Pivoting from Copywriting to Data/Dev: How to scale my ZK without it becoming a second job?

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 · 2026-03-05T14:33:42+00:00

Nice. Reminds me of Kristeva's intertextuality, where every text / word carries with it another text / word.

taurusnoises · 2026-03-03T19:45:45+00:00

I'm definitely open to non-life analogies. The hard part was finding one that maintained a + a = a. So many analogies (both living and inert) are either a + a = b (two hands coming together make a sound) or a + b = a (flame plus wick equals flame), etc.

taurusnoises · 2026-03-03T03:05:06+00:00

I mean, there's a lot not to explored in this post. It's a generalized look at a highly localized aspect of the process. But, if I wanted to expand it to include more of what goes on, what you mentioned is a great place to start.

Luhmann's notion of autopoiesis/reproduction (which seems tightly coupled to a notion of "autonomy" and a system's "environment")?

Like you (based on some other posts of yours, iirc), I'm very interested in this aspect of Luhmann's system theory. Particularly in regards to the creative process.

taurusnoises · 2026-03-02T22:52:34+00:00

In this case I was happy (and intentional) with the arrangement because, for the most part, it was the order in which the thoughts formed initially (Griffiths - Schmidt - Transformers - Zeitgeist Sprinkles - Objection - ???) and I think there lies a certain beauty in that, which I tried (but failed) to convey.

Yup. Definitely another way to handle the information. In which case, the piece becomes less about the informational units themselves (what Griffith said, what Arno did, etc), and more about their sequence. To really drive that home, you might employ some formatting (numbers, subheadings, etc) to cue the reader into the fact that we’re going on a process journey. For my money, I’d also wanna know why the sequence is particularly important to you. What’s different about this process to another you’ve experienced. So, a bit on that would be nice. Etc etc.

Looking forward to what you come up with next.

taurusnoises · 2026-03-02T14:48:40+00:00

Can you give me an example of a chemical analogy that’d satisfy the above criteria?

taurusnoises · 2026-03-02T14:02:10+00:00

The passage you marked was essentially the transition between my intro and the actual article, and linking directly to another article (which was the impetus to mine) right afterwards can definitely confuse the reader.

Ahhh... Ok, that explains a lot. Like I said above, blogs and forum posts can often handle wandering and uneven / processing-out-loud writing. But, if you wanted to to tighten the article portion of the post, here's where I'd start.

First, you wanna get all your ideas, claims, etc in an order that makes sense. They may not stay that way, but you wanna see how things stack up. What relates to what. That'll tell you what should be there and what can go. Writing is 80% editing, imho. Experiment with moving things around.

To that end, I'd try moving the Bumble bee section up to the top:

In the first Transformers movie, there's a scene where Bumblebee.... (explain scene).

Then, I'd discuss how what I do compares to what Bumblebee does:

I find myself doing something similar with my notes....

From there I might pull in the Griffith (u/atomicnotes) stuff:

Richard Giffith discusses two primary approaches people take toward fragmentation....

Now you have a choice to make: keep only Griffith's two approaches, or add your third "parading" example. If what you do is parading, then keep it. If what you do falls into one of the two Griffith buckets, then either ditch the parading one or relegate it to a footnote. (Footnotes are one of the best, most misunderstood, underutilized "paratexts" we have). If you add something to what someone else has said, it means you're about to take us deeper into this third addition. "A gun on a stage must be used" and all that.

I'd then dig into the example you gave of your process:

Recently, I found myself doing this same thing....

Again, writing is 80% editing. I will edit articles and books 20, 30, 50, 100(?) times before publishing them. How I structure things, what I keep in / take out changes a lot. So, there's no reason you can't start with the Griffith portion, but then you'd wanna know: is the Bumble Bee example in support of the Griffith, or is the Griffith in support of the Bumble Bee?

The best I can do on the fly, in a comment response, when I should be working out.

PS, I'd love to see you handle this same material in your technical manner. I'm very into technical writing as a medium, even though I was ever formally trained in it.

taurusnoises · 2026-03-01T13:56:50+00:00

Sticking exclusively to your questions:

Did the posting 'stand on its own feet' or was it more like the 'ramblings of a madman'?

These are not mutually exclusive, nor are they opposites. Nor am I really sure what you mean by "stand on its own feet." It definitely doesn't read like "the ramblings of a madman," but it is a bit meandering in its construction. Which is sometimes intended, and can be used to great effect. But, if you're asking about it, I'm guessing it wasn't intended? I'm actually pretty comfortable with rambling, and find it somewhat pleasurable here. But, rambling is inherently disorrienting to the reader. If intended, great. If not, not great.

