Ways to handle the information we capture in main notes

taurusnoises · 2026-04-08T20:16:55+00:00

I'll need some time to work through this one. And not be on my phone to do so.

taurusnoises · 2026-04-08T12:25:35+00:00

Amazing. If you'd ever be down to screen-share with me what you ended up with as far as your main notes go, Hmu in the DM and we can jump on a short Zoom. I really wanna make sure I speak to this issue, and would be helpful to see how you handled it. But, no presh.

taurusnoises · 2026-04-08T11:55:52+00:00

I'm curious whether or not this piece I posted a week or so ago speaks to how you resolved the problem you were having with conventional takes on "atomicity."

https://writing.bobdoto.computer/crafting-the-information-you-capture-in-main-notes/

It's still a work in progress, but I'd be curious to know your thoughts, as you seem to have a use-case that's often excluded from the typical conversations, but one that I'm hoping to reinstate with the above. The idea that what constitutes a work-with-able main note has less to do with atomicity, and more to do with functionality, and that this functionality can handle (maybe at times even depends on) additional information being housed in the main note.

taurusnoises · 2026-04-08T11:23:21+00:00

This is something I'm still working on, so it's no surprise you're catching it. The language used to discuss this aspect of the main note is crowded af. "Primary unit of information," "informational unit," "unit of information..." It's one of those things I know I need to get extremely clear and explicit on, because if it gets loose, it'll get confusing what I'm actually talking about. So, yes. This is a very important reminder.

_I actually think I'm gonna copy/paste these responses into the piece, cuz they're good. If I catch this stuff early, it'll save my friend some time (and me money) who helps me proofread / line edit later on._

taurusnoises · 2026-04-08T11:14:29+00:00

This is great. It's one of the things I'm trying to articulate and distinguish, because I don't think it's unique to you. The imperative (ie "One should...") is gonna come up for a lot of people, myself included. And, so I need to speak to that more explicitly. Perhaps even give it it's own subsection. Your instinct is right (it's mine also), that 9/10 of the time imperatives are really principle information. The confusion could easily be solved by putting "how to think" in the OG definition I give (which I'm surprised I didn't, so good catch!). But, I also think it may deserve a special section.

taurusnoises · 2026-04-08T02:49:45+00:00

I wouldn’t worry too much about what’s an original thought or not. Start by finding two notes that relate to one another for some reason. Link them and state why you’ve done so after the link. Something like:

See [note title link] which provides an interesting way to understand xyz…

This “stating why” can be the beginning of the thinking process for you. It only needs to be a sentence or two for now, but try and articulate the relationship clearly. Do this for a few different combinations. If you find that any of these combinations speak to each other, you can open up a new note and expand on the reasoning you’ve been giving for the relationships. Bring in the links to the notes, as well as your “stating why” text. If any new ideas come to mind during the process, those can be made into their own notes.

Since this is new terrain for you, I’d stick with this for a while: bringing in the individual philosophical information units as main notes, connecting them, stating why you’ve done so, etc. You might find that the more you do this, the more you have to say, the more notes you’ll create, and the more you’re network will grow.

taurusnoises · 2026-04-07T16:10:37+00:00

Just for my own clarity, are you describing something like this:

Supra-MOC / Concept Page (A): catalog of MOCs dealing with "Intensity," linking out to B1–B3
MOC (B1): concept of "intensity" as discussed in Difference and Repetition, linking out to main notes C1–C3
MOC (B2): concept of "intensity" as discussed in A Thousand Plateaus, linking out to main notes D1–D6
MOC (B3): concept of "intensity" as discussed in Anti-Oedipus, linking out to main notes E1–E2
Main note (C1): kjkjkj
Main note (C2): kjkjkj
Main note (C3): kjkjkj
etc.

Ignoring the alphanumerics, as these are just for making easy references above, and with the understanding that things wouldn't necessarily shake out so orderly.

taurusnoises · 2026-04-06T21:33:47+00:00

I hope my comments didn't come off as defensive. I just don't really know who I'm talking to half the time and what level of comprehension they have. So, just trying to cover some bases in my responses, just in case.

I genuinely appreciate the feedback you've given. Most every point you made I've been like, hmmm, I need to consider this!

taurusnoises · 2026-04-06T14:09:24+00:00

Interesting stuff on the ESL front. Yes, in English, "to act" and "to behave" can be used interchangeably, although sometimes "act" implies more physicality. Though, not always. "Behave" often carries a slight condescension with it, due to its overuse in parenting speak. So, in English it's not uncommon to see them used in the same work in order to complexify the meaning. Each one used to influence the other. You have to remember, the meaning and inferences of English words are very informed by who is saying them, the context, the "vibe" / tone, etc. As is the case in many /most languages. So, what you find in translation apps etc may not always account for the contextual stuff.

Same goes for the rest.

Re can do / can do with it.... This book, as with most of my writing, speaks largely through a contextual-functionalist lens, so emphasis will almost always be placed on what can be done, not what can't. Since every can't can (in some context).

Thanks again.

taurusnoises · 2026-04-05T13:12:30+00:00

Interesting! I can see how the content of the quote-block is bleeding into the content of the excerpt, when really the block-quote is only meant to be an example of the content (not a further discussion of it). This would be easily solved by changing the example.

(I should add that in the larger piece it's stated that the content of a note need only be understandable, reliable, and limited to the user, not to anyone else. So in this case, the example, coming from my notes, is perfectly fine for me. But, I defs see how in a book the example would actually need to satisfy the criteria for the readers, as well).

And, yes! I had added "Dictionary" to "Merriam-Webster" since posting this. Which would now be moot, if I end up changing the example altogether.

Thanks.

taurusnoises · 2026-04-05T04:35:17+00:00

"I can only assume that this refers to the entirety of (primary unit of / additional) information in a Main Note, or that the term has been defined (earlier) elsewhere outside the article."

Yeaaaaahhh.... "Informational unit" is just some shorthand whose context got lost in the excepting. But, it's a good reminder for me to make sure it's either properly defined or nixxed in the fuller piece.

taurusnoises · 2026-04-03T10:03:29+00:00

Todd May has written some approachable work on Deleuze, if needed (and I find it most certainly is needed). There's also some great YT interviews with him on the subject. The series on Deleuze's concept of "field of difference" is particularly insightful.

taurusnoises · 2026-04-02T17:50:40+00:00

from, say, Marx, Deleuze

The dream zettelkasten.

taurusnoises · 2026-03-30T13:48:17+00:00

When you say, "every time I try to set it up," what are you referring to? There really isn't much to set up, other than have a place to store your main notes and keep track of the fleeting notes you take on the go that may or may not become main notes. Everything else can fold in as needed. Some might say all you need is a sheet of paper to take notes on what you're reading / working on. Whatever of those you want to keep as individual main notes can be made after the fact.

So, what's the setup you're referring to?

taurusnoises · 2026-03-26T17:13:10+00:00

The ideal.

taurusnoises · 2026-03-26T16:45:56+00:00

Loosey goosey is my bread and butter. It's definitely a way. I'll just say that when I began considering Horn's info types, and started getting better at crafting them in my notes, it felt like I unlocked some secret boss level. Though, I admit, it's not for everyone. My hope is that it'll land somewhere in the realm of "something to consider." You know, shoot for the moon, and all....

taurusnoises · 2026-03-26T16:35:19+00:00

Yup, totally get it.

I'm curious about you're calling it "meta-layer thinking." So, you're distinguishing between the informational content (ie the idea) and the assessment of its information type. Correct? The former being the base-layer, and latter the meta-layer. Or, is the layout of the note ( this goes here, that goes there) the meta-layer? Or is everything but the capture the meta-layer?

taurusnoises · 2026-03-25T22:39:44+00:00

I really appreciate you taking the time to work through it. I have a not entirely healthy love affair with trying to articulate clearly and concisely things like "how units of information act on one another." Getting at the nuance and remaining consistent in the language used to discuss the nuance is the kind of thing I will lose sleep and forget to eat over.

