Some good thoughts. Do you have any other videos or articles that go into more depth about how you marry the Antinet system that Scott S. promotes and Logseq. I started down the Antinet road but then found Logseq and was drawn to it for a variety of reasons. I'd love to see how you merge the two.
Thanks Steve. I don't have any updated content yet about my analog & digital system. I'm currently testing out my current iteration, and getting ready to share in the coming weeks/months.
Structure, yes, absolutely... hierarchy, not so much. I think you (and Schmidt) are overly influenced by physical systems like Zettelkasten. A physical note can only be in one place, so notes can be ordered in one dimension. Hierarchy adds structure, but still in one dimension. Digital notes don't have this limitation. Structure can be multi-dimensional (multiple Maps of Content), and in any particular dimension, structure can go beyond hierarchy.
Thanks for the comment Dan, and I can tell that this is a topic you've given some purposeful contemplation. I think there is more here to be discussed than can be accomplished in a RUclips comment thread. I'd love to have a chat sometime to get your perspective if you would be willing. Feel free to email me at jeffrey@jeffreywebber.com.
The problem with this is that you still move around a lot, by initiating more links. The power of fixed IDs and the hierarchy that Jeffrey speaks of rests in the simple fact that it forces you to THINK about context. Luhmann wrote in lines of thought; he saw a point that interested him, thought about in what context it'd be most fitting (searched his Zk), then wrote the note WITHIN that context, resulting in entire paragraphs of text divided over multiple notecards, with interruptions (which usually became their own lines of thought), this enforced the THINKING process, and forces one to really understand something in relation to what it can be used for. It's essentially a structured brain-dump as someone described it. The power of Zettelkasten resides in the fact that you can keep track of thought-lines, what your brain was thinking, and therefore continue developing that line of thought. That is not possible without clear IDs.
So, my ID scheme is this. Number = Position in line of thought; Letter = Deepening into point on note-card, but not adding to the overall line of thought, therefore an insertion between, or creation of new line of thought under said notecard.
Some good thoughts. Do you have any other videos or articles that go into more depth about how you marry the Antinet system that Scott S. promotes and Logseq. I started down the Antinet road but then found Logseq and was drawn to it for a variety of reasons. I'd love to see how you merge the two.
Thanks Steve. I don't have any updated content yet about my analog & digital system. I'm currently testing out my current iteration, and getting ready to share in the coming weeks/months.
Do you have or plan to do a video about multi - device usage of Logseq?
I'm currently waiting for Logseq to implement their sync service, then I'll likely cover that topic.
Structure, yes, absolutely... hierarchy, not so much. I think you (and Schmidt) are overly influenced by physical systems like Zettelkasten. A physical note can only be in one place, so notes can be ordered in one dimension. Hierarchy adds structure, but still in one dimension. Digital notes don't have this limitation. Structure can be multi-dimensional (multiple Maps of Content), and in any particular dimension, structure can go beyond hierarchy.
Thanks for the comment Dan, and I can tell that this is a topic you've given some purposeful contemplation. I think there is more here to be discussed than can be accomplished in a RUclips comment thread. I'd love to have a chat sometime to get your perspective if you would be willing. Feel free to email me at jeffrey@jeffreywebber.com.
The problem with this is that you still move around a lot, by initiating more links. The power of fixed IDs and the hierarchy that Jeffrey speaks of rests in the simple fact that it forces you to THINK about context. Luhmann wrote in lines of thought; he saw a point that interested him, thought about in what context it'd be most fitting (searched his Zk), then wrote the note WITHIN that context, resulting in entire paragraphs of text divided over multiple notecards, with interruptions (which usually became their own lines of thought), this enforced the THINKING process, and forces one to really understand something in relation to what it can be used for. It's essentially a structured brain-dump as someone described it.
The power of Zettelkasten resides in the fact that you can keep track of thought-lines, what your brain was thinking, and therefore continue developing that line of thought. That is not possible without clear IDs.
So, my ID scheme is this. Number = Position in line of thought; Letter = Deepening into point on note-card, but not adding to the overall line of thought, therefore an insertion between, or creation of new line of thought under said notecard.
This is exactly why I argue against Atomic Notes, amongst other things.