Zettelkasten system an software

[Diego Mesa]

Hey all,

Just came across this:

https://zettelkasten.de/posts/zettelkasten-improves-thinking-writing/

and thought it was very relevant to this community. Perhaps we can even reach out to them to be placed on their list of software? 

Also, this might relevant to you all:

Ask HN: How to organize personal knowledge?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17892731

Diego

[Mark S.]

BTW, there have been prior discussions on this topic:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/tiddlywiki/pCcWB2zVD40/3YILA5jsBQAJ

-- Mark

[Diego Mesa]

wow thanks Mark can't believe I missed that! When I saw the website I couldnt believe tiddlywiki wasnt on there.

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao Diego

I saw Mark pointed you to thread that touches on Zettelkasten.

One of the things that is interesting about the approach is its one of few areas of common computing that publicly engages with "theories of knowledge" and how implementation of them matters. Its much more explicit than much discussion. Truth is that different "models of knowledge" (how the brain works to create associative meanings) matter to the development of solutions.

TiddlyWiki is particularly interesting in that the "model of knowledge" behind it is very flexible. It can well support Zettelkasten approaches. In some ways, if someone were interested to explore that fully, they might be able to develop a "Zettelkasten Plus" I think.

Luhrman's original thinking on the subject is still very useful, even though he did his system all on paper cards. Particularly he was interested in SEMANTIC relationships. Even now computer science has some difficulty saying precisely enough what those are.

Just thoughts
Josiah

[Mark S.]

On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 4:27:00 AM UTC-7, @TiddlyTweeter wrote:

Luhrman's original thinking on the subject is still very useful, even though he did his system all on paper cards. Particularly he was interested in SEMANTIC relationships. Even now computer science has some difficulty saying precisely enough what those are.

If you could develop semantic relationships with cards, you could certainly do it in software. I suspect that actual semantic relationships were discovered simply by constantly reviewing the notes that have been created. And, of course, after their discovery, a system of notating relationships. So the actual discovery was done by the "wetware" in his head, not the "paperware" of the cards. Cutting edge software that emulates neural activity is beginning to do this.

For us, TW has at least 3 major ways of linking information (Tags, fields, links) which should make review and discovery easier than ever. However, there's always that temptation, once data has been captured, to not go back and review.

-- Mark

[@TiddlyTweeter]

On Sunday, 2 September 2018 17:48:29 UTC+2, Mark S. wrote:

So the actual discovery was done by the "wetware" in his head, not the "paperware" of the cards.

Right. I think that is a very important point. There is no way he could have got that right on some quick cross-ref idea with stubborn paper. Rather it was a live system in mind that he generated a sophisticated concrete, physical crystallisation of. Its still a bit of a mystery how he did that so well at such scale.

 

For us, TW has at least 3 major ways of linking information (Tags, fields, links) which should make review and discovery easier than ever. However, there's always that temptation, once data has been captured, to not go back and review.

I agree. I do think flex on the "after capture" review process is maybe an area where some explicit review aids might be made?

--Josiah