It occurred to me that we can use three digit numbers and key them to the Dewey Decimal system (for those of us familiar with using he library). That way the number would give a clue as to the content. (you could also do this with a four digit number, by just adding an additional digit to the DDS number). Your thoughts? 000 - Computer science, information and general works 100 - Philosophy and psychology 200 - Religion 300 - Social sciences 400 - Language 500 - Pure science 600 - Technology 700 - Arts and recreation 800 - Literature 900 - History and geography
Scott Scheper and others do things this way, but if you do things this way you are likely to spend too much time agonizing over the question of where exactly to put new cards. If you watch further in the Old-School Zettelkasten series, you’ll see that I abandoned folder cards. My explanation for why I did so can be found here: www.fpnotes.io/why-i-stopped-using-folder-cards-in-my-analog-zettelkasten/
Good presentation on identifying the cards. I'm still working through mine, but it is important to have some indexing method in mind when you start. It can be altered along the way to whatever works best for the individual. I'm still working out which I think will be best for mine. Again, good presentation.
Thanks for the comment, Bill. Yes, creating an index is definitely important, though when I teach the Luhmann-like Zettelkasten method in my classes, I usually wait till students have created 15-20 cards before I tell them to start creating an index.
Aloha Forrest! Well, I thought I settled on a numbering system, but I'm now on the verge of simply using numbers and decimal points, and nothing else. I understand how it may be instructive to use combinations of numbers, letters and slashes, or numbers, letters and dashes, etc., in terms of being able to more readily get a sense of the relationships between notes. However, I'm now thinking that the complexity isn't worth it. I'm thinking simply K.I.S.S. The worst case scenario is if a note doesn't fit, I move into zero or a negative number, like Scott does, and that's fine. (I tell my staff who come to me with a problem that if this is the worst problem they have today, then it's a great day.) In my scheme I'd have 37 categories, the first 17 of which are fully categories within philosophy, i.e., metaphysics, epistemology, phenomenology, etc., as this the bulk of my research. I'll ask at Dan's book club in the morning as well, but I'll ask you: do you see any drawback to using only numbers? Mahalo in advance!
VERY LONG RESPONSE Hello, hello. I'm thinkin' you're not going to like this response, but here goes... After the fourth or fifth video in my Zettelkasten series, I decided that creating top-level categories (or what I called "folder cards") causes problems. It was largely my experience last semester of teaching students how to build a Zettelkasten that led me to this conclusion, but so too did some things Bob Doto has said. If you'd like to see what I wrote on this issue several weeks ago, check out this: www.fpnotes.io/why-i-stopped-using-folder-cards-in-my-analog-zettelkasten/ I should add that I don't think I would have even tried to build a Luhmann-like Zettelkasten had I not gotten excited about the prospect of creating a Zettelkasten with something like folders in it. But using folder cards ended up being the Wittgensteinian ladder, as it were, that eventually I kicked away (I'm pretty sure a Wittgensteinian would deride my invocation of Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus there, but I trust YOU will not do so for fear that I will stop supplying you with crucial, life-sustaining insights into building a Zettelkasten!) I don't see a problem with using only numbers along with dots, slashes, or hyphens. For some people that seems to work well. When I first started building my Zettelkasten this past summer, I began using only numbers. But for some reason I found that more confusing than switching between numbers and letters, so I went the alphanumeric route. In your comment, you spoke of using combinations of various characters in such a way that one might be able "to more readily get a sense of the relationship between notes." As I see it, all you need from whatever card-addressing scheme you come up with are (A) unique addresses for each card and (B) a way of indicating that such-and-such a card follows or precedes some other card (Dan Allosso made that point in the fourth Antinet Book Club session better than I did just now). The scheme I lay out in Video 3 in my series does both of those things. If there's any other sort of "relationship between notes" you might think it helpful to signify with numbers, letters, etc., I'd be interested to hear what that is. But as I see it, once you jettison the idea of using top-level categories, the only "relationship between notes" that needs to be captured in one's card-addressing scheme is the one laid out in B above (or, put differently, one that will track the Folgezettel you create in your system). I noticed in the fourth session that Matthew van der Hoorn has a way of doing things where numbers consistently mean one thing and letters another (he said something about cards being either "supplemental" or "complementary" or something like that). I was having trouble figuring out what he meant, and when I went in search of a reddit post he said he MIGHT have written on the topic, I couldn't find it. So please make sure to hound him for a link and insist that he subscribe to my channel and hit "like" at least 90% of my videos. Here's what I would recommend (actually, it's very close to what I've heard Bob Doto recommend before, so glory be to Bob!). 1. Scrap any thoughts of building a Zettelkasten that has top-level categories. You might be wincing as you read that, but obey the command. 2. Instead, just start reading and taking notes as you see fit. 3. As you create cards, use the card-addressing scheme I lay out in Video #3 (except not the folder-card numbers at the front). 4. Whenever you create a card that doesn't have a good-enough relation to a card that already exists in your Zettelkasten, start a new branch. So if you've been working in a branch that starts with the number 1, start a new branch that starts with the letter 2. (If you need a few more pointers about #4 here, or the other items, let me know.) My guess is that you will end up creating new branches fairly quickly. But in Bob's case, I think he had a pretty well-developed branch focused on social media in place before he felt it necessary to create a new branch. One thing that's good about this approach, I think, is that you can experiment with different card-numbering schemes for each branch until you find one you're going to use for the rest of your life, whereas if you create a bunch of top-level categories, you're never going to get around to reading and writing because you'll obsessively keep on tinkering with the overall system. In that case, you would be, as Scott Scheper says, "majoring in the minor." (He says that in connection with infinitely tweaking apps like Obsidian, something I did for ONLY two years of my life-yeah, two frickin' years, yo.) If my card-addressing scheme appears to be 80% good enough for you, give it a shot for one, two, or three branches. If you find along the way that following my advice generates card addresses that are way too long, you can adopt a somewhat more complicated system that I think can eliminate that problem WITHOUT having to scrap all the work you've done already. If you were instead to start with top-level categories and then decide you didn't like how things were working, I'm guessing you would have to re-number all the cards you had created up until that point. That's not a problem if you have, say, fewer than 50 cards, but beyond that and you're likely to go cray cray. What's the somewhat more complicated system? For that, I charge a fee. Kidding. I know I am not wise, so I do not charge a fee (man, I love making philosophy references that I assume you recognize). Instead, I map out possible card-addressing schemes on a Miro board. Then I copy the link. And then I give you the link: miro.com/app/board/uXjVP3YDPRc=/?share_link_id=57432292624 A couple of weeks ago I started up a new branch and decided to experiment with using the scheme that has the star next to it on that Miro board (Attempt #4). I had thought of including that link in my response to your very first comment (and maybe I did?), but I worried it would make things more complicated for you and others than they need to be. You began your comment with the following: "I thought I settled on a numbering system, but..." That is a thought I had many times over the past six months. My hope is that with what I've said above, you can have it fewer times than I have had it.
@@forrestrperry This is GOLD! Thank for this considered and thoughtful response. Indeed, I had already settled on trying to use the method on your Miro board. However, heretofore, I DO have categories. I have 45! 😫 However, with this message, you've persuaded me. I'm going to dump the categories!! Since you didn't charge me for your advice (unlike the Sophists), I have no recourse to blow back my wrath onto you when the whole damn thing goes south, and I collapse onto the floor into a quivering, gelatinous mass. Let's hope that doesn't happen. SO, it seems what you're saying is just read, take notes, and when an irresistible idea emerges (to use Scott's word, or maybe Luhmann's), then just abstract out a general label for the idea, call that "1a," then when another doozy comes along that's related, address it with "1a1," then when another comes along which is not directly related, do the same thing except call it "2a," and do all this without first having defined any categories. (I'll be like Harrison Ford, having to step out into the abyss, sure to fall to my death, but once my center of gravity makes it impossible to recoup the step, a part of the bridge immediately extends under my foot, and my weight goes onto it and I don't fall to my death, and I repeat this each time I have an idea, and soon I've reached the other side and I have access to the Holy Grail.) That is, the categories develop organically. Importantly, keep track in the Index so I can see where the new ideas that come along will fit within the O.Z. Does this sound right?
@@forrestrperry Aloha FP, Regarding your idea about letters and numbers: Here are my notes from when Mr. Hoorn said that, but at that time I knew nothing about addresses, so I was groping in the dark: "About Unique addresses: the way Hoorn does it is that numbers mean one thing and letters mean another. Do this to avoid long addresses. Don't do it like Scott! It's better to keep it more simple. A direct thought, which is directly connected, from one note to the next, means that the new cards gets a number increment. On the other hand, a tangential or very loosely related idea, from one note to the next, the new card gets an incremented letter." I believe, but I could be wrong, that you're more or less saying the same thing. (Other than your scheme reverses Hoorn's in relation to numbers and letters.) On your Miro, you say, "When creating a new branch add a letter to the end of the first card in the new branch. When creating the second card in a branch put a 1 at the end of it." So, if you're creating a new branch, then the new card seems necessarily only tangentially related or only loosely related (so you'd add a letter), whereas when you're creating a second card in that branch, it seems that the new card is necessarily directly related (so you'd add a number). You could be saying the same thing as Mr. Hoorn.
@@forrestrperry QUESTION: I'm writing a note about the mind-body problem. The key terms are metaphysics and/or mind-body. The address is 1A. OK, bad first example as both begin with M. Assume it's "body-mind problem" for sake of clarity. In the Index, do I list an entry under M for metaphysics, or B for body-mind, or do I list one entry under both letters? I'm thinking both letters. If I'm starting to write another note about the body-mind problem a year later, and I'm trying to determine where in my O.Z. to place the note, I could look under M or B. Thus it seems I should list the card under both letters. Correct? When I'm listing it under M, do I list "metaphysics" with an arrow pointing to "body-mind problem" (metaphysics ---> body-mind problem: 1A)? I ask this because a year later when I'm starting to write a note about the body-mind problem, I'll likely look under M for "metaphysics," b/c I know the body-mind problem is a major metaphysical problem, and when I do look under M, I'll see "metaphysics ---> body-mind problem: 1A," and that will prompt me toward card 1A. Correct?
@@forrestrperry ANOTHER QUESTION: Sorry, this is common sense but I'm paranoid: I'll have "Philosophy of EVERYTHING." So, I can't list them on the Index cards like that under P. It must be, "Mind, Philosophy of," "Religion, Philosophy of," "Science, Philosophy of," etc., right?
so this folgezettel is imperfect, it was necessary for paper zettelkasten, many different digital alternatives but still promoting this numbering system. Hard to understand why. Remember the people who learned hypnosis from Milton Erickson and trying to use a wheelchair because Erickson was in a wheelchair to be a good therapist. Curious !
For the longest time, I didn't get the point of numbering cards either. In a future video-hopefully within the next two weeks or so-I plan on explaining why the numbering system is valuable when in comes to developing lines of thinking.
@@cheerpoasting I just make links and I am not limited to only one choice like folgezettel. I also spare time having to think and choose (chosing is renonciating).
@Boostezvotreproductivite could you please re-state your question or comment? I'm not clear on exactly what you're saying. @forrestrperry is assuming you're saying that there's no point in numbering cards in a paper Zettelkasten. He may be right in that assumption. However, you also say "...many different digital alternatives..." which leads me to wonder if you're saying, in addition to FP's assumption, or along with it, that a digital Zettelkasten is superior to a paper one. I'm just trying to figure out exactly what your claim is. Thanks.
It occurred to me that we can use three digit numbers and key them to the Dewey Decimal system (for those of us familiar with using he library). That way the number would give a clue as to the content. (you could also do this with a four digit number, by just adding an additional digit to the DDS number). Your thoughts?
