Zettelkasten Forum

Home› The Zettelkasten Method

The Iceberg Model and Atomicity

SystemSystem
in The Zettelkasten Method
This discussion was created from comments split from: Cardcraft And Atomicity.

Comments

  • harrharr

    @Sascha said
    By definition: The Zettelkasten Method is a set of workflows and tools mainly for architecture. It is agnostic to the theory of knowledge that you are using as the foundational layer.

    I'm confused. In The Complete Guide to Atomic Note-Taking you write in section "Level 3: Atomicity and the Zettelkasten Method":

    This is what we have to do to navigate this level of depth. We have to get into direct contact with ideas. (…) What I did was to build an inventory of knowledge building blocks for which I had a sufficient understanding, so that I would know their wholes, parts, and the parts’ relationships. (…) If you want to master the building blocks, the raw material of the knowledge that you want to build, you have to examine the building blocks closely.

    Level 3 of the iceberg is labeled "Zettelkasten Method".

    level3

    My brain reads: "Zettelkasten Method" = level 3 = knowledge building blocks = a very specifc theory of knowledge.

    What am I missing?

  • SaschaSascha

    @harr said:

    @Sascha said
    By definition: The Zettelkasten Method is a set of workflows and tools mainly for architecture. It is agnostic to the theory of knowledge that you are using as the foundational layer.

    I'm confused. In The Complete Guide to Atomic Note-Taking you write in section "Level 3: Atomicity and the Zettelkasten Method":

    This is what we have to do to navigate this level of depth. We have to get into direct contact with ideas. (…) What I did was to build an inventory of knowledge building blocks for which I had a sufficient understanding, so that I would know their wholes, parts, and the parts’ relationships. (…) If you want to master the building blocks, the raw material of the knowledge that you want to build, you have to examine the building blocks closely.

    Level 3 of the iceberg is labeled "Zettelkasten Method".

    level3

    My brain reads: "Zettelkasten Method" = level 3 = knowledge building blocks = a very specifc theory of knowledge.

    What am I missing?

    You seem to read "x is y" as only "x is y". However, "x is y" is compatible with "z is y".

    In the guide, I don't argue for the position that knowledge building blocks knowledge atoms and only them are ones. I don't argue at all. I just make a claim and continue based on the claim.

    So, to move from level 2 to level 3, you have to adhere to a model for atomicity. But, as stated above or somewhere else. The decision for a model doesn't have to be consistent for the total Zettelkasten. I use completely different atoms for story elements, and they link happily back and forth with my knowledge. :)

    Additionally: Level 3 marks a direction and the distinction between level 2 and level 3 is marked by the difference between a natural and somewhat formal (or artificial?) language. @Andy nailed the connection to Rudolph Carnap's idea of explication.

    Contrary to Carnap as I understood his intentions, I don't think that concepts should be fully explicated. The process of explication is an epistemological device, but the ordinary language is still the foundation for explications. For example: When I talk about knowledge I don't narrow the meaning of the word down to a set of building blocks for the same reason why I don't narrow down the idea of my dog to flesh, fur, and misbehaviour.

    If you fully worked on an idea, you mastered it on all 4 levels, including level 1. ;)

    I am a Zettler

  • harrharr
    edited June 2

    @Sascha said:
    You seem to read "x is y" as only "x is y". However, "x is y" is compatible with "z is y".

    Can we have this a bit less abstract and a bit more concrete?

    I'm trying to understand the relationship between "Zettelkasten Method", "Level 3" and "Knowledge Building Blocks".

    @Sascha said:
    In the guide, I don't argue for the position that knowledge building blocks knowledge atoms and only them are ones. I don't argue at all. I just make a claim and continue based on the claim.

    You designed a model. I'm trying to understand the model you designed.

    The levels and their labels are your personal design decision. You could have chosen 3 or 5 or 10 levels, but you chose 4. You could have chosen the label "Zettelkasten Method" for the entire model, but you chose to assign the label to level 3. Why?

    The six knowledge building blocks are also your personal design decision. You seem to be happy with your design. You seem to have anecdotal evidence that it works for your students.

    @Sascha said:
    So, to move from level 2 to level 3, you have to adhere to a model for atomicity.

    A wise man once said:

    (…) it is both a fallacy and a malicious trick to use beetle boxes. Often, it is necessary, since we can’t open every beetle box we use. But often, beetle boxes are a tool to sell something without having done the work required to master this.

    He had observed that:

    Currently, “atomic notes” is a beetle-in-a-box-phenomenon.

    So he made a clear statement:

    What is this atom, then? I use an inventory of six types of atoms, called knowledge building blocks, which I developed in 2011.

    How is this compatible with your current view?

    @Sascha said:
    But, as stated above or somewhere else. The decision for a model doesn't have to be consistent for the total Zettelkasten. I use completely different atoms for story elements, and they link happily back and forth with my knowledge. :)

    If the answer to the question "What is this atom, then?" is not "knowledge building blocks", what is it then? I'm confused.

    And going back to the iceberg, could you explain why you chose the label "Zettelkasten Method" for level 3? The Guide also states more generally, that "The Zettelkasten Method is about creating links."

    Post edited by harr on
  • SaschaSascha

    @harr said:

    @Sascha said:
    You seem to read "x is y" as only "x is y". However, "x is y" is compatible with "z is y".

    Can we have this a bit less abstract and a bit more concrete?

    The problem is on the logical level. Logic is by definition a bit abstract.

    I'm trying to understand the relationship between "Zettelkasten Method", "Level 3" and "Knowledge Building Blocks".

    @Sascha said:
    In the guide, I don't argue for the position that knowledge building blocks knowledge atoms and only them are ones. I don't argue at all. I just make a claim and continue based on the claim.

    You designed a model. I'm trying to understand the model you designed.

    The levels and their labels are your personal design decision. You could have chosen 3 or 5 or 10 levels, but you chose 4.

    No, this is not how it works. It happened to be 4 levels.

    You could have chosen the label "Zettelkasten Method" for the entire model, but you chose to assign the label to level 3. Why?

    I had to chose some label.

    The six knowledge building blocks are also your personal design decision. You seem to be happy with your design. You seem to have anecdotal evidence that it works for your students.

    No, they are not a personal design decision. I don't know that this is a wording issue, but "personal design decision" seems to imply that it is about taste or preference.

    @Sascha said:
    So, to move from level 2 to level 3, you have to adhere to a model for atomicity.

    The quote is too short. There are a couple of sentences that are missing to the full point I am making.

    A wise man once said:

    (…) it is both a fallacy and a malicious trick to use beetle boxes. Often, it is necessary, since we can’t open every beetle box we use. But often, beetle boxes are a tool to sell something without having done the work required to master this.

    He had observed that:

    Currently, “atomic notes” is a beetle-in-a-box-phenomenon.

    So he made a clear statement:

    What is this atom, then? I use an inventory of six types of atoms, called knowledge building blocks, which I developed in 2011.

    How is this compatible with your current view?

    As stated above. "x is y" is perfectly compatible with "z is y". Just because I present a solution to the problem of adhering to a model for atomicity doesn't mean that this is the only solution.

    @Sascha said:
    But, as stated above or somewhere else. The decision for a model doesn't have to be consistent for the total Zettelkasten. I use completely different atoms for story elements, and they link happily back and forth with my knowledge. :)

    If the answer to the question "What is this atom, then?" is not "knowledge building blocks", what is it then? I'm confused.

    If the logical issue is resolved, the confusion should be resolved, too. :)

    I am a Zettler

  • harrharr
    edited June 5

    @Sascha said:
    If the logical issue is resolved, the confusion should be resolved, too. :)

    Didn't help. I neither understand what you mean by "logical issue" nor how it might be relevant for my question. Would you mind giving a hint? Maybe replace the variables x, y and z with concrete values like "Zettelkasten Method", "level 3", "knowledge building blocks", "a very specifc theory of knowledge"?

    @Sascha said:
    No, this is not how it works. It happened to be 4 levels.

    I don't know how "it" works for you. That's why I'm asking about your design process. :-)

    @Sascha said:
    No, they are not a personal design decision. I don't know that this is a wording issue, but "personal design decision" seems to imply that it is about taste or preference.

    Yes, it is "about taste or preference". What else? :-)

    If it's about something more, I'd like to learn about that something more.

    You said a few months ago:

    My claim is that the building blocks are a worthy first draft of universal knowledge building blocks.

    You also mentioned in a footnote1 that you are developing "a pattern language for knowledge". So I'm curious about your development process. How do you decide where to draw the boundaries between levels or blocks?

    You seem to have been quite sure about the six blocks for a while. In your 2015 book2 you simply state on page 55 (machine translation):3

    There are 6 things that can emerge at the end of your reading and that are at the same time relevant to your Zettelkasten.

    The claim comes with no explanation, no justification, no source. You state it like a fact, that there are 6 things. Not more, not less. Exactly six.

    Your later writing is consistent with that claim. In August 2025 you said:

    This is how I solved the problem of atomicity. (…) The atoms of atomic notes are knowledge-building blocks. (…) Therefore, an atomic note is a note that contains exactly one knowledge building block.

    This doesn't sound like "a model for atomicity", but the model for atomicity.

    I'm still confused. :-) What am I missing? What have I overlooked?

    1. Footnote 3 of The Complete Guide to Atomic Note-Taking ↩︎

    2. Sascha Fast: Die Zettelkastenmethode. Kontrolliere dein Wissen. 2015 https://www.goodreads.com/de/book/show/29981373-die-zettelkastenmethode ↩︎

    3. "Es gibt 6 Dinge, die am Ende deines Lesens herauskommen können und gleichzeitig für deinen Zettelkasten relevant sind." ↩︎

  • tomptomp

    @harr said:

    @Sascha said:

    The claim comes with no explanation, no justification, no source. You state it like a fact, that there are 6 things. Not more, not less. Exactly six.

    Your later writing is consistent with that claim. In August 2025 you said:

    This is how I solved the problem of atomicity. (…) The atoms of atomic notes are knowledge-building blocks. (…) Therefore, an atomic note is a note that contains exactly one knowledge building block.

    This doesn't sound like "a model for atomicity", but the model for atomicity.

    I'm still confused. :-) What am I missing? What have I overlooked?

    To be fair, in august 2025, Sasha also posted this:

    My claim is that the knowledge building blocks are not arbitrarily cherry-picked constructions. Instead, knowledge is formed by discrete building blocks, of which there are six types. Obviously, I can be wrong about the content of the inventory. There may be a seventh item, or one item isn’t an actual building block. But that there is an inventory of knowledge building blocks is my claim.

    https://zettelkasten.de/posts/principle-of-atomicity-difference-between-principle-and-implementation/#everybody-talks-about-atomicity-nobody-aint-talking-about-the-atoms

    I read that as saying that if you have your own system of building blocks, go ahead and use them. I don't disagree, I just think there can be other considerations.

    An analogy is that the building blocks of everyday matter could be said to be the 92 naturally occurring atoms. How then should I write a card about the benzene ring, which is a specific chemical composed of hydrogen and carbon atoms in equal numbers? Its distinguishing feature is that these atoms have been assembled to form a stable closed ring.

    Obviously the card cannot be about hydrogen atoms or carbon atoms. All right, we can say that molecules are the building blocks. But there are potentially an infinite number of them. Maybe we could say that the card is about the concept of a benzene ring, since "concept" is, I think one of Sasha's building blocks. But I don't think that fits either (depending on the purpose of the note, of course).

    One could say that any card is about a concept if it isn't clearly about one of the other five building blocks. But that would be unhelpful!

  • harrharr
    edited June 5

    I read an affirmation of the claim that "there is an inventory of knowledge building blocks".

    I read an affirmation of the claim "of which there are six" plus some room for error: "there may be a seventh, or one item isn't an actual building block".

    I read that "the knowledge building blocks are not arbitrarily cherry-picked constructions".

    Where do you read that this particular inventory is just one of several possible inventories?

  • tomptomp

    @harr said:
    I read an affirmation of the claim that "there is an inventory of knowledge building blocks".

    I read an affirmation of the claim "of which there are six" plus some room for error: "there may be a seventh, or one item isn't an actual building block".

    I read that "the knowledge building blocks are not arbitrarily cherry-picked constructions".

    Where do you read that this particular inventory is just one of several possible inventories?

    I generalized from "there may be a seventh, or one item isn't an actual building block", combined with "But that there is an inventory of knowledge building blocks is my claim".

    I read that as saying "use building blocks, whatever ones that you recognize".

    As I suppose you realize by now, I disagree about what should be considered as a building block to put on a card, and I also do not agree that the cognitive instrument we call a Zettelkasten has the primary or only purpose of "constructing knowledge" in a building-block manner. That is to say that the latter is valid and important but also limiting.

    And it's fine that we don't all see it the same way. A ZK is at the very least an intensely personal construct.

  • AndyAndy

    @tomp said:

    An analogy is that the building blocks of everyday matter could be said to be the 92 naturally occurring atoms. How then should I write a card about the benzene ring, which is a specific chemical composed of hydrogen and carbon atoms in equal numbers? Its distinguishing feature is that these atoms have been assembled to form a stable closed ring.

    Obviously the card cannot be about hydrogen atoms or carbon atoms. All right, we can say that molecules are the building blocks. But there are potentially an infinite number of them. Maybe we could say that the card is about the concept of a benzene ring, since "concept" is, I think one of Sasha's building blocks. But I don't think that fits either (depending on the purpose of the note, of course).

    One could say that any card is about a concept if it isn't clearly about one of the other five building blocks. But that would be unhelpful!

    As I understand it, if you are using a set of knowledge building blocks (types) like Sascha's, an atomic concept note about a benzene ring would only define what a benzene ring is, like a dictionary definition. If your note "is about" a benzene ring but does not simply define what it is, then it wouldn't conform to the concept type and would either conform to another type or would not be atomic. So, it would be false to say "that any card is about a concept if it isn't clearly about one of the other five building blocks".

    That a benzene ring is a chemical compound doesn't seem to be relevant; chemical elements are not closely analogous to knowledge elements (knowledge building blocks).

    I also do not agree that the cognitive instrument we call a Zettelkasten has the primary or only purpose of "constructing knowledge" in a building-block manner. That is to say that the latter is valid and important but also limiting.

    I don't think Sascha claims that is the primary or only purpose of a Zettelkasten. Here's the definition of a Zettelkasten in his introduction:

    A Zettelkasten is a personal tool for thinking and writing. It has hypertextual features to make a web of thoughts possible. The difference to other systems is that you create a web of thoughts instead of notes of arbitrary size and form, and emphasize connection, not a collection.

    And in the iceberg model, it's very clear that the "knowledge building blocks" model is a thinking tool that is distinct from the Zettelkasten.

    In another discussion, @harr drew attention to a passage from Mario Bunge's book The Myth of Simplicity that serves well as a basic explanation of the value of atomicity if one is using a Zettelkasten for scientific knowledge or something like it:

    A first legitimate rationale of [atomicity] is the wish to disclose the primary units of discourse, the conceptual atoms in every field of thought—atoms which, of course, are simpler than the bodies of knowledge they constitute. This drive is legitimate because it is coincident with that of analysis, the chief aim of which is clarification. A second rationale, also of a logical nature, is the desire to increase the cohesiveness or systemicity of discourse: the fewer the initial concepts and premises, the more numerous will have to be the links among them in order to get a system; this, too, is a legitimate motive because systemicity is a basic trait of scientific knowledge.
  • harrharr
    edited June 5

    @tomp: Personally I disagree with many aspects of Sascha's method. :-)

    But in order to have a meaningful debate about our differences we need to understand our differences.

    At this point I'm only trying to understand Sascha's method as it is.

    I thought I had understood the relationship between atomicity and the six blocks, but apparently I was wrong.

  • tomptomp

    @Andy said:

    That a benzene ring is a chemical compound doesn't seem to be relevant; chemical elements are not closely analogous to knowledge elements (knowledge building blocks).

    Molecules are the natural unit of chemistry. Benzene rings play an important role in organic chemistry. Neutron, protons, and atomic nucleii are fundamental building blocks of nuclear physics. Words can be seen as natural building blocks of written language. Syllogisms, which seem to be one of Sasha's building blocks, are particular kinds of patterns. Why not take a more generalized pattern as a building block?

    My point is of course that what is considered to be a building block varies with the field of interest and the way it is going to be used. Even within a single Zettelkasten there will be many fields of interest and many ways that building blocks are going to be used.

    Suppose I use my ZK to help me write a short story. I will probably use it to help develop and save the structure and story arc, to keep character notes, to remember descriptions or other memorable text bits I want to include, maps of imagined topography, and so on. Not one of those things corresponds to any knowledge building block so far as I can see. The story as a whole is not going to be an assembled work of knowledge (I would rather not get into the meaning of the word "knowledge" since not even philosophers agree).

  • SaschaSascha

    @harr said:

    @Sascha said:
    No, they are not a personal design decision. I don't know that this is a wording issue, but "personal design decision" seems to imply that it is about taste or preference.

    Yes, it is "about taste or preference". What else? :-)

    Coherence, Cohesion, Consistency, for example.

    This doesn't sound like "a model for atomicity", but the model for atomicity.

    I'm still confused. :-) What am I missing? What have I overlooked?

    You are missing that you jump from "x is y" to "only x is y". You are reading something into what I am writing that isn't there.

    @tomp said:
    Suppose I use my ZK to help me write a short story. I will probably use it to help develop and save the structure and story arc, to keep character notes, to remember descriptions or other memorable text bits I want to include, maps of imagined topography, and so on. Not one of those things corresponds to any knowledge building block so far as I can see. The story as a whole is not going to be an assembled work of knowledge (I would rather not get into the meaning of the word "knowledge" since not even philosophers agree).

    Here is another set of building blocks, specifically for using the Zettelkasten for story writing: https://zettelkasten.de/posts/zettelkasten-fiction-writing-part-2-elements-of-story/

    ;)

    I am a Zettler

  • tomptomp

    @Sascha said:

    @tomp said:
    Suppose I use my ZK to help me write a short story. I will probably use it to help develop and save the structure and story arc, to keep character notes, to remember descriptions or other memorable text bits I want to include, maps of imagined topography, and so on. Not one of those things corresponds to any knowledge building block so far as I can see. The story as a whole is not going to be an assembled work of knowledge (I would rather not get into the meaning of the word "knowledge" since not even philosophers agree).

    Here is another set of building blocks, specifically for using the Zettelkasten for story writing: https://zettelkasten.de/posts/zettelkasten-fiction-writing-part-2-elements-of-story/

    ;)

    I didn't mean to imply helplessness. I only meant to show how there isn't one set of building blocks to be used for every purpose (or by all people).

  • SaschaSascha

    @tomp said:

    @Sascha said:

    @tomp said:
    Suppose I use my ZK to help me write a short story. I will probably use it to help develop and save the structure and story arc, to keep character notes, to remember descriptions or other memorable text bits I want to include, maps of imagined topography, and so on. Not one of those things corresponds to any knowledge building block so far as I can see. The story as a whole is not going to be an assembled work of knowledge (I would rather not get into the meaning of the word "knowledge" since not even philosophers agree).

    Here is another set of building blocks, specifically for using the Zettelkasten for story writing: https://zettelkasten.de/posts/zettelkasten-fiction-writing-part-2-elements-of-story/

    ;)

    I didn't mean to imply helplessness. I only meant to show how there isn't one set of building blocks to be used for every purpose (or by all people).

    I know. I just took the chance to throw in another set of building blocks to confirm that there are more sets of building blocks. :)

    I am a Zettler

  • harrharr

    I wish The Guide as "living document" would be updated to reflect that possibility more clearly.

    It should explicitly say that the initial inventory of six blocks is not "universal" in the sense that it can and should be used to model any kind of knowledge.

  • AndyAndy

    @Sascha said:

    @tomp said:

    @Sascha said:

    @tomp said:
    Suppose I use my ZK to help me write a short story. I will probably use it to help develop and save the structure and story arc, to keep character notes, to remember descriptions or other memorable text bits I want to include, maps of imagined topography, and so on. Not one of those things corresponds to any knowledge building block so far as I can see. The story as a whole is not going to be an assembled work of knowledge (I would rather not get into the meaning of the word "knowledge" since not even philosophers agree).

    Here is another set of building blocks, specifically for using the Zettelkasten for story writing: https://zettelkasten.de/posts/zettelkasten-fiction-writing-part-2-elements-of-story/

    ;)

    I didn't mean to imply helplessness. I only meant to show how there isn't one set of building blocks to be used for every purpose (or by all people).

    I know. I just took the chance to throw in another set of building blocks to confirm that there are more sets of building blocks. :)

    @tomp said that he didn't want to get into the meaning of knowledge, but that may be a very helpful issue to address briefly.

    In a previous discussion, a book about knowledge graphs was criticized for defining them as "a graph of data intended to accumulate and convey knowledge of the world". The counterexamples of fiction and mathematics were mentioned as not being "knowledge of the world". I suggested that philosopher Ernst von Glasersfeld's definition of knowledge could be broad enough to encompass subjects such as fiction and mathematics: "knowledge refers to conceptual structures that epistemic agents, given the range of present experience within their tradition of thought and language, consider viable."

    Using von Glasersfeld's definition of knowledge, the name "knowledge building block" need not mean that the building blocks are used to assemble knowledge (although this is very often what a ZK is used for: even writing a story could be considered assembling knowledge in von Glasersfeld's sense); it can mean instead that the building blocks are conceptual structures that are viable for a given purpose. If you're doing science, you need conceptual structures that are viable for doing science; if you're writing fiction, you need conceptual structures that are viable for writing fiction.

    In a personal knowledge base, what counts as viable is the business of the person creating the personal knowledge base, but if the purpose is one that other "epistemic agents" have shared in the past, it may help to learn from and adapt their knowledge—the conceptual structures that they found to be viable.

    The deeper levels of the iceberg model are about having and using more, and more systematic, viable conceptual structures, i.e. knowledge building blocks, for whatever your purposes are.

  • SaschaSascha

    @harr said:
    I wish The Guide as "living document" would be updated to reflect that possibility more clearly.

    I dedicated my morning run to thinking about this. I decided against it. These are my reasons:

    1. If I'd change (not update) the guide, I'd set a bad president. A text doesn't need to safeguard against all possibilities. The guide to atomicity is a specific guide to a specific methodological line, which is part of the Zettelkasten Method. For the same reason, I rarely write "my flavour of the Zettelkasten Method" I won't soften and blur the clear line that I want to draw.
    2. I am approachable online. You can just ask. The answer "the six knowledge building blocks are not the only possible model that you can use to operationalise atomicity" is enough to clarify.

    It should explicitly say that the initial inventory of six blocks is not "universal" in the sense that it can and should be used to model any kind of knowledge.

    This would contradict my opinion. I think that the building blocks are universal. I just don't think that the building blocks are the only model that can be used. However, if you'd offer a different set (for knowledge), I'd likely argue against it.

    Again, mistaking "x is y" for "only x is y" is the underlying fallacy here. You are collecting evidence for me, saying "x is y" ("knowledge building blocks model knowledge"), and you quote the evidence.

    I am a Zettler

  • harrharr

    @Sascha said:
    I dedicated my morning run to thinking about this. I decided against it. These are my reasons:

    Thanks!

    @Sascha said:
    1. If I'd change (not update) the guide, I'd set a bad president.

    I'd like to add context for readers who don't know the context. Sascha and I are referring to this:

    "(…) the Complete Guide to Atomicity is almost completed. (…) It will be a living document. That means that I will update it upon feedback and interactions."

    @Sascha said:
    The guide to atomicity is a specific guide to a specific methodological line, which is part of the Zettelkasten Method. For the same reason, I rarely write "my flavour of the Zettelkasten Method" I won't soften and blur the clear line that I want to draw.

    I have difficulties to recognize such a "clear line". For example I thought that the inventory marked such a clear line. It doesn't help that relevant information is scattered all over the forum.

    @Sascha said:
    2. I am approachable online. You can just ask. The answer "the six knowledge building blocks are not the only possible model that you can use to operationalise atomicity" is enough to clarify.

    That's the kind of basic information I'd expect to read in a "complete" guide. Am I expecting too much of "The Complete Guide to Atomic Note-Taking"? Why should readers have to search the forum for such basic information?

    @Sascha said:

    It should explicitly say that the initial inventory of six blocks is not "universal" in the sense that it can and should be used to model any kind of knowledge.

    This would contradict my opinion. I think that the building blocks are universal. I just don't think that the building blocks are the only model that can be used. However, if you'd offer a different set (for knowledge), I'd likely argue against it.

    Not sure if I understand your opinion correctly.

    Are you saying that your inventory of knowledge building blocks is universal in the sense, that it can and should be used to model any kind of knowledge?

    @Sascha said:
    Again, mistaking "x is y" for "only x is y" is the underlying fallacy here. You are collecting evidence for me, saying "x is y" ("knowledge building blocks model knowledge"), and you quote the evidence.

    Again, I have no idea what you mean by x and y.

  • tomptomp

    @harr said:

    @Sascha said:

    It should explicitly say that the initial inventory of six blocks is not "universal" in the sense that it can and should be used to model any kind of knowledge.

    This would contradict my opinion. I think that the building blocks are universal. I just don't think that the building blocks are the only model that can be used. However, if you'd offer a different set (for knowledge), I'd likely argue against it.

    Not sure if I understand your opinion correctly.

    Are you saying that your inventory of knowledge building blocks is universal in the sense, that it can and should be used to model any kind of knowledge?

    @Sascha said:
    Again, mistaking "x is y" for "only x is y" is the underlying fallacy here. You are collecting evidence for me, saying "x is y" ("knowledge building blocks model knowledge"), and you quote the evidence.

    Again, I have no idea what you mean by x and y.

    I think there are two ideas in play here and they tend to get blurred together:

    1. A Zettelksaten should be constructed using of building blocks.
    2. A Zettelkasten (or part of one) intended for building knowledge should use a set of building blocks appropriate for building knowledge, and BTW, here is a set I [Sasha] think is sound so you should use it.
  • tomptomp

    @tomp said:

    I think there are two ideas in play here and they tend to get blurred together:

    1. A Zettelksaten should be constructed using of building blocks.
    2. A Zettelkasten (or part of one) intended for building knowledge should use a set of building blocks appropriate for building knowledge, and BTW, here is a set I [Sasha] think is sound so you should use it.

    Note that the phrase "building block" is a metaphor. We are talking about a supposedly rationally-based idea yet we are discussing it using embodied metaphors. This is common in language and even thinking. Nothing wrong here: one can't really get away from doing so. But we shouldn't forget it.

  • harrharr
    edited June 10

    @tomp said:
    Note that the phrase "building block" is a metaphor. We are talking about a supposedly rationally-based idea yet we are discussing it using embodied metaphors. This is common in language and even thinking. Nothing wrong here: one can't really get away from doing so. But we shouldn't forget it.

    Don't forget building blocks in terms of technological components that make up the system. A paper-based system is composed of index cards. A digital hypertext system is composed of Markdown files, database records, …

    I'd also like to add that the initial justification for those knowledge building blocks is reading. Sascha's post Reading for the Zettelkasten is Searching describes them as "a typology of items to serve me as an epistemiologic amplifier". He claims that they are "a small ontology of item types that are hidden in the various texts we read." He recommends: "If you read a text for your Zettelkasten you should search for items. This will deepen your knowledge work with the text and accelerate the reading process."

    I'd like to add "blocks help with reading" as a third item to your list of ideas that tend to get blurred together. :-) And maybe "blocks can be found in texts" as a fourth?

  • tomptomp

    @harr said:
    ...
    I'd like to add "blocks help with reading" as a third item to your list of ideas that tend to get blurred together. :-) And maybe "blocks can be found in texts" as a fourth?

    There are blocks and then there are blocks. When a dry laid stone wall is built, the mason tries to find rocks of the right size and shape to fit in and lock to others. But sometimes a rock needs to be reshaped to fit a particular place, and that changes the choice and shaping of the next blocks to be placed.

    After the discussions of the last few days, I am coming to view my Zettelkasten as more of a model than anything else. Like most good models it needs pruning and revisions over time.

    In an earlier comment (probably on another thread), I quoted Elaine Svenonius on subject languages, and I quote her again here:

    Using these [subject languages] to retrieve information provides a value-added quality, which, in the case of highly refined languages, can transform information into knowledge. When this happens, the subject language becomes an analog of knowledge itself. As a knowledge representation, it has applications not only in information retrieval but also in other disciplines that reference knowledge structures...

    I view the ZK's collection of outline headings, or equivalently keywords, structure note titles, link types, etc. to constitute an informal, personal subject language. And even though finding may not be the main purpose, there is no point in storing a card in a ZK unless you can find it again later, and preferably find related cards too.

    "...the subject language becomes an analog of knowledge itself". To my ears that says "model". In my terms, the structure of a ZK models the practitioner's understanding of the contents. One's understanding is dynamic, and tacit to a large degree, and that will be reflected in the ZK itself.

  • SaschaSascha

    @harr said:

    @Sascha said:
    The guide to atomicity is a specific guide to a specific methodological line, which is part of the Zettelkasten Method. For the same reason, I rarely write "my flavour of the Zettelkasten Method" I won't soften and blur the clear line that I want to draw.

    I have difficulties to recognize such a "clear line". For example I thought that the inventory marked such a clear line. It doesn't help that relevant information is scattered all over the forum.

    @Sascha said:
    2. I am approachable online. You can just ask. The answer "the six knowledge building blocks are not the only possible model that you can use to operationalise atomicity" is enough to clarify.

    That's the kind of basic information I'd expect to read in a "complete" guide. Am I expecting too much of "The Complete Guide to Atomic Note-Taking"? Why should readers have to search the forum for such basic information?

    This is not "basic information". It is a correction to a fallacy that stems from a specific bad thinking habit that I don't assume the readers has.

    I am a Zettler

  • harrharr

    @Sascha said:
    This is not "basic information".

    How else would you call an accurate description of the relationship between atomicity, knowledge building blocks and inventory?

    @Sascha said:
    It is a correction to a fallacy that stems from a specific bad thinking habit that I don't assume the readers has.

    What "specific bad thinking habit" do you have in mind?

  • SaschaSascha

    @harr said:

    @Sascha said:
    This is not "basic information".

    How else would you call an accurate description of the relationship between atomicity, knowledge building blocks and inventory?

    You are not requesting an accurate description. You are requesting accommodation to a specific bad thinking habit that I don't assume the readers has.

    @Sascha said:
    It is a correction to a fallacy that stems from a specific bad thinking habit that I don't assume the readers has.

    What "specific bad thinking habit" do you have in mind?

    As stated above. When you read "only x is y" when "x is y" is written.

    I am a Zettler

  • harrharr

    @Sascha said:
    You are not requesting an accurate description. You are requesting accommodation to a specific bad thinking habit that I don't assume the readers has.

    I gave you feedback that at least one reader (me) doesn't understand your writing as you intended.

    I made a suggestion.

    You don't find it useful.

    I'm fine with that.

    @Sascha said:

    What "specific bad thinking habit" do you have in mind?

    As stated above. When you read "only x is y" when "x is y" is written.

    We're stuck in a loop. :-)

  • harrharr

    I noticed an error in the previous post. The last quote should read:

    @Sascha said:

    @Sascha said:
    It is a correction to a fallacy that stems from a specific bad thinking habit that I don't assume the readers has.

    What "specific bad thinking habit" do you have in mind?

    As stated above. When you read "only x is y" when "x is y" is written.

Sign In or Register to comment.