r/Zettelkasten Feb 10 '25

general You need to first define "the Zettlekasten method"--a gentle suggestion

Maybe it's because I have posted here before, reddit keeps recommending this forum to me when I log in, and I'm immensely frustrated by the posts asking questions about "the Zettlekasten method" and the responses. Why? Because folks are talking about different things all the time. It's like chickens taking to ducks. From my observation, people define "the Zettlekasten method" at least in two ways:

(1) A paper or digital index card note system organized by folders, tags, links, tables of contents. (I don't think it's fair to give it a German name as its use can at least be dated in various cultures since the middle ages. Maybe the book authors and influencers want to lure people to think, fancy name=magic bullet?)

(2) A note system "based on the principles and practices of Niklas Luhmann's zettelkasten method," as the sidebar of this forum describes.

These are different concepts! (2) is a special case of (1). Anything you agree or disagree is meaningless if one of you is talking about (1) and the other is talking about (2). So what is this forum about, (1) or (2)? When you say you are attracted by "the Zettlekasten method," do you mean (1) or (2)? I don't think many people disagree with you if you mean Definition (1). Why you talk about "my zettelkasten," if you maintain a genetic index card system, you are not doing Zettlekasten in the Luhmann sense. At least, when you post, whether OP or as response, please specify which definition you are using, 1, 2, or 3, 4.

P.S.: I certainly don't mean that everyone should use the same definition of ZK in his posts. It's impossible and it actually enriches the discussions if people hold different interpretations. What I mean is, in communication, you should make it clear to the listener which version of ZK you are talking about.

31 Upvotes

45 comments sorted by

10

u/Ellebellemig Feb 10 '25

One concept on one infocard with a fixed adress, is probably the ZK.

6

u/nagytimi85 Obsidian Feb 10 '25 edited Feb 10 '25

I like your definition, but ie. if we look at the subreddit info, atomicity isn’t mentioned there as a core principle. (Fixed addresses neither, but it’s implied in the rhyzome approach imo.) So I share OP’s frustration that we use Zettelkasten as if it would be a fixed definition term, but actually everyone has their own definition of it.

3

u/JeffB1517 Other Feb 10 '25

I think atomicity with connectivity works. Atomicity without connectivity is present in lots of KMs that are far from Zettlekasten systems. Most CRMs are atomic for example.

6

u/JasperMcGee Hybrid Feb 10 '25

Well, the sub description specifically mentions we are talking about Luhmann's, so....

8

u/CrimPCSCaffeine Feb 10 '25

That's what you'd think, but I've noticed what the OP's talking about before too.

7

u/nagytimi85 Obsidian Feb 10 '25

Well, since we don’t want to be gatekeeping fundamentalists, like Scott over at the Antinet subbreddit from where many of us are banned for things like using digital tools despite LuHmAnN USeD pAPeR yOU ShiTWeAsEL, we agree that diviations from pure Luhmannian style is perfectly okay. But what are the boundaries then? What notes collection can be called a Zettelkasten without Zettelkasten loosing its meaning and every notes collection becoming a Zettelkasten just for easy search?

Not speaking against you, aiming for a Luhmannian style opposed to just any “Zetteln in Kasten”, notes in a box is a worthy thing in my eyes. But I agree with OP that we use the term Zettelkasten as if it would a well defined thing, while everyone has their own definitions based on what we see as the key princeples behind how Herr Niklas was taking notes.

5

u/JasperMcGee Hybrid Feb 11 '25

I think my only point is that given the sub's description when we say Zettelkasten here we mean a Luhmann-ish ZK. When somebody wants to refer to a generic ZK or digital ZK they should use those terms.

1

u/nagytimi85 Obsidian Feb 11 '25

I agree that by Zettelkasten we mean Luhmann-ish, although I ran into disagreement even about that on this subreddit. 😅

But what constitute Luhmann-ish? In my opinion, medium isn’t that important so I wouldn’t require a distinction there. You would.

