While doing some research about Luhmann’s numbering system’s antecedents, I recently came across a “one pager” (typescript) written by Luhmann himself in the form of some lecture notes from 1968 that folks may appreciate.
Luhmann, Niklas. 1968-01-13. “Ms. 2906: Technik des Zettelkastens.” Münster, Germany. Lecture Notes. Niklas Luhmann Archiv, https://niklas-luhmann-archiv.de/bestand/manuskripte/manuskript/MS_2906_0001.
Seemingly everyone with a blog that ran across the idea of Zettelkasten in the last decade or so wrote up their own description of what it is. If you know of other blog posts about zettelkasten, let me know for my collection.
Of special note to those who are still under the misapprehension that Luhmann “invented the zettelkasten”, in the closing section of his 1968 notes he writes “In conclusion: from personal experience, others work differently” by which one understands that he’s aware of others who use similar systems and admits that they’re all idiosyncratic to their individual users. I would suspect that he gave this lecture while at Sozialforschungsstelle an der Universität Münster (Social Research Centre of the University of Münster) to students about how to arrange and do their own sociology research work.
Why is it when I started reading this post I thought – “I bet Chris wrote this”?? (I didn’t look at the op name at first). Thx for posting that link and the info!
@chrisaldrich wow, great find
A quick translation provided by the bots that be. “///” indicates paragraph breaks within lists.
Lecture
Münster, 13.1.1968
Technique of the Zettelkasten
I. Statement of the problem
Linear accumulation of information that is meant to remain available.
Memory solves the problem of retrieval independently of the order of input, but it has limited capacity.
With written notes, the same problem reappears. Example: lecture notes.
The solution is quite important and worth careful consideration.
II. External setup
No excessive effort required:
Initially, a portable cardboard box suffices; later, possibly wooden boxes in blocks of four.
Paper slips (octavo size) are entirely sufficient; write on one side only.
Index cards may be used for a keyword index, etc.
III. Order – the central problem
A distinction must be made between topic-specific collections of slips and permanent setups for a course of study or a scholarly life’s work.
Important: each slip must have a fixed location that must never be changed, because retrieval depends on it. ///Removal for use and exact reinsertion. /// This requires numbering the slips. /// There will be long numbers; therefore, alternate between numbers and letters to make recognition faster: 533/15 d 17 a 1 [*].
Filing new slips: attaching them or inserting them in between.
A system of cross-references solves all ordering problems. /// Misplacements must be corrected by cross-references, not by rearranging. /// It is in principle irrelevant, even if sometimes inconvenient, to have related slips under very different numbers. /// What belongs together changes anyway with the question being asked and cannot be schematically decided in advance. /// No straitjacket, but a principle of arbitrariness.
Nevertheless, a certain rough schematic orientation is important at the beginning. /// It makes it easier to find “regions.” /// Where does this come from? /// Reading lists, textbooks. /// Once again: this is not a core problem.
IV. Example: Risk handling in drug adoption
Which keywords: physicians, medications, medicine, firms, advertising?
The obvious choices are too concrete to be usable for other problems.
My interest was: uncertainty, trust.
Cross-references to: risk, error, reduction of complexity.
Another possible framing: medical sociology.
Reaching an appropriate level of abstraction is a slow learning process that builds on what is already present in the zettelkasten.
In this way, conceptual and interest-based focal points consolidate.
V. Content
Excerpts? Only when dealing with formal definitions or concise formulations. /// Do not copy pages verbatim. /// More at the beginning than later; quote precisely
Important: try to formulate things in your own words. /// This makes a strict separation of one’s own and others’ ideas necessary. /// Critical summarizing is at the same time one’s own thinking work, at the same time a learning process, at the same time a honing of one’s own language. /// Lecture notes, notes on conversations, ideas arising on all sorts of occasions can also be worked into the zettelkasten. /// Becoming outdated is unavoidable. ///Proof of learning success.
Furthermore: literature.
a) For books and journal articles that you have had in hand and worked through, a separate section in the zettelkasten is recommended, at the front or back, with slips containing bibliographic information. /// One slip per book. /// Important: limit yourself to information you have personally verified. /// This allows abbreviated citation on the slips.
b) In addition: information on literature not yet read on specific topics should be entered into the zettelkasten itself, in the appropriate place. /// X from notes in the literature you have read, or from reviews, publishers’ catalogs, etc.
VI. Finding the slips
With greater size, this will become problematic.
By and large, two aids suffice for me:
an alphabetical keyword index;
notes on the literature slips, if the problem arises via an author’s name.
VII. In conclusion: from personal experience
Others work differently.
As with all translation, and especially with theoretical works, and especially theoretical works like Luhmann’s, translation will be a contested region. There’s lots to discuss here. Even the first line has been translated differently across the web as, “A continuous stream of information that should remain available.” Very different implications.
Similarity is not implied. The statement most likely means that other do something different.
It could also imply that Luhmann with his Zettelkasten was a odd ball.
I really wish he had said more about III.1 – this is the crux of the ZK methodology (at least for me).
Wonderful find. It’s reassuring to read Luhmann himself encountered the same phenomena I encounter right now: (de)fragmenting segments of information at the time of input or output, deterritorialization/weakening of preliminary topics of interest, telegraphic summaries/labels/qual. codes of reading as an idiosyncratic language to be further recombined into higher theories. Favorite (ChatGPT translated) quotes:
Emphasis mine — Piagetian schemas? — see also: Rebecca chapter in Oliver Sacks’ The Man Who Mistook his Wife for a Hat.
Being superceded by future notecards and thinking? See also: Binding vs. persuasive precedent, stare decisis.
I tend to write “See also: [other topics]” in the most recent notecards of a given “narrative” segment (similar to Folgezettel) even though those other topics are not written about yet. It is like a preview.
Thank god!!
Looks like the M key on his typewriter needed repair!
Luhmann’s 1968 two-pager is briefly mentioned in an essay “Zettels Albtraum” by Johannes Schmidt: https://www.wiko-berlin.de/fileadmin/Dateien_Redakteure/pdf/ZIG/2023_3/ZIG_2023_3_red.pdf, see page 5/6.
“Sankt Niklas” is the focus of that issue, with an introduction and 11 essays dedicated to Luhmann.