Zettelkasten, Rhizomes, and You

Metadata

• Author: blog.walkergriggs.com
• Title: Zettelkasten, Rhizomes, and You

Page Notes

to-process

Highlights

to-process

• In our “chair” example, somewhere on that tree are stools, stumps, and hammocks. They are ranked according to their proximity to the ideal chair. Plato might ask, “How perfect of a chair are you?” but Deleuze took issue with this line of reasoning. He proposed that a better question is “How are you different?” or “What characteristics make you unique?” We can then categorize the stump, stool, and hammock not by their representation of an “ideal chair,” but by the differences between them. Stools are portable, hammocks are soothing, and stumps firmly ground you in nature. — Updated on 2024-05-17 10:12:22
  • Highlighting differences rather than similarities?
• Zettelkasten are also rhizomes. My notes for this essay point me towards Spinoza, then to Pantheism, then to Sikhism, then to Buddhism, then to the concept of time, which itself inspired my earlier point that humans perceive time spatially. — Updated on 2024-05-17 10:13:55
  • This is such an inspiration for growing a good Zettelkasten.

Also makes me want to take notes about “what these people think” like Eduardo does, since it will allow me to later glimpse at things when I have a better understanding of pre-requisites, etc.

• When you repeat or review linear, contextual notes, you are creating a snapshot of a previous argument – paratext and all. You are retracing the same ground and connecting the same dots. This repetition cannot lead to the creation of new ideas. — Updated on 2024-05-17 10:18:25

• Luhmann found it extremely important for communication partners (you and your notes, in this case) to “mutually surprise each other.” Partners can only successfully communicate, or produce new information, when they “communicate in the face of different comparative goals.” — Updated on 2024-05-17 10:25:29

  • Hmm. This seems like a point of revision for my current understanding of the role of goals in communication:

• If we want to have fundamentally different, non-comparative conversations, we cannot communicate

• If we have exactly the same motivations in the conversation, there won’t be any surprise (? doubtful to me rn)

to-process

to-process

• In our “chair” example, somewhere on that tree are stools, stumps, and hammocks. They are ranked according to their proximity to the ideal chair. Plato might ask, “How perfect of a chair are you?” but Deleuze took issue with this line of reasoning. He proposed that a better question is “How are you different?” or “What characteristics make you unique?” We can then categorize the stump, stool, and hammock not by their representation of an “ideal chair,” but by the differences between them. Stools are portable, hammocks are soothing, and stumps firmly ground you in nature. — Updated on 2024-05-16 20:12:22
  • Highlighting differences rather than similarities?
• Zettelkasten are also rhizomes. My notes for this essay point me towards Spinoza, then to Pantheism, then to Sikhism, then to Buddhism, then to the concept of time, which itself inspired my earlier point that humans perceive time spatially. — Updated on 2024-05-16 20:13:55
  • This is such an inspiration for growing a good Zettelkasten.

Also makes me want to take notes about “what these people think” like Eduardo does, since it will allow me to later glimpse at things when I have a better understanding of pre-requisites, etc.

• When you repeat or review linear, contextual notes, you are creating a snapshot of a previous argument – paratext and all. You are retracing the same ground and connecting the same dots. This repetition cannot lead to the creation of new ideas. — Updated on 2024-05-16 20:18:25

• Luhmann found it extremely important for communication partners (you and your notes, in this case) to “mutually surprise each other.” Partners can only successfully communicate, or produce new information, when they “communicate in the face of different comparative goals.” — Updated on 2024-05-16 20:25:29

  • Hmm. This seems like a point of revision for my current understanding of the role of goals in communication:

• If we want to have fundamentally different, non-comparative conversations, we cannot communicate

• If we have exactly the same motivations in the conversation, there won’t be any surprise (? doubtful to me rn)