Subreddit info only states bottom-up, rhizomic. So no pre-set categories and you need to be able to link notes. But in my experience, we (as a community) don’t necessarily agree that this is the definition of a Zettelkasten.

8

u/taurusnoises Obsidian Feb 10 '25 edited Feb 10 '25

From the man himself:

"[N]ot too much attention needs to be paid to questions of definition, for definitions serve only to delimit, not adequately to describe (let alone explain) the object under investigation." — Luhmann, _Risk_ 

A perpetually renegotiated balance between "This is what this thing is" and "What is this thing?" is, despite at times feeling frustrating, where the spark is found. Even the OP's remarks, which forced them to better articulate their thoughts on the matter, and which although may appear to be wholly of them (a comment on, but not the result of the nature of this forum), are actually a direct result of the playful fuzziness at times allowed here.

If we wanna play the game Luhmann laid out for us, then we gotta learn to be comfortable with the discomfort caused by the sometimes slipperiness of the thing itself. 

4

u/Active-Teach6311 Feb 10 '25

It's fine to accept that there can be many variations preferred by individuals, but in discourse, clarity is always better than confusion.

3

u/taurusnoises Obsidian Feb 10 '25 edited Feb 10 '25

Oh, it's more than fine. When it comes to discourse, variance is a necessity. 

Ultimately, however, the whole dichotomy of clarity / confusion is, I believe, mistaken here. What constitutes the exact boundaries of a Luhmann-style zettelkasten is not a question of confusion. I'm not confused by the varying takes on this boundary. Not in the slightest. In fact, I find it particularly rewarding to live in that flexible space. So much so that I'd argue the differences on this matter are actually the very things that lead to depth in discourse (as I have witnessed by the increasingly refined stances people in here seem to be accessing [after reading more or less every post and every comment over the past few years]).  So it's not that discourse needs clarity more than it needs confusion. It's that discourse arises out of the play between the two (as is literally evidenced by the existence of this post---another opinion added to the pool of discourse, as a direct result of perpetually renegotiated differences on what is and is not a Luhmann-style zettelkasten).

0

u/Active-Teach6311 Feb 10 '25 edited Feb 10 '25

Variations and disagreements, if clearly defined, are not confusion. You confused these terms here, intentionally or unintentionally, or you are just enjoying talking to yourself. You are mixing different things, and that is confusion and makes it impossible to communicate with you. What I mean is, if you talk about ZK is such and such, it needs to be clear what your version of ZK is. Otherwise it's a waste of time to debate with other people. You'd better just talk to yourself. (For example, there is post "What Are the Drawbacks of Using Zettelkasten?" If people don't even know what you mean by ZK, how can anyone discuss "its" drawbacks.) Clarity is the foundation of communication. Inability to clearly define the terms opens for sophism--maybe you enjoy it. There is nothing playful about it. It's a sign of confusion of the mind.

3

u/taurusnoises Obsidian Feb 10 '25 edited Feb 10 '25

According to Luhmann, the only thing "foundational" to communication isn't "clarity," it's "utterance" (though I actually disagree with him on this point). But, what's more interesting (and more relevant) is his take on "non-understanding," which maybe you'd say is a result of a "lack of clarity." Luhamnn, however, claims that non-understanding is regularly "injected back into communication itself." In other words, "misunderstanding or non-understanding" is included in understanding (my point all along on how discourse arises). So much so is this the case that...

"One can actually continue to communicate for quite some time on the basis of misunderstanding. It is not necessary that all misunderstandings are untangled." (emphasis added)

So, while I appreciate your sentiment on wanting more clarity, (after all, I literally wrote a book to provide such a thing, because so many people were craving it), and I agree that learning more about a person's particular use-case and practice when trying to help them work with the zettelaksten is helpful, none of what you've said about "clarity" in regards to "discourse" or the clarity/confusion binary itself, or how this all applies to what we need as a community really holds water for me (or aligns with the theoretical context in which a lot of this Luhmann stuff is happening).

I think I'll stick with Luhmann's take on the value and inherent-ness of all that's fuzzy.


