If anyone wants me to put this in an attached file instead of verbose here, I'll do that. I know I get lengthy. ----- FLOW
It would necessarily be over-simplification, but perhaps the aim of a zettelkasten in software could be rolled into one word: flow. We want a system that triggers, creates, enables, sustains thought flow. I know there are entire works on flow and I haven't studied them, so just trying to express what I see as promoting flow: Intuitive: It attempts to work the way the mind works so that the mind can be more engaged. No clunky, non-intuitive interface that presents obstacles rather than tools that make sense from the mind's perspective, which makes it: Easy: not only intuitive, but simple. Fast: Because of both its structure and its underlying mechanics, everything you want to do happens fast, and the usage patterns are fast. Comprehensive: Everything I've written in 30 years is within easy reach!!! Discovery: Multiple ways to find or just stumble upon related material, all of them intuitive, easily deployed. Mapping: Integrates all of the above and more, utilizing all of the below and more. Connections: Suppose we call all the connectable elements we've talked about cons, for 'connections', to create a general term just for this page. Cons can include, not limited to: headings tags links keywords (I'll expand) titles sub-titles (I'll expand) first lines references/citations pointers (I'll expand) others not conceived yet... Now why in heck would I want such a mess? Doesn't it just create confusion? Well, I think each of these different types of con can reflect a different aspect or tool the mind already has and uses. I think we have multiple types of cons that the mind works in or uses, and they are interconnected such that we can flow from one to another, put several types to work in parallel, etc. And our conscious is the tip of the iceberg; vast majority of this is subconscious. The mind is amazing, and we want software that is as enabling to the mind as possible, which means it should reflect/enable the mind's own tools as completely yet simply as possible. Such a software can in effect tap directly into our subconscious by use of such tools. But in our software we generally severely limit the types of cons we allow, thus limiting or at least requiring more work of the mind. So if we attempt to create as many types of cons as we can come up with, that reflect aspects of the way the mind already works (we're not reinventing the wheel here), then we have created a system that works with, encourages, becomes an extension of the mind. The fewer mental tools available to us in software, and the more awkwardly they are implemented, the more we limit the mind, create obstacles instead of bridges between our conscious work and the deep and extensive fertility of the mind. And then as a user we feel the software is 'clunky', 'non-intuitive', 'stupid' (meaning not very mind-like). Titles can certainly serve as cons. So can sub-titles. I've noticed that most non-fiction books these days have sub-titles. The subtitle attempts to flesh out the idea represented by the title, or refer to the particular aspect the work deals with. Very useful indeed. First line (after the title) might serve as a subtitle, or, (maybe it already has a sub-title) just 'trigger verbiage' that reminds us of that particular zettel content. One could also include a brief summary or abstract of the work. Short zettels won't need such, but longer ones could well benefit from such an option. Tags create relations with other zettels Headings place the zettel within a mapping of all headings, creating relations with other zettels. The zettel's own heading structure might contribute to the overall headings map (acyclic graph) as well. Keyword (as opposed to tag): I think of a keyword as generally a word within the text (I know, tags can be embedded as well), that may or may not be closely related to the topic. I'd like aliasing of keywords. Suppose I want to alias 'think', 'thinking', 'thought', 'thoughts', and any compound word that contains any of those, such as 'thoughtbase', 'thoughtware'. This creates a cluster where keywords link to other zettels containing same, just as tags do. But I would think of a tag as something more directly pertaining to the topic at hand, whereas a keyword might be more incidental/accidental and yet I want keywords to create 'incidental connections' that can trigger creativity. Pointers (may not be best term): Questions or further thoughts, triggered by the thoughts in the zettel body. They can germinate more zettels. Perhaps those germ zettels remain empty until I come back to them some time. They would probably connect via the parent zettel's existing connections, although one could go into the empty zettel and give it headings, tags, references or whatever, creating a sort of network of pointers from all zettels (or selected zettels) where I might happily browse or fish for inspiration. This idea of 'pointers' (my term not his) came from a blog on zettelkasten that Thomas has referenced. I think it's an exceedingly useful extension of a zettel. And once again, I want all this silly baggage to disappear when I'm writing. Just the text body please, the thought itself. So again, why the heck would I want all these types? The short answer is because the mind already works in all these types and more, and I want the software to offer me as many entry points to, and outlet points from the mind as possible. Suppose I'm typing along and I happen to use a 'trigger word', a word that triggers me to recall other writings, or even just to wonder what else I may have written that has this trigger word or its alias. At that point I don't want to put my mind in another gear and think, 'I wonder what heading I might find this under?'. I'd rather have keywords or tags at my disposal since that's what triggered me, that's what gear I'm in. I can stay in the mind con type that was triggered, and not have 'translate' to another con type, disrupting my creative flow. And I want the trigger word to give me direct and immediate access to what I want to see. iow, each con (of any type) is itself a direct entry point into the mapping. Just a keystroke puts me there. Likewise if I'm working on what headings I want associated with this zettel, I probably want to step directly into the headings mapping (not the keywords, the tags, the titles, etc). I can bring any of those in also if I wish, but at my discretion, not because the system forces it. If I'm wondering what to title this zettel, I might want to do a keyword or text search of titles only, to see what similar titles exist, in order to try to make mine unique (though I don't want to require unique titles) And finally, mapping in general. I envision a mindmap structure that integrates ALL of these con types, in one map. Don't ask me exactly what this looks like, but my mind readily grasps the concept and likes it, even if I can't yet give a physical descriptor. From any node in such a map, you can see all the differently typed cons, and can traverse any connection that appeals, which takes you to another node, composed again of all the intersected cons connected to that node. Or you can build a map limited to a selection of one or more con types. Or drop or add con types to your existing mapping. It's all in the name of flow. >From each con that is attached to a zettel, I want to be able to step directly into the mapping or into a search. A zettel is itself an intersection of cons, making it a node in the overall mapping; I want to be able to walk right into the mapping from my zettel's connections (maybe the zettel's own mapping/tree appears optionally in the adjoining pane. Maybe I want to walk into the mindmap/tree from some particular tag in my zettel, or from one of the several possible headings. Or any particular con I wish. It becomes a tool. Or, I want to step into the multi-con node that my zettel forms and, seeing the various connections, walk in any direction I choose. Sound terribly messy? Well yes, in a way perhaps, but in another way I think it attempts to reflect simply a few of the multi-faceted ways the mind already works. I think the mind has multiple intersecting connection types and can traverse readily (i.e. 'with Flow') within this maze of connections. I think as long as each con type in software is an intuitive one, one the mind already uses, and they are connected in an intuitive and easily realized way, that the mind already does, then it is not confusing, but simplifying, integrating and enabling. The multi-faceted mindmap becomes an amazing tool for flow. It can generate enriched multi-term search results, or it can serve as the search medium itself allowing you a free-wheeling walk through the various connection types, seeing relationships you didn't know were there. It's a search, navigation, inspiration, browsing, collection tool all in one. You can, by making multiple selections as you traverse, accumulate collections of zettels, or even of cons or entire nodes, that you want to work with. Flow. It's all about flow. End of rant, but I must say this project has helped mightily to clarify and make more complete my thoughtware model of my idealized system, which I've been working on for years. But probably I've confused the heck out of everybody now and have y'all wondering what planet I fell off of. Andy -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/leo-editor/ca50f1bf-a13e-43e6-a21c-be88ee5af1d0%40googlegroups.com.
