Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
I'm thinking of going primitive, with discursion into zettelkasten
tomos:
It's worth emphasising that a brief atomic note implies two conditions that have to be met, not just one
-Dormouse (March 06, 2024, 05:00 PM)
--- End quote ---
Do you list these conditions? Are you referring to the two bullet points, the second of which includes the quoted text?
Can you recommend a book or article explaining the system in more depth?
Dormouse:
It's worth emphasising that a brief atomic note implies two conditions that have to be met, not just one
-Dormouse (March 06, 2024, 05:00 PM)
--- End quote ---
Do you list these conditions?
-tomos (March 06, 2024, 09:22 PM)
--- End quote ---
That it be :
atomic
Andy Matuschak;
If a note has more than one idea you care about, then break it down.
NoteDex explanation
The idea has a long history. Atomicity makes it easier to link because there's (supposed to be) only one idea available to link to.
and brief
Most descriptions of the system include the word brief. Index cards were themselves limiting. But I have seen definitions of brief range from less than A4, less than A5 to no more that 2 or 3 sentences (an index card is actually A6).
The reason I emphasise brief is because these notes need to be scanned very quickly when looking to place a new one. Usually the writer will retain a sense of the richness of the idea without have to dot every i etc.
Are you referring to the two bullet points, the second of which includes the quoted text?
-tomos (March 06, 2024, 09:22 PM)
--- End quote ---
No, there's only one bullet. Quoted text, tags, links etc go in the note to the bullet - accessed by pressing Shift-Enter rather than Enter. It's fainter and less obtrusive
Dormouse:
Can you recommend a book or article explaining the system in more depth?
-tomos (March 06, 2024, 09:22 PM)
--- End quote ---
Oh, how I wish I could!
I can explain why most of the well known books are actively wrong and misleading, in part at least.
This and this aren't bad summaries, but hardly how to do its. (One poi - Luhmann actually started his second, differently structured, zettelkasten after attending a conference in the US)
There are many reasons why I believe that the published books and articles aren’t great:
* most writers automatically add their own ideas; they’re very opinionated but try to give the impression that they are just describing the original
* most writers started as academic wannabes rather than productive and successful academics (and therefore unable to discriminate what would work from what wouldn’t; let alone what needs to be done to make a system work) and a number have ended as zettelkasten publicisers
* a marked discrepancy between them and Luhmann in terms of self-discipline and life circumstances
* an obsession with improving the system when creating a digital analog
* and with their ideas about zettelkasten being shaped by the programs they used
* Luhmann’s target was writing, he had no need of a memory aid; many of the students are primarily interested in remembering
I’m now very opinionated, but it’s taken me a long time to get there. Many of the many detailed systems I’ve seen described struck me as procrastinatory rather than productive: the notes themselves are the purpose.
My own approach has been shaped most by studying how Luhmann actually worked and reading his cards. And comparing that with myself and the workflows of productive successful academics I know.
But being aware that I’m not the same (I pursue more subjects, I have less self-discipline, I am usually doing things rather than reprocessing what I read).
Like Luhmann, I’m very focused on output. Some of that is writing, but it is also investigating, also doing. Output quality is even more important than quantity. A system that isn’t visibly improving this is not one for me. (One reason I still write longer notes: I can usually write these straight off, remembering citations, rather than having to put them together from short notes. The zettels are for what I don’t know and haven’t yet thought.)
I rejected the wikilink/graph/backlink approach because I could see that it doesn’t do the same thing. It can be useful in itself, but tends to be passive and self-serving. At some point on my journey, I remember someone writing that they had looked at zettelkasten and it was just outlining: they were wrong of course, but also still right. Like everyone who has tried following a digital approach, I’ve been limited by software. Workflowy is well short of ideal, but it will do; for now. And it has analogues for all the features of Luhmann’s system.
What I would say is that you need a clear purpose for using the system. I would suggest that purpose being to do with thinking and doing. With that it is very quick to see whether it is helping or not. But the purpose doesn't have to be academic and doesn't have to involve writing as an output.
And don't eschew longer notes, outside the zettelkasten but being linked into it.
tomos:
What I would say is that you need a clear purpose for using the system. I would suggest that purpose being to do with thinking and doing. With that it is very quick to see whether it is helping or not. But the purpose doesn't have to be academic and doesn't have to involve writing as an output.
And don't eschew longer notes, outside the zettelkasten but being linked into it.
-Dormouse (March 07, 2024, 08:32 AM)
--- End quote ---
Many thanks for your answers - and for expanding on the bigger picture :up:
superboyac:
glad to see this thread still going strong.
some updates on my usage and software opinions:
I actually use multiple desktop applications in a non-dedicated way, meaning I'm not committed to either, and just open and edit files for no particular reason. Sometimes, just to open one project in one, and another in something else. I use obsidian, tangent, vscode mostly. this is all primarily markdown stuff. For catch all archival purposes, I put everything in trilium because it is very full featured and has selfhosting option. Now recently, trilium developer said he will only to minor maintenance releases, no more adding major features, but still plans to maintain it indefinitely.
For work purposes when i need to collaborate with less techy people, i've started using Notion.
For static generated sites, I first started using emanote, but then moved to Docusaurus. I think Docusaurus is beautiful.
I haven't gotten good at atomicity type writing yet, but do plan on going more in that direction as it will help in putting together longer form writings more easily.
I do not think we need to stick so strictly to the original paper based zettel method with the numbers and stuff because the software and yaml covers that pretty well now, and I found it more of a hindrance at this point. So i've loosened up on that a lot.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version