This was a great video. My family and I made our own cataloging system based off of Dewey but more inclusive of a wider range of subject matters and better suited to our particular interests. For example, we're Native American and Dewey just doesn't accommodate us as everything to do with Native Americans is put in history, whereas we're still here and would rather have our authors organized by poetry, fiction, non, folklore, etc. We organized all our books with this system, and are also now sorting our Zettelkasten with it as well. It has been really helpful for us to have a single system for everything. It makes it less painful and has helped us grow the breadth of information we can take in. I think it's worth finding or creating a system that works well for you and running with it so that you maximize how your brain seeks out new information and finds ways to make stronger connections across disciplines.
I like you videos as they go deeper into the zk system like on how your dealing with branching. I learned very quickly that how i capture then especially how i PROCESS the information is critical. ZK is good for tracking the relationships/connections between ideas and information. But you have to find those to begin with before they are ever put into the system. Whatever works for you and helps you be more productive is all that matters. If you were to make it not even resembling Scots system it wouldn't matter. Its a good starting point but I think they need to be personalized somewhat. Its just a tool. When i started my zk was to broad and i quickly focused on specific goals for it. Best decision i made. Its been far more productive for me in a shorter period of time. I actually made an analog and digital one at the same time when i started 10 months ago and put the same info and connections. I settled on the digital just because of the speed and the graph view on obsidian has helped with my productivity and seeing categories. But to each their own. I'm interested in hearing success stories about how zk system's have helped. Also what your process is for finding those connections/relationships between each zettle. You mentioned at 23:50 when you were talking about finding a connection between those 2 cards that they were somewhat related in your mind which is based on a goal of your
Another great video, Curly! My hunch is that, as you keep developing your Zettelkasten, you will have more insights to share, because there is more to Zettelkasten than just the setup. This is to say, you are not going to run out of Zettelkasten videos for some time :)
The author goes into the correlation between categorization (branching) and the use of the index and the focus on them respectively. He mentions he "learned" that branching would be more beneficial than the using of the index to make finding the cards easier. I strongly disagree with this focus. I agree with the "relational" principle of put the card between the one that has the closest proximital conceptual relation. The Zettelkasten's power relies in serendipitous creativity (or creativity/insight by chance), this is facilitated highly by the use of connectivity between cards, where each card as you go down the "hierarchy" of "branches" will be more unrelated to the original topic. (See also Luhmann's paper Communication with Zettelkasten, Manfred Kuehn Translation and Johannes F.K. Schmidt's article on Zettelkasten within Forgetting Machines, as well as his video presentation about Zettelkasten). In short, the friction of searching for cards by following trains of thought through connectivity boosters insight by chance and therefore facilitates the power of the system. This is also, I believe, why Bob Doto argues to let categories emerge after the creation of notes/streams of thought instead of making the names for the "branches" up front. I believe Luhmann himself also emphasized the use of the index by calling it a system of "query into the database," the index is the main navigational map for the Zettelkasten. If you have a question for your "communication partner" the index is the way to go. For example, if I wanted to know the impact of cognitive load theory within employee management as a CEO, I would go to my index and collect the entrances for both "branches" or terms, and then start reading these thought streams… Afterward, I might synthesize and create a new branch somewhere, in one of the aforementioned categories, or an entire new one, where I put the results of this questioning. My own system of numbering and branching in this way is the following: A number signifies a note's position within a stream of thought. I branch off if, following the relational principle, a note adds unto a thought on a specific card, but not the stream specifically. This gets signified by a letter. So, 1a1, 1a2, 1a3, and 1a4 are all part of the same stream while 1a, 1b, and 1c would all be different "branches" stemming from the original card that would be 1 in this case. This can repeat infinitely, therefore facilitating what Luhmann calls "Infinite potential for inward growth" of the system. It's autopoietic and cybernetic. (See also: The Radical Luhmann by Hans-Georg Moeller). Something that can benefit the finding of notes once the system grows sufficiently large is the use of "structure" or "hub" cards where you put down a few key entrances to concepts related to this stream of thought or "branch" in remote sections of the Zettelkasten. ----- Fine regards, Mr. Hoorn (Aspiring Learning Expert & Antinet User)
I use a 10-level/directory/folder method that assumes 10 areas with 10 categories with 10 sub-categories. So double zeros are topics: 100, 200, 300, etc. 110, 120, 130, etc., are sub-category headers/branches. Only when you get to 111 or 423 is any information stored. Information links out from these points. This system is limited to 10 boxes per level. And think that's enough. If I can't fit all the information I'm collecting into those levels, it means an upper level isn't general enough. I should widen it until the formation fits. I often create empty placeholder space for the upper levels and only start filling them in when I know what they are. And sometimes I need to alter branch names because they're too wide or too narrow. But that's not too big of a deal most of the time. In the beginning, I'll just throw a new kind of topic into a holder space and when there is enough information collected, I'll decide what to call it. So while it seems rigid, It's actually pretty organic in practice.
I does sound a bit rigid but I'm glad it works for you. I haven't started out numbering categories at all, I make index cards for them as they emerge and when the relevant notes reach a critical number I'll give them category-based identifiers.
@@Elisha_the_bald_headed_prophet "I make index cards for them as they emerge" So do I. So when I start a high-level category, "Computer," I'll just connect generally related notes to it. After a while, some groupings appear. I'll make a general sub-category and move some connections to it, "Computer-Linux." By limiting the number of overview classifications, it's easier to file things in general. And in general, where to look for them. But these aren't folders, they're link indexes. The notes themselves can link however they need to. And I have "use cases" that combine atomized notes into tasks, etc.
@@1monki and do you link notes alphanumerically, and if so, are such identifiers related to the categories, and in that case do the new groupings affect the existing numbering?
@@Elisha_the_bald_headed_prophet No, not really. I don't see the value in doing that. The numbers only exist for overview indexes. It creates the illusion of a folder system that doesn't actually exist. The atomized numbers can connect however needed. But it does force a limit on overview categories, 0-9x3. I can't just keep adding overviews. I have to re-arrange, which usually means expanding and combining sub-categories.
Great video. You have helped me understand the whole zettelkasten system a little better now. And since you are so good at explaining, I hope you will be able to answer 2 questions that I still have about it: 1. My issue always was with the placement of the card and the branch #s put on the card. The placement is now pretty clear to me. However, when deciding on the branch #s on the card, it seems that it would necessitate going through your previous cards in order to find those interesting, and perhaps unexpected branches. And, since there may be hundreds or eventually even thousands of cards, how is that even possible? 2. Most of the contents (books and videos) that I have consumed regarding this method seem to be directed towards content creators. All I really want to do is be able to recall. In other words, I read a vast amount and always discover such interesting ideas or interesting ways of expressing well-known ideas. As taken as I am with them when I read them, almost all eventually get lost in my brain somewhere. I don't want to forget them. Do you think this method would be helpful for that and how would I use it for that?
So, this makes me wonder if this will eventually lead to your needing to make "Hub Notes" or like a MOC (Map of Content) for certain big ideas that will contain all of the various links to the disparate subjects/topics that reference that particular big idea? Obviously this would be a ways down the road, but that might be where the functional need of something like the Hub Note would organically develop?
For sure. Hub cards are needed in general. So far I've discovered that there are two kinds 1) cards that you make at the time you are creating notes - i.e The five stages of grief and then I would list the five stages. one level down I would then create a card for each stage. In this case the hub and the cards on the hub are made at the same time and filed in the main notes. 2) Hub card in the index. These are how you connect cards that have already been created. i.e. you create a card for Sleep and list all the branches pertaining to sleep -- sleep disorders, getting sleep, sleeping in the woods OR I feel you could do this for a key term as well i.e. making a card called Digital Apps and then list all the branches related to digital apps - Photoshop tips, ChatGPT will kill the writing profession, DuckDuckGo and Privacy, etc
Have you ever had to refile a cards under different numbers, and if so, how did you make sure you could still follow existing links from the index etc?
Hi. I was wondering if the green index card for “s” is for an individual category ( example “Marketing” ), or if it’s part of some “MASTER INDEX” ( highest level “find-an-item” hierarchy list ). Does each major category ( example: “Marketing” ) have its own index?
Missed a point you made...when you pull out the book card 3x5 card, you laid it on the book, and then you said you throw "it" out. What was the "it"? I don't think its the book's name card (3x5) or was it? Could you please explain what you said/or meant. Thank you in advance. FYI subscriber, love your videos.
I was referring to the 3x5 card. These cards only exist to remind me what books I've scouted so once I own the book and am beginning to read it, I no longer need the card. I will of course be making a card to bib notes on for the book, but that will be on a 4X6. Hope that gives some more clarity. Glad you're loving the videos!
I have a naive Question: Why is the Zettelkasten in Paper? Can you refer to a Video where you explain this? Background: I like Paper too, I use Paper Notebook, but the ability to search with complex prompts through my Notes for example via Linux Terminal and to reorganize them is hard to beat. Add in that I'm a lot 'on the road' and a paper Zettelkasten becomes undoable. For the same reason I wont buy the referenced book, as it would be just more stuff to carry.
Have you given any thought how to add biographical info or biographical reading? I have heard a lot of benefits from reading biographies (Charlie Mungor and Andy Andrews are great examples).
I hope I'm reading your question right, if not let me know. But for me I don't see a distinction. Bios are just another book. I'd file the ideas where they fit best. So if I was reading Poor Charlie's Almanac and there was a good bit about economic, I'd install it into my Economics section. And if there was a good bit about productivity, I'd install it in my Productivity category. I'd try to focus on keeping like ideas together rather than like sources--which i think is what you're asking i.e. would I create a category for each person that a bio is about. The only reason i would do this is if a particular person became a topic that I thought could develop into a book one day. And even then I would only include biographic info in that section, the ideas would still go in the categories where they are most useful to me.
Zettelkasten makes sense, but why not use the Dewey library classification as the structure within it? Dewey has already classified the whole range of human knowledge. As new subject areas arise they will still be sub classifications within Dewey, but only need a new number to be allocated. If in doubt about this, ask a librarian.
This was a great video. My family and I made our own cataloging system based off of Dewey but more inclusive of a wider range of subject matters and better suited to our particular interests. For example, we're Native American and Dewey just doesn't accommodate us as everything to do with Native Americans is put in history, whereas we're still here and would rather have our authors organized by poetry, fiction, non, folklore, etc. We organized all our books with this system, and are also now sorting our Zettelkasten with it as well. It has been really helpful for us to have a single system for everything. It makes it less painful and has helped us grow the breadth of information we can take in. I think it's worth finding or creating a system that works well for you and running with it so that you maximize how your brain seeks out new information and finds ways to make stronger connections across disciplines.
I like you videos as they go deeper into the zk system like on how your dealing with branching. I learned very quickly that how i capture then especially how i PROCESS the information is critical. ZK is good for tracking the relationships/connections between ideas and information. But you have to find those to begin with before they are ever put into the system. Whatever works for you and helps you be more productive is all that matters. If you were to make it not even resembling Scots system it wouldn't matter. Its a good starting point but I think they need to be personalized somewhat. Its just a tool. When i started my zk was to broad and i quickly focused on specific goals for it. Best decision i made. Its been far more productive for me in a shorter period of time. I actually made an analog and digital one at the same time when i started 10 months ago and put the same info and connections. I settled on the digital just because of the speed and the graph view on obsidian has helped with my productivity and seeing categories. But to each their own. I'm interested in hearing success stories about how zk system's have helped. Also what your process is for finding those connections/relationships between each zettle. You mentioned at 23:50 when you were talking about finding a connection between those 2 cards that they were somewhat related in your mind which is based on a goal of your
Another great video, Curly! My hunch is that, as you keep developing your Zettelkasten, you will have more insights to share, because there is more to Zettelkasten than just the setup. This is to say, you are not going to run out of Zettelkasten videos for some time :)
Ah, thank you. And yes, just when I worry that I may have nothing more to say about the system, I discover something new!
@@AM-DW I have been using mine for many years now and still find amusing things about it!
I love your photography analogy ☺️ thanks for sharing!
awesome glad it helped. Definitely helps me wrap my had around it.
I was gonna write the same!
The author goes into the correlation between categorization (branching) and the use of the index and the focus on them respectively. He mentions he "learned" that branching would be more beneficial than the using of the index to make finding the cards easier.
I strongly disagree with this focus. I agree with the "relational" principle of put the card between the one that has the closest proximital conceptual relation. The Zettelkasten's power relies in serendipitous creativity (or creativity/insight by chance), this is facilitated highly by the use of connectivity between cards, where each card as you go down the "hierarchy" of "branches" will be more unrelated to the original topic. (See also Luhmann's paper Communication with Zettelkasten, Manfred Kuehn Translation and Johannes F.K. Schmidt's article on Zettelkasten within Forgetting Machines, as well as his video presentation about Zettelkasten). In short, the friction of searching for cards by following trains of thought through connectivity boosters insight by chance and therefore facilitates the power of the system.
This is also, I believe, why Bob Doto argues to let categories emerge after the creation of notes/streams of thought instead of making the names for the "branches" up front.
I believe Luhmann himself also emphasized the use of the index by calling it a system of "query into the database," the index is the main navigational map for the Zettelkasten. If you have a question for your "communication partner" the index is the way to go. For example, if I wanted to know the impact of cognitive load theory within employee management as a CEO, I would go to my index and collect the entrances for both "branches" or terms, and then start reading these thought streams… Afterward, I might synthesize and create a new branch somewhere, in one of the aforementioned categories, or an entire new one, where I put the results of this questioning.
My own system of numbering and branching in this way is the following: A number signifies a note's position within a stream of thought. I branch off if, following the relational principle, a note adds unto a thought on a specific card, but not the stream specifically. This gets signified by a letter.
So, 1a1, 1a2, 1a3, and 1a4 are all part of the same stream while 1a, 1b, and 1c would all be different "branches" stemming from the original card that would be 1 in this case. This can repeat infinitely, therefore facilitating what Luhmann calls "Infinite potential for inward growth" of the system. It's autopoietic and cybernetic. (See also: The Radical Luhmann by Hans-Georg Moeller).
Something that can benefit the finding of notes once the system grows sufficiently large is the use of "structure" or "hub" cards where you put down a few key entrances to concepts related to this stream of thought or "branch" in remote sections of the Zettelkasten.
-----
Fine regards, Mr. Hoorn (Aspiring Learning Expert & Antinet User)
could i write you an email? jaja i have doubts. I use similar sistem like you!
Great video. Makes sense.
Glad you think so!
I use a 10-level/directory/folder method that assumes 10 areas with 10 categories with 10 sub-categories. So double zeros are topics: 100, 200, 300, etc. 110, 120, 130, etc., are sub-category headers/branches. Only when you get to 111 or 423 is any information stored. Information links out from these points. This system is limited to 10 boxes per level. And think that's enough. If I can't fit all the information I'm collecting into those levels, it means an upper level isn't general enough. I should widen it until the formation fits. I often create empty placeholder space for the upper levels and only start filling them in when I know what they are. And sometimes I need to alter branch names because they're too wide or too narrow. But that's not too big of a deal most of the time. In the beginning, I'll just throw a new kind of topic into a holder space and when there is enough information collected, I'll decide what to call it. So while it seems rigid, It's actually pretty organic in practice.
I does sound a bit rigid but I'm glad it works for you. I haven't started out numbering categories at all, I make index cards for them as they emerge and when the relevant notes reach a critical number I'll give them category-based identifiers.
@@Elisha_the_bald_headed_prophet "I make index cards for them as they emerge" So do I. So when I start a high-level category, "Computer," I'll just connect generally related notes to it. After a while, some groupings appear. I'll make a general sub-category and move some connections to it, "Computer-Linux."
By limiting the number of overview classifications, it's easier to file things in general. And in general, where to look for them. But these aren't folders, they're link indexes. The notes themselves can link however they need to. And I have "use cases" that combine atomized notes into tasks, etc.
@@1monki and do you link notes alphanumerically, and if so, are such identifiers related to the categories, and in that case do the new groupings affect the existing numbering?
@@Elisha_the_bald_headed_prophet No, not really. I don't see the value in doing that. The numbers only exist for overview indexes. It creates the illusion of a folder system that doesn't actually exist. The atomized numbers can connect however needed. But it does force a limit on overview categories, 0-9x3. I can't just keep adding overviews. I have to re-arrange, which usually means expanding and combining sub-categories.
Great video. You have helped me understand the whole zettelkasten system a little better now. And since you are so good at explaining, I hope you will be able to answer 2 questions that I still have about it:
1. My issue always was with the placement of the card and the branch #s put on the card. The placement is now pretty clear to me. However, when deciding on the branch #s on the card, it seems that it would necessitate going through your previous cards in order to find those interesting, and perhaps unexpected branches. And, since there may be hundreds or eventually even thousands of cards, how is that even possible?
2. Most of the contents (books and videos) that I have consumed regarding this method seem to be directed towards content creators. All I really want to do is be able to recall. In other words, I read a vast amount and always discover such interesting ideas or interesting ways of expressing well-known ideas. As taken as I am with them when I read them, almost all eventually get lost in my brain somewhere. I don't want to forget them. Do you think this method would be helpful for that and how would I use it for that?
Of course, although there are simpler methods for your goal. Always think how you'd like to find the info again and build your system around that.
Great!
interesting i’m vasillating btwn different ways to number but one thing i’m sure of is to start at 1 and let things grow organically
So, this makes me wonder if this will eventually lead to your needing to make "Hub Notes" or like a MOC (Map of Content) for certain big ideas that will contain all of the various links to the disparate subjects/topics that reference that particular big idea? Obviously this would be a ways down the road, but that might be where the functional need of something like the Hub Note would organically develop?
For sure. Hub cards are needed in general. So far I've discovered that there are two kinds
1) cards that you make at the time you are creating notes - i.e The five stages of grief and then I would list the five stages. one level down I would then create a card for each stage. In this case the hub and the cards on the hub are made at the same time and filed in the main notes.
2) Hub card in the index. These are how you connect cards that have already been created. i.e. you create a card for Sleep and list all the branches pertaining to sleep -- sleep disorders, getting sleep, sleeping in the woods OR I feel you could do this for a key term as well i.e. making a card called Digital Apps and then list all the branches related to digital apps - Photoshop tips, ChatGPT will kill the writing profession, DuckDuckGo and Privacy, etc
I love your cup of tea, In which store did you purchase it?
Have you ever had to refile a cards under different numbers, and if so, how did you make sure you could still follow existing links from the index etc?
Hi.
I was wondering if the green index card for “s” is for an individual category ( example “Marketing” ), or if it’s part of some “MASTER INDEX” ( highest level “find-an-item” hierarchy list ).
Does each major category ( example: “Marketing” ) have its own index?
Where might Collections help.
Great content, Curly! Can I ask where do you buy your boxes from?
Thanks, Glad you dig it. The more analog lovers the better. 😄 here's the boxes: geni.us/ruNPXkA
Missed a point you made...when you pull out the book card 3x5 card, you laid it on the book, and then you said you throw "it" out. What was the "it"? I don't think its the book's name card (3x5) or was it? Could you please explain what you said/or meant. Thank you in advance. FYI subscriber, love your videos.
I was referring to the 3x5 card. These cards only exist to remind me what books I've scouted so once I own the book and am beginning to read it, I no longer need the card. I will of course be making a card to bib notes on for the book, but that will be on a 4X6. Hope that gives some more clarity. Glad you're loving the videos!
I have a naive Question: Why is the Zettelkasten in Paper? Can you refer to a Video where you explain this?
Background: I like Paper too, I use Paper Notebook, but the ability to search with complex prompts through my Notes for example via Linux Terminal and to reorganize them is hard to beat. Add in that I'm a lot 'on the road' and a paper Zettelkasten becomes undoable. For the same reason I wont buy the referenced book, as it would be just more stuff to carry.
Have you given any thought how to add biographical info or biographical reading? I have heard a lot of benefits from reading biographies (Charlie Mungor and Andy Andrews are great examples).
I hope I'm reading your question right, if not let me know. But for me I don't see a distinction. Bios are just another book. I'd file the ideas where they fit best. So if I was reading Poor Charlie's Almanac and there was a good bit about economic, I'd install it into my Economics section. And if there was a good bit about productivity, I'd install it in my Productivity category. I'd try to focus on keeping like ideas together rather than like sources--which i think is what you're asking i.e. would I create a category for each person that a bio is about. The only reason i would do this is if a particular person became a topic that I thought could develop into a book one day. And even then I would only include biographic info in that section, the ideas would still go in the categories where they are most useful to me.
@@AM-DW "I'd try to focus on keeping like ideas together rather than like sources"
Great advice. tyvm.
Zettelkasten makes sense, but why not use the Dewey library classification as the structure within it? Dewey has already classified the whole range of human knowledge. As new subject areas arise they will still be sub classifications within Dewey, but only need a new number to be allocated. If in doubt about this, ask a librarian.
😂 read about the subject before making such a comment
The Zettelkasten is about connecting knowledge.
Classifications aren't important.