (Of course there are some exceptions to the no-rules rule. The top level is chosen by general subject area and ZK II 3 starts with a topical hierarchy. But the general rule gives you the freedom to go anywhere from there.)
• Sascha

  March 3

  They are stored in the same big wooden boxes.

  All of my stuff is stored on the same hard drive.

  QED.

  I am a Zettler
• harr

  March 3 edited March 4

  @Sascha said:
  All of my stuff is stored on the same hard drive.

  I don't get the joke, sorry.

  These stills from Beobachter im Krähennest (1989) show Luhmann's writing environment. Red arrow points to the Zettelkasten.

  The system boundary between Zettelkasten and everything else is easily recognizable. Some stuff is kept in the Zettelkasten. Other stuff isn't. Some stuff is temporarily taken out of the Zettelkasten. Some stuff has no place in the Zettelkasten. I'm interested in the stuff that goes in the Zettelkasten, not in the other stuff.

  

  

  

  

  

  Edit: Complete rewrite.

  Post edited by harr on March 4
• Sascha

  March 5 edited March 5

  @harr said:

  @Sascha said:
  All of my stuff is stored on the same hard drive.

  I don't get the joke, sorry.

  These stills from Beobachter im Krähennest (1989) show Luhmann's writing environment. Red arrow points to the Zettelkasten.

  The system boundary between Zettelkasten and everything else is easily recognizable. Some stuff is kept in the Zettelkasten. Other stuff isn't. Some stuff is temporarily taken out of the Zettelkasten. Some stuff has no place in the Zettelkasten. I'm interested in the stuff that goes in the Zettelkasten, not in the other stuff.

  Just because they paper slips are kept in a proximate box of the same built doesn't mean that they are part of the Zettelkasten.

  The literature notes don't have an ID, they are sorted alphabetically by author. Schmidt called this "Bibliographischer Apparat" They are kept separate from the actual Zettelkasten.

  In his central article Communication with Zettelkastens, the bibliographical apparatus is not even mentioned. For a good reason: The bibliographical apparatus is external to his actual Zettelkasten.

  =========================================================================

  Look. I wouldn't mind sorting this out if you were just a beginner who is trying to figure out how Luhmann worked and set up his system.

  But you present yourself with such a lack of humbleness and stating basic errors with the confidence of 1.5 Kanye Wests that it is super annoying to hash these things out.

  If you don't care about your social conduct, perhaps, you think strategically. Behaving like a bull in a china shop won't get you a serious exchange of ideas. I am half-assing my comments (which is an additional annoyance) because you are not a beginner with a beginner's mindset, you don't now the basics either.

  Currently, my main motivation is to reply to most of your posts to make sure that they don't stand alone, because in the internet nobody knows you're a dog. Too many people would be misled by the confidence of your presentation.

  So, I feel forced to reply because I am responsible for this community.

  I see your high effort in your posts and I really respect this. But there is a mismatch, outlined above, that is preventing your efforts to shine.

  =========================================================================

  On another note: We reduced the time window for editing because of you. If you completely edit and change the original post 2 hours after you published it, you are obscuring and distorting the record of the exchange which is quite impolite.

  Post edited by Sascha on March 5

  I am a Zettler
• Zettelkasten101

  March 5 edited March 5

  Hello everyone! I've been watching this forum for quite some time now but the post above is the reason I decided to register today. To introduce myself: I'm Russian and I've spent about a year looking through Luhmann's online archive to figure out how his Zettelkasten worked. I believe that I actually did figure it out and I also wrote its detailed description in Russian which I believe to be the most accurate description to date. If you can read Russian or want to use some automatic translation tool to read it, you can find the pdf here: [Link edited. This is the first post of an account that was created today. You may write a PM if you want this link]

  That being said, I want to compliment @harr's efforts because I see a genuine wish to figure everything out and some of the conclusions match my conclusions as well.

  Now to answer the post above:

  @Sascha said:
  Just because they paper slips are kept in a proximate box of the same built doesn't mean that they are part of the Zettelkasten.

  The literature notes don't have an ID, they are sorted alphabetically by author. Schmidt called this "Bibliographischer Apparat" They are kept separate from the actual Zettelkasten.

  If the lack of ID means they are not a part of the "actual Zettelkasten", then keyword index isn't a part of it as well. Why can't Zettelkasten have a few distinct parts? And how would you then explain that there are links on Luhmann's bibliographic notes that connect them to the main part of the Zettelkasten? Also, he used short versions of bibliographical references (autor and year) in the main part to reference the bibliographical data in the bibliography section. How is it not a part of the system when it obviously is?

  In his central article Communication with Zettelkastens, the bibliographical apparatus is not even mentioned. For a good reason: The bibliographical apparatus is external to his actual Zettelkasten.

  This is just plain wrong. Open the original article, page 225, lines 5-8:

  Ein parallel arbeitendes Hilfsmittel kann mit dem bibliographischen Apparat verbunden werden. Bibliographische Notizen, die man aus der Literatur herauszieht, sollten innerhalb des Zettelkastens festgehalten werden.

  Your translation:

  You can connect a parallel tool with your literature management system. Bibliographical notes that you extract from literature should be captured inside the Zettelkasten.

  Luhmann literally says "bibliographical apparatus" and adds that bibliographic notes are stored inside the Zettelkasten. How can you not know this when you have translated the article into English? This is beyond my comprehension.

  And after making so blatant mistakes you go on to say:

  Look. I wouldn't mind sorting this out if you were just a beginner who is trying to figure out how Luhmann worked and set up his system.

  But you present yourself with such a lack of humbleness and stating basic errors with the confidence of 1.5 Kanye Wests that it is super annoying to hash these things out.

  If you don't care about your social conduct, perhaps, you think strategically. Behaving like a bull in a china shop won't get you a serious exchange of ideas. I am half-assing my comments (which is an additional annoyance) because you are not a beginner with a beginner's mindset, you don't now the basics either.

  Currently, my main motivation is to reply to most of your posts to make sure that they don't stand alone, because in the internet nobody knows you're a dog. Too many people would be misled by the confidence of your presentation.

  So, I feel forced to reply because I am responsible for this community.

  I see your high effort in your posts and I really respect this. But there is a mismatch, outlined above, that is preventing your efforts to shine.

  I only emphasize with bold three places in this quote, but really could emphasize the whole thing. I think the one who should care about humbleness and social conduct more is definitely not @harr. Reread your own words, can't you see the arrogance in them?

  Post edited by Sascha on March 5
• Sascha

  March 5

  @Zettelkasten101 said:
  Now to answer the post above:

  @Sascha said:
  Just because they paper slips are kept in a proximate box of the same built doesn't mean that they are part of the Zettelkasten.

  The literature notes don't have an ID, they are sorted alphabetically by author. Schmidt called this "Bibliographischer Apparat" They are kept separate from the actual Zettelkasten.

  If the lack of ID means they are not a part of the "actual Zettelkasten", then keyword index isn't a part of it as well.

  Yes, the key word index is an auxiliary tool distinct to the core, the Zettelkasten.

  And how would you then explain that there are links on Luhmann's bibliographic notes that connect them to the main part of the Zettelkasten?

  In Luhmann's communication theory terms, these links a structural coupling ("Strukturelle Kopplungen") (No English Wiki article, the German is here)

  Imagine a politician talking to an industrialist. This is no evidence that the political system and the economic system are just one system.

  To argue that they are parts of the same system, you need inclusion criteria. Establishing a connection is not sufficient. The connection must be made, and it must be established that the connection is essential.

  A structural coupling is an indicator of two separate systems.

  A system is operationally closed ("Operationale Schließung. This could be roughly translated to "a system speaks follows its own logic" (this a bad translation).

  So, bringing everything together:

  The Zettelkasten and the bibliographical apparatus are operationally closed separate systems, but structurally coupled.

  The explanation establishes that there are specific connections that are a strong indicator of them being separate systems.

  I used the wikipedia links to provide you an entry to Luhmann's thinking. I can base this on the primary literature of Luhmann if you have reasonable objections.

  How is it not a part of the system when it obviously is?

  The system is not identical with the Zettelkasten. In the very section you quoted, Luhmann says "paralleles Hilfsmittel" which implies not identical with the Zettelkasten.

