I don't have anything to add, except that I laughed hard when I was called out as one of those people who just likes to keep track of ideas. I only found out about ZK about 2 weeks ago, and the idea of it got me pretty excited. Both my wife and I are learning about it so that we can use it for ourselves. Because we enjoyoy learning and making connections between ideas. Learning is a goal in and of itself. And if we don't write down the things we learn, they eventually get lost.
@lavvrenceD
Жыл бұрын
As someone that doesn't publish and just enjoys hanging out in the middle space, this all resonates with me. Thanks again for the great video.
@chaos_monster
Жыл бұрын
I officially feel called out :D I belong into the group that works on a digital Zettelkasten for multiple years now just for the joy of knowledge. Or being able to reference thoughts and ideas after a discussion if needed. And to use it to work on topics in my profession. No publication in any form for me
@DutchGuyInChina
Жыл бұрын
Interesting take on the folgezettel! I also feel that it has been a much misunderstood concept by the community. I don't have a perfect sense of how Luhmann used it, but I found a way that works really well for me. Your other video on folgezettel contributed to one zettel on the topic in my zettelkasten. ;) I agree that the "line of thought" it creates is really valuable. One thing I'd like to comment on here is the concept of "writing ideas in your own words" that you and many other people seem to mention a lot. This wording doesn't quite capture what I believe to be the ideal way of using a Zettelkasten. For me, a zettelkasten is not an "original content producer", rather it's an "idea producer". With this in mind, I think it'd be more accurate to say that "each zettel should be a reflection of your own ideas". In some cases this might mean putting somebody else's idea into your own words, but in other cases it could also be a totally new idea that got sparked while following a line of thought. So then a line of thought is not necessarily only a unique combination of ideas from other sources, it can also incorporate completely new ideas. I believe that's the ultimate goal of doing research. This also makes it easier to argue why one would use a zettelkasten without the goal of writing or otherwise producing content. I'm personally not a content creator of any kind, I use my zettelkasten simply for 1) making sense of stuff, and 2) for getting innovative ideas. You don't need to publish your writing in order to get value out of learning. My zettelkasten allows me to learn/read critically and it teaches me to ask the right questions. Some questions can be answered by reading more, some questions need to be answered with your own I'd love to hear your take one this.
@DutchGuyInChina
Жыл бұрын
EDIT: I just watched your other video on digesting information and think we are pretty much on one line conceptually, but use other words to describe it. What we're all looking for when doing research, is some kind of "essence" of knowledge about reality. It's this essence that you want to formulate in your own words, whether you discovered it through somebody else's writing or through your own thinking/experiments. So going back to your video about digesting information, I think it's a great analogy. We digest food in order to extract it's essence: nutrients. Digesting information has a similar goal, we want to extract the essential knowledge that improves our understanding of the world. If you only copy somebody else's words, it's very easy to skip this step of true understanding.
@forrestrperry
Жыл бұрын
Yes, I definitely agree with everything you say here. Thanks for laying it out so clearly.
@forrestrperry
Жыл бұрын
Glad to see we're more or less on the same page. I'm going to push back just a little on the idea that what we are trying to get at-or digest-is some "essence" (a term I'm guessing that, because you placed it in quotation marks, isn't what you would consider the best word to use here). I wouldn't say that nutrients are the essence of food; instead, they are the things that make food USEFUL to us for the sake of exercising and developing our physical (and mental) capacities. (Other aspects of food might be considered "essential" or rather useful for other purposes-e.g., the weight and spikiness of a pineapple may have no nutritional value but a great deal of what I'll just call "weapon value" if you're in a food fight.) Similarly, when it comes to "digesting" information, the practice of putting things in your own words is USEFUL for the sake of exercising and developing your mental capacities. Or I guess you could say that just as the digestion of food enables our bodies to grow (until they instead start just falling apart no matter what food we put into them), so does the digestion of information-via putting in your own words what others have said (and putting in your own words your own ideas)-enable our body of knowledge to grow. Again, thank you for your comments. Much appreciated.
@exhactly
Жыл бұрын
This loser hit the like button BEFORE being told to. Thanks for an enjoyable and clarifying video.
@forrestrperry
Жыл бұрын
Much appreciated. Thanks for the comment.
@perryclayton3987
Жыл бұрын
FYI, there's a video called "Baroque Sunbursts:..." embedded in the playlist for zettelkasten note-taking.
@forrestrperry
Жыл бұрын
Strange. I will look into that. Thanks for letting me know.
@SaschKrassBass
Жыл бұрын
I really like the video. You might have the best humor (mine excluded of course) in the entire ZK-domain. :) But: 1. The issue of creating fiction into the system is that you deligate an ability to an external system that can and should be a skill of the person, you prevent the development of this skill. That decreases or perhaps even inhibits the training effect working with a ZK has or could have. 2. Folgezettel is a very valid and perhaps necessary technique that makes working *as if* you have a project you are working on. However, the most important counter-argument against the validity of Folgezettel is that you can achieve this with a better technique which is the structure note. Folgezettel allows to code for two different directions: lateral and horizontal. That means that you can't map meaning on Folgezettel or are limited to two (or four if you count the opposite directions) categories of meaning. Structure notes on the other hand allow for as much of connection as you are able to produce on the canvas you use. What would been a cluster of Folgezettel can be a single drawn image on a Structure Note. Even when using a analog Zettelkaten my recommendation is the heavy use of Structure Notes since they pull together thoughts and their relationships on one single canvas. 3. In theory, the "good enough relations" are awesome. But in practice, from what I see, the good enough is mostly an in the moment idiosyncratic idea that you will forget in the future. When the future is now, many people have quite some difficulties to understand the relation or to see a relation at all. That is intrinsic to the concept of "most what you produce is garbage". This includes the connections, direct and via Folgezettel. If you actually make it a point to get a grasp on the nature of connection you'll build more robust (even antifragile) edges in your network. Live long and prosper Sascha
@muhammedalikilic5460
Жыл бұрын
Great comment. I think your critique of the folgezettel seems a bit harsh, however. You say that people would have "difficulties to understand" because of "in the moment, idiosyncratic connections with the folgezettel" (paraphrased, correct me if I understood incorrectly). I think that the zettelkasten, with the use of a folgezettel, isn't necessarily meant for clear thinking and writing. This can only be achieved, in my opinion, with linear writing. And when I use my zettelkasten for writing, I never follow the folgezettel sequence - I always change, add, subtract to my outline.
@SaschKrassBass
Жыл бұрын
@@muhammedalikilic5460 On my criticism: It is not directly a cricism. It is a frequent observation with an explanation of why I observe it. (BAckground: I teach the method) I agree with your take on Folgezettel. And though I saw special use cases only which convinced me, there are plenty of people who use it and are happy with it which is fine to me. Better have Folgezettel and like it than to have not ZK at all. :)
@forrestrperry
Жыл бұрын
Danke sehr for your comments here, Sascha. I’ve been wanting to respond since two nights ago, but power has been out since that time. I will reply at more length as soon as there’s power for the computer with a proper keyboard attached to it.
@FLManhattan
Жыл бұрын
@@forrestrperry Getting popcorn at the ready...
@SaschKrassBass
Жыл бұрын
@@forrestrperry No, worries. Looking forward to you reply. :)
@muhammedalikilic5460
Жыл бұрын
Thanks a lot for this video! Can't wait on the Obsidian showcase, since I adopt a similair method to what Bob Doto uses digital (in Obsidian). Once question regarding the folgezettel: how do you number your notes? I saw that Bob Doto does it by starting with a number and then following up with a letter, like "1A" (and continues like 1A1, 1A2, etc.). You can also just do it with numbers, like "1.1" and then , 1.2, 1.2.1, etc. With the first approach, the letter seems kind of pointless. There is no meaningful convention in my opinion, since the numbers just follow the letters. With the second approach, I think there could be a more meaningful convention. You could just number your notes, like "5.4.3". And whenever a counter argument is made, for example, you can number the following note as "5.4.3.A". This is what I am leaning towards, but I don't know what kind of convention I would adopt for the Alpha/letters in this case. I would like to hear your thoughts, and your numbering system.
@forrestrperry
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for your question. What you have described here is very interesting to me, but my guess is that you wouldn't be able to implement it with much consistency. Card addresses are valuable because they (a) function as unique IDs and (b) enable you to create Folgezettel. If you're trying to do anything else with them (such as establish a hiearchical order in your Zettelkasten, represent "folders" or categories within your Zettelkasten, or, as you have suggested, to signify points at which arguments are rebutted), chances are it won't work. (But I would be happy to be shown otherwise). The reason I'm guessing you wouldn't be able to implement with much consistency the convention you have described is that it seems to me that if you ever wanted to create a card address for a card that amounts to a counterargument, then the card you're "counter-arguing" against could not itself be a counterargument. That is, if 5.4.3.A is a counterargument to 5.4.3, then what address would you give to a card that amounts to a counteragument to 5.4.3.A? Would it be 5.4.3.B-if so, then without looking at the contents of cards 5.4.3.A and 5.4.3.B, you wouldn't know whether the latter is a counterargument to 5.4.3.A or an ADDITIONAL counterargument to 5.4.3, right? Would it be better to use 5.4.3.A1? 5.4.3.Aa? 5.4.3Ab? I say all of this after having spent most of yesterday and a couple of hours this morning trying to figure out a way of putting alphanumeric addresses on my cards that differs from what I laid out in the third video in my old-school Zettelkasten series (here it is in case you haven't seen it: bit.ly/3VrazvE). As Video #3 explains, if I have a Folgezettel that starts with, say, 1a1 (a total of three characters), then the next card in the sequence would be 1a1a (four characters), the one after that would be 1a1a1 (five characters), and so on. Because I am worried about having addresses on cards that are extremely long (longer than, say, 15 characters), I was trying to come up with a way of doing things such that an additional character (a number or letter) would not need to be added to EVERY single continuation card. But every option I have tried pretty quickly runs into the problem of duplicating addresses (I have a messy Omnigraffle document on my computer that shows why this problem keeps on emerging-I should maybe recreate it using Miro so I can share it on the web with others). If you go to the Niklas Luhmann archive, you will find what appears to me to be a whole lot of inconsistency in the way that Luhmann "addressed" his cards. However, that inconsistency is probably fine so long as it didn't get in the way of the alphanumeric addresses serving the two functions I mentioned in the second paragraph above. If you want to explore this issue further, you might want to check out the following two subreddits: r/antinet and r/zettelkasten. However, I haven't found anything there that solves the problem of duplicating card addresses. If you have any further thoughts or happen to find anything that you think might work well, please oh please let us know.
@forrestrperry
Жыл бұрын
I created a diagram in Miro showing my efforts to come up with a way of addressing cards that's better than what I've been doing. When you get a chance, look at Attempt #4, which might be the best way to go (until I think about it for another 10-20 minutes, I'm sure). Here's the link to the public Miro board: miro.com/app/board/uXjVP3YDPRc=/?share_link_id=785807824028
@muhammedalikilic5460
Жыл бұрын
@@forrestrperry Thanks for the explanation. I have settled on alternating between numbers and letters ( I have roughly 65 notes right now, and it goes up to 17A). I took a look at your Miro link, and was somewhat confused. I didn't realize that there was a problem/risk to duplicating card addresses. Allow me to do a thought experiment, to show that I don't really run into this problem. I have a note which is called "2A Writing is thinking". If I have a new idea, like "Talking/communicating is thinking", then I could give it 2A1. If I have a new note related to these two, like "Reading with a pen leads to understanding", I would probably give it a 2A2. If -and I think here is your concern with duplicating card addresses comes into play - have a new note about "Taking notes is thinking", then I would simply give it a 2A2a address (you could interpret this as a continuation of "2A2 Reading with a pen leads to understanding"). So, it seems that I have settled on a folgezettel for now, thanks to your comments as well. I could show my Obsidian vault, if you are interested on how I number my notes.
@forrestrperry
Жыл бұрын
What you've described makes sense to me, Muhammed. Thanks for sharing this with us all. (And sorry for not responding sooner; it seems your comment was being hidden from me by KZitem).
@Wingedmagician
21 күн бұрын
I call it “Fold the zettel”
@xmoreno3366
Жыл бұрын
hello mr fp
@forrestrperry
Жыл бұрын
Hello.