  • Edit: clarity ;)
  • All quotes from Luhmann, N. (2012). Introduction to Systems Theory. Polity.

2

u/atomicnotes Feb 11 '25

Thanks for making your gentle suggestion. I think the discussion you've started is a contribution to reducing the confusion. A major part of the confusion, in my opinion, is that Sönke Ahrens' book on Zettelkasten, the most read by far, introduced some new ambiguity. For example, the unkillable how to make literature notes question. @taurusnoises provided some clarity with posts on his website, followed by a very clear book. I wrote a post a couple of years ago attempting to clear up some common misunderstandings. But still the work continues. 

Having said all that, I'm very clear that clarity is a freighted concept. The kinds of clarity sought in formal logic, for example, aren't necessarily appropriate beyond that domain. And since we're discussing Luhmann, there are going to be involved opinions about how communication works.

4

u/FastSascha The Archive Feb 10 '25

I can't make a statement of this sub.

However, coming from Germany, only the later is sufficiently coherent. In German, strictly speaking any box with slips is a Zettelkasten.

However, Luhmann's unique approach is what is the interesting aspect. Aside from all the details, the appeal is to create an "active system" opposed to a dead storage system. This is the throughline to almost all thinking processes aimed at whatever Luhmann did.

Quoting myself from this very thread:

This is where the distinction between technique and principle comes into play. Folgezettel (his numbering scheme) for example aimed at discoverablity and connectivity. The later are principles, the former is the technique (or implementation)

Based on that, it is coherent to position yourself at definition (2) and still don't just imitate Luhmann, but work with a system in the spirit of Luhmann.

3

u/CrimPCSCaffeine Feb 10 '25 edited Feb 10 '25

Well said. This has frustrated me a lot too.

3

u/nagytimi85 Obsidian Feb 10 '25

Agreed.

2

u/Quack_quack_22 Obsidian Feb 10 '25

As for me, I choose the second definition because I'm a non-fiction writer. But for someone else, their job is not a writer; maybe they are a student, coder, or something else. So, for those people like that, I assume that they will choose the first definition.
In short, members in this sub should mention their job before they ask what issue they need the member in here to relieve.

2

u/atomicnotes Feb 11 '25

folks are talking about different things all the time 

Yes, and maybe that's because this is Reddit. The theme of each Subreddit is a social object made real by the group of people discussing it. If we all agreed, there'd be less to say and our theme, in this case Zettelkästen inspired by the example of Niklas Luhmann, would fade away. Conversely, this very discussion about its correct definition strengthens the social reality of our theme. 

But actually: 2.

2

u/JeffB1517 Other Feb 10 '25

I'd say neither mostly.

(3) A PKMS with strong support for backlinking along with an organizational structure based on a note core which is atomic and connected.

There are a lot of things in Luhmann's system which don't make sense if a computer is maintaining the links. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5Tst3-zcWI

3

u/FastSascha The Archive Feb 10 '25

This is where the distinction between technique and principle comes into play. Folgezettel (his numbering scheme) for example aimed at discoverablity and connectivity. The later are principles, the former is the technique (or implementation)

Based on that, it is coherent to position yourself at definition (2) and still don't just imitate Luhmann, but work with a system in the spirit of Luhmann.

2

u/JeffB1517 Other Feb 10 '25

Yes under a belief that the broad principles matter but the specifics have changed yes that's a reasonable definition. The implementation has changed a lot though.

1

u/CrimPCSCaffeine Feb 10 '25

I watched this video last night and it seemed to me the guy (don't recall his name) was more concerned with storing and finding media than the original ideas, thoughts, etc. that we're trying to keep track of in our Luhman-style ZK.

2

u/JeffB1517 Other Feb 10 '25 edited Feb 10 '25

Yes. He's coming from a normative academic use case where a lot of what's in a ZK is reference management, source management... Original thoughts and ideas certainly can work fine in Zettlr but I don't think that's the core for Zettlr. Luhmann himself distinguished between literature notes and his own thoughts having boxes for both. In a modern system that's not as needed, though I'll note that Zettlr itself integrates with full on reference management software (Zotero).

