The goal of Niklas Luhmann (Zettelkasten) = written output (tangible).
The goal of Nik Milo (LYT) = contemplation (intangible).
Niklas Luhmann didn't partake in PKM; he did Analog Knowledge Development. He did this in order to write and produce—specifically in creating a thirty-year theory of everything for sociology.
For the past year, I've been teaching how Luhmann's workflow actually worked (using his same tools—pen and notecards). Here's my YouTube channel which may help understand his workflow: https://youtu.be/YfMNwusO6fk
Update: I didn't realize this was you who wrote this, Bob! You already know about me so I didn't need to post my stuff and continue to advertise myself everywhere (like I can't help but do!)
Linking Your Thinking was overly complicated system that introduced levels of abstractions in order to have a catchy framework the author can explain for a 6-week $1200 course: A.C.C.E.S.S. Despite the this post's claims, it's basically Zettelkasten with additional folders for your projects, and Maps of Contents (notes about large topic areas). That said, the free LYT Kit 6, has a really beautiful theme and default plugins for Obsidian and I use it as a starter-kit after deleting all the folders.
One app I can really recommend is Readwise for anyone building a linked knowledge system. It's a great way to ingest all the content you come across (Tweets, books, articles, podcasts) into a single place, and become your source of truth. Then using the Readwise plugin, this can populate your raw reference notes in your Obsidian vault.
Zettelkasten was a tool designed for a very specific purpose but of late, is the proverbial hammer that is being applied to everything. As the founder of a note taking tool (dendron.so), I see lots of new users trying out PKM for the first time because they heard about zettelkastenw hen all they needed was a bullet journal instead.
This is my first time coming across LYT - thanks for the writeup!
I was very interested in Zettelkasten, and bought "How to Take Smart Notes". I may be one of the few people who didn't like it: it was sorely in need of an editor and could have been 1/4th the size with the same amount of information, and I think it should've been called "Why to Take Smart Notes". I wanted a how-to guide, but got a persuasion piece on why I should want to do the thing I was already interested enough in that I bought a book to learn how to do it.
Anyway, as interesting as it is, I don't see any way Zettelkasten is useful to me specifically. I get how it could be amazing for others, particularly authors, but I want knowledge retrieval more than knowledge synthesis. Basically, I need a personal wiki. I've found LYT, especially its Maps Of Content, to be an excellent resource for organizing the million and one things I want to drop into a PKM and be able to find later. For me, a web of information is much more useful than a serialization.
I read the book and found it delivered as advertised. If you were looking for a step-by-step guide then yes that is not what you got but I found it explaine, even excessively so at times, "how to take smart notes."
I think what I was looking for was the equivalent of “Getting Things Done” that mixed the theory of why you’d want to take notes this way with an explanation of how to. The promise of Zettelkasten wasn’t so much of the taking of notes, which I thought was useful but not really life-changing, but on what to do with them afterward. After a couple hundred pages of how that kind of organization could benefit me, I really wanted to know how to achieve it.
I don't think this is in the book because this is highly personal to you and what your goals are. Sonke and Luhmann had the goal of research and writing. They use their Zettelkasten to produce research which I think Sonke explains pretty well how he does it but if you aren't interested in research or writing then that's explanation is kinda useless. So how you use it will be very dependent on why you want to use it. If you're taking notes just to take notes then you will likely not get any value out of it.
I use Obsidian, which has Zettelkasten capabilities built in (I think).
But I don't use those capabilities. I just write things in daily notes as they come to mind, and use the search in order to find every mention of a given topic.
I have never felt more empowered by a writing system in my life. I think the key is to avoid complexity at all costs, and empower through search. I could add complexity on my end, of course, and properly tag and organize things. But what if we introduced a low-level AI/Machine Learning plugin that could enrich the search function and determine tangential topics and intent?
Then you could just dump your brain into a text box and sort it out later. This is the way.
I don't believe it has Zettelkasten capabilities built in. You're referring to the Zettelkasten ID toggle button. In actuality, that ID was invented by the creators of Zettelkasten.de (people who I like, though disagree with on several points—I'm an analog diehard); these socalled Zettelkasten IDs are prepended with a timestamp. That's all. The originator of Zettelkasten, Niklas Luhmann, did not use these types of IDs at all. Unfortunately this confusion now has forked Zettelkasten into two different systems, yet they use the same term.
IMO, the digital Zettelkasten should be rebranded "Hyperlinked Notes".
And the term Zettelkasten should refer to the analog notebox system Luhmann used.
But I don't run the world, so that's what we're stuck with. For this reason I adopted the term Antinet to dilineate. (Antinet Zettelkasten).
I think any note taking or PKM doesn't fit everyone's need 100%. We have to adopt a system and make changes to match our needs. I too started with Zettlekasten but the system I am using now doesn't follow atomic notes at all.
A LONG time ago now I went kinda all-in on OrgMode in emacs. I'd dabbled with emacs for years (I'm 52) but it never "took" for me as a full-time editor for lots of reasons.