  See the above explanation for the reasoning in Luhmannian terms.

  In his central article Communication with Zettelkastens, the bibliographical apparatus is not even mentioned. For a good reason: The bibliographical apparatus is external to his actual Zettelkasten.

  This is just plain wrong. Open the original article, page 225, lines 5-8:

  Ein parallel arbeitendes Hilfsmittel kann mit dem bibliographischen Apparat verbunden werden. Bibliographische Notizen, die man aus der Literatur herauszieht, sollten innerhalb des Zettelkastens festgehalten werden.

  Your translation:

  You can connect a parallel tool with your literature management system. Bibliographical notes that you extract from literature should be captured inside the Zettelkasten.

  Luhmann literally says "bibliographical apparatus" and adds that bibliographic notes are stored inside the Zettelkasten. How can you not know this when you have translated the article into English? This is beyond my comprehension.

  You are very correct in correcting me. The bibliographical apparatus is indeed mentioned in his article.

  However, the bibliographical notes here are not the notes as in slips of papers. The term is underdetermined and can mean both bibliographical data or just notes based on readings. The so-called literature notes are stored in a separate box and is operationally closed which makes it a separate system.

  The very practice of Luhmann shows that the bibliographical notes go in a separate system:

  1. He reads and takes very short notes (Schmidt calls them excerpts which is closer to the classical education practice).
  2. He then creates notes in his Zettelkasten based on these notes (which is different of capturing the exact ideas and explains his very loosey-goosey citing habit). This could be technically the site of the structural coupling.
  3. The notes he took during his reading go in a separate and differently organised system.

  And after making so blatant mistakes you go on to say:

  Look. I wouldn't mind sorting this out if you were just a beginner who is trying to figure out how Luhmann worked and set up his system.

  But you present yourself with such a lack of humbleness and stating basic errors with the confidence of 1.5 Kanye Wests that it is super annoying to hash these things out.

  If you don't care about your social conduct, perhaps, you think strategically. Behaving like a bull in a china shop won't get you a serious exchange of ideas. I am half-assing my comments (which is an additional annoyance) because you are not a beginner with a beginner's mindset, you don't now the basics either.

  Currently, my main motivation is to reply to most of your posts to make sure that they don't stand alone, because in the internet nobody knows you're a dog. Too many people would be misled by the confidence of your presentation.

  So, I feel forced to reply because I am responsible for this community.

  I see your high effort in your posts and I really respect this. But there is a mismatch, outlined above, that is preventing your efforts to shine.

  I only emphasize with bold three places in this quote, but really could emphasize the whole thing. I think the one who should care about humbleness and social conduct more is definitely not @harr. Reread your own words, can't you see the arrogance in them?

  I see sloppiness and annoyance. Different vices, but viciousness nevertheless.

  You are factually correct here to point this out. But as a Russian you should know:

  Я человек грешный, но ты мой гость.

  (I am a Russia German for context.)

  This is your first post, and you didn't even take the courtesy to introduce yourself in the respective category. So, we will not discuss this topic.

  I am a Zettler
• Zettelkasten101

  March 5

  Since the link was deleted from my first post: yes, I really do have a pdf (84 pages) that accurately describes (in Russian) how Luhmann's Zettelkasten worked and I will gladly send it to anyone interested if you ask for it in a direct message. I promise there is nothing malicious about that file, I just wrote the thing in Microsoft Word and then used "Save as" to make a pdf out of it. There are also pictures of Luhmann's cards, lots of them. Perhaps I will share some of what's written there in English if I'll feel like writing other things on this forum. We'll see how it goes.

  @Sascha said:

  @Zettelkasten101 said:
  Now to answer the post above:

  @Sascha said:
  Just because they paper slips are kept in a proximate box of the same built doesn't mean that they are part of the Zettelkasten.

  The literature notes don't have an ID, they are sorted alphabetically by author. Schmidt called this "Bibliographischer Apparat" They are kept separate from the actual Zettelkasten.

  If the lack of ID means they are not a part of the "actual Zettelkasten", then keyword index isn't a part of it as well.

  Yes, the key word index is an auxiliary tool distinct to the core, the Zettelkasten.

  And how would you then explain that there are links on Luhmann's bibliographic notes that connect them to the main part of the Zettelkasten?

  In Luhmann's communication theory terms, these links a structural coupling ("Strukturelle Kopplungen") (No English Wiki article, the German is here)

  Imagine a politician talking to an industrialist. This is no evidence that the political system and the economic system are just one system.

  To argue that they are parts of the same system, you need inclusion criteria. Establishing a connection is not sufficient. The connection must be made, and it must be established that the connection is essential.

  A structural coupling is an indicator of two separate systems.

  A system is operationally closed ("Operationale Schließung. This could be roughly translated to "a system speaks follows its own logic" (this a bad translation).

  So, bringing everything together:

  The Zettelkasten and the bibliographical apparatus are operationally closed separate systems, but structurally coupled.

  The explanation establishes that there are specific connections that are a strong indicator of them being separate systems.

  I used the wikipedia links to provide you an entry to Luhmann's thinking. I can base this on the primary literature of Luhmann if you have reasonable objections.

  Okay, I see that you understand the word "system" very differently from how I use it and, seemingly, how @harr used it in the previous posts. I only ever had interest in Luhmann's Zettelkasten and not in sociology and his sociological theory, so I won't get into all this. What I and presumably @harr wanted to say is that you can't easily imagine or use the Luhmannian Zettelkasten without the bibliography, or keyword index for that matter, regardless of whether you consider them "technically one system" or not. Luhmann's bibliographic notes have the same format (A6), are stored in the same wooden boxes, have links to the main part of the Zettelkasten, are frequently referenced in the main part of the Zettelkasten, are mentioned and briefly discussed in Luhmann's article on Zettelkasten, and are generally considered to be a part of the Zettelkasten. Luhmann also mentioned how he read differently because of the connection of these notes with the main part of the Zettelkasten. All of this is enough for me and many other people to call the index, the "main part" and the bibliography parts of the same system (in our sense of the word). We see them as a single thing. Even if bibliography and keyword index are distinct from the main part of the Zettelkasten, this is definitely not similar to just being "stored on the same hard drive". I guess this is something to keep in mind: other people usually do not understand words as terms of some specific theory.

  How is it not a part of the system when it obviously is?

  The system is not identical with the Zettelkasten. In the very section you quoted, Luhmann says "paralleles Hilfsmittel" which implies not identical with the Zettelkasten.

  The word "parallel" in that section most likely means "parallel with the keyword index" since that is the topic of that paragraph. Also, at the end of the same paragraph Luhmann says that memory works with names of authors and with keywords at the same time, which is likely the reason for bibliography and index being called "parallel". My comment about bibliographic notes being stored "inside the Zettelkasten" based on the same paragraph also stays.

  In his central article Communication with Zettelkastens, the bibliographical apparatus is not even mentioned. For a good reason: The bibliographical apparatus is external to his actual Zettelkasten.

  This is just plain wrong. Open the original article, page 225, lines 5-8:

  Ein parallel arbeitendes Hilfsmittel kann mit dem bibliographischen Apparat verbunden werden. Bibliographische Notizen, die man aus der Literatur herauszieht, sollten innerhalb des Zettelkastens festgehalten werden.

  Your translation:

  You can connect a parallel tool with your literature management system. Bibliographical notes that you extract from literature should be captured inside the Zettelkasten.

  Luhmann literally says "bibliographical apparatus" and adds that bibliographic notes are stored inside the Zettelkasten. How can you not know this when you have translated the article into English? This is beyond my comprehension.

  You are very correct in correcting me. The bibliographical apparatus is indeed mentioned in his article.

  However, the bibliographical notes here are not the notes as in slips of papers. The term is underdetermined and can mean both bibliographical data or just notes based on readings. The so-called literature notes are stored in a separate box and is operationally closed which makes it a separate system.

  The very practice of Luhmann shows that the bibliographical notes go in a separate system:

  1. He reads and takes very short notes (Schmidt calls them excerpts which is closer to the classical education practice).
  2. He then creates notes in his Zettelkasten based on these notes (which is different of capturing the exact ideas and explains his very loosey-goosey citing habit). This could be technically the site of the structural coupling.
  3. The notes he took during his reading go in a separate and differently organised system.

  I am aware that bibliographical notes likely don't mean slips of paper here. It doesn't change my point. I don't know what "operationally closed" means exactly but what I do know is that Luhmann wrote his bibliographic notes with the intention of making notes in the main part of the Zettelkasten. He also referenced them from the main part of his Zettelkasten which isn't exactly making a new note based on them in my book. Again, this and everything outlined above says to me that they are not a "separate system" in my sense of the word.

  I see sloppiness and annoyance. Different vices, but viciousness nevertheless.

  You are factually correct here to point this out. But as a Russian you should know:

  Я человек грешный, но ты мой гость.

  I'm fine with not dwelling on this further. Although this is actually the first time I see this expression.

  (I am a Russia German for context.)

  Oh, this explains your first name. I was wondering what the story behind it was.
• harr

  March 5

  @Sascha said:
  In his central article Communication with Zettelkastens, the bibliographical apparatus is not even mentioned.

  Thanks @Zettelkasten101 for fact-checking!

  @Sascha said:
  social conduct

  What is the forum's policy on ad hominems?

  @Sascha said:
  you are obscuring and distorting the record of the exchange

  No. I don't edit posts that have a reply. If I did, it was by mistake. Do you have an example, where I edited a post after it had a reply? That shouldn't have happened.

  I'm sorry, if my editing behavior violates a forum policy. I'm trying to provide content that enriches the discussion. And I'm trying to provide a clear train of thought within my posts. Unfortunately I notice some stuff only after posting, that should have been noticed while drafting. I believe that it is in the readers' interest to clarify those thoughts, before someone replies. If this forum has a different policy, I respect that policy.

  @Sascha said:
  The literature notes don't have an ID

  Where did I claim that Luhmann assigned a Folgezettel ID or any other ID to bibliographical notes?

  @Sascha said:
  Schmidt called this "Bibliographischer Apparatz"

  Yes.

  @Sascha said:
  They are kept separate from the actual Zettelkasten.

  I checked your video reference. Starting at 9:35 Schmidt describes the content of Luhmann's Zettelkasten ("Der Inhalt des Zettelkastens"). Here's a screenshot for your convenience:

  

  The slide describes the bibliographical apparatus as part of the Zettelkasten. A more accessible source is Johannes Schmidt is The Fabrication of Serendipity. He describes elements of the Zettelkasten (emphasis mine):

  Luhmann’s card index consists of approximately 90,000 handwritten cards in A-6 format organized in two collections. (…) [The first collection] consists of approximately 23,000 cards, which are divided into 108 sections by subjects and numbered consecutively, two bibliographies comprising about 2,000 titles, and a keyword index with roughly 1,250 entries. (…) [The second collection] consists of approximately 67,000 cards, including a sizeable but obviously incomplete bibliographical apparatus with roughly 15,000 references and a keyword index with 3,200 entries.

  Schmidt makes sense to me. The entirety of the Zettelkasten is the Zettelkasten. The Zettelkasten has a physical structure: there are multiple wooden boxes with multiple drawers. The Zettelkasten has an internal structure: there are multiple sections and collections. Some of them are organized as Folgezettels and others by other principles.

  Luhmann kept the bibliographical apparatus separate from Folgezettels, but within the Zettelkasten.

  At 41:19 Schmidt talks about the importance of the keyword index for Luhmann's paper-based technique (emphasis mine):

  The keyword index was essential for the Zettelkasten’s ability to function.
  (Das Schlagwortregister war existenziell für die Operationsfähigkeit des Kastens.)

  Does your concept of the "actual Zettelkasten" include or exclude the keyword index?

  @Sascha said:
  stating basic errors (…) super annoying to hash these things out

  Yeah, fact-checking can be annoying.

  But with the help of transcription and translation tools, even a 47min non-english video can be processed quickly. In this case I learned something new, so it was rewarding. And maybe there's something new for the readers as well.
• firozansari

  March 5 edited March 5

  @harr, your analysis of Luhmann’s sequencing here are, as always, extremely helpful and, in my opinion, among the most accurate depictions of how Luhmann actually sequenced his cards. I always learn something new from your forum posts here, or fix gaps in my own understanding. Thank you for continuing sharing your insights and analysis. I wish you maintained a separate blog where you could publish these analyses without the distractions that often appear in threads here from a few self-appointed know-it-alls, who seem to always butt in themselves into every discussion, as if each post must requires their approval and validation.

  I’ve been a member of this forum for about two years now and visit regularly, but avoid posting replies or sharing my own conclusions here. It's a scary place here. I mainly come to learn from few people whom I believe truly understand the topic. I will also register a domain name related to Zettelkasten, host a forum platform, and become an expert. 😊
• harr

  March 5

  @firozansari said:
  I always learn something new from your forum posts here, or fix gaps in my own understanding.

  Thank you very much!

  I wish you maintained a separate blog

  I was considering it. I like the place here, because of the variety of view points found in the comments. And I do appreciate critical feedback, because it keeps me sharp. There's always something to learn, even from rude comments.
• harr

  March 5 edited March 5

  This thread started with an experiment. There are so many unfounded claims floating around, that I needed to look at the real thing with my own eyes. The experiment worked well with Folgezettels, because the Luhmann Archive has published so many of them.

  @Sascha said:
  However, the bibliographical notes here are not the notes as in slips of papers. (…) The so-called literature notes are stored in a separate box and is operationally closed which makes it a separate system.

  We know surprisingly little about Luhmann's bibliographical notes. During my research I found only very few facsimiles of bibliographical notes. I can't remember having seen images, that show where Luhmann filed these notes.

  Does anybody knows where to find pictures of Luhmann's bibliographical notes? Please share!

  In the meantime I rely on researchers like Johannes Schmidt, who have access to Luhmann's original Zettelkasten (see above), and on Luhmann's own words. For example the talk, that Chris Aldrich mentioned in Niklas Luhmann's Zettelkasten Method "One Pager" (1968)) (emphasis mine):

  For books and journal articles that you have had in your hands and worked with, it is advisable to have a special section in your card index, at the front or back, containing cards with bibliographic information.

  (Für Bücher, Zeitschriftenaufsätze, die Sie in der Hand gehabt und bearbeitet haben, empfiehlt sich ein besonderer Bereich im Zettelkasten, vorne oder hinten, mit Zetteln über bibliographische Angaben.)

  I find it interesting, how Luhmann teaches his own method.
• Sascha

  March 6 edited March 6

  @Zettelkasten101 said:
  Okay, I see that you understand the word "system" very differently from how I use it and, seemingly, how @harr used it in the previous posts. I only ever had interest in Luhmann's Zettelkasten and not in sociology and his sociological theory, so I won't get into all this.

  (1) I used the terms that Luhmann used as is thinking framework and (2) both his line of thinking and the article's title "Communication with Zettelkastens" are strongly indicating that his article is written based on his systems theory. Therefore, not going into all of this means that you don't engage with the very thinking that you are trying to understand.

  @harr said:

  @Sascha said:
  you are obscuring and distorting the record of the exchange

  No. I don't edit posts that have a reply. If I did, it was by mistake. Do you have an example, where I edited a post after it had a reply? That shouldn't have happened.

  I'm sorry, if my editing behavior violates a forum policy.

  If you completely rewrite your post hours after your original reply, the situation arises that people read your post postpone the answer for an hour, start to right the answer only to find that they are reacting to something that isn't there.

  You didn't violate any forum policies. So, no worries about that.

  (Annoying me is also not violating any forum rules for the record)

  I checked your video reference. Starting at 9:35 Schmidt describes the content of Luhmann's Zettelkasten ("Der Inhalt des Zettelkastens"). Here's a screenshot for your convenience:

  

  So, in this slide there is his first Zettelkasten and his second Zettelkasten as a title. According to your reasoning, both are just one Zettelkasten.

  Schmidt says that he started his second Zettelkasten after the first one and gave reasons for it.

  So, is Schmidt wrong stating that Luhmann started a second Zettelkasten and he should've correctly said that he continued his original Zettelkasten in another wooden box? Or is his title wrongly claiming that everything is part of his Zettelkasten?

