Luhmann doesn't follow a top down organisation of notes
Luhmann makes his notes atomic right from the beginning. Even the literature notes are kept as atomic notes, restricted by whatever size of the card he was using to write them.
He doesn’t arrange the notes based on the topic. He abstracts each note further by using a numbering system to address this note. He then adds the note to whichever context he sees fit.
When adapting this style for digital use there are a few things we might be careful about.
One zettel or each note doesn’t have to be unique in terms of content. You can frame the same atomic note in a different perspective and add it to a different line of thought.
When writing digitally I made the mistake of thinking you cannot add back the same content into the system with a different name. You are allowed to do that if serves the function of connecting the content in a newer context.
I need a good example to demonstrate this
When adding a permanent note into a system he tries to links it with existing notes. This part is tricky for digital users as we tend to connect the same note (one title) to all other related notes, without explaining how it connects to the linked notes. This is really important. If you don’t want to explain each connection it would be better for you to reframe the note under a new title to connect with a different chain of notes.
I think the optimal method would be to connect notes by explaining what the connection does so that everything remains interconnected even when they are different chains of thoughts. (Might need to add more clarity to this sentence.)
Also, if we were to make the literature notes atomic, when rearranging it as the index note for a book, we see the book in a new light, in a new structure that was devised by us. I believedoes a lite version during his Progressive Book Summarization technique.
Return to Zettelkasten