@3Timothy_4-7
6 ай бұрын
... or old retired people who would rather learn new interesting stuff instead of watching Friends and Seinfeld reruns.
Жыл бұрын
well made video, adorable sense of humour but still not convincing. The systematic trap in which all folgezettel defenders fall is to stay sooo abstract. Did you really use it? I mean really? I am totally convinced by the effect of serializing dots. This leads to a reflexion that is original (in its assembly not necessarily in the dots’ content) but with folgezettel it is unique (in the bad sense of there is no more than one). And I pretend that I can create several threads using the same dots. These threads are original (nobody else arranged them in this order) . The uniqueness of folgezettel doesn’t permit that. I challenge you to show a real case or better: I propose you to exchange around a real case. There are so many solutions between the messy network of indifferent links and the unique folgezettel organization. take this as an invitation to dialogue around this important topic (I have a KZitem channel too so technique is not a problem and I speak enough English to convince you :-) )
@forrestrperry
Жыл бұрын
Hello! I started crafting a response to you whenever it was I hit the thumbs up on your comment here, but alas, I am soooo far behind with a bunch of stuff right now, including the next video that I meant to have done no later than a week ago. I intend to respond in more detail asap, hopefully within the week. Btw, apart from a greeting or two and one swear word, the only other thing I know how to say in French is jus de chaussette-“sock juice” (en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/jus_de_chaussette). This past summer when I was in Morocco, I met a Frenchman who used that phrase to describe Starbucks coffee. It seems to me his assessment of Starbucks coffee is a wee bit harsh (it’s one my mother would STRONGLY disagree with, at least), but so long as Starbucks continues to bust unions, that’s what their coffee deserves to be called, no? For that most felicitous phrase I learned this summer, I thank ALL of France (minus any bad people who might live there). You are from France, yes?
Жыл бұрын
Hi @@forrestrperry , thanks for this cafeined answer. I am from Belgium country of surrealism in all domains (from politics to art) except for beer and chocolate. If you need time to answer and if you are interested to produce a nuanced answer (are you this kind of guy?), I invite you to a mutual video meeting (in English, I think you deserve to have this significant advantage). It would be recorded and we could publish on our respective (and respectable) KZitem channel. Up to me to translate it in sock's juice language. What do you think ? (Would have preferred to use email but didn't find one even on your website, bloody confidential person :-) )
@forrestrperry
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for you speedy response, and sorry for yet another delayed response on my part. I very much appreciate your invitation to have a recorded discussion, and I accept it, but I'm afraid I would have to put this off for quite some time, perhaps as late as May. (As noted in my recently posted "Channel Update" video, I have things going on in my life right now that are preventing me from doing some of the things I like to do most.) Moreover, if your MAIN interest in speaking with me is to talk about the supposed advantages/disadvantages of creating Folgezettel, I'm probably not the best person to talk to because my Zettelkasten remains in a very underdeveloped state (I started it last summer and have added nothing to it for roughly a month). So, if you're fine with having a discussion (a) a few months from now and (b) that would be a somewhat wide-ranging discussion about note-taking and writing (and Folgezettel), please let me know. (Sorry I don't have an email to provide you with here. For quite some time I've been meaning to create an email address based on the web domain I purchased. But if you google "Forrest Perry SXU email," my work email address should pop up among the results.) Two people who have enough experience with not only building a Luhmann-like Zettelkasten and but also creating Folgezettel: Bob Doto and Scott Scheper. Perhaps reach out to one of them to see if they're available to discuss Folgezettel-related matters with you? Oh, and to answer one of your questions from a while back-"Did you really use it? I mean really?"-I definitely did NOT use the cards seen in my Folgezettel example for anything I have written. The cards shown in that video (Video #8) were ones I had my students create last semester when I was teaching them how to build a Zettelkasten. I hope that answers that question, but maybe I misunderstood what you're asking for. Again, many thanks for your patience. If I return to Belgium in the future, I propose that we get together for some waffles and so-called "French fries" and then use the nervous energy generated by such an enormous intake of carbohydrates to fuel a spree of defacing any statues of King Leopold II that might still exist in Belgium.
Пікірлер: 33