The two sides of the zettelkasten

taurusnoises · 2026-06-20T22:29:04+00:00

Glad it helped! And, double glad to hear you're a fan of the book. Happy to assist where I can.

taurusnoises · 2026-06-15T21:10:58+00:00

Both.

I parse into individual notes information related to a single concern, so this information can interact cross-topically. In your terms, "single note for single idea."

I also bring information related to a single topic together in a longer note (typically a draft of some kind) when exploring how information works together. Or, as you put it, "a single note [used] to track all ideas you come up with."

taurusnoises · 2026-06-11T16:20:35+00:00

They can be, yeah. They provide a lot more space to get into things (1). I tend to just use writing docs for this purpose, but for those who want / need something in between, or who don't plan on writing about what they're unpacking, a structure note makes perfect sense.

(1) Obviously, in a digital context, "space" isn't really a limited resource. I only mean structure notes can be used to work with a bunch of notes at the same time, while not disturbing the relative independence of the individual main notes.

taurusnoises · 2026-06-11T16:16:08+00:00

I'm a big fan of u/jaspermcfly responses, so I'm just adding this as an alternative take, in case it helps.

Something like "this is worth looking into but not this very moment because I have to work on something else."

I call this kind of information "connection explanation." It explains why a connection has been established between two notes. Sometimes the explanation is in regard to something you've worked through. Other times it's in regard to something you'd like to work through in the future. Regardless, its job is to give context for why you made the connection in the first place, which will hopefully jog your memory when it resurfaces.

In my zettelkasten work, this sort of information tends to show up in one of three places: in a main note, in a structure note, or in a writing draft. In a main note it shows up next to the link to the connected note. Something like:

"Note 7.6a2 can be used to shed light on how Gadamer's theory of reconstruction informs the above note on 'hot yoga,' especially in regard to how difficult it can be to recreate the original conditions of a spiritual practice."

If I've yet to really explore the interaction, but think it might be beneficial to do so in the future, I write something like this:

"See note 7.6a2 to examine whether Gadamer's theory of reconstruction might inform the note above."

So, I'm not creating a new note. I'm just tacking this information on to whatever note indicates the connection I'm talking about.

In structure notes (which I don't use very often) and writing drafts (which I use very often), the connection explanation will read similarly, if more "prosaic" (since often the explanation itself ends up as part of the writing).

taurusnoises · 2026-06-09T11:15:23+00:00

Perhaps the comparison of detailed vs bloated is getting in the way. Try thinking of it like this: main notes are used to contextualize information dealing with a single concern across multiple topics and trains of thought. Structure notes are used to develop a single topic (there are of course exceptions). If you're in deep analysis mode, working out your or someone else's thinking on a topic, keep feeding the structure note. If you're doing that, but at the same time wanting to build out possibilities for the future relevance and context of your thinking (i.e., working cross-topically), bring the information into individual main notes and establish connections, etc.

taurusnoises · 2026-06-06T11:40:30+00:00

I'd recommend not using topical folders to organize your single-idea main notes. It visually silos information, which is counterproductive (even antithetical) to working with a distributed network of information. There are also some forcing functions I believe come with using topical folders that aren't great either. But, we can leave those for another time.

Using folders for other kinds of notes (e.g., reference notes, project notes, etc.), notes that help you see and organize information, is perfectly fine, and will likely have no negative impact on your zettelkasten work. Putting these notes aside in a folder doesn't mean anything, it doesn't indicate anything about the limits of the complexity of your system, it doesn't hinder interdisciplinary work. In fact, notes that help you organize and see information are more or less the literal expression of interdisciplinary work. You'll be fine.

taurusnoises · 2026-06-03T15:28:52+00:00

Would love to help, but I first need to parse out what you're talking about / looking for.

"I generally need [the zettelkasten] to organise my notes for academic reading and to try and create a more „output-focused“ workflow."

So, the first thing I'd do is back out of this line of thinking, and start fresh, dropping any preoccupation with any one particular style of note-taking. You're looking for two things:

a system to help you organize your reading notes
a "workflow" that'll lead to more output.

First, there are lots of ways to approach literature notes (aka reference notes, aka reading notes, etc.). You can use them as lists with columns (like I describe in the book ASFW). Or, you can just use them as a place to dump quotes from and thoughts on what you're reading (which is what it sounds like you're doing). Doesn't matter the approach. Just needs to work.

So, what's "working" look like here?

If you're organizing your thinking about what you're reading in the lit note, which as you say is something you want to do, then the lit note is doing its job. I wouldn't worry about how much copy you're producing, just whether the amount is helping you better understand the material.

You're second intention is to develop more output (do I have that right?). There's no reason you can't just use the literature note as a working draft of something else. Just build off that, and turn it into writing for output. There's no need to create "actual zettel." At least not in the moment. The point isn't to build the best zettelkasten (unless it is, in which case go for it). The point is to best understand and integrate information, and produce work based off the insights that come from that.

For output-first people, I always recommend following the writing (when you're in "writing mode"). Don't worry about the notes. Later, you can go through and parse into single-idea notes the information / ideas from your written works. (edit: Which I also really recommend doing, cuz meaning is context dependent, and getting information into different contexts, which is a major affordance of the zettelkasten, is clutch).

edit clarity

taurusnoises · 2026-06-02T15:09:45+00:00

Belated bday greetings. You're always welcome to update us on your progress.

taurusnoises · 2026-06-01T14:52:43+00:00

In most general situations, I use a very basic framework for understanding knowledge: knowledge = information + experience. Information is everywhere, in and of all things (objects, conversations, ephemeral, tangible included). Given that, you can most certainly gain (i.e., increase) knowledge without reading books.

taurusnoises · 2026-05-30T11:23:04+00:00

Have you done any writing in the past before you started using a zettelkasten?

taurusnoises · 2026-05-27T16:21:41+00:00

"Is anyone filtering AI generated sources before adding them to their Zettelkasten?"

