The bibliographic sections of ZK II are located in the drawers 15–17 of ZK II, which are part of the wooden box, as well as in drawers 18–20, which were stored separately in individual containers outside the box.
Original: In den Auszügen 15-17 des ZK II, die Teil des hölzernen Zettelkastens sind, sowie den Auszügen 18-20, die außerhalb dieses Kastens in einzelnen Schubern gelagert waren, befinden sich die bibliographischen Abteilungen des ZK II.
I learned, that we were both half right and half wrong. :-) One half of ZK II's bibliographical apparatus was stored in a big wooden box (15-17), the other half in separate containers (18-20).
@Zettelkasten101 said:
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.
I like the name red footnotes. And I agree with your assessment, that they provide an additional branching mechanism. It took a while to find a good place for them in the experiment. The solution was to sort and display them like other branches, but add a visual marker that they are a different branching system.
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.
Self-irony is another explanation. :-) The whole article has a tongue-in-cheek quality.
The corresponding 9/8 branch compares the Zettelkasten to the digestive system of a ruminant (Wiederkäuer) and to a cesspit (Klärgrube). The last note of the main sequence contains a meta joke about a "joker" zettel. Then there's the famous "ghost in the box", which I would explain as playful reference to a story in a famous book by Gilbert Ryle.
The jokes aren't blunt. They also work well as rich metaphors. As far as I can tell, the social science in the article is sound. He just happens to apply it to a box filled with paper slips. I think he knows very well, what he's doing, and is having a good time doing it. :-)
@Zettelkasten101 said:
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.
I like the name red footnotes. And I agree with your assessment, that they provide an additional branching mechanism. It took a while to find a good place for them in the experiment. The solution was to sort and display them like other branches, but add a visual marker that they are a different branching system.
They aren't a different branching system, but an integral part of the one and only. Branches that repeat the numbering type from the previous branch (1/1 —> 1/1,1 or 1/1a —> 1/1aa) are never used without the red footnotes (exceptions are extremely rare). The same goes for capital letters in numbers (again, with only a few easily explainable exceptions). Sometimes a regular branch will use these (1/1 —> 1/1a or 1/1a —> 1/1a1) and the branch with the repetition is never present in these cases. There are clear rules that connect the numbering and red footnotes. It is very sad that these rules aren't recognized and discussed, actually. People usually expect to replicate Luhmann's method with just "1a between 1 and 2" which is a clumsy oversimplification.
@Zettelkasten101 said:
They aren't a different branching system, but an integral part of the one and only.
I see a a subtle difference. There's a direct connection from footnote 2 of note 1/2 to note 1/2,2. Whereas 1/2b follows 1/a. But then there's 1/1,2 as counter-example, which follows 1/1,1, but has no corresponding footnote in note 1/1. Note 1/1,2a branches off the footnote 1/1,2 in the conventional manner.
On second thought "integral part of the one and only" does make sense, because the one and only has also other lesser known variants, like roman numerals or the z/… continuation.
I'm still looking for good words. Maybe:
The branching system has a basic rule plus some variations?
This would also include topical hierarchies 5 -> 53 -> 531 --> 5314.
I also like your term "branching technique". Putting the focus on "branch" instead of "Folgezettel" makes room for all the variants.
@firozansari said:
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. 😊
If this is your first post - welcome! And please continue posting. I don't find the forum scary at all - I hope you were exaggerating!!
@harr said:
I learned, that we were both half right and half wrong. :-) One half of ZK II's bibliographical apparatus was stored in a big wooden box (15-17), the other half in separate containers (18-20).
Please include me as well in half right and half wrong. I was deep into Luhmann's boxes and Auszug couple of years back, and my concluding notes almost matching with yours. Sharing a couple of screenshots. Still I was not sure about few things.
Total Drawers: 27 (24 in wooden boxes, 3 external cardboard boxes)
Total Notes: Approximately 90,000
Collections:
Zettelkasten I (ZK I): Drawers 1–7, parts of Drawer 24; ~23,000 notes
Zettelkasten II (ZK II): Drawers 8–24, Drawers 25–27; ~67,000 notes
@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.
In the very next paragraph, it shows that a lot of what Luhmann thought of his Zettelkasten is opaque to you because you don't put yourself in Luhmann's shoes.