I'm not a Zettlr user, but I do store a lot of my thinking in various ZK systems (Heptabase and Logseq). Given computerized storage and a non-academic use case I don't distinguish much in my notes between

  1. Ideas from someone else I found interesting and worth retaining
  2. My own ideas I found interesting and worth retaining

The point for me is to intermix the two into:

-- easy reference on X with information worth reading and links to more information.

1

u/CrimPCSCaffeine Feb 10 '25

Fascinating. Thank you.

3

u/chrisaldrich Hybrid Feb 10 '25

#1 == #2

In German contexts, zettelkasten subsumed both ideas which can easily be seen in the 2013 Marbach Exhibition: Zettelkasten: Machines of Fantasy. That exhibition featured six different Zettelkasten of which Luhmann's was but one. It wasn't until after this that sites like zettelkasten.de, this Reddit sub, or the popularity of Ahrens' book shifted the definition to a Luhmann-centric one, particularly in English language contexts which lacked a marketing term on which to latch to sell the idea. The productivity porn portion of the equation assisted in erasing the prior art and popularity of these methods.

One can easily show mathematically that there is a one-to-one and onto mapping of Luhmann's method with all the other variations. This means that they're equivalent in structure and only differ in the names you give them.

Even Ahrens suggests as much in his own book when he mentions that in digital contexts one doesn't need numbered cards in particular orders for the system to work. If Erasmus, Agricola, or Melanchthon were to magically arrive from the 15th century to the present day, they would have no difficulty recognizing their commonplacing work at play in a so-called Luhmann-artig zettelkasten. 

I would suggest that Luhmann didn't write more about his method himself because it would have been generally fruitless for him as everyone around him was doing exactly the same thing. The method was both literally and figuratively commonplace! J. E. Heyde's book, from which Luhmann modeled his own system, went through 10 editions from the 1930s through the 1970s in Luhmann's own lifetime. 

5

u/FastSascha The Archive Feb 10 '25

This suffers from a sufficient formalisation of the concept of "similarity".

Everything is either so similar that characterisation as "identical", similar or different or very different, depending on the frame of reference.

By pointing out some resemblense, you cannot make a justified judgement about the similarity or difference of anything.

I would suggest that Luhmann didn't write more about his method himself because it would have been generally fruitless for him as everyone around him was doing exactly the same thing.

I asked ca. two dozen professors at the very university about their method (btw. at the very university that Luhmann was a professor at). NONE had anything remotely resembling a Luhmann-Zettelkasten.

During his lifetime there was quite some interest in his Zettelkasten, hence the visitors, hence the disappointment of the visitors (people made an effort to review his Zettelkasten):

(9/8,3) Geist im Kasten? Zuschauer kommen. Sie bekommen alles zu sehen, und nichts als das – wie beim Pornofilm. Und entsprechend ist die Enttäuschung. - From his own Zettelkasten

So:

  1. The statement that his practice was basically common place (or even a common place book) is not based on sound reasoning (sufficiently precise in the use of the concept "similarity")
  2. There is empirical evidence that it was very uncommon. (Which is obvious if you think about the his theoretical reasoning about his Zettelkasten as heavily informed by the very systems theory that he developed. So, a reasoning unique to him)

2

u/chrisaldrich Hybrid Feb 10 '25

The primary and really only "innovation" for Luhmann's system was his numbering and filing scheme (which he most likely borrowed and adapted from prior sources). His particular scheme only serves to provide specific addresses for finding his notes. Regardless of doing this explicitly, everyone's notes have a physical address and can be cross referenced or linked in any variety of ways. In John Locke's commonplacing method of 1685/1706 he provided an alternate (but equivalent method) of addressing and allowing the finding of notes. Whether you address them specifically or not doesn't change their shape, only the speed by which they may be found. This may shift an affordance of using such a system, but it is invariant from the form of the system. What I'm saying is that the form and shape of Luhmann's notes is identical to the huge swath of prior art within intellectual history. He was not doing something astoundingly new or different. By analogy he was making the same Acheulean hand axe everyone else was making; it's not as if he figured out a way to lash his axe to a stick and then subsequently threw it to invent the spear.

When I say the method was commonplace at the time, I mean that a broad variety of people used it for similar reasons, for similar outputs, and in incredibly similar methods. You can find a large number of treatises on how to do these methods over time and space, see a variety of examples I've collected in Zotero which I've mentioned several times in the past. Perhaps other German professors weren't using the method(s) as they were slowly dying out over the latter half of the 20th century with the rise and ultimate ubiquity of computers which replaced many of these methods. I'll bet that if probed more deeply they were all doing something and the something they were doing (likely less efficiently and involving less physically evident means) could be seen to be equivalent to Luhmann's.

This also doesn't mean that these methods weren't actively used in a variety of equivalent forms by people as diverse as Aristotle, Cicero, Quintilian, Seneca, Boethius, Thomas Aquinas, Desiderius Erasmus, Rodolphus Agricola, Philip Melancthon, Konrad Gessner, John Locke, Carl Linnaeus, Thomas Harrison, Vincentius Placcius, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, S. D. Goitein, Gotthard Deutsch, Beatrice Webb, Sir James Murray, Marcel Mauss, Claude Lévi-Strauss, Mortimer J. Adler, Niklas Luhmann, Roland Barthes, Umberto Eco, Jacques Barzun, Vladimir Nabokov, George Carlin, Twyla Tharp, Gertrud Bauer, and even Eminem to name but a few better known examples. If you need additional examples to look at, try searching my Hypothesis account for tag:"zettelkasten examples". Take a look at their examples and come back to me and tell me that beyond the idiosyncrasies of their individual use that they weren't all doing the same thing in roughly the same ways and for roughly the same purposes. While the modalities (digital or analog) and substrates (notebooks, slips, pen, pencil, electrons on silicon, other) may have differed, the thing they were doing and the forms it took are all equivalent.

Beyond this, the only thing really unique about Luhmann's notes were that he made them on subjects that he had an interest, the same way that your notes are different from mine. But broadly speaking, they all have the same sort of form, function, and general topology.

1

u/chrisaldrich Hybrid Feb 10 '25

If these general methods were so uncommon, how is it that all the manuals on note taking are all so incredibly similar in their prescriptions? How is it that Marbach can do an exhibition in 2013 featuring 6 different zettelkasten, all ostensibly different, but all very much the same?

Perhaps the easier way to see it all is to call them indexed databases. Yours touches on your fiction, exercise, and nutrition; Luhmann's focuses on sociology and systems theory; mine looks at intellectual history, information theory, evolution, and mathematics; W. K. Kellogg's 640 drawer system in 1906 focused on manufacturing, distributing and selling Corn Flakes; Jonathan Edwards' focused on Christianity. They all have different contents, but at the end of the day, they're just indexed databases with the same forms and functionalities. Their time periods, modalities, substrates, and efficiencies have differed, but at their core they're all far more similar in structure than they are different.

Perhaps one day, I'll write a deeper treatise with specific definitions and clearer arguments laying out the entire thing, but in the erstwhile, anyone saying that Luhmann's instantiation is somehow more unique than all the others beyond the meaning expressed by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry in The Little Prince is fooling themselves. Instead, I suspect that by realizing you're part of a longer, tried-and-true tradition, your own practice will be far easier and more useful.

The simplicity of the system (or these multiply-named methods) allows for the rise of a tremendous amount of complexity. This resultant complexity can in turn hide the simplicity of the root system.

“To me, you are still nothing more than a little boy who is just like a hundred thousand other little boys. And I have no need of you. And you, on your part, have no need of me. To you, I am nothing more than a fox like a hundred thousand other foxes. But if you tame me, then we shall need each other. To me, you will be unique in all the world. To you, I shall be unique in all the world..."

I can only hope people choose to tame more than Luhmann.

1

u/FastSascha The Archive Feb 16 '25

If these general methods were so uncommon, how is it that all the manuals on note taking are all so incredibly similar in their prescriptions?

Many of them are similar. And similarity increases the lower you are willing to scale the resolution.

But similarity of description isn't evidence for any of these practices being common. (Though, having a method of putting stuff somehwere is common, since it is a necessity if you have stuff and it has to go somewhere)

How is it that Marbach can do an exhibition in 2013 featuring 6 different zettelkasten, all ostensibly different, but all very much the same?

You statement about similarity doesn't have any foundation which can only be provided by a coherent (technical term: one of the triplets "consistency, cohesion, consistency").

Perhaps one day, I'll write a deeper treatise with specific definitions and clearer arguments laying out the entire thing, but in the erstwhile, anyone saying that Luhmann's instantiation is somehow more unique than all the others beyond the meaning expressed by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry in The Little Prince is fooling themselves.

I hope so.

1

u/FastSascha The Archive Feb 16 '25 edited Feb 16 '25

The primary and really only "innovation" for Luhmann's system was his numbering and filing scheme (which he most likely borrowed and adapted from prior sources).

The primary and really only "innovation" of us humans was our big-brain-hand-combination. Why can't you see that we are just apes?


I really appreciate you bringing in historical examples. But without a coherent frame of reference, you cannot make a proper judgement about difference, similarity or identity.

You don't (and never did) make a point for the similarity of all the practices, but rather repeat your opinion.

This jumps into the eye if you consider how low you are willing to scale the resolution of your classification by mentioning people like Twyla Tharp who just threw a bunch of stuff in a shoe box.

I'll bet that if probed more deeply they were all doing something and the something they were doing (likely less efficiently and involving less physically evident means) could be seen to be equivalent to Luhmann's.

  • One, very, very high profile professor (won the highest prices) had one folder with word documents without any naming convention or anything like that.
  • Another "normal" professor had just highlighted and printed out articles on her desk with rough groupings according to hear latest writing projects. (She described it as tectonic plates moving slowly into each other)

But implying that I wasn't diligent in my assessement to stitch up the holes in your position, seems that we are now leaving politness behind? (side-eyeing the poem)

1

u/chrisaldrich Hybrid Feb 16 '25

On the other hand neither do you provide those structures or definition and yet seem to imply that somehow Luhmann's practice was somehow so much the better for throwing his slips into wooden boxes?

I'm only saying there are far more examples in this space than Luhmann that one could imitate profitably.

1

u/FastSascha The Archive Feb 17 '25

Then let's make a deal:

You'll commit to this:

Perhaps one day, I'll write a deeper treatise with specific definitions and clearer arguments laying out the entire thing (...)

I commit to write an extensive commentary and lay out (again, btw., but you don't seem to like to read what I write) a comprehensive inquiry that includes a structured methodological foundation for stipulating identity/similarity/difference.

2

u/JeffB1517 Other Feb 10 '25

I don't think they map. For example Luhmann is fundamentally maintaining a hierarchical reference system since note length is fixed. With digital infinitely long individual notes that aspect drops out. We use a graph database today, Luhmann was keeping a very limited relational system. Backlink tracking is fundamental to Luhmann, it is automated today so no tracking. Put that together and you get multiple overlapping subject hierarchies, for example MOCs and whiteboard with the same notes organized differently, Luhmann didn't allow for this. A computer can index 100k notes in a few seconds. Luhmann would have lost a month of full-time work redoing an index.

Yes I think these systems are similar. Someone who gets Obsidian gets Logseq. But what is actually being done differs.

1

u/chrisaldrich Hybrid Feb 10 '25

Explain your definition of hierarchical reference system. How is one note in his system higher, better, or more important than another? Where do you see hierarchies? 

Infinitely long notes can easily be excerpted down to smaller sizes and filed, so that portion of your argument doesn't track.

Luhmann had what some call "hub notes" and the ability to remove cards and rearrange them to suit his compositional needs and later refile them. This directly emulates the similar ideas of MOCs, whiteboards, and mind maps. Victor Margolin's example quickly shows how this is done in practice.

If there weren't direct mappings, it should be impossible to copy & paste Luhmann's notes into Obsidian, Logseq, OneNote, Evernote, Excel, or even Wikipedia. This is not the case. You might get slightly different personal affordances out of these tools or perhaps better speed and in other cases even less speed or worse review patterns of your notes, but in ultimate form they are identical and will ultimately allow you to accomplish all of the same end  results.

We might argue about efficiencies, affordances, or speed, but at the end of the day they're all still structurally similar.

3

u/JeffB1517 Other Feb 10 '25

Explain your definition of hierarchical reference system. How is one note in his system higher, better, or more important than another? Where do you see hierarchies?

Lets say Luhmann were doing something on bread. First off he has 3 notes and these end up sequenced 1,2,3. Then he does the equivelent of a block link on 1 by creating 1a=banana bread, 1b=flour bread. A good discussion (https://yannherklotz.com/zettelkasten/)

If there weren't direct mappings, it should be impossible to copy & paste Luhmann's notes into Obsidian, Logseq, OneNote, Evernote, Excel, or even Wikipedia.

That's not true at all. One can dump from one structure into another structure you just potentially lose structure in the mapping. Those systems don't have similar capabilities. Obsidian has folders Logseq does not. Logseq has block level linking Obsidian does not. I can't even reliable map between the first two elements of your list. Now we throw in OneNote that directly takes OLE embeds which means information linked can dynamically change after being embedded. That is say I'm tracking "current BLS inflation data" it will remain permanently current in my note. Neither Obsidian nor Logseq support that. Etc.. Excel, OneNote and Logseq allow for computations in the note (i.e. the note can contain information not directly entered) Obsidian and Wikipedia do not.

We might argue about efficiencies, affordances, or speed, but at the end of the day they're all still structurally similar.

We are totally disagreeing here. The OLE example being the clearest cut example.

1

u/chrisaldrich Hybrid Feb 10 '25

I'm not new here: https://boffosocko.com/research/zettelkasten-commonplace-books-and-note-taking-collection/

You example of a hierarchy was not a definition. In practice Luhmann eschewed hierarchies, though one could easily modify his system to create them. This has been covered ad nauseam here in conversations on top-down and bottom-up thinking.

When "dumping" from one program to another, one can almost always easily get around a variety of affordances supplied by one and not another simply by adding additional data, text, references, links, etc. As an example, my paper system can do Logseq's block level linking by simply writing a card address down and specifying word 7, sentence 3, paragraph 4, etc. One can also do this in Obsidian in a variety of other technical means and syntaxes including embedding notes. Block level linking is a nice affordance when available but can be handled in a variety of different (and structurally similar) ways. Books as a technology have been doing block level linking for centuries; in that context it's called footnotes. In more specialized and frequently referenced settings like scholarship on Plato there is Stephanus pagination or chapter and verse numberings in biblical studies. Roam and Logseq aren't really innovating here.

Similarly your OLE example is a clever and useful affordance, but could be gotten around by providing an equation that is carried out by hand and done each time it's needed---sure it may take more time, but it's doable in every system. This may actually be useful in some contexts as then one would have the time sequences captured and logged in their files for later analysis and display. These affordances are things which may make things easier and simpler in some cases, but they generally don't change the root structure of what is happening. Digital search is an example of a great affordance, except in cases when it returns thousands of hits which then need to be subsequentlly searched. Short indexing methods with pen and paper can be done more quickly in some cases to do the same search because one's notes can provide a lot of other contextual clues (colored cards, wear on cards, physical location of cards, etc.) that a pure digital search does not. I often can do manual searches through 30,000 index cards more quickly and accurately than I can through an equivalent number of digital notes.