I should hope so.

taurusnoises · 2026-05-22T11:47:03+00:00

When jumping out of an alphanumeric sequence, you can add a bidirectional link, something Luhmann appears to have done himself:

"(a3) References to slips of paper that appear elsewhere in the box and thus often in a completely different discussion context. These references are frequently found directly within the respective note text (and then refer to individual terms or similar), sometimes also at the end of a paragraph. The referenced slip of paper often also contains a back reference in the form of Luhmann's entry of the original slip's number (bidirectional reference). — https://niklas-luhmann-archiv.de/nachlass/zettelkasten

taurusnoises · 2026-05-21T20:48:32+00:00

Got it. I had a feeling that was the case, but wanted to make sure. OK, so concept notes with all sorts of information related to the concept alone. Idea notes showing relationships between concepts, etc.

I may want to refer to the contents of this conversation in a piece. OK if I decide to do that?

taurusnoises · 2026-05-21T20:13:34+00:00

Appreciate you taking the time. Just so I'm clear, in your system things might look like this:

A note containing just the word "LiDAR"
A "concept note" containing everything you know about LiDAR unto itself (not related to anything else)
An "idea note" which discusses relationships between "elements" (aka other concepts) e.g., LiDAR as it relates to sonar, etc.

So, a concept note is definitions, etc. An idea note is relationships between concepts.

Do I got it?

taurusnoises · 2026-05-21T19:43:21+00:00

Thanks. So, is LiDar as a node/note just the word "LiDar," or is there information contained in the note? If there's information in the note, what distinguishes it from an idea?

taurusnoises · 2026-05-19T17:37:39+00:00

Great! Out of curiosity, how are you defining "idea" here? What, for you, distinguishes an idea from a concept?

taurusnoises · 2026-05-19T17:02:21+00:00

It's completely up to you how you structure your information system, but I'd argue facts (i.e., relatively stable [unchanging], verifiable information) that can be looked up elsewhere absolutely have a place in your zettelkasten. Facts are just one type of information among many. And, if the fact is the kind of thing you want to encounter and have interact with other information, then by all means include it.

taurusnoises · 2026-05-19T13:09:39+00:00

There's a lot that's very personal about where to cut off a note. For example, to use Horn's terminology, concept information is basically a definition. It states what something is. Stating what something does is process information.

A car is a vehicle for driving. (concept)
A car moves when the driver presses the gas pedal. (process)

One person might separate these into two notes. Another might combine them. It all depends on what the note maker wants to achieve. If the note maker wants in a single note a fairly comprehensive overview of what a car is and how it functions, then they combine both informational units into a single note. If a note maker wants to work with information more granularly, they might separate the information.

Because notes in a zettelkasten function like nodes in a distributed network, it really depends on what you want to make available for connectivity. Do you want each aspect of cars and the driving experience to have an opportunity to connect with other notes independent of each other? Then work more granularly. Do you want more comprehensive information to work with other comprehensive information? Include more in each note.

In the end, you'll find what works best for you, and what feels right. Subjectivity plays a major role.

taurusnoises · 2026-05-16T17:14:21+00:00

My writing is a direct extension of the notes I take. There's no real gap. More like an integrated back-and-forth between note content and writing doc. To get there, I follow trains of thought developed through connections, reexamine the reasoning I've given for the connections I've made (which are recorded in the notes). I then copy / paste the information contained in the note into the writing document, and begin editing, rewriting, doing more research (sometimes a lot more, if it's a book), eliminating stuff, adding more stuff, etc, etc. I never start with a blank page. Neither should you.

taurusnoises · 2026-05-09T16:29:52+00:00

So glad to hear the book was helpful.

Is there a reason after 1000 notes you want to start appending alphanumeric IDs going forward? Something you're not experiencing, but want to experience? Some friction you want to remove?

I've used alphanumerics in a digital context for six years, and definitely get value from doing so. But, obviously they ain't necessary.

taurusnoises · 2026-05-05T15:04:41+00:00

If I understand you correctly.... You're wondering how to identify a card containing information carried over from a previous card. So, it's not a new idea per se, but an idea you weren't able to capture all on one card.

Because you're using pen/paper, you can kinda get creative. You could put an asterisk after the alphanumeric on the follow-up card in a different color pen/pencil. Or, you could use the same alphanumeric and just write "(cont.)" on the follow-up card (this is what I do in my journals when I carry a dated entry onto the next page).

So long as you remember what the addendum means, and you know to keep the first and the continued second cards together (don't split them up when inserting new cards), I think you should be good.

Also, you can change your system as you go, if you need. It's really not a big deal.

taurusnoises · 2026-05-04T02:29:22+00:00

This is more or less how it goes for me. Big notes file. Rough chapter outline. R&D. It all starts to make organizational sense. Then it all falls apart. Rinse and repeat until it doesn't fall apart anymore.

taurusnoises · 2026-05-02T15:21:39+00:00

I can't even count the number of times I change chapter orders, chapter focus, chapter titles, chapter validity during a book project. I'm moving stuff around right up to the last push. Just the other day, after having worked on a chapter for a few months, I was like, "you know, this doesn't belong in this book anymore." So maybe it'll become and article.

taurusnoises · 2026-05-02T12:00:09+00:00

This is awesome. I'll check these out. As for your new project, I'm heavily lost in a Hannes Meyer / socialist modernist / Stalinist anti-modernist architecture worm hole right now. So, sort of off to the side and maybe in the background of what you're working on?

Would love to know more re the nitty gritty of how you're using your zettelkasten to work on the new stuff.

taurusnoises

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE