Видео

Anti-net means it is an analog information system, the opposite of the internet.

The ease of tagging and [[wiki]]-linking was definitely one of the pitfalls of trying to have a "zettelkasten" in Obsidian. It was so easy to link every instance of a word with the suggested unmade inlinks and outlinks, it's insane. It felt good linking notes this way, almost compulsive. And so it would always become a useless rats nest of linked notes, because in the end I couldn't separate the wheat from the chaff.

Speaking for myself, I think I prefer Scott's system here. Being autistic, I tend to view things in categories to help me make sense of them. Starting out from the larger and more general (like Scott), rather than the smaller and more specific (like Luhmann himself). When I was keeping notes in Obsidian, I used folders a lot, despite some people who might argue that's not really how the app is meant to be used. So having clear top level categories that you can then contemplate placing new notes under is something that very much appeals to my autistic brain. Though, like you, I also have my reservations about using a zero or negative numbers for placement, and would probably look for another solution. Now, Scott's system as proposed in the book as only 5 topmost level categories, raging from ID 1000 to 5000, and based on the five branches of the arts and sciences as outlined in that Wikipedia article. But there's nothing to stop you from going beyond that. I have already made a category "9000 Science" for more general science notes that aren't particular to any of the branches, and I am even contemplating having a category "0000" as some sort of "meta-category" in my Zettelkasten, dealing with the topic of Zettelkasten itself (whence the "meta-"), knowledge work, note-taking, PKM, etc., even if strictly speaking I might be able to put those under categories somewhere in Scott's system as explained in the book. And I can have further categories for main topics of interest like autism research, gender and sexuality research, etc., outside the five categories proposed by Scott. Indeed, who's to say I can't go beyond the four-digit top level ID number and go into the 10.000s? While I would consider this with some scrutiny, I would not reject the notion beforehand. But, of course, this is not to say that I think you're wrong. A Zettelkasten will be particular to each person and reflect them. The most important thing is following Luhmann's example in giving everything a place and alphanumeric ID to go along with it, not the specific system, or lack thereof, of the numbering system. Anyway, I've been enjoying your videos. I first saw your video about when you finished the book and have since got the book myself, and I am working through it. Now going through your video chronologically as I have embarked on this journey into the world of Antinet myself. So thanks for introducing me to the Antinet!

I think one of the words you should research is "cognitive load" because when you use the term "negative friction," then what I think you're describing is the effect of cognitive load when there is too much friction. Because all friction is inherently "negative," a certain degree of it in an antinet helps prevent us from overdoing it. With digital zettlekastens like obsidian, people can type a lot of words before they experience any friction. But when they try to go back and categorize or classify their notes, it can almost immediately lead to either really glib insights or cognitive overload.

I think one can only be an expert on the orginization of their own zettelkasten. Thus, you are an expert of the system you're developing.

also I find it fascinating when my dictionary encyclopedia goes out of date. I have a 1930 of the former, and a 99 of the latter... more as a historical document :)

still love physical maps... I just pencil them in :)

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.

From this video on you started to look a little less doubtful and more on a "move forward" approach. That's great! 🎉

I'm with Scott in this matter: by the way my mind works I need to have some "general" overview, not too specific, but specific to a point. And I think it has to do with making easy to find a starting point once I need to draw some ideas from the system. Let me give you an example: I'm a teacher, so one of the categories in my system is "4200 Education". "Education" as a topic is obviously too broad, since it involves, for instance, many processes. But instead of creating a note called "Learning" and giving it the ID 4200.1, I've created a whole new category that's not necessarily "under" Education but "after" it (if you take a look into the ZK II in Luhmann-Archiv you will see that 3, 31, 313 and so on -or 3000, 3100 and 3130 in Scheper's notation- are not hierarchical whatsoever, but all in the same level. In my case, the category is "4220 Learning"). By the same principle, I have created "4230 Teaching", "4240 Assessment", etc. And the thing is these categories have not been there from the beginning. They have been emerging as I have new ideas and found interesting topics to develop. I just know that when it comes to "Teaching" it's not sufficient to create a note called like that, but a category (i.e., 4230 instead of 4200.3), because is a broad enough topic and I know I have so much to say about it. Don't know if I've been clear enough, but at least I've tried my best. And by the way, sending cheers again from Chile! 🇨🇱

It's great to see you making all the decisions before starting to do "the hard work", because I've been there. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. PS: I'm gonna be commenting (maybe) all of your videos on the Zettelkasten, since I'm watching them in order of publication.

I completely agree with the last idea you presented in this video: that the development of ideas shouldn't be restricted in terms of "atomicity" because if you always create cards under this principle, your future self is not gonna find value in the notes. Luhmann used to develop his ideas with no restriction whatsoever. Many ideas develop over multiple cards. Cheers from Chile!

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.

Where might Collections help.

Could you please explain the index system too? Do you write in every card address or is it more selective? I have trawled and trawled you tube and I agree, Scott seems to manage to get off point everytime, whether on purpose or not I'm not sure, but either way I do not appreciate being called a 'free loading shit weasel' for trying to educate myself. I also know I'm not doing the bib cards right, I'm writing long notes that seem to be a cross between a bib and a main note, I need to work that out somehow...maybe by creating reflective notes from the bib notes maybe to place in the main box. Still and forever a work in process!

This is the explanation I have been searching for FOR MONTHS!!!!!! Thank uou so much for this!!!!! You have no idea how much this helps!!!! 🙏

A bic 4 colour pen works best for me, simple, no fuss and keeps colours focused and consistent.

Example. You have a 10000 notes Zettelkasten. And you decide to let me use it. I have ONE idea and ONE note to put it in to your Zettelkasten. I have no idea what your Zettelkasten is about and which notes it contains. I do not know any relations existing between notes. I have no idea about the context surrounding each of your notes. Just BLANK MIND. How do i put my note in your Zettelkasten so it will be mindfully connected to as much of your existing notes as it can be? Please describe a step by step process of my interaction with your's Zettelkasten.

I tend to read crime fiction and science fiction on my eReader as they are linear storytelling. When reading for learning, I prefer a physical book so I have many physical books all that I have read or am reading have a card in them.

Nice

The question I asked myself was: If Luhmann had access to a computer, would he have built his ZK with index cards? I don’t think so. His goal was to build a system to help him think. He medium he chose was just the best of what was available at the time. Numbering is a necessary evil. I love analog media. I have a huge record collection. I buy books, from bookstores. However, digital makes more sense and eases more friction when trying to atomize and connect information.

I love your cup of tea, In which store did you purchase it?

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

THANK YOU for explaining this so simply! I have ADHD and I struggle to understand abstract concepts. I just discovered this system not too long ago and have been confused by the numbering system, but this simplifies it!

Thanks for sharing your Journey

I’ve watched three of your videos and I love your calm voice and this topic. I’ve started using cards beginning of March and it has really helped me. I planned with a daily planner before, but it was demotivating and time consuming.

Really enjoyed this, thank you. I have Scott’s book and am in the early days of developing my system. I want to use it to capture notes and thoughts for my creative writing. That would mean there may not be a specific project/category that an idea can fit into (might not even be developed). How would you (if at all) use the categories in this instance where you don’t know how the note will be used? Hope that makes sense

Is there something specific about that box or can you use any old box? Just heard of this for the first time today...pretty cool to learn about going back to analog.

Thank you!, thank you, for making it simple

Love you videos. My 2c worth. From my limited understanding is that the zettelkasten system intentionally avoided top down categories when interacting with the zettelkasten mind. The alphanumerical system is arbitrary. To me, the zettelakasten is just an external associative mind that you can interact with and enter and exit at any point as you build it. While you interact, you forget about categories and more on connections. Only when you decide on a topic or project to you apply structure/categorizations via MoC etc and distill the new knowledge into something formal into a book. Therefore I believe there are a few hat with the system. Systematizing it, engaging with it, extracting shareable knowledge. Each a different mode. STill love this topic.

Hey! Thanks for the video. I was struggling a bit with branching as well - I believe the branch is formed once you have a couple of cards on it. And I don't use the 21.3.1 framework - just create another alphabetical branch (haven't reached to z in any of them so far). Let's say I have a category of Family Relations (21). Once I get a note on fusion relationships, I'll create 21a1 for it, and when there is something on that further - I'll make second card for 21a2 together with 21a - Fusion in family relations. This 21a would also be indexed on Fusion and Team dynamics index card, if it makes sense. But the beauty of ZK and analog to me is that it can be modified to better correspond to your thinking process. That's why digital or print-ready planners never work for me - I just can't fit my life, needs and thinking into sth preplanned by someone else.

I like the name ‘Clog’ for your fourth box. That’s what I read on the label!

As someone else has stated, had the same problem, came to the same solution, only I had branches having the periods. Your way makes so much more sense though. Thank you for clearing that up!

Please share you goal for using this system. What are you aiming to accomplish?

Interesting to see that using categories like "1000 social sciences" and "1100 sociology" makes more sense to you. For me, growing subjects organically made finding notes easier. The main reason for that is probably that I study relatively interdisciplinary study fields, like artificial intelligence, the brain or cognition. I'd rather have everything about neurons in a single place, than jump between biology, computer models and physics constantly. That way, I can easily grab a stack of notes if I have to take part of my zettelkasten with me to university and don't have to find notes in three separate categories. But if the categories have rather clean borders, I can see why you might want to use subjects.

Have you seen this explanation of numbering? ruclips.net/video/8H2H3hvmrNQ/видео.htmlsi=ZdeBxoKF_7wLdD32

Glad to see you back Curly. Your zettelkasten insights are always so helpful. I've been debating if I should start over with mine as well. My addresses with slashes are getting too large in some areas, and it's becoming a problem.

Same. I started my zettelkasten over too because it made sense but it wasnt working for me. I want my zettelkast to work with me as I write my stories. So I made another zettelkast mainly for that and started to wokr with this numbering system. Makes WAY more sense now. BTW good to see you back Curly

I had the same problem and I found the same solution. For me, I would put 21.3.1 after 21.3a1 but, as you said, everyone has his confort-zone. Thanks for your video!

Glad to see a new video. Keep them coming. Numbering became clearer to me after watch the first 4 videos of @KathleenSpracklen class for writers.

When it comes to continuous cards for me it helps to write “p.2” as in “part 2” on the second card instead of after the period. It’s not how anyone does it but it’s better for me to see connected ideas.

I started with the Scott Shepherd method and it’s made it much easier to get into. But the whole reason I started that way is because I don’t have any projects I am working on. I simply wanted to collect all my learning into a single place. Sounds like I am lucky I started this way.

Very little typing on their end

I agree with you. I tried Rocketbook, Obsidian, etc., and I always go back to analog using a modified bullet journal type system with an index. I couldn't put my finger on why digital didn't work for me, but your statement "I couldn't zoom out enough" made complete sense.

hmmmm.... I feel like "proving branches" is locking in how you think about them rather than letting them reformulate themselves. Like, for instance, I usually collect quotes in the zk and do the work of conversing in a separate notebook (a journal/commonplace, which is why I should probably start including those in the zk index...) but the index should assist rather than hinder the free flow of conversation. So like... if you were looking for the final card, in my case, your index wouldn't work :/ unless I remembered that that's how I indexed it.

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

Your reasoning reminds me of Marshall McLuhan tetralogies, a model of understanding innovation. Find more about it on his Laws of media book

Lovely organisation of thinking

I honestly love your interpretation and it is MUCH simpler then what i get from both the book and other videos. Categories really don't matter at all like you said .. if anything I gravitated towards an alphanumeric scheme for the topics and just make a card to show what they mean and represent so (i.e for programming I will start with the number 0 and use the letter "P", so it would be "0P" then "0P1", 0Pa.. and so on cheers.