A great overview of the Zettelkasten method (with some personal observations)

Obsidian, which offers the best flow in my experience with a great feature set that keeps being added to weekly. I’m linking to my references in DEVONthink. So that’s not much of a mobile workflow yet but apps for Obsidian are coming, along with a DTTG redesign.

Perfect, thank you. I have been trying to get into the method recently.
I wish a programme did backlinks automatically.

1 Like

Obsidian does :slightly_smiling_face: Roam too to be fair, but I find the price crazy, the « cult » thing puts me off and I like to own my data in this case…

Ah no… here comes another app jump :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

Thank you I will take a look.

Totally agree with the Roam comments.

1 Like

I’ve been using plain text files organized in Dropbox via Ulysses as my Zettel for about a year. I would however like the ability to embed pictures within the files. A series of RTF files may work, and these are somewhat non-proprietary / future proof. Sadly, there is no perfect solution.

Obsidian might be just the ticket for you. Markdown files instead of text but picture embeds supported and lovely in preview mode.

3 Likes

Great post! I think you’re spot on with the “less worrying, more note-taking” approach, and to see how they’re evolving.

Though as an academic I vehemently disagree with not keeping references…:wink: though to be fair, not everyone needs a reference manager and you’re right, as long as you know somehow where you got your content from, everything’s should be fine. I think the whole idea of always reformulating texts into your own words (as opposed to using quotes) risks people eventually misrecognizing other people’s work as their own. If you just want to learn about a topic this kind of knowledge accumulation is great, if you want to write an original article, it’s not.

To be honest, while I love the general idea of the Zettelkasten, I wonder what would come back if we sent Luhmann’s work through an originality testing service such as Turnitin. The whole idea that you should write notes at publication level, and then just remix the cards for a new project makes me very uncomfortable. I think you need to have some sort of system of ‘burn notices’ on your own notes so that if you’ve used them you know not to use them verbatim again.

Paradoxically, block embeds (I.e. re-using your own words) is the one thing I miss most from Roam in Obsidian. Yes I know you can do block embeds now, but they are still a relatively poor cousin - only visible in Preview mode and no such thing ‘text and alias’ that allows me to slightly manipulate the text (eg bold something) without it affecting the original block. Makes the whole idea of using your atomic notes, and I include quotes from literature notes, in a new writing project more difficult.

I actually started commenting because I wanted to ask what you thought of the LYT course? I was quite tempted but didn’t like the hierarchical organisation as much - what I liked about Roam and then Obsidian was that I didn’t have to think where I put stuff as through the linked notes they would never get lost…love Nick’s videos though! Best produced of all the Roam and Obsidian courses I’ve seen (call me shallow, but I value not having to stare just at someone else’s screen with a voice coming from nowhere, but a nicely lit room with a person that is not sitting in front of a laptop camera headshot style. Call it visual relief if you like).

6 Likes

Thanks for your comments! Yeah, I absolutely agree with the “burn notice” thing. I’m a fiction writer, so I’m probably even more at danger of rehashing my own ideas and story patterns. I have resolved to identify “used” ideas in some way so as to know that, if I ever really want to revisit something, I absolutely need to find a really fresh perspective on it.

I love it! I’ve taken both BASB and LYT and the verdict is: I hate BASB, while LYT absolutely is the real deal. It builds on the Zettelkasten strengths (“write in order to think”, to sum things up) and takes it to the next level using very well thought out emergence mechanisms. The LYT workflows are honestly very simple (you can even access them through the LYT kit, which you must know of) but, in true GTD or martial arts fashion, will take years to master. And I absolutely love about them is how open ended and fluid they are (it’s the main theme of the course so far – my cohort is halfway through). So much that they adapt to any kind of work, but still represent an impressively robust framework you can rely on. It’s a very conscious kind of thing.

He does not spend a lot of time on reference management, since it’s actually a reasonably specific use case – but you certainly already have workflows for that – but a lot on idea emergence and accretion. He also puts very much forward that you have to put in the work in your system to build value, but that this can be a joyful process. As an experiment, I started building the book I’m working on with the LYT framework so as to put it to the test through the most complicated process I know – and I am literally amazed at how easy things are. It’s simply impossible not to have ideas.

On top of that, Nick is wonderful, extremely available and flexible, and really goes out of his way to make sure everybody is being listened to and at ease. Contrary to many online courses, you can see that it’s not an act, it’s a genuine concern, and he’s extremely active on the forums. He’s just a wonderful person.

I am 100% delighted with the workshop, it’s what I had been looking for for literally years of struggling with my very insane PKM use case (basically: everything can be story fodder if I’m interested). If it can handle that, I would venture it should handle anything.

3 Likes

I’m not aware that Luhmann kept his slip boxes to “write notes at a publication level, and then just remix the cards for a new project”. That is a misunderstanding of his explanation of the slip boxes in Communicating with Slip Boxes.

I believe most of what is written about zettlekasten focuses on digitizing the Luhmann technique but misses the rationale for the technique entirely, and therefore misses the intellectual discipline.

(Present company excepted, of course, oh Great Whale.)

2 Likes

Oh, but my thanks!
tips hat
had you ever seen a whale tip his hat? Now you have :grin:

On a more serious note, I completely agree that Luhmann’s productivity leads current productivity writers to look for the “secret sauce” that made the Zettelkasten work and replicate that. But that’s mistaking the tree for the forest (seriously, do we really need to care that badly about Folgezettel?). That’s exactly what I love with LYT – Nick Milo is decidedly not doing that, but getting to what I think is the spirit of the method (free form conscious thinking through links and patterns lending itself to emergence) rather than the letter.

1 Like

Here’s the secret: there’s no secret. Luhmann worked and thrived in an entirely analog world. He also writes that “the slip box needs a number of years to reach a critical mass”. And he repeatedly explains the value of links between slips. So what did he do? He “communicated” with the boxes – the slips. Repeatedly working with the material to discover linkages and record them meticulously.

He didn’t pound out a flood of notes into a computer, that automagically linked them. He used his focus over a very long horizon to “speak” with his notes and expand knowledge. It is the work that matters, not the technique.

5 Likes

Thanks for your thoughts on the course in detail - that sounds really great! I can imagine how well this would work for fiction writing. And I have similar issues - everything is a potential venue for research, my problem is more keeping track of them and seeing where they converge to form more advanced ideas. Maybe I’ll join the next cohort…

1 Like

I may well be misremembering Luhmann (I read his German descriptions, but it’s been a while…), or my memories might be refracted through Soenke Ahrens and his version…I guess I should’ve taken better notes :wink:

Clearly his technique worked for him, so it did matter to him. But you are right, the point is not in the app or the technique but in the intellectual work with whatever kind of notes you are taking. If Obsidian or Roam or a Zettelkasten of some sort make it easier to do this, great.

2 Likes

Do you still think it was worth it now several months later?

$822 (or the “cheap” $522 no-support version) for LYT is way, way beyond reach for me.

Is there an alternative?

What are you looking to get out of it? I can drum up some resources and put something together possibly.

Good question. For decades, 80%+ of my note taking has been focused on what was needed for work, either directly or for indirect research. That’s ending. I don’t owe anyone my thoughts for hire anymore, and I’m reading now for myself, spending more time with analog books, and focused on broader research topics that I’ve backlogged for years. I’m casting a lot of nets widely and want to focus now on notes that have no “purpose”. In due course, incremental formalization will come to play and I’ll be looking for emergent structure – but not now. I’m experimenting with approaches, but I don’t want to invest in someone’s course and be disappointed because it’s probably focused on a phase of lifework that is not relevant to me. I think I have to invent this approach on my own – it is NOT going to be z – borrowing here and there and tossing technique overboard if not useful.

1 Like

This is the approach I’ve taken — I’ve ham-fisted together a smattering of Zettelkasten, Evergreen Notes, and my own methods. It works well for me. Just like GTD, going hardcore for a methodology here is only going to work for a very small portion of the population, in my mind.

1 Like

Thank you @justindirose. Andy M’s evergreen note approach fits easily into TheBrain – especially with the new features of TheBrain 12. Note making in TheBrain is getting closer to the approach to note making in Obsidian (and Roam I suppose, but I don’t go there). The main difference is, in Obsidian the graph is an adjunct, high altitude view. In TheBrain, everything is done while inside the graph.

I digress from the point of this thread. Sorry.

So: yes, definitely. (I got it cheaper than it seems to be now, I think the prices have been raised a little.) Still cheaper than BASB and a hundred times better.

You can either spend months trying to figure out the Zettelkasten method on your own and tailor it to your needs, by reading forums, watching YouTube videos, seeing what other people do… or take the LYT workshop. Which, by the way, goes way beyond classical Zettelkasten workflows. There’s a lot of material in there that’s openly available (Nick Milo himself shares a lot of it freely through the LYT kit) but two things made me love the workshop:

First, Nick is super available, genuinely wants everyone to have a great time and get value out of the workshop, and invests a lot of energy into crafting a true community (never seen this in any online workshops I’ve taken). It’s not: here’s the forum, I’ll drop by every few weeks, have fun; he genuinely watches, interacts and answers in depth.

Then, it makes you work and think. It’s the polar opposite of BASB which basically says: here’s how you do it. LYT does not tell you how to do it, it tells you why you want to do it, and how you might do it. No PKM is the same, depending on the needs of people, and LYT embraces that to describe fluid frameworks that build on the Zettelkasten method and go way beyond. But you have to put in the work and thought to make things yours. LYT embraces the fact that managing knowledge, first and foremost, is about the will to put time and energy into your own ideas, that it’s a dedicated practice and there is no shortcut to doing it. There, are however, ways to make it blossom with good thinking reflexes and approaches. That’s what matters.

To me, it’s the GTD of knowledge management. It’s simple, efficient, elegant, and even the ideas can almost readily be found for free. But it’s the approach and dedicated practice that the workshop sets up that makes all the difference: it hides a depth that only a personal journey will uncover. LYT takes into account that variability and that’s the opposite of the parlor tricks of BASB. LYT wants you to think and work for yourself. I love it. But, caveat: I think the workshop only gives its full value if you do your best to work deeply through it. That means: do all the exercises, answer all the questions, participate in all sessions. I had 1-2 days per week of solo practice devoted solely to LYT on top of the live sessions, and I think it’s needed to really be able to get the full value out of it and be able to move forward by asking your questions and meditating the difficulties that arise out of your own practice and needs.

There’s a thread on Reddit with other comments if you’re interested: https://www.reddit.com/r/ObsidianMD/comments/kvz9cz/does_anyone_here_have_opinions_on_linking_your/

2 Likes