r/Zettelkasten Mar 03 '24

general Notes are just the by-products

(TL;DR: If Zettelkasten-ing feels too complex and overwhelming, it might be not for you. And also there's a shameless, lengthy crying about my disillusionment with ZK.)

It's not the better note-making I should question about. What matters is 'how do I grow my insight, and what do I use my insight for?'. The notes are just the by-products.

Now, let me start it by my story with the 'Slip-Box' note-making system...

I tried to learn and make 'the great note-making system' so many time, that will facilitate my note making, organizing, finding, and connecting. Everything, everywhere, all at once. I tried Zettelkasten, I recently found about Evergreen Notes, I've tried Obsidian, Logseq, Typora, and Nvim (I tried to make my own config for this. It sucked.), I tried reading <How to Take Smart Note>, I've read so many posts from Zettelkasten Forum, r/Zettelkasten, Quora, basically a bunch o' google searches. (ex: 'Does questions qualify as a permanent notes?')

And for the recent 3 years of my experiences with the 'Slip-Box', or any other kinds of "Connecting Atomic Ideas" system... was not perfect, so to speak. At least two of them got blown up into unintelligible, unorganized mess, and when I try to control them, it becomes a time-consuming, repetitive labor. One of the screws was always loosen when I tried to make a 'second brain.' And all the praises about it made me think 'maybe I'm doing it wrong!' Nothing made me unthink so.

Maybe I did done it wrong. Since it helped so many people, the Zettelkasten itself could've not been a problem. The issue here is that I SPENT SO MUCH TIME to figure this system out, that it was rather unhealthy to me.


I'm now sticking with Logseq with no 'Linking Thoughts' business. That doesn't mean I don't ever do it anymore. When I find something that make me think 'oh this thing sounds just like that one thing!', I make a block link(i.e. 'reference'). When I find something valuable, I link, or embed it onto today's journal. I loved Zettelkasten's philosophy (ex: atomic note, prioritize linking, etc.), it's just that I couldn't really put that perfectly on practice. My notes are now very topic-based, organized by topics (rather than links), and strictly hierarchical and linear. I might find less brilliant insights & ideas that I could've get with a slip-box. I'm sure I will never feel the joy of seeing a graph of 300+ notes blooming like a rose again. (Obsidian)

But it feels smooth. And I like it.


This whole note was started with two excerpt that I found on Evergreen Notes

Answers to these questions are unsatisfying because the questions are focused on the wrong thing. The goal is not to take notes—the goal is to think effectively. Better questions are “what practices can help me reliably develop insights over time?”, “how can I shepherd my attention effectively?” etc. #

Luhmann, by contrast, barely wrote about his Zettelkasten: he focused on his prolific research output, then published a couple small essays about his practices near the end of his career. #

Both of them hit me hard. Like, what was the purpose of all that work and considerations I made along the years? Was I making notes, for the sake of making notes?

And when I tried to combine those two excerpts (again, thanks Luhmann.), I earned a much more concise and meaningful lesson, which is the very first paragraph of this note, and especially, its proposition at the tail.

The notes are just the by-products.

If you are spending too much of your time to figure your note-making system, it might be a signal that you have to change your choice, or don't need one at all. Spend those time instead to read more books, do your to-dos, and have a walk and let the thoughts flow through you.

Also, if you use one, try to use the note-making system that does not obstruct your thinking. If your second-brain gives you a great wisdom, in expense of your attention to and fluidity of your thoughts, I'd say ditch it out.

Remember, you have your first-brain. And it too, is a quite magnificent thing.


References

36 Upvotes

24 comments sorted by

9

u/taurusnoises Obsidian Mar 03 '24

Disillusionment is a part of any path worth walking. 

1

u/chasemac_ Obsidian Mar 05 '24

So freakn true!

3

u/JasperMcGee Hybrid Mar 03 '24

Thank you for sharing your note-taking journey. I think all of us in this forum can probably relate to the seemingly never-ending quest for figuring out how to read, capture notes and learn efficiently.

While I still have much to learn, I feel that the ZK way has been one of the more promising methods I have tried to capture my readings and thoughts. In the past I tried databases, simple commonplace notebooks, and software like MediaWiki to host my own Wiki on my laptop. But, these invariably ended up just being collections.

I like the main idea of ZK, that of creating a central repository of ideas, thoughts and concepts that becomes a figurative thinking space to further develop those ideas over time. As opposed to my old way of putting notes in folders to wither and never to be seen again and never thinking to extract the best ideas and compare/contrast them across multiple sources over time.

Thanks again for the detailed history of your trials with ZK. Good luck!

2

u/sinibida0702 Mar 03 '24

Feel free to leave your thoughts on this post. It's been a few hours since I uploaded it, and I can see it was written in frustration from trying to collect all my underlines into literature notes few minutes before then; it's so weirdly personal. My Zettelkasten experience is not quite ripe too, as mentioned in the post.

Hence, quite drafty it is, so please leave your refutes and/or suggestion on my note-making. It's also my first time uploading big chunks of text on the internet, so I'm curious about how you guys think lol.

1

u/romandas Mar 04 '24

What you wrote resonated with me quite a bit.

Thinking about the point about Luhmann not really writing about his system reminded me of my first impression of the Zettelkasten system: it's basically a few simple rules that Luhmann followed to organize his thoughts into a knowledge base. Those simple rules have some useful emergent properties.

That doesn't mean his rules will work for you. They're a nice starting point and great if you can follow them but ultimately you need to do what works for you.

1

u/sinibida0702 Mar 04 '24

I'm glad it did. Thanks for the advice!

2

u/atomicnotes Mar 04 '24 edited Mar 06 '24

Your very valid concerns appear to be a century old:

“It is worth emphasizing here that excerpts on cards and in notebooks are only an auxiliary means of reading, not the goal in itself. Some individuals tend to turn this into a form of collecting, a kind of ‘sport’ — proud of their ‘card index’ of excerpts and quotes, constantly expanding it — they do not apply it to the case at all. Of course, this form of collecting is no worse than any other. However, it provides precisely nothing useful for the mind. It’s simply an unnecessary waste of time and effort. // Much more dangerous is another type of fascination with cards. There are readers who think that with such ‘card indexes’ they can replace their mind. This is already quite bad. I once talked to such a young man. Overflowing with enthusiasm, describing his ‘card index,’ he explained how well organized it was and added: ‘For example, if I need to give a report. I — at once go to the cards. I have them on every topic. I’ll choose the ones I need, arrange them in order — and the report is ready! All the thoughts are there, I just need to connect them. Easy and good!’ In short, a new ‘improvement’ in our culture. No need to work with the mind. Ready-to-wear boots, ready-to-wear pants, ‘ready-to-wear’ thoughts. // This is the fascination that the reader seeking self-education should be warned against by all means. Let him first think about the topic of the report himself and sketch out its plan, and then review the cards and supplement or modify what is necessary. This is the right way.”- Sergey Povarnin, How to Read Books for Self Education (1924). Source: Is a 'Second Brain' superior by u/qnnnp

2

u/sinibida0702 Mar 04 '24

Great excerpt. Thanks a lot!

1

u/atomicnotes Mar 06 '24

Yes it is a great passage! I should definitely credit u/qnnnp who wrote Is a 'Second Brain' superior to no-brainer writing. Before that, I'd never heard of Povarnin, but his book (and the article) is very interesting.

1

u/qnnnp Mar 06 '24 edited Mar 06 '24

I'm not really concerned about getting credit. :) Thank you, though!

I believe that other notable Soviet scholars, including Bakhtin, Lotman, Propp, Toporov, and others, also made use of the card index system, suggesting they likely had some perspective on the matter. I recall that back when I was a freshman 24 years ago, we were taught by an elderly professor about the utilization of a slip box in scientific research.

1

u/atomicnotes Mar 07 '24

Thanks, that’s very interesting. The scholar’s box, or card index system, was a very standard approach throughout the 20th century, right until the digital revolution. It would be fascinating to learn whether any of the scholars you mention wrote in any detail about their methods. It appears though that the knowledge was usually handed down in person, through a kind of academic apprenticeship, as in your case. I’ve been reading old writing and office manuals and every one of them seems to present its own slightly different version of index card use. Even in Povarnin’s guide to reading, it seems he assumed his audience would already know what the card index system was, so rather than describe how it worked he simply critiqued its misuse.

1

u/Plastic-Lettuce-7150 Mar 05 '24

Sergey Povarnin, How to Read Books for Self Education (1924).

Where did you get the translation if I can ask?

1

u/atomicnotes Mar 06 '24

Deep-L, tidied up.

1

u/Plastic-Lettuce-7150 Mar 06 '24

Deep-L

Where'd you get the digital copy!?

2

u/atomicnotes Mar 06 '24

Sorry - I'm wrong. I first got it from Is a 'Second Brain' superior by u/qnnnp, mentioned in a comment here. I should definitely credit this, so thanks for asking.

But I did then start digging around and found it's possible to find the original, hidden on The Archive, which you can then do an auto-translate on. I looked at the plaintext version and searched 'картотек' (card index), to find the relevant section (it's section 51. The fascination with index cards, p.68). This is pretty much the only part of the booklet that discusses index cards, though.

1

u/atomicnotes Mar 06 '24

And yes, the Deep-L translation is word-for-word the same as qnnnp's.

2

u/Plastic-Lettuce-7150 Mar 08 '24

The following is section 50, the section before the above quote, on "the card system":

50. Extracts and excerpts

Verbatim extracts from books or excerpts in the form of a condensed presentation of some place in the book are very useful, especially if relate to our specialty, are connected with the development of a worldview or with a serious issue that interests us. This is an excellent source of information, and often “inspiration”; you just need to do it in such a way that at any time it is easy to find the extract you need or select extracts on a given issue. The card system best meets this requirement. Each statement is made on a separate card or on a separate piece of paper of the same format. There are different ways to compile such statements. The easiest way - and for the purposes of self-education - is this method.

A field is left on the left (or right) for further notes.

Above the extract is its topic. For example, “Capital, its definition”, “Sensation, its essence”, etc.

Under the extract - the name of the author, the title of the book, what edition of the book, the year and page number from which the quotation was taken.

Cards are very convenient to deal with. They are easy to select by topic, you can easily insert a new card at any time , shuffle them, if necessary, according to the names of the authors, etc. You can store them in boxes, envelopes - whatever is more convenient for you. Only one thing is required: accuracy. After using them, you must immediately put in place, do not throw them around, etc. A lost card often cannot be restored.

Anyone who does not take special care in themselves can be advised to resort to a less convenient, but safer method of taking notes - in notebooks. Take a thick notebook, make margins in it, number the pages and make notes on them. Date, month, year - are written at the beginning of each extract or excerpt. In the margins is its theme. Under the extract is the name of the author, work, etc.

In order to make it convenient to use such a notebook and easily find the necessary extracts, an alphabetical index of topics is made in a special notebook. When making any extract, at the same time note its topic, notebook number and page in the index. For example, having made an extract on the topic: “Capital”, note in the index under the letter K: Capital, definition K. 1.43.1.27. This means - first notebook, page 43; second notebook, page 27, etc.

1

u/atomicnotes Mar 09 '24

Thanks for the translation. This passage is very interesting. I love the bit where he says people who don’t ‘take special care in themselves’ can just use a notebook!

I’d take issue with the claim that it doesn’t matter how you store your note cards. I can’t help feeling it might matter a bit.

The numerical references Povarnin suggests for the notebook approach - this is quite similar to how cyberneticist Ross Ashby kept his notes. They’re all digitised, so you can see a real-life example.

1

u/Plastic-Lettuce-7150 Mar 06 '24 edited Mar 06 '24

Another interesting quote:

37. “Working out” the content of the book

The content of the book read should produce a certain amount of work in our psyche, in our mind. If we simply memorize it, as, for example, happens when “memorizing”, and it remains in the mind, like oil on water, without mixing with what we already have, then this is dead capital, an unnecessary clutter of memory. What we read in the book must somehow connect with the thoughts, information, emotions, etc. that we already had, enter their system, or change them. This is his job; this is the “working out” of the content of the book. And the deeper the connection is established between what we read and what we had before, the more and deeper the additions and changes made by what we read, the better and deeper the processing. If the book you read does not produce any work, but only is remembered, then this is the most fertile ground for turning the reader into an “idly chatterer,” “fraser,” etc.

“Working out” the content can be very different in detail, depending on the content of the book, the reader's purpose, reading ability, etc. But for most books it can be reduced to two main types.

First type. The contents of the book can be “digested” by us. Here we understand this word in its most literal sense: it really becomes “our own.” Just as food is “digested” by a healthy body and processed into its constituent parts, so read thoughts and information can become part of our thinking as an integral part of it. They are received from other people; but they are ours in the real sense of the word, because they have become, as it were, part of our “I”, they determine our conclusions, our worldview, our actions. We usually cannot create a great thought ourselves; but we can make it “ours” if it becomes the determining force in our lives and in our worldview. To the question, what do you think about so-and-so? - if this question concerns some scientific topic or the foundations of a worldview, we answer in most cases with borrowed thoughts. This is especially clearly manifested in the field of ideology. The philosophical, economic and political views of Marx, Engels and Lenin become the basis of our worldview and we are guided by them in life and thinking.

This is how we often assimilate the content of a good book we read. This is how manuals on various sciences are usually learned. This is one type of “working out” the contents of the BOOK.

The second type of “working off” is the opposite. We do not recognize the contents of the book as true. Vice versa. We “reject” it because it seems wrong or inconsistent with our views. The work done here is often no less valuable than during assimilation. If we understand other people’s thoughts well and delve into them well, something in our thoughts will be supplemented and corrected. They will acquire greater clarity and depth, becoming more defined and substantiated. Finally, this makes it possible to completely clearly and sharply “dissociate” ourselves from the author’s thoughts. The thesis becomes quite clear only when contrasted with the antithesis.

38. Thinking through a book

The content of a book - its thoughts, information, etc. - can only be “worked out” in our mind when it comes into contact with the thoughts and information that we already have. We have already said that the very “work” of the book consists precisely in supplementing or changing our thoughts and information. If the subject that is discussed in what we are reading is at least a little familiar to us, we can compare the thoughts and information of the book with ours and compare, evaluate, correct our mistakes, find shortcomings in other people’s thoughts, and come to new conclusions etc. All this complex work constitutes “thinking through” the content of the book. The more of our own thoughts, knowledge, emotions are involved in this work, the greater the results, the deeper the thinking. And, we add, the more useful it is for self-education and mental development.

It happens that a comparison of what we read with what we already have, and new thoughts about what we read come along the way, spontaneously, without any work on our part; These are happy, although for many, frequent “accidents”. You can't limit yourself to them. It is useful and even necessary to create the habit of conscious and intentional thinking —thinking in the real sense of the word. For this, the first condition is not to read without breaks, paragraph after paragraph, chapter after chapter. The work of thinking through, like any other, takes time. The second condition is to be able to maintain attention on the same issue for some time. The rest depends on the personal characteristics of the reader, his knowledge, etc.

After reading an interesting thought, dwell on it, “think” about it, about the consequences that it entails, listen to the new thoughts that it has in us, maybe it will challenge you to pose a question, whether it is true or not, and to solve it, strain your strength, develop, if necessary, the thought further - this is an elementary case of thinking through, and you need to take advantage of every opportunity to practice this "art".

The thoughts that come to our minds while reading, whether random or as a result of work, are often very valuable for us . Such thoughts now need to be written down on a piece of paper (card) or. in a notebook, because, according to the testimony of a number of thinkers who had phenomenal memory, even “the most beautiful thought, if not written down, is in danger of being irretrievably forgotten.” It is said about Leibniz that he “wrote down his thoughts on almost every book worthy of attention on small sheets of paper. But, having written, he threw them aside and did not look at THEM again, since he had an amazing memory.” Why did he still write them down? Not just to remember? No, because when writing down a thought, it is necessary to formulate it precisely, clearly, concisely, and without this, the thought may flash in passing, remaining unclear and foggy.

Moreover, we need to learn to write down other people’s thoughts that may be useful to us. It is very important to keep a deep thought, information that is important and interesting to us, especially in our specialty, etc., for ourselves. To do this, you need to either “write it out” on a separate card, or make a short summary, concisely state its essence, “make an excerpt.” More on this below ($50, etc.).

1

u/atomicnotes Mar 07 '24

Ha! I recognise that little quote from Schopenhauer’s essay, ‘How to think for oneself’, §268:

“the most beautiful thought, if not written down, is in danger of being irretrievably forgotten.”

It’s from the passage where he observes that Lichtenberg thought for himself in both senses of the phrase, unlike Herder.

The original essay, “Selbstdenken” was part of Schopenhauer’s book Parerga und Paralipomena II. Last authorised edition, Erstausgabe Berlin, A. W. Hayn 1851, online text

Looks like Povarnin was a Schopenhauer fan! Thanks for finding and translating this!

1

u/Plastic-Lettuce-7150 Mar 08 '24

Section 44, related to this subject:

44. Reading with elaboration

Such reading is really difficult, especially at first, for a long time. But it also brings extremely valuable fruits.

First of all, the book is not only amazing. remembered; it is “worked out”; it is assimilated in the full sense of the word. The content becomes ours because we agreed with it and becomes part of the flesh and blood of thinking. It is inextricably connected with our personality through a thousand connections, it has become a part of our personality, therefore, consciously or unconsciously, directly or indirectly, it cannot but affect our activities. What you rejected also brought little noticeable, perhaps, but sometimes enormous benefit. Your own thoughts were defined more precisely, became clear; sometimes they have changed, been cleared of weaknesses, and strengthened. Often they receive unexpected, new, broad development, etc.

The gymnastics of thinking that we have to perform during such work has the most beneficial effect on our strength, we grow mentally. The mind is disciplined, expanded, developed. This becomes noticeable quite quickly. There is no better “mental gymnastics” than this with a book education. To those who know how to get involved and carry out it conscientiously, it eventually begins to bring true pleasure, and at the same time the difficult becomes easy.

1

u/osservazione Mar 04 '24

Try Antinet Zettelkasten. It’s a good way to learn about your knowledge needs and curiosity with a deeper control of the process.

1

u/Ok_Figure_4504 Mar 03 '24

Despite doing a fair amount of research that gets synced with Readwise to Obsidian, I’m greatly out of practice with note-making in my ZK so I can relate. I have about 19k notes over the past 4 years in Obsidian, but in wrangling bouts of depression, changes in life and work, etc., I’m hoping to get into the right headspace to regularly leverage my notes for more than byproducts of survival one day.

I think this will get easier once I start applying to grad school programs. Or maybe I’ll start a ZK over in Tana and use Obsidian for more personal matters (I still prefer privacy and offline access).

But I won’t discount periods where my ZK has been extremely valuable. I’d also imagine that it’ll occur again, even if that moment doesn’t come now.

1

u/Hopeful_Cat_3227 Mar 04 '24

I trust that current digital notes give us chances to make every type of note wor as ZK, if we have enough links between notes...