Mindscapes: The Zettelkasten as a Thinking Environment

• Oct 9th, 2024
• by Sascha

In the past article Mindscapes: Thinking Environments in Your Way of Living we looked at thinking environments in your life in general. One of these thinking environments is the Zettelkasten.

Cal Newport sees the Zettelkasten Method as one of the many ways of managing knowledge.¹ In doing so, he overlooks a very special characteristic of the Zettelkasten: the Zettelkasten is a very special thinking environment: it is integrated.

What does the Zettelkasten integrate?

1. Thinking tools. These can be templates, prompts, creative techniques and the like. In my opinion, some of these thinking tools belong to the basics of developing a thought. Although I have declared them to be a highly recommended part of the Zettelkasten Method, they are actually an essential part of a thinker’s toolbox. This includes dealing with arguments or models. For an overview of these knowledge building blocks, read “Reading for the Zettelkasten Is Searching”. They are also just a link or a search away in my toolbox. I have also prepared toolboxes in my Zettelkasten. For example, if I get stuck with a thinking task, I can search a toolbox for a suitable solution.
2. The entirety of personal thinking. Even complex considerations are just a few clicks and keystrokes away. I can easily make connections between raising children and training dogs. For example, I’m currently writing a very complex book on habits, which integrates scientific work with practical application and existential analysis. Everything can be connected to everything in the Zettelkasten. It allows me to control a high level of complexity. I can concentrate on the individual thought as well as take a step back and look at the bigger picture. I also have my thinking from 15 years ago at my fingertips. This means that I have the full power of all of my former selves at my disposal. I can achieve much greater things with this team than alone.
3. Thinking surfaces. Each note also serves as a thinking surface. For example, if I want to categorize a thought about habit, I go to my most important structure notes for habit. These then give me access to the areas of my Zettelkasten that deal with habit work. For categorization, I immediately have thinking surfaces, mostly structure notes.

The Zettelkasten Method is neither a note-taking method nor a knowledge management method. Rather, it uses note-taking methods (for example, value-added knowledge work) and knowledge management methods (for example, object keywords or atomic notes) to allow the Zettelkasten user to create a customized integrated thinking environment. Another name for the Zettelkasten could be Thinking Abacus.

The Zettelkasten enables an immense expansion of the ability to think

It allows you to work on a single thing for as long as you like. For example, in 2015 I set up a basic structure for habit work in my Zettelkasten. When I decided to write a book on habit work in 2023, I was able to continue working seamlessly even after 8 years.

It automatically scales the focus. For example, I could copy the entire Wikipedia into my Zettelkasten, and it wouldn’t change how I work with my Zettelkasten at all. This scaling is especially useful for complex thinking and writing projects.

It neatly separates the thinking work from the writing work. When we write an article, for example, we do this in several phases: We read and take notes, then we write, and finally we revise. Different things are mixed up in the process. When revising, for example, we do a lot of thinking. While writing, we surprise ourselves with new ideas and ideas (uninhibited writing invites divergent thinking). As a result, we have to restructure the text when editing, taking our new understanding into account (editing is an act of convergent thinking). The consequence, for example, is that revision affects not only the form of presentation, but also the inner logic of the content. These are two different ways of thinking that lead to difficulties during revision. These difficulties are often seen as positive because, after all, you are wrestling with the text and that is the act of understanding itself. Therefore, it is suggested that writing (as well as teaching) is an excellent way to expand one’s expertise. However, some of the difficulties stem not from the need for comprehension, but from mixing two activities. The realization that writing improves when text production is separated from revision is not new. The difficulties and effort involved in not separating these two activities have been recognized as dead weight and discarded: First you write, then you revise.

It is precisely this realization that leads to the conclusion that one should separate the work of thinking from the work of presenting one’s thinking. But you can’t draw this conclusion if you don’t have an appropriate thinking environment such as a Zettelkasten. You have no choice but to mix the two. Only an integrated thinking environment allows this separation.

This is precisely what Newport cannot yet see, because he confuses the Zettelkasten with a system for taking notes, whereas in reality the Zettelkasten uses notes to create an integrated thinking environment.

But if one has to write anyway, it is expedient to utilize this activity immediately in order to create a competent communication partner in the system of notes.² (English Translation)

Even Luhmann recognized this distinction. He calls the Zettelkasten a communication partner (makes sense against the background of his sociological work). I call it an integrated thinking environment.

Important: Working with the Zettelkasten does not require any additional time. You just shift some of the intensive thinking work from other thinking environments to the Zettelkasten.

Final Words

The Zettelkasten Method delivers what Memex promised.

My guess is that the early developers of hypertext technologies focused too much on the technical realization. Incidentally, this is also a problem today. Nowadays, the focus is on overly complex software. The misconception is that the power of software is an important component for the integrated thinking environment. But Luhmann’s Zettelkasten alone should have shown that even pen and paper are sufficient.

The problematic side effect is that tinkering with the software starts out as important personalization, then grows into a time-consuming hobby and later into a dangerous distraction and dependency (which in turn is served and monetized by influencers and content creators).

I myself do not place myself in the tradition of Bush or Nelson, but in the tradition of Luhmann. This is important to me because I do not believe that the development of technology is the best next step. Our own software is to be understood as a Distraction Free Editor for precisely this reason: Whereas in the domain of writing software, people first took a circuitous route through the complex interface of programs like Microsoft Word before arriving at programs like iA Writer, we took a shortcut. This decision is informed by practice. The Archive is by users for users.

Cal Newport has so far shown a rational conservative skepticism that any successful person should exhibit when confronted with a new system or method. In any domain, most trends go as fast as they come.

But my prediction is that if you don’t have a Zettelkasten or an integrated thinking environment in 10 years’ time, you will be just as disadvantaged as someone who doesn’t use a system for task management or a calendar today. You can work somehow without one. But you will see those who know how to use such a tool pass you by.

Why? The demands on the quality of thinking are increasing. You still only need to follow Cal Newport’s tips and focus on building skills and implementing deep work strategies in order to set yourself apart from the market. You can still score points on YouTube with attention-grabbing strategies such as clever thumbnails and lurid titles. You can still hold your own with the usual lack of system and methodology in science.

But what if it’s not just individuals like Luhmann who use an integrated thinking environment? What if an integrated thinking environment is part of the standard repertoire of the knowledge worker? In my opinion, it is only a matter of time before the new thinking technologies become the norm.

For this reason, I have decided on a habit book as my next writing project. It is indeed part of my core work on the good life. But I want to use it to demonstrate the potential of the Zettelkasten method. I wonder what scientific progress would be like if our scientists could pursue a single thought for decades, pause for years, and seamlessly pick up where they left off, or utilize a thinking environment that allows them to work regardless of the size and complexity of their interest.

Practical implication

• Treat your Zettelkasten as a thinking environment The Zettelkasten should not mean extra work for you. Rather, you should shift some of your thinking time to the Zettelkasten.
• Start your Zettelkasten now!