If you don't immerse yourself in his thinking, you won't get the full picture and limit your understanding.
If you don't want to get this deeper understanding, this is a non-issue, of course. The raw material of the Zettelkasten is there and you can access its actual structure. So, the raw mechanics should be accessible to you.
What you won't be able to access will be the ghost in the box. You get to see everything, and nothing but that - like in a porn movie. And, according to Luhmann, the disappointment will be correspondingly high.
I ditched the Folgezettel technique (branching) more than a decade ago (I used it both in physical and in digital form later for quite a while) for the very reason that the raw mechanics are not the preconditions to the magic of the Zettelkasten Method. With the separation of principles and implementation, there are multiple ways to create it and therefore choices are opened up that you can make based on taste or other criteria (for me, it is all about ergonomics and efficiency).
@Zettelkasten101 said:
They aren't a different branching system, but an integral part of the one and only.
I see a subtle difference. There's a direct connection from footnote 2 of note 1/2 to note 1/2,2. Whereas 1/2b follows 1/2a. But then there's 1/1,2 as counter-example, which follows 1/1,1, but has no corresponding footnote in note 1/1. Note 1/1,2a branches off the footnote 1/1,2 in the conventional manner.
Footnote is only mandatory on the first card of the red branch (that's how I call a branch to which red footnotes point). After that there can be any number of following cards between the cards with the footnotes. This way, footnotes can split the branch into a number of internal segments, effectively allowing for multiple branches even without the use of capital letters. What you point out here is not the different branching system but different ways of attaching cards inside a single system.
On second thought "integral part of the one and only" does make sense, because the one and only has also other lesser known variants, like roman numerals or the z/… continuation.
Roman numerals? I don't think I've seen those in the main part of the Zettelkasten. Can you give a link to them?
Regarding the z/... continuation, I actually have a full list of these:
21/3d5b11z/a
21/3d18d2zA
21/3d19z/a
22/10z/a
3/12z/a (3/12za in the archive)
31/3a6z/a
32/3g11zA
32/3g13z/a
32/3g13z/z/a
3411/18zA
3414/2z/a
3414/6zA
352/16z/a (2) (number 2 is an error of the archive as far as I'm aware)
42/1A7z/A
42/5z/a
5313/6z/a (5313/6za in the archive)
533/15z/a
54/14z/a
7/9z/a
7/25g31zA
The ones in itallics are a few examples of capital letters being temporarily used for something other than adding branches. I believe Luhmann developed this techique in this order: 1) zA, 2) z/A, 3) z/a.
I'm still looking for good words. Maybe:
The branching system has a basic rule plus some variations?
I'd say "it has a number of possible variants that are used with different frequencies." Variants of card attachment aren't exactly "rules", I think. The set of these variants can be called a rule ("you can attach cards like this, like this and like this, but not in any other way").
This would also include topical hierarchies 5 -> 53 -> 531 --> 5314.
I personally don't interpret these as branches but don't see anything really wrong with that.
I also like your term "branching technique". Putting the focus on "branch" instead of "Folgezettel" makes room for all the variants.
Yep, this is the reason I don't use the term "Folgezettel". I think it's confusing.
@Sascha said:
In the very next paragraph, it shows that a lot of what Luhmann thought of his Zettelkasten is opaque to you because you don't put yourself in Luhmann's shoes.
If you don't immerse yourself in his thinking, you won't get the full picture and limit your understanding.
If you don't want to get this deeper understanding, this is a non-issue, of course. The raw material of the Zettelkasten is there and you can access its actual structure. So, the raw mechanics should be accessible to you.
...
I ditched the Folgezettel technique (branching) more than a decade ago (I used it both in physical and in digital form later for quite a while) for the very reason that the raw mechanics are not the preconditions to the magic of the Zettelkasten Method. With the separation of principles and implementation, there are multiple ways to create it and therefore choices are opened up that you can make based on taste or other criteria (for me, it is all about ergonomics and efficiency).
Quick question: have you ever really used Luhmann's branching technique (not just "Folgezettel") exactly like he used it? Did you use red footnotes? Did you use repeating numbering types (1/1,1 or 1/1aa) in the same way, and not just the number-letter alternation? Because I did. And because I did, I've been in his shoes much more than you can imagine. I've been thinking of which variant of attachment to choose, whether I continue a text in the same branch or start a new one, whether I use red letters or red numbers (small or capital), etc. Theories can be different, but the things I did and the things Luhmann did, and how we thought while doing them, were very close.
What you won't be able to access will be the ghost in the box. You get to see everything, and nothing but that - like in a porn movie. And, according to Luhmann, the disappointment will be correspondingly high.
...
You may read this article: https://zettelkasten.de/posts/ghost-in-the-box/ (and the comments!)
I don't believe this ghost in the box exists, as @harr puts it in the comments under the article. Therefore, I can't be disappointed. Even if Luhmann described it as a communication partner, a ghost (or spirit, or mind), or alter ego, a simple observation can tell me that it is none of those. Luhmann only said that 1) because of his theory, which I have no interest in, 2) as a metaphor, or 3) because he deceived himself. Which one of these, I don't really care. It can even be all three at once. Meanwhile, his techniques are so interesting to me that I am anything but disappointed while watching this "porn movie".
@firozansari said:
Sharing a couple of screenshots.
Nice. That's exactly the kind of graphic I'm looking for.
I checked some records online looking for "Auszug". Here are a few entry points I added to my own notes. If I understand the numbering correctly, Auszug 17 of ZK II and Auszug 24 of the whole box refer to the same drawer. It's the last drawer in the big box.
What doesn't make any sense to me, is that the bibliography in drawer 2/15 starts with the letter S. Strange…
Regarding the z/... continuation, I actually have a full list of these:
Wow. It looks like you worked with a large sample of Luhmann numbers. Did you use a script to query the records?
Not exactly. I saved all html-pages of the full note search (took a while) and then parsed them automatically with a script to generate the list of all note numbers from that. I'm not a professional programmer, so perhaps this approach wasn't optimal, but it worked.
@Zettelkasten101 said:
Footnote is only mandatory on the first card of the red branch (that's how I call a branch to which red footnotes point).
https://niklas-luhmann-archiv.de calls such branch "vorwaerts-in-ergaenzendem-Strang" if you review the JSON structure of any card that contains such branch. Google translated it for me as "forward-in-supplementary-thread." So for the past two years, I have been referring to it as the supplementary branch (or strand).
https://niklas-luhmann-archiv.de JSON structure is a goldmine. It gives even more information (or nomenclature) about the card and it's relationships than their UI provides.
naechste-vorderseite-im-zettelkasten next front side in the card index
vorherige-vorderseite-im-zettelkasten previous front side in the card index
naechster-scan-im-zettelkasten next scan in the card index
vorheriger-scan-im-zettelkasten previous scan in the card index
kehrseite reverse side
vorwaerts-in-diesem-Strang forward in this thread
vorwaerts-in-eingeschobenem-Strang forward-in-inserted-thread*
vorwaerts-in-ergaenzendem-Strang forward in supplementary thread*
vorwaerts-in-parallelem-Strang forward in parallel thread*
rueckwaerts-in-diesem-Strang backward in this thread
Anfang-des-Strangs beginning of the thread
Anfang-des-naechsten-Komplexes beginning of the next complex
Anfang-des-vorherigen-Komplexes beginning of the previous complex
Zum-Einstiegspunkt to the entry point
zurueck-zu-hoeherem-Strang back to higher thread
I finally figured out, how to download all zettels as JSON. 8 API calls downloading 10k rows, done. It's amazing, how much data the team encoded in their records. Looking forward to explore the mine.
Experimenting with a full set of Luhmann zettels is fun. I converted the JSON files into one big LibreOffice spreadsheet. The goal is a more quantitative approach to branch analysis and maybe some automated visualizations of larger numbers of notes.
Not sure if the math is correct, but I have new candidates for deepest branching:
The spreadsheet has a surprising side-effect. Luhmann's zettels are losing some of their mystic appeal.
In my experience, storing card JSON along with their relationships in a database has been very helpful instead of spreadsheets. PostgreSQL is particularly well-suited for this purpose, as it provides built-in JSON path querying capabilities.
For some reason my comments started to disappear for "approval" when I try to edit small things in them and I have to rewrite them again. This is the third time I write this one.
@Zettelkasten101 said:
...whether I use red letters or red numbers (small or capital), etc.
@Zettelkasten101 said:
Footnote is only mandatory on the first card of the red branch (that's how I call a branch to which red footnotes point).
https://niklas-luhmann-archiv.de calls such branch "vorwaerts-in-ergaenzendem-Strang" if you review the JSON structure of any card that contains such branch. Google translated it for me as "forward-in-supplementary-thread." So for the past two years, I have been referring to it as the supplementary branch (or strand).
https://niklas-luhmann-archiv.de JSON structure is a goldmine. It gives even more information (or nomenclature) about the card and it's relationships than their UI provides.
naechste-vorderseite-im-zettelkasten next front side in the card index
vorherige-vorderseite-im-zettelkasten previous front side in the card index
naechster-scan-im-zettelkasten next scan in the card index
vorheriger-scan-im-zettelkasten previous scan in the card index
kehrseite reverse side
vorwaerts-in-diesem-Strang forward in this thread
vorwaerts-in-eingeschobenem-Strang forward-in-inserted-thread*
vorwaerts-in-ergaenzendem-Strang forward in supplementary thread*
vorwaerts-in-parallelem-Strang forward in parallel thread*
rueckwaerts-in-diesem-Strang backward in this thread
Anfang-des-Strangs beginning of the thread
Anfang-des-naechsten-Komplexes beginning of the next complex
Anfang-des-vorherigen-Komplexes beginning of the previous complex
Zum-Einstiegspunkt to the entry point
zurueck-zu-hoeherem-Strang back to higher thread
I haven't seen this JSON structure myself, but as far as I can tell most of these relationships are present in their UI. This is basically an enumeration of the buttons you see at the top of the page while viewing a note.
My term "red branch" is not synonymous with their "ergänzender Strang". My term means branch as a whole, and I have a separate term "red branching" for structures that use capital letters. In contrast, their "ergänzender Strang" means anything connected with a red footnote, i.e. only a segment of a red branch or a part of a red branching.
Also keep in mind that their "eingeschobener Strang" is not the same thing as my "regular branch" since my term is purely formal and they often include regular branches in the same lines as their parent notes without distinguishing them as "eingeschoben". In other words, these relationships may represent editorial decisions rather than a formal structure.
@harr said:
Experimenting with a full set of Luhmann zettels is fun. I converted the JSON files into one big LibreOffice spreadsheet. The goal is a more quantitative approach to branch analysis and maybe some automated visualizations of larger numbers of notes.
Not sure if the math is correct, but I have new candidates for deepest branching:
The spreadsheet has a surprising side-effect. Luhmann's zettels are losing some of their mystic appeal.
21/3a1p5c4aA11eB1,1 is indeed the deepest branching you can find in ZK II, but ZK I has a few notes that are one level deeper than 57,4e7b1a10f5f6C10. They all are very close to it, in fact:
My term "red branch" is not synonymous with their "ergänzender Strang". My term means branch as a whole, and I have a separate term "red branching" for structures that use capital letters. In contrast, their "ergänzender Strang" means anything connected with a red footnote, i.e. only a segment of a red branch or a part of a red branching.
Interesting. Now that I understand the concept behind "red branching", I like the idea.
they don't make even make the top ten. :-) As compared to for example:
21-3-a-1-p-5-c-4-a-A-11-e-B-1-1
In my experience, storing card JSON along with their relationships in a database has been very helpful instead of spreadsheets. PostgreSQL is particularly well-suited for this purpose, as it provides built-in JSON path querying capabilities.
That would be the next level. At this point I like the idea of having just one table. For now I ignore the relationship data provided by the Luhmann Archive and focus on the 67+K Luhmann numbers.
@firozansari said:
Interesting. Now that I understand the concept behind "red branching", I like the idea.
Same here. The concept of red branches works well with cases like these:
I didn't know you could get the whole JSON, wow! If you have a full JSON dump, you have structured data; next you could have an LLM agent create visualization tools, graphs, maps based on this. That's immensely powerful to explore this (where the spreadsheet can offer quantification)
@harr As the OP, do you want me to split off a new discussion thread to keep the Logseq discussion on topic? DM me a link to the post that should be the first to prune this thread at and create a new one then.
I'd like to keep this thread together, because @firozansari's thoughts on link structures and @Zettelkasten101's thoughts on "red footnotes" and "branching technique" make a lot of sense here.
I'll start a new thread "How to download Zettels and JSON files from the Luhmann Archive" for technical discussions. Maybe with selected deep links to some comments here. Should be done by the end of the day.
Returning to the intitial topic of this thread, here are a few quick examples of bibliographical notes in Logseq.
Here's a screenshot using transcripts from two cards from ZK I. Each card/slip contains multiple references:
The following screenshot is from the often mentioned Lucinde example. It's one card with basic bibliographical data on the front and reading notes on the reverse side. I didn't transcribe them, because I found the handwriting to difficult to read. But I find it interesting to see the reading notes in context. They are not written on some random piece of paper and filed away outside the paper slip box. The are written on the same paper slip as the bibliographical data:
The following screenshot is from an example spanning two paper slips using both sides.
As with other examples in this thread, vertical alignment of paper slips makes the notes easier to read.
@Zettelkasten101said:
Luhmann's branching technique (not just "Folgezettel") exactly like he used it
Applying the same image rotation trick as in an earlier comment, we see the same principle: sequences branching off sequences.
I find the color coding interesting. It uses more than one color for branching off new sequences. It's hard to tell, which branches have been branched off by red footnotes or by other methods.
I think these visualizations support the idea, that Folgezettels shouldn't be looked at in isolation, but as part of a comprehensive branching technique.
This branching technique must have been important to Luhmann. He kept working with this technique for 40+ years. I find Luhmann's notes much easier to read, when I don't think of them as individual zettels, but as sequences branching off sequences.
@Zettelkasten101 said:
I don't believe this ghost in the box exists, as @harr puts it in the comments under the article. Therefore, I can't be disappointed. Even if Luhmann described it as a communication partner, a ghost (or spirit, or mind), or alter ego, a simple observation can tell me that it is none of those. Luhmann only said that 1) because of his theory, which I have no interest in, 2) as a metaphor, or 3) because he deceived himself. Which one of these, I don't really care. It can even be all three at once. Meanwhile, his techniques are so interesting to me that I am anything but disappointed while watching this "porn movie".
The "ghost" equals roughly to the constructs in psychology. Constructs like IQ or costumer satisfaction are created to deal with things that you can’t physically drop on a scale or measure with a ruler.
In the Zettelkasten world, these constructs are things like layers, complex ideas (ideas that span over multiple notes), and trains of thought.
Luhmann offered with his terms another way of approaching a higher-level view.
These are needed to make sense of the behaviour of the Zettelkasten and its relationship to its user. Let's take this sentence as an example:
Even if Luhmann described it as a communication partner, a ghost (or spirit, or mind), or alter ego, a simple observation can tell me that it is none of those.
I could say the same of us: Our minds could be described as communication partners or ghosts. A simple observation of open our skulls could tell me that we are none of those. We are nothing but grey jelly.
Ghosts are necessary byproducts of making sense of complex systems to observe emergent phenomena.
Comments
Thanks for the links!
I learned a new word: "Auszug" (physical drawers containing paper slips). We do have clues, where those notes are kept in the Zettelkasten.
I found a page that catalogs drawers and the status of their digitization: https://niklas-luhmann-archiv.de/bestand/zettelkasten/auszuege. It also answers a question that Sascha and I were debating:
I learned, that we were both half right and half wrong. :-) One half of ZK II's bibliographical apparatus was stored in a big wooden box (15-17), the other half in separate containers (18-20).
And I found a page that provides access to many facsimiles of ZK II Auszug 17: https://niklas-luhmann-archiv.de/bestand/zettelkasten/2/auszug/17
In combination with ZK I more than enough for another experiment!
I like the name red footnotes. And I agree with your assessment, that they provide an additional branching mechanism. It took a while to find a good place for them in the experiment. The solution was to sort and display them like other branches, but add a visual marker that they are a different branching system.
Self-irony is another explanation. :-) The whole article has a tongue-in-cheek quality.
The corresponding 9/8 branch compares the Zettelkasten to the digestive system of a ruminant (Wiederkäuer) and to a cesspit (Klärgrube). The last note of the main sequence contains a meta joke about a "joker" zettel. Then there's the famous "ghost in the box", which I would explain as playful reference to a story in a famous book by Gilbert Ryle.
The jokes aren't blunt. They also work well as rich metaphors. As far as I can tell, the social science in the article is sound. He just happens to apply it to a box filled with paper slips. I think he knows very well, what he's doing, and is having a good time doing it. :-)
They aren't a different branching system, but an integral part of the one and only. Branches that repeat the numbering type from the previous branch (1/1 —> 1/1,1 or 1/1a —> 1/1aa) are never used without the red footnotes (exceptions are extremely rare). The same goes for capital letters in numbers (again, with only a few easily explainable exceptions). Sometimes a regular branch will use these (1/1 —> 1/1a or 1/1a —> 1/1a1) and the branch with the repetition is never present in these cases. There are clear rules that connect the numbering and red footnotes. It is very sad that these rules aren't recognized and discussed, actually. People usually expect to replicate Luhmann's method with just "1a between 1 and 2" which is a clumsy oversimplification.
I see a a subtle difference. There's a direct connection from footnote 2 of note 1/2 to note 1/2,2. Whereas 1/2b follows 1/a. But then there's 1/1,2 as counter-example, which follows 1/1,1, but has no corresponding footnote in note 1/1. Note 1/1,2a branches off the footnote 1/1,2 in the conventional manner.
On second thought "integral part of the one and only" does make sense, because the one and only has also other lesser known variants, like roman numerals or the z/… continuation.
I'm still looking for good words. Maybe:
The branching system has a basic rule plus some variations?
This would also include topical hierarchies 5 -> 53 -> 531 --> 5314.
I also like your term "branching technique". Putting the focus on "branch" instead of "Folgezettel" makes room for all the variants.
If this is your first post - welcome! And please continue posting. I don't find the forum scary at all - I hope you were exaggerating!!
Please include me as well in half right and half wrong.
I was deep into Luhmann's boxes and Auszug couple of years back, and my concluding notes almost matching with yours. Sharing a couple of screenshots. Still I was not sure about few things.
Total Drawers: 27 (24 in wooden boxes, 3 external cardboard boxes)
In the very next paragraph, it shows that a lot of what Luhmann thought of his Zettelkasten is opaque to you because you don't put yourself in Luhmann's shoes.
If you don't immerse yourself in his thinking, you won't get the full picture and limit your understanding.
If you don't want to get this deeper understanding, this is a non-issue, of course. The raw material of the Zettelkasten is there and you can access its actual structure. So, the raw mechanics should be accessible to you.
What you won't be able to access will be the ghost in the box. You get to see everything, and nothing but that - like in a porn movie. And, according to Luhmann, the disappointment will be correspondingly high.
I ditched the Folgezettel technique (branching) more than a decade ago (I used it both in physical and in digital form later for quite a while) for the very reason that the raw mechanics are not the preconditions to the magic of the Zettelkasten Method. With the separation of principles and implementation, there are multiple ways to create it and therefore choices are opened up that you can make based on taste or other criteria (for me, it is all about ergonomics and efficiency).
You may read this article: https://zettelkasten.de/posts/ghost-in-the-box/ (and the comments!)
I am a Zettler
Footnote is only mandatory on the first card of the red branch (that's how I call a branch to which red footnotes point). After that there can be any number of following cards between the cards with the footnotes. This way, footnotes can split the branch into a number of internal segments, effectively allowing for multiple branches even without the use of capital letters. What you point out here is not the different branching system but different ways of attaching cards inside a single system.
Roman numerals? I don't think I've seen those in the main part of the Zettelkasten. Can you give a link to them?
Regarding the z/... continuation, I actually have a full list of these:
32/3g13z/a
3411/18zA
The ones in itallics are a few examples of capital letters being temporarily used for something other than adding branches. I believe Luhmann developed this techique in this order: 1) zA, 2) z/A, 3) z/a.
I'd say "it has a number of possible variants that are used with different frequencies." Variants of card attachment aren't exactly "rules", I think. The set of these variants can be called a rule ("you can attach cards like this, like this and like this, but not in any other way").
I personally don't interpret these as branches but don't see anything really wrong with that.
Yep, this is the reason I don't use the term "Folgezettel". I think it's confusing.
Quick question: have you ever really used Luhmann's branching technique (not just "Folgezettel") exactly like he used it? Did you use red footnotes? Did you use repeating numbering types (1/1,1 or 1/1aa) in the same way, and not just the number-letter alternation? Because I did. And because I did, I've been in his shoes much more than you can imagine. I've been thinking of which variant of attachment to choose, whether I continue a text in the same branch or start a new one, whether I use red letters or red numbers (small or capital), etc. Theories can be different, but the things I did and the things Luhmann did, and how we thought while doing them, were very close.
I don't believe this ghost in the box exists, as @harr puts it in the comments under the article. Therefore, I can't be disappointed. Even if Luhmann described it as a communication partner, a ghost (or spirit, or mind), or alter ego, a simple observation can tell me that it is none of those. Luhmann only said that 1) because of his theory, which I have no interest in, 2) as a metaphor, or 3) because he deceived himself. Which one of these, I don't really care. It can even be all three at once. Meanwhile, his techniques are so interesting to me that I am anything but disappointed while watching this "porn movie".
The example I had in mind was
…ifollowed by…ii. But I can't find it anymore. :-(Wow. It looks like you worked with a large sample of Luhmann numbers. Did you use a script to query the records?
Same here. :-)
Nice. That's exactly the kind of graphic I'm looking for.
I checked some records online looking for "Auszug". Here are a few entry points I added to my own notes. If I understand the numbering correctly, Auszug 17 of ZK II and Auszug 24 of the whole box refer to the same drawer. It's the last drawer in the big box.
What doesn't make any sense to me, is that the bibliography in drawer 2/15 starts with the letter
S. Strange…Not exactly. I saved all html-pages of the full note search (took a while) and then parsed them automatically with a script to generate the list of all note numbers from that. I'm not a professional programmer, so perhaps this approach wasn't optimal, but it worked.
Nice!
https://niklas-luhmann-archiv.de calls such branch "vorwaerts-in-ergaenzendem-Strang" if you review the JSON structure of any card that contains such branch. Google translated it for me as "forward-in-supplementary-thread." So for the past two years, I have been referring to it as the supplementary branch (or strand).
https://niklas-luhmann-archiv.de JSON structure is a goldmine. It gives even more information (or nomenclature) about the card and it's relationships than their UI provides.
Here is the lookup for all relationships I compiled from https://niklas-luhmann-archiv.de if you find it useful:
I finally figured out, how to download all zettels as JSON. 8 API calls downloading 10k rows, done. It's amazing, how much data the team encoded in their records. Looking forward to explore the mine.
This paper by Lena-Luise Stahn might be of interest:
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3235/paper5.pdf
This is great! Thank you so much for the link.
Experimenting with a full set of Luhmann zettels is fun. I converted the JSON files into one big LibreOffice spreadsheet. The goal is a more quantitative approach to branch analysis and maybe some automated visualizations of larger numbers of notes.
Not sure if the math is correct, but I have new candidates for deepest branching:
The spreadsheet has a surprising side-effect. Luhmann's zettels are losing some of their mystic appeal.
My query returns three cards for deepest branching:
ZK II Zettel 21/3d27fB12g29a2,1,1
ZK II Zettel 21/3d27fB12g29a2,2,1
ZK II Zettel 21/3d18c50e6a18,1,1a
In my experience, storing card JSON along with their relationships in a database has been very helpful instead of spreadsheets. PostgreSQL is particularly well-suited for this purpose, as it provides built-in JSON path querying capabilities.
For some reason my comments started to disappear for "approval" when I try to edit small things in them and I have to rewrite them again. This is the third time I write this one.
How did I not notice this
I haven't seen this JSON structure myself, but as far as I can tell most of these relationships are present in their UI. This is basically an enumeration of the buttons you see at the top of the page while viewing a note.
You can find explanations for their terms here: https://niklas-luhmann-archiv.de/bestand/zettelkasten/tutorial (sections 3.1 and 3.2).
My term "red branch" is not synonymous with their "ergänzender Strang". My term means branch as a whole, and I have a separate term "red branching" for structures that use capital letters. In contrast, their "ergänzender Strang" means anything connected with a red footnote, i.e. only a segment of a red branch or a part of a red branching.
Also keep in mind that their "eingeschobener Strang" is not the same thing as my "regular branch" since my term is purely formal and they often include regular branches in the same lines as their parent notes without distinguishing them as "eingeschoben". In other words, these relationships may represent editorial decisions rather than a formal structure.
21/3a1p5c4aA11eB1,1 is indeed the deepest branching you can find in ZK II, but ZK I has a few notes that are one level deeper than 57,4e7b1a10f5f6C10. They all are very close to it, in fact:
15 levels is the maximum for both Zettelkastens
Interesting. Now that I understand the concept behind "red branching", I like the idea.
When I'm counting levels like this:
21-3-d-27-f-B-12-g-29-a-2-1-1they don't make even make the top ten. :-) As compared to for example:
21-3-a-1-p-5-c-4-a-A-11-e-B-1-1That would be the next level. At this point I like the idea of having just one table. For now I ignore the relationship data provided by the Luhmann Archive and focus on the 67+K Luhmann numbers.
Same here. The concept of red branches works well with cases like these:
I didn't know you could get the whole JSON, wow! If you have a full JSON dump, you have structured data; next you could have an LLM agent create visualization tools, graphs, maps based on this. That's immensely powerful to explore this (where the spreadsheet can offer quantification)
@harr As the OP, do you want me to split off a new discussion thread to keep the Logseq discussion on topic? DM me a link to the post that should be the first to prune this thread at and create a new one then.
Author at Zettelkasten.de • https://christiantietze.de/
Thanks for the offer!
I'd like to keep this thread together, because @firozansari's thoughts on link structures and @Zettelkasten101's thoughts on "red footnotes" and "branching technique" make a lot of sense here.
I'll start a new thread "How to download Zettels and JSON files from the Luhmann Archive" for technical discussions. Maybe with selected deep links to some comments here. Should be done by the end of the day.
The promised post is online: How to download Zettels and JSON files from the Luhmann Archive
Returning to the intitial topic of this thread, here are a few quick examples of bibliographical notes in Logseq.
Here's a screenshot using transcripts from two cards from ZK I. Each card/slip contains multiple references:
The following screenshot is from the often mentioned Lucinde example. It's one card with basic bibliographical data on the front and reading notes on the reverse side. I didn't transcribe them, because I found the handwriting to difficult to read. But I find it interesting to see the reading notes in context. They are not written on some random piece of paper and filed away outside the paper slip box. The are written on the same paper slip as the bibliographical data:
The following screenshot is from an example spanning two paper slips using both sides.
As with other examples in this thread, vertical alignment of paper slips makes the notes easier to read.
The Luhmann Archive has some excellent visualisations at "Zettelkasten I und II – Übersicht über die editorisch konstituierten Zettelkomplexe". The following screenshot is a detail from https://assets.niklas-luhmann-archiv.de/branchview/#ZK_2_NB_21-3d18_V.
Applying the same image rotation trick as in an earlier comment, we see the same principle: sequences branching off sequences.
I find the color coding interesting. It uses more than one color for branching off new sequences. It's hard to tell, which branches have been branched off by red footnotes or by other methods.
I think these visualizations support the idea, that Folgezettels shouldn't be looked at in isolation, but as part of a comprehensive branching technique.
This branching technique must have been important to Luhmann. He kept working with this technique for 40+ years. I find Luhmann's notes much easier to read, when I don't think of them as individual zettels, but as sequences branching off sequences.
The "ghost" equals roughly to the constructs in psychology. Constructs like IQ or costumer satisfaction are created to deal with things that you can’t physically drop on a scale or measure with a ruler.
In the Zettelkasten world, these constructs are things like layers, complex ideas (ideas that span over multiple notes), and trains of thought.
Luhmann offered with his terms another way of approaching a higher-level view.
These are needed to make sense of the behaviour of the Zettelkasten and its relationship to its user. Let's take this sentence as an example:
I could say the same of us: Our minds could be described as communication partners or ghosts. A simple observation of open our skulls could tell me that we are none of those. We are nothing but grey jelly.
Ghosts are necessary byproducts of making sense of complex systems to observe emergent phenomena.
I am a Zettler
Can we please continue the ghost discussion in the ghost thread? As @Sascha wrote in an earlier comment:
In this thread here we're looking at Luhmann's artefacts.