Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 3K All Categories
- 152 Research & Reading
- 692 The Zettelkasten Method
- 7 Knowledge Work
- 99 Writing
- 464 Software & Gadgets
- 154 Workflows
- 729 The Archive
- 15 Plug-In Showcase
- 88 Resolved Issues
- 225 Projects Logs and Journals
- 83 Project: Zettelkasten.de
- 53 Critique my Zettel
- 171 Random
- 373 Introduce Yourselves!
Comments
Snarkiness doesn't help here.
How is paperness an essential quality here?
I didn't drop the topic but continued it by quoting you and reacting to the quote ("proto-atomic notes"). If I missed something that I should address you may point that out.
Why dodging the point that you brought up yourself?
If engaging with the argument (of which testing its soundness of an argument at least the validity is part of) is not the purpose of the reading notes and the lack of engagement is indicative for the lack of engagement with the other building blocks, it is not the case that reading notes adhere to the principle of atomicity as you pointed out here.
However, here you say that you analyse the argument of which validity and soundness should be mandatory characteristics:
I don't see how any historical method is actively used to engage with knowledge.
And I don't see that historical methods are in any form incompatible to historical methods as you said here:
In fact, "my approach" is even applicable for historians (Howell/Prevenier was a major influence for me).
I am a Zettler
I'd like to use your comment as an example, how I engage with a source.
The source in this case is the discussion thread Definitions in Literature Note vs. Zettel Note. Your comment is the most recent message in the thread.
1. Atomicity in reading notes
When I read such a claim, my first impulse is to check the source:
I was talking about the internal structure of a reading note, you shifted the conversation to proto-atomic notes.
I can't tell if you made a honest mistake and misread my question, or if you introduced "proto-atomic notes" as a red herring. When you're quoting "proto-atomic notes", you're not quoting me, you are quoting yourself.
You're missing that I'm using your terminology, when I differentiate between atom and atomic note.
I read your description of your flavor of the Zettelkasten method in The Principle of Atomicity. You yourself make the distinction between knowledge atoms and atomic notes. I'm referring to what you call "atomicity as desired outcome". You write (emphasis added):
The difference between your flavor of zettelkasten and mine is that you do this work in zettels, whereas I do some of this work in reading notes. I find it easier to create zettels only after I reached a level of understanding that allows me to isolate ideas with reasonable confidence.
2. Paperness
Not sure what you mean. Paperness is a property of paper index cards, not of digital notes. I'm advocating digital reading notes.
Let's go back to the source (our thread). Where did "paperness" enter the discussion? I didn't introduce the term, you did. You insisted on making a connection between "paperness" and the "overall line of thought and exchange". You introduced the idea that paperness is "essential" and that I use Luhmann as a "justification" for my own digital practices.
I'm only saying that my practice is compatible with Luhmann's practice. So if somebody claims as argumentum ab auctoritate, that we mustn't have reading notes in our zettelkasten, because Luhmann didn't have reading notes in his zettelkasten, I'd point to Luhmann's zettelkasten and say: "well, he did write reading notes, and here's where you can find them in the digital edition".
3. Soundness and validity of arguments
I appreciate the if in that sentence. But as mentioned before, you're missing that I differentiate between atomic note ("one atom, one note") and "atomicity as an ideal":
Your if introduces a normative statement: "engaging" requires "testing". How is this relevant for atomicity?
You're introducing a normative ideal ("should by mandatory characteristics"). I don't share that normative ideal.
The focus of my analysis in reading notes is not testing, but understanding. I'm not decontextualizing the argument, I'm reading it within the original context. I'm trying to understand, what the author is trying to say. I'm evaluating "validity and soundness" only to the extent that is providedd within the original context. For example:
Before I can test an argument, I need to understand what argument the author is making.
4. Historical method
What I find so fascinating about the historical method is an insight about the sources of our knowledge: whatever we think we know about the past is derived from sources. So it matters, how we "choose, authenticate, decode, compare, and, finally, interpret those sources". (I'm quoting from the amazon page you linked.)
When you "engage" with "knowledge", what kind of engagement and knowledge do you have in mind? Where does this knowledge come from, if not from sources?
Sorry, I don't understand.
Sorry, I can't follow the logic. I understand that book was an influence for you. But how does this relate to your flavor of the ZKM being applicable to historians?
Atomicity (not just atomicity in reading notes)
Don't introduce false dilemmas. Choice architecture is not warranted. Especially, considering the last choice.
I am not shifting the debate to anything, but I draw wider boundaries for this line of thought.
The whole connection to the principle of atomicity was brought up by your here.
No, I didn't miss that.
I like to remind you that the initial position is that taking reading notes as a standard practice was what I wrote first.
If it helps you or even just think that it helps you: more power to you. The evaluation of this practice becomes relevant if we ask the question whether taking reading notes is generally beneficial. As a standard practice from which you deviate in specific cases, as a special practice that is the deviation from your standard practice, as dependent on the source material you are working with, etc.
Paperness
The paperness entered the thread way earlier: Here
I didn't introduce the idea that paper is essential. The paperness of the bibliographical notes being an essential characteristic to the validity of the comparison is implied by yourself.
Nobody said that you mustn't have reading notes in our Zettelkastens here.
Engaging with arguments
I think this is answered below.
I can't think of any possible world in which validity or soundness are not mandatory characteristics to look out for when dealing with arguments.
Perhaps you got distracted by the word "test". I don't mean testing as challenging. I mean testing as diagnosing.
I don't want to get into the weeds of how to engage with an argument because this leads us far astray from the topic, but all of your items are part of evaluating the validity and soundness of the argument.
Historical method
I don't understand the juxtaposition of this question. So, I don't understand how to meaningfully answer or even engage with the question.
Sorry, I got lost in the editing. It should say: "And I don't see that historical methods are in any form incompatible with my method."
You put our approaches in opposition "this is your approach. My approach is influenced by the historical method."
This opposition doesn't make sense to me because my approach is perfectly applicable and compatible with the work as a historian and historical methods.
My flavor of the Zettelkasten Method is a superset of the historical method. Or in other words: If you are a historian, you can perfectly apply my flavor of the Zettelkasten Method to structure your work.
I am a Zettler
Engaging with arguments
Agreed.
Historical method
I'd love to read a blog post where you elaborate on this claim. :-) As a reader I'd would hope that it answers questions like:
Comparing paper ZK with digital ZK
Yes, we were talking about a particular comparison. But it was you, who introduced the terms "paperness" and "essential". I used metaphorical language: "compare apples with apples".
The bigger issue might be a topic for a separate thread: How comparable are digital zettelkastens and paper-based zettelkastens?
When you say "standard practice", do you mean digital standard practices or do you mean technologically agnostic standard practices, that include paper-based standard practices?
Wasteful standard practice
Yes, you did write:
I picked up on your judgement that the step was "wasteful". I contrasted your position with Eco's (emphasis added):
I'm still wondering how you justify "wasteful". "Wasteful" compared to what?
If you're comparing your flavor of the Zettelkasten Method to Eco's standard practice, I'd like to hear why you consider his recommendation to write reading notes wasteful.
If you're comparing your flavor of the Zettelkasten Method to Luhmann's standard practice, I'd like to know why you consider his reading notes wasteful. You acknowledged that reading notes were part of his standard practice.
For readers who want to watch Luhmann himself explaining his process in Beobachter im Krähennest: the sequence starts in this video at 37:55 min:
I tried to identify the reading note. I think it is this one:
Luhmann didn't throw the reading note away. He kept it permanently in the Zettelkasten (= the wooden boxes). Here's the reverse side with the bibliographical data:
The curious reader can compare Luhmann's reading notes with the source. Susan Leigh Star's Simplification in Scientific Work: An Example from Neuroscience Research (1983) can be accessed online at JSTOR.
What kind of zettels did he write when working with the source? I think we can see zettel 7/25a44a in the video. It references "Star 1983":
Do you consider Luhmann's standard practice wasteful?
Location of reading notes
If occasional reading notes are allowed in your flavor of the Zettelkasten method, where do you recommend storing them?
I think you should not stress about this. A recommendations that notes should be your own ideas is not an absolute. It's a practice that can help 1) help one to understand the idea better, and 2) help with recalling it later. If you need to know the exact expression of, say, the Schrödinger's equation, just include it. Your Zettelkasten is just where it should live, as long as it's a subject you may want to work with or revisit later.
You can include in the same z-card a citation, your most important idea or understanding about it (that is, your own words can share the z-card - no need for them to be separate), links to more thoughts about it, a link to a source citation z-card etc.