ATTENTION: You are viewing a page formatted for mobile devices; to view the full web page, click HERE.

Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

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

<< < (4/242) > >>

Dormouse:
I've been reading about the zettelkasten method here last couple of days.  I like it.  I'd be interested in software that can do this.  Sounds like a wiki of some sort.
-superboyac (October 24, 2019, 11:39 AM)
--- End quote ---
I'm looking at the zettelkasten software out there:
ConnectedText, i remember trying this years ago, but was still in the traditional notetaker mindset.  I'll give it another shot.  Looks interesting
Zkn3, seems more zettelkasten specific.  would give it a try.  i suspect connectedtext is more polished and easier to use.-superboyac (October 24, 2019, 11:56 AM)
--- End quote ---
I read a comprehensive take down of the value of the Zkn3 program recently. Didn't record where. I'll see if I can find it.
I'd already decided that most of these recommended programs and systems were too rigid and am unconvinced they reflect any advantages of a zettelkasten method. In theory, I think many programs can work, and do appreciate the apparent similarity to wikis.

I need to do more comprehensive reading and thinking, but my view of zettelkasten is that it is a workflow with a process that aids remembering and thinking. Index cards are incredibly flexible.

I am not convinced that the descriptions I have seen reflect the original method in use. I'm concerned by the use of cod psychology ('this is the way the brain works') as a justification. I recognise a number of key concepts:

* Atomicity. One thing, free standing. The positional links go up, not down as in a wiki; once they are placed, you can go down. When a card is placed, it is into a sequence of equal cards, again unlike a wiki. It should be possible to replicate a card system with a wiki, but I believe that the thinking in the doing of it from scratch would be different with each method and that the results would also therefore be different in practice.
* Linking. I appreciate the types of links: direct (card-to-card), positional. Also that cards can be removed and mixed and used with a group of other cards and then replaced exactly where they came from. I'm not sure of the value of the positional links because I'm not sure how he actually used them once he'd got it all done. Presumably he wrote a new card every time he had a thought about another card or set of cards and that card would then contain direct links.
As I say, I don't know much and need to do a lot of reading. Then I might have some useful thoughts, an implementation method, and an opinion on whether zettelkasten is more than a pound of sausages. But my lack of knowledge doesn't stop me thinking that the main commentators have got aspects of it badly wrong. And that thinking about software programs takes you down a garden path into a walled garden whereas Luhmann was wandering in the wilderness, making notes and seeing new things.

superboyac:
dormouse, nice thoughts.
I just spent some time today with the zekkel stuff.  Yea...I'm not terribly convinced.

As IainB says in his onenote threads, the problem with the zettl is that it doesnt include images, videos, etc.  It's centered around text.  And his method of using onenote to me is much nicer/easier/better for software than zettel would be.

I looked over what i have in onenote, and it still is the best I've come across.  these other solutions, as you say, have brain things in mind, and something about this is how the brain works.  But to translate that to software doesn't seem to work the same way.  I mean eventually you are going to end up with text or some content, and then how are you going to access and organize it?  that's the jist of it.

so, I'm still on onenote.  there was another guy that said onenote is not good if you have thousands of notes.  But what is?  you can still search for anything and find it, so no big deal to me.

Dormouse:
I read a comprehensive take down of the value of the Zkn3 program recently. Didn't record where. I'll see if I can find it.
-Dormouse (October 24, 2019, 05:03 PM)
--- End quote ---
Probably this one
But this apparently competing website recommends it as part of their system

Dormouse:
As IainB says in his onenote threads, the problem with the zettl is that it doesnt include images, videos, etc.  It's centered around text.  And his method of using onenote to me is much nicer/easier/better for software than zettel would be.-superboyac (October 24, 2019, 06:09 PM)
--- End quote ---
The system does include images, videos and anything else that's used. But they are resources that the cards link to. So you could have film that you were analysing. you would do a card for each thought about the film and put in a link to the film presumably noting the point in the film you were referring to (assuming it one a single point). You have your card index and you have your resources. Not the same thing.

And if your thought was visual, then you could draw it on a card.
The system was designed by an academic for his academic work so most of the content is naturally text. But wouldn't have to be that way for someone else.

I'm sure you could do the system on OneNote. But I very much doubt it would be as effective as the original, even if it were Luhmann himself doing it.

Software naturally shapes and restricts the thoughts that come when using it. The more feature full the software is, the more the thinking is moulded into the shape of the program.

I believe that this is the problem I see with much of the discussion of the system. They see the wooden box, they see the cards with unique numbers, they notice that the numbering system continually forks, they notice that cards can contain references to other cards, they notice that they can contain references to source materials - and the discussions I've seen imply they believe that this is the system.
It can't be the system. It's just a tool. The interesting bit, assuming there is one, is how the tool was used and what made it better than other possible tools. Much of that will have been in Luhmann's head. He did write a bit about the system. Presumably he talked about it. There might be other clues in that, though I doubt he was able to describe the intricacies of the relationship between his thinking and writing and the tool he had developed over thirty years. Each card is for a thought, not information - information is external in the sources.

superboyac:
ah thanks for that very clear explanation Dormouse.

Each card is for a thought, not information - information is external in the sources.
-Dormouse (October 24, 2019, 06:37 PM)
--- End quote ---
OK that clears a lot up for me.  Interesting.  It's certainly very different than the way i currently approach notetaking now, which is to collect the actual information and store it, like an archivist.
Basically, when I use onenote, im not really using a system or method of any kind.  I am just collecting notes into the interface presented to me by onenote.  It may not even be very "efficient" or terribly productive.  But its there when i need it.

I would, related to zettl, be interested in a method that allowed me to be more effective and stuff, but that's a whole other animal.  I got to psycho therapists and coaches for that, lol!!!

i do use the software FullRecall when i need to memorize things or really learn something deeply.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version