  Currently, you pulled evidence for the actual use of the word Zettelkasten. This means that you try to base a technical definition on empirical evidence for how the word is actually used in an informal setting.

  Luhmann himself is using the term here non-technical in the lecture notes. So, if he'd put a gummy bear in his Zettelkasten, he could say "Oh, there is a gummy bear *in my Zettelkasten.", but at the same time say "This gummy bear isn't part of my Zettelkasten."

  The gap here in your reasoning is that you miss establishing inclusion criteria and establishing that they are essential and not just accidental.

  I provided my exclusion criteria in this thread: Structural coupling implies separate systems, operational closedness implies exclusion of other entities being part of the system.

  ==========================================================================

  I forgot: I think that you are correct in drawing the connection outlining. I'd use Bike App for that.

  ==========================================================================

  We are derailing your thread here. If you want the thread to be separated, point to the first post of the new thread I will split from here.

  Post edited by Sascha on March 6

  I am a Zettler
• Zettelkasten101

  March 6 edited March 6

  @Sascha said:

  @Zettelkasten101 said:
  Okay, I see that you understand the word "system" very differently from how I use it and, seemingly, how @harr used it in the previous posts. I only ever had interest in Luhmann's Zettelkasten and not in sociology and his sociological theory, so I won't get into all this.

  (1) I used the terms that Luhmann used as is thinking framework and (2) both his line of thinking and the article's title "Communication with Zettelkastens" are strongly indicating that his article is written based on his systems theory. Therefore, not going into all of this means that you don't engage with the very thinking that you are trying to understand.

  Not necessarily. Luhmann's article deals with a very tangible thing, especially tangible for us now through the online archive. If my goal is to understand how it worked, I can have a theory separate from Luhmann's theory that only deals with what I directly see there (in the archive), and Luhmann's thoughts in the article can still provide some useful clues because they still deal with this very thing.

  For example (this example is present in my description of his Zettelkasten), when Luhmann enumerates the advantages of his system, he discusses red numbers and letters in the first paragraph which deals with his branching technique while the links between notes are discussed in the second paragraph. This allowed me to support my conclusion that red footnotes (as I call them) aren't links at all but a part of the branching technique since Luhmann himself (contrary to Schmidt, for example) saw them this way.

  Does this count as "engaging with the thinking"? I think so. And I believe it is quite possible to engage with what Luhmann thought of his Zettelkasten without going into the depths of his sociological theory. Honestly, I think some things he wrote in his article are very confusing, the most prominent example being the claim that communication is only possible where two partners can surprise each other. I do get how he himself could be surprised, but not the Zettelkasten. Perhaps it is explained in his theory, perhaps it isn't. I really don't strive to learn Luhmman-theory-speak, so even if I will learn that those confusing things are a result of some different word meanings because of his theory, I will still use my own language to describe all things Zettelkasten, and in my language inanimate things can't be surprised.

  @harr said:
  We know surprisingly little about Luhmann's bibliographical notes. During my research I found only very few facsimiles of bibliographical notes. I can't remember having seen images, that show where Luhmann filed these notes.

  Does anybody knows where to find pictures of Luhmann's bibliographical notes? Please share!

  Yes, they are partially digitized.

  The only bibliography of ZK I is here (fully digitized): https://niklas-luhmann-archiv.de/bestand/zettelkasten/zettel/ZK_2_BG1_001_V

  The first bibliography of ZK II is here (fully digitized): https://niklas-luhmann-archiv.de/bestand/zettelkasten/zettel/ZK_2_BG2a_134_V

  The second and most interesting bibliography of ZK II is here: https://niklas-luhmann-archiv.de/bestand/zettelkasten/zettel/ZK_2_BG2b_00001_V

  Unfortunately, it is only digitized partially (they say there are 3 more boxes of cards not present there) and they didn't yet add any transcriptions for these.

  By the way, all these bibliographies and other parts of both Zettelkastens are accessible from here: https://niklas-luhmann-archiv.de/bestand/zettelkasten/inhaltsuebersicht

  Post edited by Zettelkasten101 on March 6