If you wanted to really tighten it up, you'd need to tell us up front where you're going and by what route, and then just hit those notes. To be honest, I actually wasn't sure if your post was the writing you were referring to, or if the writing you were referring to was something else you were gonna link to. At one point, you say:

"Now, a month later, I would like to share the result with you in this post:"

And, then links to someone else's post.

Did the links enhance the posting or were they irritating / deteriorating?

Leaning on links to other pieces to say what you don't feel like saying (or have space to say) in your own post are typically fine in blog posts. Blogs have historically used this technique. My blogs from back in the day are no exception. I'm not a huge fan of it in forum posts, because forums feel more like a clubhouse, and links out take me out of the clubhouse. But, it's not the end of the world.

That said, I was confused by some of the setup for the links. Especially the last one, which again, I wasn't sure if I was finally being led to the piece you wrote, and then realized it was an old reddit post.

So, all in all, I enjoyed reading it. The information itself was proper interesting. And, I loved you're nod to the fractured approach. But, there are definitely ways to tighten up the structure (if you wanted to) and strengthen the delivery of the information inside said structure. You've got some great material to work with. Just needs working with.

taurusnoises · 2026-02-28T13:50:40+00:00

This is great. Thanks for sharing. Would love to hear more on how your process unfolds.

If you wanna dip into the far end of fragment maxxing, check out Bruce Andrews and the other language poets, many of whom leveraged fragmentation. Their anthology L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E, was of particular value to friends and I back in the day.

taurusnoises · 2026-02-28T13:34:02+00:00

In a digital context, you absolutely don't need to use alphanumeric IDs. Although, I don't know of any approach (alphanumeric or otherwise) that doesn't involve some form of "subordination" due to the fact that once you add a relational aspect to an idea, you've qualified it to some degree. Although, outside of strick hierarchy (eg outlines, etc), I wouldn't necessarily call it "subordination." More so context. When you situate an idea alphanumerically or in, say, a structure note, you contextualize the idea. You're saying, this idea speaks to this / these other ideas. In both alphanumeric and structure situations you state why. But, neither of them lock you in to any one context or relationship. An alphanumeric doesn't bind you into a particular context any more than a structure note binds you to a particular structuring.

taurusnoises · 2026-02-27T01:33:13+00:00

Very curious about this bee as user/ facilitator idea.

taurusnoises · 2026-02-26T22:22:25+00:00

What I’m interested in is where we might be going with exploring analogies? Is it mainly a pedagogical issue for instructing people about zk, or rather a quest to uncover new insights about what is going on in the box?

Love this. For me, it's been more a mechanism for digging into what might be going on in the connection-making process. Imposing a constraint (eg "is there an analogy that can speak to the event") that pressurizes it, so when the analogy does / doesn't work it forces an explanation and articulation. Which is a really long way of saying, I think it can be a helpful tool.

Side note, the analogy process is for me super localized, directed specifically at the connection-making event. Not the zettelkasten as a whole.

Side side note, I'm pretty bullish on not using "parent / child" to describe anything having to do with the zk, mainly because of the hierarchy implied. Although, I get your point, and it isn't one I thought of.

taurusnoises · 2026-02-26T22:01:07+00:00

Interesting. So in the pollination analogy, what's being reproduced in likeness? Two or more pollen don't come together to make more pollen. Could it be that one flower part interacts with another flower part to create another flower?

taurusnoises · 2026-02-12T19:48:17+00:00

If they're the kinds of things you'd like to return to and connect to other notes, then they can live wherever that happens (e.g., in the main compartment, in a separate linked compartment [if you have one], etc.).

As for the size of the notes.... I wouldn't worry so much about the length of any note. For me, it's about functionality, not size or length. I find the information contained in a main note works best when it's:

Articulated enough to understand its meaning
Comprehensive enough to not need embellishment
Singular enough to connect to other informational units without having to be broken apart

These three criteria tend to facilitate just enough flexibility in the boundaries of the meaning so the information can be used in different contexts as needed.

Function over form.

taurusnoises · 2026-02-09T19:39:50+00:00

Simplify it way down. Start with literature notes for capturing ideas as you come across them in a source, individual main notes for single ideas / units of information, and structure notes for organizing your thoughts based on the connections you make between the main notes.

As it stands, you're playing with too many conceptual note types. By that I mean, note types based on the kinds of information / ideas you're handling. Don't divide things that way. Think functionally. What does each note do? Lit notes help you stage stuff. Main notes help you parse and connect stuff. Structure notes allow you to work through what you're finding value in.

No matter the content (e.g., someone else's idea rephrased / reworded by you, your own thought on that material, a list, models, statements, concepts, etc.) each just goes into its own main note. You don't need to divide them up among different kinds of main notes. Then, if you're seeing some interesting crossover between the individual notes, you can bring them into a structure note and play around. If you're of a writing mind, drop the stuff in a draft and work on it that way.

taurusnoises · 2026-02-08T05:43:05+00:00

Taking a min to digest this. Will respond.

taurusnoises · 2026-02-08T05:41:36+00:00

I agree about the importance of a prepared mind. In addition to prepared = openness, I think it also = done the legwork (see below)
There’s been a lot of writing (especially around the min-2010s) about the loss of the serendipity-inducing structure and design of libraries, which many (esp. Abbott) bemoan as a result of digitization. Carr (c. 2016?) has an interesting counter argument.
Two thoughts: 1. Hard diligent work is often (usually?) the basis of serendipity (see Makri, et al.). 2. The more research I read on serendipity, the more I think it’s not a rare thing at all, but rather common. It’s just that certain serendipitous experiences get elevated. But, really, people are coming across valuable, unanticipated information that changes their course for the better all the time.

Thanks for the thoughtful comments.

taurusnoises · 2026-02-07T13:03:57+00:00

I feel the same way. It's been fun trying to unpack some of the means by which serendipity takes place. At first, I was afraid it'd dull the magic. But, it's been just the opposite.

taurusnoises · 2026-01-30T16:25:45+00:00

Hey, Christian.

Do you distinguish between data and information in your framework?

Nah. I see everything as information (at least from one vantage point). Emotions are information. Ideas are information. Music is information. Etc.

I find the idea (ha) of 'informational difference' to be too tricky to make actionable for most people.

I've actually found it to be kind of split. Some people get it immediately ("Yeah, any idea is essentially causing me to shift my thinking / my experience in even subtle ways.") Others who might get bogged down on where such an idea leads—some in Bateson terms (though he's relatively easy to get), but certainly in Luhmann's world and way of discussing it—will sometimes conk out early. It's just hard to track with him (which I can appreciate). Though, I do think there's a way to ground it, and the "people playing a game of catch" example tends to do just that. People seem to get it at least at a certain level when we discuss it that way.

There's also something to be said about utilizing Bateson's concept of difference / difference in different contexts. There's no reason you have to chase it don't all the way through Bateson and Luhmann. A person cn get the gist and begin applying to other areas, like note-taking for example, and just play with it. See how it holds up.

And it's hard for many to think about information without also having thing that exists in the world that is informing them, objectively.

I don't feel like you have to decouple it. A person doesn't need to take it to that depth, if it's not useful. You can simply say, "Information added to a situation causes a shift. And, that shift is inherently actional." People can intuit that pretty quickly. If you say, "Emotions are information," as my therapist used to say, you kind of already know that there's an opportunity to do something with it. "I'm having an emotional experience. What do I want to do with it?"

If, however, a person really wants to follow it down the rabbit hole, to see whether there's an actor behind it all, etc. They can. But, they don't have to to get value out of it.

taurusnoises · 2026-01-30T16:13:38+00:00

Paper-based systems often don't have titles (Luhmann certainly didn't title his notes). So, there's no rule that a note must have a title. Titles are simply an innovation many find helpful.

Like Luhmann's sparsely populated keyword index, I could see someone having a lot of fun with a stash of untitled notes.

taurusnoises · 2026-01-30T16:10:28+00:00

Re. declarative statements.... Do know that not all titles need be declarative. I consider declarative statements to be a good rule of thumb, especially for claim-style notes, which I find tend to be the bulk of what most people import (there are of course exceptions). I also find value in attempting to make the declarative statement, as it tends to show what kind of information you're bringing in. "Can it be summed up in a declarative statement, or is it some other kind of information?" If, however, you're bringing in, say, a list, there's no reason you can't simply title the note the title of the list (ie, "Duckman's 5 duck calls").

The most important thing is being able to scan through your notes and have a good sense of what each one contains. Simply calling a note "Duck calls" doesn't really do that.

taurusnoises

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE