#14
  1. Want to have a system that keeps links from breaking
  2. You want a system that gives you easy access to all notes all the time. This is why they tell you not to have multiple zettelkastens. That causes you to fracture your notes, which makes future linking harder.
1 Like
#15

@kbrede yes and no. If you think of Luhmann’s zettelkasten as an example, he had 90,000 notes by the time he was finished. I don’t think he manually flipped through all the notes when he wanted to contemplate what notes might connect to his newest note. Instead, I imagine he used his minds spreading activation or looked through the index to spark an idea of where it might connect.

If you connect notes that way, then having all of them together doesn’t really matter. On the plus side, you never know how information will connect. You realize that you create a mental model around the concept of a dog, so those two concepts are tied together in a way.

1 Like
#16

I’m also reading the Ahren’s book and at least at this time my understanding is the containers of the notes (folders) matter less than the bottom-up connections of links and top-down organization of index pages you create and manage. In this way I think you can use a note to index your Projects, Areas, Resources… Or a note to index tags and then you can show which tags or notes are actionable.

While I am reading the book I heard about PARA and am curious about it but I don’t see the value of an Archive folder where everything no longer actionable ends up.

I’m thinking of letting index notes provide more top-down organization as needed and I have a hunch this is how Luhmann (spelling?) was able to make use of all his notes, he probably used high-level indexes like a map to get to the right part of town where exploration would be best to start, then non-linear links lead the journey forward.

3 Likes
#17

So BASB also has a second part, which is capturing and progressive summarization. I haven’t taken the course so I’ve only read blog posts about it, but the name is fairly suggestive of what it is.

IMO “progressive summarization” is not as good a method of knowledge creation, especially for original, creative work, compared to Zettelkasten. Presumably, one’s hope is that the later layers of summarization would be more synthesis than summary. Zettelkasten seems more explicit in that respect.

If you delegate content of the work and management of thoughts and information to the method described by Ahrens, then the part that PARA that matters is “PA” like others have said. PA by itself is just GTD with some grouping, which I think one will probably do anyway.

3 Likes
#18

I’ve actually found the idea of “progressive summarization” to be very helpful, though I wouldn’t claim to have much experience with the idea yet. I’ve found that it has made me a better reader, in the sense that I actively highlight passages as I go, then I go back once I’ve read the whole thing and use a combination of the highlighted passages and my own thoughts to summarize the work. This summary becomes its own note in my vault. Now, instead of reading stuff passively, and forgetting it a week or two later, the process of highlighting and summarizing has led to a habit where I now get more out of what I’ve read. In that sense, the method has just produced better reading discipline, which I’m OK with for now.

1 Like
#19

With regard to @kbrede’s comment about muddying the waters, I’ve chosen to err on the side of putting everything in my vault – personal, work, deep thoughts – and I’ll let the organization scheme sort it out. Haven’t been doing this long enough to know how it works out, but I have a sense it’ll be fine. There’s ephemeral stuff, like current project meeting notes, which I’ll care about now and for the duration of the project, but then will probably consider to be clutter. I imagine I’ll want to find a way to retire that stuff with an #inactive tag, or something similar, so that it’s not gone, just filtered out (of Graph view, queries, etc.)

2 Likes
#20

If you can easily sort your knowledge into clearly-defined folders, you probably don’t need a Zettelkasten. I couldn’t, so I have benefited from moving most of my PDFs in one big folder in Zotero, and most of my notes into one big folder in Obsidian.
Structure and clarity are emerging as I develop linkages and index notes. I could use tags, but prefer links so I can annotate why I think this note is relevant to the topic, or why I want to keep this image for inspiration.

This would be compatible with my Zettelkasten. Topic-specific folders wouldn’t. I use folders to distinguish note type (i.e. meeting notes, clipped articles) or status (i.e. fleeting vs permanent notes).

1 Like
#21

@andybyte

Luhmann’s card index consists of approximately 90,000 handwritten cards in A-6 format organized in two collections. The first collection, approximately created between 1951 and 1962, a time when Luhmann was on his way from a legal expert with interests especially in constitutional law and administrative sciences to a systems theoretical sociologist, is based primarily on his readings in political science, administrative studies, organization theory, philosophy, and sociology. It consists of approximately 23,000 cards, which are divided into 108 sections by subjects and numbered consecutively, two bibliographies comprising about 2,000 titles, and a keyword index with roughly 1,250 entries. The second collection (1963–1997), now clearly reflecting a sociological approach,6 is divided into eleven top-level sections with a total of about 100 subsections. It consists of approximately 67,000 cards, including a sizeable but obviously incomplete bibliographical apparatus with roughly 15,000 references and a keyword index with 3,200 entries.

So he had 23,000 cards with a 1,250 entries in a keyword index.

Then he had 67,000 cards, with 3,200 entries in a keyword index.

Source

He had one to three entries of where you could find a topic in his keyword index. You can browse his keyword index online btw (I turned on google chrome automatic translate).

Sometimes the keyword index linked to a note in a sequence, sometimes they linked to overview notes, from the linked source above

Three types of linking can be distinguished:

  1. References in the context of a larger structural outline: When beginning a major line of thought Luhmann sometimes noted on the first card several of the aspects to be addressed and marked them by a capital letter that referred to a card (or set of consecutive cards) that was numbered accordingly and placed at least in relative proximity to the card containing the outline. This structure comes closest to resembling the outline of an article or the table of contents of a book and therefore doesn’t really use the potentials of the collection as a web of notes.

  2. Collective references: At the beginning of a section devoted to a specific subject area, one can often find a card that refers to a number of other cards in the collection that have some connection with the subject or concept addressed in that section. A card of this kind can list up to 25 references and will typically specify the respective subject or concept in addition to the number. These references can indicate cards that are related by subject matter and in close proximity or to cards that are far apart in other sections of the collection, the latter being the normal case.

  3. Single references: At a particular place in a normal note Luhmann often made a reference to another card in the collection that was also relevant to the special argument in question; in most cases the referred card is located at an entirely different place in the file, frequently in the context of a completely different discussion or subject.

If you are confused after reading Ahrens books (I like the book, but many people seem to be afterwards), hit me up and I can give you a couple resources to look into that better help explain the zettelkasten.

2 Likes
#22

This is all really useful and suggests to me that there are three aspects to the tradeoffs between “progressive summarization” (more about developing an insightful reconstruction of the ideas in the text being discussed) and Zettelkasten-style note creation (more about elaborating (original?) ideas and concepts (often, but not always, sparked by engaging with a particular text):

  1. Effects on memory (both retention and recall) of actively engaging with (difficult) material multiple times
  2. Added insights gained from revisiting material, typically in new contexts or from different perspectives
  3. Avoiding the complementary concerns with tunnel-vision (getting trapped in a self-generated filter bubble and/or losing contact with richness of the source text) and dissipation (generating fragmentary and superficial formulations in the vague hope that associative links will make them deep (the snake-oil of the ZK-cult?) and/or losing track of what one is “borrowing” from others).

It’s not clear to me that there is a method that guarantees the best outcome. On a case-by-case basis, progressive summarization and (to coin a phrase) Zettelkast-ing both need to be assessed in terms of all three, with an eye to the specific context and in light of what one is trying to accomplish. If the goal is to understand a text and retain the key three ideas, then memory concerns might be central, and tunnel-vision not much of a concern. If the goal is to develop an original and systematic approach to a given domain (what Niklas Luhmann mostly did), then revisiting a text (and an resulting increase in the atomiticity of smart notes) will have its value in generating new thoughts and connections.

3 Likes
#23

Thanks to everyone for taking the time on this thread. I find it super interesting. One thing – reading your post @lizardmenfromspace – is that the word ‘reference’ is pretty ambiguous, perhaps particularly for anyone from an academic research background who is mixing with zettelkasten practices. You have three types (or instances?) here, but there are also what are called citations (they tend to be called references in the antipodes where I was trained). I found this nomenclature quite confusing also in Ahrens’ book as well. Perhaps though I’m overthinking the term and that it is always simply something that refers to something else (through some form of link).

1 Like
#24

All that is meant by reference is just pointing the reader to another note in the collection. Because he gave each note a unique identifier, he could reference any one note in a different note.

2 Likes
#25

So I read the book. And I’m not sure if I would say I’m confused. I just don’t understand the details of the process as much as I like to know. I also don’t have a good grasp of the theory of how it might help in everyday life. So if you could kindly tell me about the resources you’ve talked about, I would be ethernally greatful.

#26
  1. David B. Clear’s blog post has been my favorite explanation of it for the general reader
  2. Shortened research paper from one of the researchers into Luhmann’s archive. You can also get the actual paper too, but it is much longer. Gives an overview of the index, how cards were integrated, and organization system. This is all in the context of a physical paper zettelkasten
  3. Slides from a presentation explaining Luhmann’s thinking and how the author created a digital program specifically for zettelkasten.
  4. Luhmann wrote two essays that have been translated to english titled “learning how to read” and “communicating with slipboxes”.
  5. You can browse Luhmann’s actual note collection, which is pretty wild
  6. You have the intro guide I’m creating, which is being developed first over in my public zettelkasten

The actual workflow is quite simple, I’ll go ahead and write a post outlining the process.

How a zettelkasten can help in everyday life

Just as in work, everyday life is full of decisions that are informed by your working knowledge on a subject. Zettelkasten is just a way of formalizing and collecting that knowledge in one place so that you can reference it when you run into a problem related to it. The most mundane example I give is the tracking of my experiences and thoughts on creating homemade pizzas. In my zettelkasten, I put information I come across on what makes a good pizza (theory), reflections on new recipes I try (experience), and others recommendations. I am putting all this knowledge into a system (zettelkasten) because we don’t have the brain space to memorize every piece of information we come across in life. This especially becomes the case when you are consuming a lot of information, whether it be through podcasts, the internet, or books.

If you have any specific questions about the zettelkasten, feel free to @ me because I’ve thought a ton about it and answering questions helps me crystallize my own thoughts on the subject matter.

13 Likes
#28

The PARA focuses on collecting notes

I think that summary doesn’t capture PARA. The way I understood it, PARA focuses on actionability. I have never taken Building a Second Brain, but I have just recently reviewed Tiago’s 8-part PARA series.

The most important part of PARA is the small specific Projects. Areas, Resources and Archives can be less formal. The most important thing is knowing where to focus to take action.

In that sense, I very much agree with @Calhistorian. I see my entire Zettelkasten as a Resource, where I’m building up reference material and connections for various topics. As those topics become more prominent or actionable, I can upgrade them to Areas, or Projects. But on the whole for me, by default, things I’m collecting and connecting are a Resource, in the PARA sense.

(Disclaimer, I am very new to Zettelkasten, and use it quite loosely. But I have been keeping a “Commonplace Book” on index cards for several years.)

1 Like
#30

While your Projects can sit atop a library on connected ideas, I sense that for many people, there exists palpable tension between project management and idea management. I wonder if, for some use cases, perhaps Projects should not receive top billing.

This tension continues between the mindsets of “thinking through linking” versus “getting things done”—between developing ideas and working through a list of tasks.

These are context switches. The brain pays a toll for each switch.

One context is driven by developing ideas, the other context by completing tasks. Both contexts can live together, and for some people they live together harmoniously, but usually there is tension.

Much of the equation boils down to your individual use cases and preferences.

That said, here are some questions I have found helpful…

  • Which context brings you more joy?
  • How can you spend more time in that context?
9 Likes
#31

Zettelkasten is frequently misunderstood as being anti-category. Actually, Luhmann did categorize his notes (quite extensively, in fact) — check out the actual digitized collection of his notes: https://niklas-luhmann-archiv.de/bestand/zettelkasten/inhaltsuebersicht
Categories are good, but the point is to link between them so you can create a heterarchy, allowing you to jump between contexts. I would say the folder methodology is fine, as long as you’re finding associations between different folders.

4 Likes
#32

Thanks everyone for this very helpful conversation. I have another question for you:
If we are talking specifically about obsidian, would you recommend having a dedicated vault to each system?

#33

@nickmilo If there’s a tension, it’s not between developing ideas and getting things done. Oops, misunderstood what you wrote.

Sonke Ahrens promoted zettelkasten as a way to get more written with less effort–completing projects. His point is that many of the tasks of academic writing and research are open-ended and difficult to clearly define and plan out in advance. As you say, the developing ideas and working with a task list require different thinking and that can be a source of tension.

@amirography If you still want to combine elements of both approaches (rather than trying out both systems for a while before picking one) would suggest a single vault with top-level P.A.R.A. folders. Speaking as a well-respected authority on both systems :wink: here’s how it works:

Resources is a relatively unstructured directory where you keep your Zettelkasten. Some of these notes will find their way into published work, but when you work in this context, you are focused on the ideas and how they relate.

Projects and Areas directories have a clear structure matching your task manager. When you work in this context you are thinking about your routines, goals, deadlines and deliverables. Notes in these categories can include meeting notes, project plans, to-do lists, reminders of administrative details, checklists, and outlines of documents in-progress.

The Archive folder is where completed projects go.

As you create an outline of an article, dissertation, or blog post for a project, you’ll be filtering relevant information from your zettelkasten with tags and search and harvesting information from your zettelkasten to use in your document through the use of direct links and transclusion. With backlinks you’ll be able to see how a note in Resources has been used for various projects, but maybe you wouldn’t link to projects while you’re in Zettelkasten mode because of the context switching involved.

Tiago Forte’s just-in-time project management involves moving things in and out of folders as projects come and go. I haven’t taken the course so don’t fully understand it, but sounds like others find it helpful. Maybe you can continue to use that method outside of Obsidian for managing other documents, but I think this aspect of BASB is incompatible with Zettelkasten.

3 Likes
#34

That would be a bad idea in my mind. The whole point of a zettelkasten is centralizing your note taking such that notes can contribute to each other and mix. Luhmann called this multiple storage.

As @jreinier said, what is important is being able to still link between folders, which goes away when you create separate vault

1 Like
#35

For me is just resources. I think it’s ok to have a section from non hierarchical notes. And it’s natural that from those you derive other annotations with more order/hierarchy. You don’t have to turn the former into the latter. You can have both, i think.

Some years ago i worked on an area that does optimization based with evolutionary inspiration, and there is this balance called Exploration vs Exploitation. I think zettelkasten promotes more exploration, whereas having a hierarchy means you are more likely exploiting the data. The way i see it, if you have a section within Resources to do zettelkasten, you promote the emergence of new connections and ideas that can potentially form part of the hierarchy, which you can exploit to your benefit, and in turn, once those ideas are established and successful/useful you can reflect on them or have random insight that can turn into a zettel.