However, my endless search for a proper to-do management tool eventually led me there, because what I really wanted and needed is more or less Org's whole reason for being: being able to intermingle notes and TODO items, and then being able to generate a dynamic "view" of the TODOs from across a corpus of notes.
Most Todo apps I'd tried, including lots of them based on the last big geek productivity obsession, GTD, had only paltry note features. That didn't work for me or my job AT ALL. I wanted One Trusted System, and Org gave me that.
Now, if I was coming to this need NOW I think I'd probably look more closely at linked, syncing tools like Obsidian. You can mimic the "show me my todos" thing with Obsidian, though it's less organic than with Org -- but on the other hand, Obsidian has mobile apps that are very good, and I have yet to find an iOS tool that meshes will with my work style in OrgMode. Obsidian also has a MUCH MUCH LESS ONEROUS learning curve. I love orgmode, but I would absolutely not suggest that most people undertake learning emacs just for a productivity tool. ;)
If you're using obsidian for todos, I definitely recommend trying out the tasks plugin (if your todos are markdown list items) or dataview (if your todos are their own notes)
I'm in OrgMode. I test the waters with Obsidian periodically, but I also really, really hate Electron apps so I'm unlikely to make the jump from Org into something unless it's got a truly native Mac app.
I've heard this sentiment before. What (for a very non-code, non-dev person like me) could you say about why you dislike Electron apps. From a user perspective especially. Thanks. :)
They're fat/inefficient because of the electron base, so they use more RAM and resources to run than a native app would.
Obsidian, for example, takes over 2x as much RAM on my computer as Emacs does, which is crazy.
Add to this the fact that they all have to work with basically the lowest common denominator of interfaces, which means they're consistent across platforms but also completely eschew anything native on any of those platforms. In the Mac world, this is especially egregious because we as a tribe tend to actually LIKE the way the Mac does things.
There's a phrase popularized by Brent Simmons about this: Mac-assed Mac apps. See
Thanks for the reply. Any place you'd recommend an Obsidian user / emacs noob like me to start learning more about emacs? Am always curious to learn about this stuff. Especially when "bloat" comes into the conversation. Also, curious cuz to me, who uses Obsidian on a Mac, it feels lightning fast! So, I can't even imagine what you're speaking about as far as RAM etc is concerned. Curious!
I mean obsidian, at least the last time I tried to use it, took more RAM than seemed reasonable on my Mac, which has been par for the course with electron/non-native apps generally.
And as I noted, it doesn't feel like a Mac app, either.
Both issues are pretty big negatives for me, even thought I have the RAM to run fat things, but my issues are not YOUR issues. If Obsidian is working for you, there are advantages to that.
Obsidian is not complicated, it's a markdown editor with optional plugins.
The workflows people imagine around them are complicated.
I use it in a way that is similar to the 16 minute video posted elsewhere in this thread, and it works well for me.
Biggest benefits for me are:
1. Finding references, before using obsidian I would recall reading something somewhere but would be unable to find the so source
2. I remember stuff I write about better. I use it a lot for work, software engineering, so I summarize new ideas and concepts as notes which makes it so much easier to remember and understand
The important part of that is that it forces me to break ideas down into manageable chunks. I can't make a note about "everything you need to know about react 18", but I can make a note about "React 18's useTransition hook prioritizes rendering of user input".
3. It's fun! I've always enjoyed writing, and always enjoyed customizing editors and IDEs, obsidian is a great fit for that. It's exclusively for so writing and organization, so now I have two main programs, my coding editor and my writing editor.
4. The program also just works really really well. Evernote is bloated and has weird updates, emacs is insanely complicated and maybe just a little bit too powerful? Roam and friends are too chaotic for me, I don't function well with 0 structure. All simple markdown programs I used lacked good syncing, although sublime text with Dropbox came close. But obsidian just syncs perfectly, and has a very performant application on all devices I use, and yes I'm crazy enough to use all three of windows, Linux and Mac os as well as mobile... I like variety
Still, a lot of what obsidian does can be achieved with alternatives. Sublime works well with Dropbox, if you're in the apple ecosystem then Apple notes is great! Regular text editors or traditional note taking apps are still very viable.
In the end it's about what you do. If you are a knowledge worker, or even more particularly a researcher/ academic you need a good solution for organizing your references, notes, ideas etc. Obsidian is a great choice for that.
Otherwise don't bother unless you find it fun or interesting.
The goal of Niklas Luhmann (Zettelkasten) = written output (tangible). The goal of Nik Milo (LYT) = contemplation (intangible).
Niklas Luhmann didn't partake in PKM; he did Analog Knowledge Development. He did this in order to write and produce—specifically in creating a thirty-year theory of everything for sociology.
For the past year, I've been teaching how Luhmann's workflow actually worked (using his same tools—pen and notecards). Here's my YouTube channel which may help understand his workflow: https://youtu.be/YfMNwusO6fk
Update: I didn't realize this was you who wrote this, Bob! You already know about me so I didn't need to post my stuff and continue to advertise myself everywhere (like I can't help but do!)