000 - Computer science, information and general works
100 - Philosophy and psychology
200 - Religion
300 - Social sciences
400 - Language
500 - Pure science
600 - Technology
700 - Arts and recreation
800 - Literature
900 - History and geography
Scott Scheper and others do things this way, but if you do things this way you are likely to spend too much time agonizing over the question of where exactly to put new cards.
If you watch further in the Old-School Zettelkasten series, you’ll see that I abandoned folder cards. My explanation for why I did so can be found here: www.fpnotes.io/why-i-stopped-using-folder-cards-in-my-analog-zettelkasten/
Very valuable explanation! Thank you for preparing this video.
Glad it was helpful. Thanks for letting me know.
Nice job.
Thanks!
2 things I love in your videos: 1)the extensivity and precision and 2) your humor
finally a zettelkasten channel which actually tells you what to do.
"überhaupt furchtbar" 🤣
Good presentation on identifying the cards. I'm still working through mine, but it is important to have some indexing method in mind when you start. It can be altered along the way to whatever works best for the individual. I'm still working out which I think will be best for mine. Again, good presentation.
Thanks for the comment, Bill. Yes, creating an index is definitely important, though when I teach the Luhmann-like Zettelkasten method in my classes, I usually wait till students have created 15-20 cards before I tell them to start creating an index.
You need to do a video explaining how to maintain a digital and analogue Zettelkasten
On it, but it might be a while before I release such a video.
Aloha Forrest! Well, I thought I settled on a numbering system, but I'm now on the verge of simply using numbers and decimal points, and nothing else. I understand how it may be instructive to use combinations of numbers, letters and slashes, or numbers, letters and dashes, etc., in terms of being able to more readily get a sense of the relationships between notes. However, I'm now thinking that the complexity isn't worth it. I'm thinking simply K.I.S.S. The worst case scenario is if a note doesn't fit, I move into zero or a negative number, like Scott does, and that's fine. (I tell my staff who come to me with a problem that if this is the worst problem they have today, then it's a great day.) In my scheme I'd have 37 categories, the first 17 of which are fully categories within philosophy, i.e., metaphysics, epistemology, phenomenology, etc., as this the bulk of my research. I'll ask at Dan's book club in the morning as well, but I'll ask you: do you see any drawback to using only numbers? Mahalo in advance!
VERY LONG RESPONSE
Hello, hello. I'm thinkin' you're not going to like this response, but here goes...
After the fourth or fifth video in my Zettelkasten series, I decided that creating top-level categories (or what I called "folder cards") causes problems. It was largely my experience last semester of teaching students how to build a Zettelkasten that led me to this conclusion, but so too did some things Bob Doto has said. If you'd like to see what I wrote on this issue several weeks ago, check out this: www.fpnotes.io/why-i-stopped-using-folder-cards-in-my-analog-zettelkasten/
I should add that I don't think I would have even tried to build a Luhmann-like Zettelkasten had I not gotten excited about the prospect of creating a Zettelkasten with something like folders in it. But using folder cards ended up being the Wittgensteinian ladder, as it were, that eventually I kicked away (I'm pretty sure a Wittgensteinian would deride my invocation of Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus there, but I trust YOU will not do so for fear that I will stop supplying you with crucial, life-sustaining insights into building a Zettelkasten!)
I don't see a problem with using only numbers along with dots, slashes, or hyphens. For some people that seems to work well. When I first started building my Zettelkasten this past summer, I began using only numbers. But for some reason I found that more confusing than switching between numbers and letters, so I went the alphanumeric route.
In your comment, you spoke of using combinations of various characters in such a way that one might be able "to more readily get a sense of the relationship between notes." As I see it, all you need from whatever card-addressing scheme you come up with are (A) unique addresses for each card and (B) a way of indicating that such-and-such a card follows or precedes some other card (Dan Allosso made that point in the fourth Antinet Book Club session better than I did just now). The scheme I lay out in Video 3 in my series does both of those things. If there's any other sort of "relationship between notes" you might think it helpful to signify with numbers, letters, etc., I'd be interested to hear what that is. But as I see it, once you jettison the idea of using top-level categories, the only "relationship between notes" that needs to be captured in one's card-addressing scheme is the one laid out in B above (or, put differently, one that will track the Folgezettel you create in your system).
I noticed in the fourth session that Matthew van der Hoorn has a way of doing things where numbers consistently mean one thing and letters another (he said something about cards being either "supplemental" or "complementary" or something like that). I was having trouble figuring out what he meant, and when I went in search of a reddit post he said he MIGHT have written on the topic, I couldn't find it. So please make sure to hound him for a link and insist that he subscribe to my channel and hit "like" at least 90% of my videos.
Here's what I would recommend (actually, it's very close to what I've heard Bob Doto recommend before, so glory be to Bob!).
1. Scrap any thoughts of building a Zettelkasten that has top-level categories. You might be wincing as you read that, but obey the command.
2. Instead, just start reading and taking notes as you see fit.
3. As you create cards, use the card-addressing scheme I lay out in Video #3 (except not the folder-card numbers at the front).
4. Whenever you create a card that doesn't have a good-enough relation to a card that already exists in your Zettelkasten, start a new branch. So if you've been working in a branch that starts with the number 1, start a new branch that starts with the letter 2. (If you need a few more pointers about #4 here, or the other items, let me know.)
My guess is that you will end up creating new branches fairly quickly. But in Bob's case, I think he had a pretty well-developed branch focused on social media in place before he felt it necessary to create a new branch.
One thing that's good about this approach, I think, is that you can experiment with different card-numbering schemes for each branch until you find one you're going to use for the rest of your life, whereas if you create a bunch of top-level categories, you're never going to get around to reading and writing because you'll obsessively keep on tinkering with the overall system. In that case, you would be, as Scott Scheper says, "majoring in the minor." (He says that in connection with infinitely tweaking apps like Obsidian, something I did for ONLY two years of my life-yeah, two frickin' years, yo.)
If my card-addressing scheme appears to be 80% good enough for you, give it a shot for one, two, or three branches. If you find along the way that following my advice generates card addresses that are way too long, you can adopt a somewhat more complicated system that I think can eliminate that problem WITHOUT having to scrap all the work you've done already. If you were instead to start with top-level categories and then decide you didn't like how things were working, I'm guessing you would have to re-number all the cards you had created up until that point. That's not a problem if you have, say, fewer than 50 cards, but beyond that and you're likely to go cray cray.
What's the somewhat more complicated system? For that, I charge a fee. Kidding. I know I am not wise, so I do not charge a fee (man, I love making philosophy references that I assume you recognize). Instead, I map out possible card-addressing schemes on a Miro board. Then I copy the link. And then I give you the link: miro.com/app/board/uXjVP3YDPRc=/?share_link_id=57432292624 A couple of weeks ago I started up a new branch and decided to experiment with using the scheme that has the star next to it on that Miro board (Attempt #4).
I had thought of including that link in my response to your very first comment (and maybe I did?), but I worried it would make things more complicated for you and others than they need to be.
You began your comment with the following: "I thought I settled on a numbering system, but..." That is a thought I had many times over the past six months. My hope is that with what I've said above, you can have it fewer times than I have had it.
@@forrestrperry This is GOLD! Thank for this considered and thoughtful response. Indeed, I had already settled on trying to use the method on your Miro board. However, heretofore, I DO have categories. I have 45! 😫 However, with this message, you've persuaded me. I'm going to dump the categories!! Since you didn't charge me for your advice (unlike the Sophists), I have no recourse to blow back my wrath onto you when the whole damn thing goes south, and I collapse onto the floor into a quivering, gelatinous mass. Let's hope that doesn't happen. SO, it seems what you're saying is just read, take notes, and when an irresistible idea emerges (to use Scott's word, or maybe Luhmann's), then just abstract out a general label for the idea, call that "1a," then when another doozy comes along that's related, address it with "1a1," then when another comes along which is not directly related, do the same thing except call it "2a," and do all this without first having defined any categories. (I'll be like Harrison Ford, having to step out into the abyss, sure to fall to my death, but once my center of gravity makes it impossible to recoup the step, a part of the bridge immediately extends under my foot, and my weight goes onto it and I don't fall to my death, and I repeat this each time I have an idea, and soon I've reached the other side and I have access to the Holy Grail.) That is, the categories develop organically. Importantly, keep track in the Index so I can see where the new ideas that come along will fit within the O.Z. Does this sound right?
@@forrestrperry Aloha FP, Regarding your idea about letters and numbers: Here are my notes from when Mr. Hoorn said that, but at that time I knew nothing about addresses, so I was groping in the dark:
"About Unique addresses: the way Hoorn does it is that numbers mean one thing and letters mean another. Do this to avoid long addresses. Don't do it like Scott! It's better to keep it more simple. A direct thought, which is directly connected, from one note to the next, means that the new cards gets a number increment. On the other hand, a tangential or very loosely related idea, from one note to the next, the new card gets an incremented letter."
I believe, but I could be wrong, that you're more or less saying the same thing. (Other than your scheme reverses Hoorn's in relation to numbers and letters.) On your Miro, you say, "When creating a new branch add a letter to the end of the first card in the new branch. When creating the second card in a branch put a 1 at the end of it." So, if you're creating a new branch, then the new card seems necessarily only tangentially related or only loosely related (so you'd add a letter), whereas when you're creating a second card in that branch, it seems that the new card is necessarily directly related (so you'd add a number). You could be saying the same thing as Mr. Hoorn.
@@forrestrperry QUESTION: I'm writing a note about the mind-body problem. The key terms are metaphysics and/or mind-body. The address is 1A. OK, bad first example as both begin with M. Assume it's "body-mind problem" for sake of clarity. In the Index, do I list an entry under M for metaphysics, or B for body-mind, or do I list one entry under both letters? I'm thinking both letters. If I'm starting to write another note about the body-mind problem a year later, and I'm trying to determine where in my O.Z. to place the note, I could look under M or B. Thus it seems I should list the card under both letters. Correct? When I'm listing it under M, do I list "metaphysics" with an arrow pointing to "body-mind problem" (metaphysics ---> body-mind problem: 1A)? I ask this because a year later when I'm starting to write a note about the body-mind problem, I'll likely look under M for "metaphysics," b/c I know the body-mind problem is a major metaphysical problem, and when I do look under M, I'll see "metaphysics ---> body-mind problem: 1A," and that will prompt me toward card 1A. Correct?
@@forrestrperry ANOTHER QUESTION: Sorry, this is common sense but I'm paranoid: I'll have "Philosophy of EVERYTHING." So, I can't list them on the Index cards like that under P. It must be, "Mind, Philosophy of," "Religion, Philosophy of," "Science, Philosophy of," etc., right?
Respect.
so this folgezettel is imperfect, it was necessary for paper zettelkasten, many different digital alternatives but still promoting this numbering system. Hard to understand why. Remember the people who learned hypnosis from Milton Erickson and trying to use a wheelchair because Erickson was in a wheelchair to be a good therapist. Curious !
For the longest time, I didn't get the point of numbering cards either. In a future video-hopefully within the next two weeks or so-I plan on explaining why the numbering system is valuable when in comes to developing lines of thinking.
Because it works… how do you follow your previous train of thought and inject digressions like Luhmann considered so important?
@@cheerpoasting I just make links and I am not limited to only one choice like folgezettel. I also spare time having to think and choose (chosing is renonciating).
@@pk-mind -- you save time in your thinking by not thinking?
@Boostezvotreproductivite could you please re-state your question or comment? I'm not clear on exactly what you're saying. @forrestrperry is assuming you're saying that there's no point in numbering cards in a paper Zettelkasten. He may be right in that assumption. However, you also say "...many different digital alternatives..." which leads me to wonder if you're saying, in addition to FP's assumption, or along with it, that a digital Zettelkasten is superior to a paper one. I'm just trying to figure out exactly what your claim is. Thanks.