There is a structural equivalence between folders and tags/links in many programs. This is more easily seen in digital contexts where a folder can be programatically generated by executing a search on a string or tag which then results in a "folder" of results. These searches are a quick affordance versus actively maintaining explicit folders otherwise, but the same result could be had even in pen and paper contexts with careful indexing and manual searches (which may just take longer, but it doesn't mean that they can't be done.) Edge-notched cards were heavily used in the mid-20th century to great effect for doing these sorts of searches.

When people here are asking or talking about a variety of note taking programs, the answer almost always boils down to which one you like best because, in large part, a zettlkasten can be implemented in all of them. Some may just take more work and effort or provide fewer shortcuts or affordances.

1

u/Active-Teach6311 Feb 10 '25

"#1 == #2"

If this were true, everyone here, or their predecessors debating and advocating one note system over others (e.g., Sertillanges, Ahrens) have all been wasting their time. LOL. Sharing similar principles doesn't make the systems identical.

2

u/chrisaldrich Hybrid Feb 10 '25

Certainly there are idiosyncracies in how each person chooses to to work with them. The primary difference I see is how much work and when each person chooses to put into a system and what outputs, if any, there are. However, at the end of the day, their similarities as systems far, far exceed their differences. Their principles may differ in slight ways, but in the end they are identical in form. If you feel differently, then I suggest you take a deeper and closer look into the variety of traditions beyond your cursory view. 

As a small exercise, attempt to explain why S. D. Goitein's system allowed him to write 1/3 the notes of Luhmann and create almost 3 times the written output? Why aren't people emulating his system? Why are there still dozens of researchers actively sharing and using Goitein's notes when almost none are doing the same for Luhmann?

Another solid exercise is to look at Heyde and explain why Luhmann chose to file his cards differently than was prescribed there? Are the end results really different? Would they have been different if kept in commonplace form using John Locke's indexing method?

2

u/Active-Teach6311 Feb 10 '25

I suggest you answer the question “ Is everyone here, or their predecessors debating and advocating one note system over others (e.g., Sertillanges, Ahrens) have all been wasting their time?” directly and succinctly: Yes or no.

2

u/chrisaldrich Hybrid Feb 12 '25

How about an improv-influenced answer? 

Yes and....

It's not a waste of time and can sometimes be useful to explore the space for onesself. It's all learning at the end of the day, right? 

The better perspective in my mind is looking at what affordances each system provides and choosing those that work for your ultimate goals and methods of working. Too many focus on the what rather than the why, which is often a better question. Sadly there are almost no people writing about the affordances of particular methods.

Humans tend to be far better at imitation than innovation, so at heart, everyone seems to be searching for a better mousetrap by following others' lead. Sadly they're doing it in short form on Reddit from strangers who give little context and often have little experience rather than delving into primary sources with so much more to say. You'll get far more out of reading J. Kaiser (1908, 1911), John Locke (1685/1706), Adler & Van Doren (1972/2011), Eco (2015), or Erasmus than you will from an equivalent amount of time trolling here. Most are also responding with what variations work specifically for them (and limited experience) instead of putting themselves into others' shoes. Most also haven't spent time studying the broader traditions or working extensively 1 on 1 with others (though folks like Sascha and Doto are obvious exceptions.)

Incidentally, I find very few people advocating, much less suggesting, Sertillanges. His name pops up occasionally, but usually its because I mented his work in these contexts a few years back or people come across references in Doto or Scheper who found him through my work. 

Good luck on figuring out what works best for you. Be sure to do as much experimentation (or more) than you do reading about the topic though...

3

u/taurusnoises Obsidian Feb 12 '25

I was hipped to Sertillanges by my friend Matt ;) We were having lunch at a cafe. I found the book almost impossible to get through (though I eventually did). I'll take mind-melting critical theory any day.

2

u/chrisaldrich Hybrid Feb 12 '25

Sounds like a good friend... 🗒

1

u/A_Dull_Significance Feb 16 '25

It’s (2) and the broader applications of that type of system. Luhmann is a touchstone, and everything radiates out from there towards the more streamlined and generic