Scott, another great video! From the Antinet guide you linked to before plus the last 3 videos, I now have much more confidence in starting my own Antinet. The numbering of branches and cards in the analog Zettelkasten really confused me before watching this video. Arbitrary numbering is what I was missing. I thought I had to pre-define the sections. The use of the index makes much more sense to me now too. Thanks for the useful info and demonstrations.
Even if a person uses a digital system, this is good info. Thanks for not talking endlessly about a half-baked summary of what you thought Smart Notes was about or trying to sell overpriced courses.
What do you recommend as a ‘starter kit’? Like how many boxes, cards. You did the make up of an antinet, but what’s like the minimum ‘stuff’ to get started?
Wonderful video again! Thanks for showing this process :D (might be beneficial to link to your Antinet guide in the description since you mention it in the video)
I noticed that you seem like to work with quite extensive ammount "small" sections. Luhmann did also in his first Zettelkasten (but still had just 108 main sections), but dropped that in in the 1960s in his second one (11 mainsections). I'm still wondering if it's always a path like this, cause I noticed I also creating relatively small sections at the beginning of the work on a topic. I'm still not sure what's the better way. I currently working with a physical Zettelkasten and a digital Zettelkasten and for me both have advantages and disadvantages.
His second one was geared primarily towards his 30 year social theory. These days over 90% of my time is spent building the book and thus spending time only in in one branch (4214). Though also a few others maybe 10% of the time: 5249, 1336, 5241, 4212.
@@scottscheper Just finished the paper of Johannes Schmidt from 2016 from Forgetting machines today and now I understand your numbering system. Sorry for my uninformed view before. For me it looks really luhmann-like how you're working. I think the numbering system is worth to explain. Had some insights today how improve my work even in the digital Zettelkasten. Greetings from Germany.
Thank you. Appreciate the kind words. It’s a rather lonely life those of us operate in who write all day and develop content. I’m deep into my book right now explaining the Antinet and it’s nice to hear encouragement along the way!
Thanks for showcasing the process Scott. One question though, with a thesaurus like index that you have there, isn’t there a possibility of missing out threads like this new notecard if you don’t come to it in your filing process? For instance if you didn’t think of looking up “meaning” and filed something like this under “purpose”, how will these lines interact in the future?
When I looked up “Purpose” it pointed me to “Meaning”. What I could also do is create a card in purpose that simply says: “For other cards related to purpose, see: ‘3511/1’” this is called a hoplink card. Luhmann did these as well. Overall though, accidents create brilliant insights. It’s not about perfectionism, it’s about developing notes and stamping thoughts onto your mind. Developing thoughts in the short and long-term.
Example first before question: to understand time dilation/length contraction in special relativity, you also need to understand that the speed of light is the same for all observers, etc. Maybe a stupid question due to how simple the answer could well be, but how do you (personally) handle notes that there's clearly relationship cards that have not been built yet? Is it as simple as putting in placeholders and going back later and filling them in afterward, after finding the right tree/branch/sub-branch to put them in?
Natural Sciences = 3000 for instance. Physics = 3100 for instance. Special relativity = 3110 for instance. I’d put this card at 3110/1. From there you can add a 3110/0 if you need to or continue evolving it. I even sometimes go into negative numbers if I need to: 3110/-1 You don’t necessarily need to build out all the placeholders. You’re not building your notes to impress anyone. You’re building it to help yourself think. Some things you don’t necessarily need to write down.
I've learned a lot here from this channel. So don't get me wrong. Great content. However, the name "Antinet" bothers me because the cards ARE creating a "net" or interconnectedness of sorts. Do you mean "Anti-Internet? or "Anti-technology". That's called analog. There are many things that are "net" or networked that are also not "technology oriented" like cells in our body or the paper card catalog in an old library. Can you clarify what that word. means to you?
Analog, Numeric-alpha, Tree, Index. That’s what Anti stands for. The four principles Luhmann outlined in his paper. It’s also a double entendre. An ironical tongue in cheek jab at the digital workflow warriors who have largely misinterpreted what Luhmann’s system was.
@@scottscheper You're a legend man. Thanks for making these videos. From first hearing of the Zettelkasten method I've been subsequently overwhelmed with all of the digital variations and nonsense. Thank you for keeping it true to the original method. I am excited to grow my Antinet!
I'm back here after watching your video "Step-by-step Guide to Creating Knowledge with an Analog Zettelkasten". I have two questions on indexing one at a detail level and the other at an overview level. 1) The detail level question: at 6:39 I notice that your general index card had the entry for "Play" crossed off. Does that indicate that "play" was promoted to a separate index card just for the keyword "Play"? 2) I should probably wait for your book to get the answer to my second question. In the whole of your Step-by-step Guide" video you never mention your index. Can you, please, summarize briefly when a thought becomes worthy of an index entry? I might be going overboard with my index as it seems to be growing as fast as my Antinet. Perhaps that's just because my Anitnet is new, but I'm really struggling with this as right now for me filing and indexing a new knowledge card is taking more time than reading and creating both the staging card and the "main" cards. Is that normal, or perhaps normal at the launch of a new research topic?
1) Yes exactly! I make the entry “earn” a spot as a dedicated card first (by having multiple references to it). 2) If the idea is ground-breaking and new, meaning there is not another card it relates to, then I’d create an Index entry for that. Or, if I think I’ll need to navigate to that card regularly, then I’ll create an Index entry for it. In the beginning the Index takes a lot of time as you’re mostly creating new ideas. You don’t have much to relate anything to. Soon you’ll have a skeleton that you can relate things to. It’s like an airplane taking off. In the beginning the Index requires a lot of time. Soon you’ll be in more cruise control mode. The name of the game is relating every card to the nearest idea. In the beginning you’ll need to create a lot of new card and create an Index entry and then they get related later.
If you’re feeling overwhelmed with Index Anxiety (like feeling like Indexing everything), you may want to try this: don’t Index the idea. If you have a problem finding it later, you’ll eventually find it. At that point then create an Index entry for it so that you won’t have a hard time finding it next time.
You’ve given me some ideas for terms: don’t fall into Index Fatigue. If you do, take a break from indexing and spend most of your time on Staging/Main Notes. Limit yourself to 1 or 2 Index entries a day. Let me know if this helps.
At 10:05 you mention: “I went to the Academic Disciplines, like I talked about in my guide.” Can you elaborate, please, for someone just coming onto your Chanel? Is there a reference to where I would find your guide?
@@scottscheper Okay, done! I have two shoe boxes. My Antinet contains 8 4x6 file cards (1000-4000-4200-4212-4212/1-5000). My Index contains 26 cards, two of which have more information than just (1): i.e. C and I. It is already sinking in far more by actually writing out these cards (I even wrote out the quote). So ... next I guess I'll watch your 12 videos in chronological order. So far I'm still mystified as to where the numbers came from. I didn't see any numbers assigned to the academic disciplines in the Wikipedia Outline of academic disciplines. I'm operating in what you might consider a very different space: descriptive linguistics, but your quote is incredibly relevant to my research and offers a fresh insight, so now I need to watch your video: A Quick Example of How Thoughts Evolve in an Analog Zettelkasten (Antinet), so I know how to file the observation your quote inspired.
@@kathleenspracklen6849 the numbers you assign from there are arbitrary. For instance, Linguistics could be 1100. And within that branch could be Applied Linguistics at 1105 and Computational Linguistics at 1126. Just reference such in the Index. You’ll be creating a unique structure and personality that you and only you can build. It becomes your second mind. There’s power in reading your own handwriting. Your consciousness and self is captured in such notes :)
@@scottscheper I just watched this again and finally, this being my third time through this particular video, it made sense from start to finish. I don't envy the challenge you have taken on to describe this system. It's so nebulous until you have the cards in front of you and until that moment when you are facing exactly the "where do I place this card?" question that you answer with this video. If you are not facing that question in the moment, the video feels abstract and almost ethereal, yet it is incredibly precise, concrete and down-to-earth when the viewer needs that exact bit of information. The video hasn't changed, but this time through it was a totally different video for me. How will you convey to your readers that they might have to spiral back to chapters previously covered once they start getting an inkling of what's going on with an Antinet?
What type of note/card were the last one’s shone? Where he wrote purpose of life into meaning? Was that part of the index? Was that a regular note in the index or something special
Finally someone actually explains the process itself rather than babbling on about the theory of Zettelkasten! Your channel is a hidden gem, sir!
Scott, another great video! From the Antinet guide you linked to before plus the last 3 videos, I now have much more confidence in starting my own Antinet. The numbering of branches and cards in the analog Zettelkasten really confused me before watching this video. Arbitrary numbering is what I was missing. I thought I had to pre-define the sections. The use of the index makes much more sense to me now too. Thanks for the useful info and demonstrations.
Even if a person uses a digital system, this is good info. Thanks for not talking endlessly about a half-baked summary of what you thought Smart Notes was about or trying to sell overpriced courses.
Of course 👊🗃🖋
What do you recommend as a ‘starter kit’? Like how many boxes, cards.
You did the make up of an antinet, but what’s like the minimum ‘stuff’ to get started?
3 boxes, 4x6" notecards. This video walks you through everything th-cam.com/video/kj9zwGex-y0/w-d-xo.html
Wonderful video again! Thanks for showing this process :D
(might be beneficial to link to your Antinet guide in the description since you mention it in the video)
Yeah. Great video! Seriously. You go through the ACTUAL process. No other channel does
Is there a purpose for having to size cards 4 x 6 and three by fives in your card system?
No
Just 3x5s I find good for quotes
@@scottscheper Thank you!
I think the final step beginning at 12:30 is super important. Thanks for the demo!
I noticed that you seem like to work with quite extensive ammount "small" sections. Luhmann did also in his first Zettelkasten (but still had just 108 main sections), but dropped that in in the 1960s in his second one (11 mainsections). I'm still wondering if it's always a path like this, cause I noticed I also creating relatively small sections at the beginning of the work on a topic. I'm still not sure what's the better way. I currently working with a physical Zettelkasten and a digital Zettelkasten and for me both have advantages and disadvantages.
His second one was geared primarily towards his 30 year social theory. These days over 90% of my time is spent building the book and thus spending time only in in one branch (4214). Though also a few others maybe 10% of the time: 5249, 1336, 5241, 4212.
@@scottscheper Just finished the paper of Johannes Schmidt from 2016 from Forgetting machines today and now I understand your numbering system. Sorry for my uninformed view before. For me it looks really luhmann-like how you're working. I think the numbering system is worth to explain. Had some insights today how improve my work even in the digital Zettelkasten.
Greetings from Germany.
Wow, a lot of great tid-bits in this video. Thanks for sharing.
Your channel is extremely underrated. Criminally. This has been elucidating and essential to developing my own Zettelkasten. Keep it up man!
Thank you. Appreciate the kind words. It’s a rather lonely life those of us operate in who write all day and develop content. I’m deep into my book right now explaining the Antinet and it’s nice to hear encouragement along the way!
Thanks for showcasing the process Scott. One question though, with a thesaurus like index that you have there, isn’t there a possibility of missing out threads like this new notecard if you don’t come to it in your filing process? For instance if you didn’t think of looking up “meaning” and filed something like this under “purpose”, how will these lines interact in the future?
When I looked up “Purpose” it pointed me to “Meaning”. What I could also do is create a card in purpose that simply says: “For other cards related to purpose, see: ‘3511/1’” this is called a hoplink card. Luhmann did these as well. Overall though, accidents create brilliant insights. It’s not about perfectionism, it’s about developing notes and stamping thoughts onto your mind. Developing thoughts in the short and long-term.
Example first before question: to understand time dilation/length contraction in special relativity, you also need to understand that the speed of light is the same for all observers, etc.
Maybe a stupid question due to how simple the answer could well be, but how do you (personally) handle notes that there's clearly relationship cards that have not been built yet?
Is it as simple as putting in placeholders and going back later and filling them in afterward, after finding the right tree/branch/sub-branch to put them in?
Natural Sciences = 3000 for instance. Physics = 3100 for instance. Special relativity = 3110 for instance. I’d put this card at 3110/1. From there you can add a 3110/0 if you need to or continue evolving it. I even sometimes go into negative numbers if I need to: 3110/-1
You don’t necessarily need to build out all the placeholders. You’re not building your notes to impress anyone. You’re building it to help yourself think. Some things you don’t necessarily need to write down.
P.S. check my Getting Started guide in Twitter pinned link
I've learned a lot here from this channel. So don't get me wrong. Great content. However, the name "Antinet" bothers me because the cards ARE creating a "net" or interconnectedness of sorts. Do you mean "Anti-Internet? or "Anti-technology". That's called analog. There are many things that are "net" or networked that are also not "technology oriented" like cells in our body or the paper card catalog in an old library. Can you clarify what that word. means to you?
Analog, Numeric-alpha, Tree, Index. That’s what Anti stands for. The four principles Luhmann outlined in his paper. It’s also a double entendre. An ironical tongue in cheek jab at the digital workflow warriors who have largely misinterpreted what Luhmann’s system was.
Well shoot, now I’m impressed! That’s freaking awesome
@@scottscheper You're a legend man. Thanks for making these videos. From first hearing of the Zettelkasten method I've been subsequently overwhelmed with all of the digital variations and nonsense. Thank you for keeping it true to the original method. I am excited to grow my Antinet!
I'm back here after watching your video "Step-by-step Guide to Creating Knowledge with an Analog Zettelkasten". I have two questions on indexing one at a detail level and the other at an overview level. 1) The detail level question: at 6:39 I notice that your general index card had the entry for "Play" crossed off. Does that indicate that "play" was promoted to a separate index card just for the keyword "Play"? 2) I should probably wait for your book to get the answer to my second question. In the whole of your Step-by-step Guide" video you never mention your index. Can you, please, summarize briefly when a thought becomes worthy of an index entry? I might be going overboard with my index as it seems to be growing as fast as my Antinet. Perhaps that's just because my Anitnet is new, but I'm really struggling with this as right now for me filing and indexing a new knowledge card is taking more time than reading and creating both the staging card and the "main" cards. Is that normal, or perhaps normal at the launch of a new research topic?
1) Yes exactly! I make the entry “earn” a spot as a dedicated card first (by having multiple references to it). 2) If the idea is ground-breaking and new, meaning there is not another card it relates to, then I’d create an Index entry for that. Or, if I think I’ll need to navigate to that card regularly, then I’ll create an Index entry for it.
In the beginning the Index takes a lot of time as you’re mostly creating new ideas. You don’t have much to relate anything to. Soon you’ll have a skeleton that you can relate things to. It’s like an airplane taking off. In the beginning the Index requires a lot of time. Soon you’ll be in more cruise control mode. The name of the game is relating every card to the nearest idea. In the beginning you’ll need to create a lot of new card and create an Index entry and then they get related later.
Luhmann said it takes a number of years. I think it’s more like three months, maybe two.
If you’re feeling overwhelmed with Index Anxiety (like feeling like Indexing everything), you may want to try this: don’t Index the idea. If you have a problem finding it later, you’ll eventually find it. At that point then create an Index entry for it so that you won’t have a hard time finding it next time.
You’ve given me some ideas for terms: don’t fall into Index Fatigue. If you do, take a break from indexing and spend most of your time on Staging/Main Notes. Limit yourself to 1 or 2 Index entries a day. Let me know if this helps.
At 10:05 you mention: “I went to the Academic Disciplines, like I talked about in my guide.” Can you elaborate, please, for someone just coming onto your Chanel? Is there a reference to where I would find your guide?
Yep here you go: www.scottscheper.com/letter/1/
@@scottscheper Thanks much! I'm already exploring your website and I've signed up for your newsletter. Thanks again.
@@scottscheper Okay, done! I have two shoe boxes. My Antinet contains 8 4x6 file cards (1000-4000-4200-4212-4212/1-5000). My Index contains 26 cards, two of which have more information than just (1): i.e. C and I. It is already sinking in far more by actually writing out these cards (I even wrote out the quote). So ... next I guess I'll watch your 12 videos in chronological order. So far I'm still mystified as to where the numbers came from. I didn't see any numbers assigned to the academic disciplines in the Wikipedia Outline of academic disciplines. I'm operating in what you might consider a very different space: descriptive linguistics, but your quote is incredibly relevant to my research and offers a fresh insight, so now I need to watch your video: A Quick Example of How Thoughts Evolve in an Analog Zettelkasten (Antinet), so I know how to file the observation your quote inspired.
@@kathleenspracklen6849 the numbers you assign from there are arbitrary. For instance, Linguistics could be 1100. And within that branch could be Applied Linguistics at 1105 and Computational Linguistics at 1126. Just reference such in the Index. You’ll be creating a unique structure and personality that you and only you can build. It becomes your second mind. There’s power in reading your own handwriting. Your consciousness and self is captured in such notes :)
@@scottscheper I just watched this again and finally, this being my third time through this particular video, it made sense from start to finish. I don't envy the challenge you have taken on to describe this system. It's so nebulous until you have the cards in front of you and until that moment when you are facing exactly the "where do I place this card?" question that you answer with this video. If you are not facing that question in the moment, the video feels abstract and almost ethereal, yet it is incredibly precise, concrete and down-to-earth when the viewer needs that exact bit of information. The video hasn't changed, but this time through it was a totally different video for me. How will you convey to your readers that they might have to spiral back to chapters previously covered once they start getting an inkling of what's going on with an Antinet?
What type of note/card were the last one’s shone? Where he wrote purpose of life into meaning? Was that part of the index? Was that a regular note in the index or something special