Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

I'm thinking of going primitive, with discursion into zettelkasten

<< < (42/244) > >>

superboyac:
I think a question is a perfectly OK method to focus the notes. Though not the only way. And questions don't necessarily lead to a focused thought: what is the best way from Riga (Latvia) to Sydney (Australia) should never have a simple answer - a set of directions should emerge after consideration of a wide number of issues. Of course, the question could be Note 1. the issues could be notes 2 - n and the set of directions could be linked to them all.

While I think atomicity is important for linking, I also feel that the developed thought needs to be long and developed enough to warrant an independent existence.

Ironically, and off-topic, I've found a use for OneNote. Can be structured to help conceptually, and easy to have very tiny and often temporary notes, store data and work as a shared international enterprise. Once it is complete, everything could be put into separate documents, but, as a WIP. OneNote makes it easier. And, on topic, one of the issues was tiny temporary thoughts which wouldn't warrant existence as a separate document and which shouldn't be consolidated  until there's some clarity about the final form.
-Dormouse (December 02, 2019, 06:43 PM)
--- End quote ---
thanks, helpful again.  so there's atomicity (which is all the standalone single thoughts/notes) and then the developed thought, which could be like the molecule that pulls all those pieces together.  I am close to getting there.  It has taken me some serious effort to practice making thoughts concise, but the exercise is proving to be very productive.

Dormouse:
thanks, helpful again.  so there's atomicity (which is all the standalone single thoughts/notes) and then the developed thought, which could be like the molecule that pulls all those pieces together. 
-superboyac (December 04, 2019, 01:42 PM)
--- End quote ---
Atomicity has to apply to all notes. Linking requires atomicity else all notes will relate to most notes.

It is important to remember that Luhmann was an academic and reserved his zettelkasten for his academic work; his academic work was wide ranging but all fundamentally from one viewpoint. The original process is about reading, making notes, and then developing further thoughts and analyses all of which might be linked.
The people who have picked the system up are, it seems to me, mostly junior academics. Post-grads, post docs. They are gathering stuff with the intention of reworking it into other stuff. Everything they write will include a lot of read stuff slightly reworked.
Because they are studying in one area, they will already have a lot of pre-existing knowledge and will be in a position to comment on everything they read. When they do that, they will be producing developed thoughts - but the focus will remain tight. Though maybe not on the focus of the original observation.
Most of them define the original reading or observations as being outside the zettelkasten (personally, I think that's a mistake).
It would be interesting to see a section of Luhmann's zettelkasten in translation. I wouldn't want to be confined by it because my usage will be a superset of his.

Dormouse:
Let's say you are watching a Popeye cartoon, making notes on Popeye.
At times, you might make notes on

* his appearance,
* his demeanour,
* his speech,
* his reaction to Bluto,
* his reaction to Olive,
* setting scenes,
* plot scenes,
* action scenes,
* drug dependence.The initial notes would simply be observations at a point in the cartoon.
The next sequence of more developed notes might chunk them. I assume demeanour can be categorised (and probably everything else too). This sequence will link to the original observations.
You might then have a further layer looking at changes and the way they inter-relate. More links.

You'll probably think it necessary to watch the cartoon again to do the same for Bluto, Olive, Spinach (etc).
And maybe even watch another cartoon or two. Multiplying links.

At that point, you will be in a position to summarise/analyse the different scenes.

I doubt you would need to watch many before being able to create and plot out new cartoons.

And you could do the whole thing within the zettelkasten.
And you could do it with drawings, not words.

You will, I hope, notice that if the focus of each note isn't tight, then linking becomes less clear and further analysis becomes more muddled.

Dormouse:
I'm still interested in snippets. Worth keeping, but not worth the extra admin and effort of a processed standalone note. Tagable, but worth tagging? Web clips are very similar though some will be worth a full entry.
Easier to manage in a database zettel, but I don't think they're worth it even there. I think they would clog the system.
Luhmann seems to have been quite strong on exclusion criteria, emphasising the need to be selective.

I think I agree, but there remains a value in having selected notes that don't make the zettel. They are a tiny fraction of the universe of possible notes and an easier first search.

I've not decided where my snippets should go, or how to do them. I see web clips as separate.

I'm interested in efficient workflow and have little interest in a purist's zettelkasten (or a purist's plain text approach).
For this, I think I need a database. Or two. But I don't want lots of programs open.

Dormouse:
Having tried many web clippers, I've decided to stick with Evernote, at least so long as it still functions well. I downgraded from Premium to Plus because I simply never need the extra Premium features.

Bigger notes, worthy of longer term processing will be exported/downloaded as separate documents and incorporated in the Zettelkasten. This will be done when the value is realised, not necessarily at the time of clipping.

Others can stay accessible in Evernote. I will export backups from time to time.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page