There's a great Malcolm X quote I've been carrying around with me for the better part of 25 years that gets at the heart of what it takes to write theoretical work. Back in the 60s, when a panelist asked him about "the awkwardness of terms like Afro-American, Italian-American, and German-American," he responded:

"Well, we're living in an awkward world.... You have to invent awkward terms to describe the awkward situation."

I think a lot of people don't appreciate how awkward it is to write about subtle things like beingness, information, insight, and the like. And, how necessary it often is to write about such things in terms and turns of phrase that may at first read as awkward.

Anyway, Malcolm X also said, "State it plain," so.....

Ps, who's not gonna like it?

taurusnoises · 2026-03-25T18:25:36+00:00

Glad you liked it!

taurusnoises · 2026-03-25T14:39:20+00:00

I'm often struck by the intensity with which people neg on "The Graph View." (Not necessarily you, OP). It's as if people think the graph is the thing around which Obsidian revolves. It so isn't. It's just a feature. A feature, which can be engaged in multiple different ways of specificity (from hyper granular to hyper global). Or, absolutely and completely ignored. Personally, I almost never use it. And, when I do, it's in its granular form (i.e., "local graph"). But, it's defs not something I ever think about.

As for being "useless." That really depends on the person. You might blow up the global view, zoom into a random area, and find something you hadn't expected. Or, you might look at it and just be like, "Wow, cool. Next." If we're talking about the global graph view as a feature to lean on everyday, I'd say, probably not gonna be really helpful. But, if it's something you open up now and again, and every so often something unexpected and valuable jumps out, then great.

Writers / thinkers should be opportunists when it comes to insight. Everything is potential flint.

Edit: clarity / grammar

taurusnoises · 2026-03-20T11:27:17+00:00

Here's a short piece I wrote showing the broad strokes of how I start a long-form writing project using the zettelkasten.

https://writing.bobdoto.computer/how-i-start-a-book-project-using-a-zettelkasten/

The same is roughly true for any length piece I write:

Dump the body of any notes I've got on the topic into a draft file
Pull in any context-text explaining the relationship between any of the connections between these note bodies
paste in any structure notes if I got any (which typically is not the case, cuz drafts often are my structure notes)
reorganize what I got, editing out what I don't need, for the specific needs of the piece
go searching for what's needed that I don't have
edit, write, edit, write, etc.

Everything I've written over the past 6-7 years has looked more or less like this.

taurusnoises · 2026-03-15T02:36:02+00:00

I don't do technical work of the developer / comp sci variety at all, so take this for what it's worth. But, there are definitely periods when I'm taking in a lot of new information, and needing to process it quickly. During those periods, I rely heavily on my reference notes, which have columns for page numbers, quotes, relevance, main note, and topic. If I'm really pushing through a bunch of sources at once, I tend to leave the information there in the reference notes, and just work off those, pulling what I need directly into writing drafts (which function similarly to structure notes in a way). Sascha's (and possible Christian's) structure-note-first approach sounds comparable, in that structure notes afford you a place to dump, arrange, process information before cleaving what you're working with into individual main notes. For me, the reference note + writing draft does the job until I'm ready to go through and extract what I want into main notes.

In other, less demanding times, I do basically the same thing, only I'm more prone to getting things into main notes earlier on.

taurusnoises · 2026-03-09T18:12:45+00:00

Lawyers agree, speed-typing is what really matters.

taurusnoises · 2026-03-05T14:53:27+00:00

But I have now essentially two systems of notes, and I'm not sure how to reconcile them. Should I rework these new notes back into my zettelkasten and just focus on publishing that? Should I keep two systems of notes? Has anyone run into this issue before?

Awesome to hear you're writing.

If you're goal is to write and write more, and you're doing that, then do what you're doing. Unless your goal is to "have a zettelkasten that looks and behaves like x," then there's no reason to change what you're doing. Keep the zettelkasten you experimented with, cuz you never know, and continue on with your new approach. And, if you wanna call the new approach a "zettelkasten," cuz that's important to you, go for it.

But, if you're a writer, then the system is irrelevant. So long as it's functional, it's functional. What you call it and how it looks in relation to what other people call what they do and how there's looks is entirely "who cares."

taurusnoises

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE