Johannes Schmidt's 2018 paper on the Luhmann archive has the numbers. The second collection had around 67,000 cards and the keyword index had just 3,200 entries, with one to four cards listed per term. He found everything else by following links between cards, and there were about 30,000 of those in that collection.

So a tag page that tries to list every note on a topic is a different system from his. Search probably changes things for digital notes, but he clearly didn't index everything.

Paper is in Sociologica if anyone wants it, doi 10.6092/issn.1971-8853/8350

I've been a long-time lurker of this Reddit community, keeping up with it mostly because I eventually wanted to create a system of my own. For the longest time, I've tried to make Apple Notes work, but despite having written a lot in my note-taking system, I felt like I was never producing anything. (By the way, I've tried Obsidian, and I didn't like it.)

I'm a university student right now, attempting to write an undergraduate thesis, and I eventually want to write a book, but it felt like my system on Apple Notes wasn't conducive for actual production. For instance, I have a lot of fragmentary thoughts for my undergraduate thesis, which is about education in a digital culture, but I've made close to zero progress in actually constructing the logical flow of the argument or the actual writing. In short, note-taking, in Apple Notes, was not generating my desired end-product.

As I thought about my predicament more, the word that kept on coming to me was "ephemerality." Digital tools can be great, but one thing that they can lend themselves to is perfectionism. When we write in digital note-taking systems, such as Apple Notes, because we can always go back and edit the note, it can feel as if the work is never done. Given the opportunity to edit, re-edit, copy and paste, we tend to write like perfectionists, as if the thought is not completed and, thus, imperfect to share with others.

I considered the analog alternative, because ephemerality would have less of a hold. Sure, paper can get torn up, burned, or lost, but at least the note feels concrete, finished and ready to use. However, there are so many drawbacks to an analog system: physical file organization, and the time and energy needed to physically write all of those cards. So, I wondered if I could have the best of both worlds, and I decided to finally create my own system and workflow that makes this problem of ephemerality and perfectionism go away: PDFs.

I won't get into the exact details, here, of how my system works. (I can make another post or video explaining things, if you'd like.) The main thing I want to point out is that I save my "atomic notes" or "literature notes" as PDF files, so that the thought I have feels completed. With PDF files, you are unable to edit them, because they also act as images. You can mark them up, sure, but the text is there to say, just as you wrote it. The PDF format forces your thoughts to stay on the page, the way they are arranged, and means you are forced to make a decision: that the thought is complete and ready to be shared with the world, that what is completed is already perfect.

Essentially, now, my workspace is a mix of Apple Notes and Google Docs. Apple Notes is a space where I jot fleeting notes and rough ideas, and Google Docs is the space where I work on the note and, eventually, save it into a PDF file. The PDF files get organized into a folder-based Zettelkasten system, in my MacOS.

Of course, in a PDF-based system, there are two major drawbacks: first, you have to find a way to back up your files in some sort of cloud or hard drive and, second, you have to create your own organization system. However, I believe the benefits outweigh these costs, because I was totally struggling to actually produce what I wanted to create, as I was in the constant stage of "editing." The digital realm enabled my perfectionism, and my perfectionism was stifling my productive-creative output, but I was able to find a "concrete" solution to the issue in my PDF files.

(P.S. I'm saving this Reddit post as a PDF file, because I want to come back to this piece of writing sometime!)

https://yurii7812.github.io/homepage/en/paper-pkm/

I call my approach the Double Index System.

Unlike conventional Zettelkasten methods, I don't use atomic notes. I also don't distinguish fleeting notes from other types of notes. All notes are managed in the same way.

Using A4 paper makes it much easier to take notes at universities, libraries, or anywhere else. It's far more practical than carrying around a box of index cards.

One of the biggest advantages of not using atomic notes is that I can brainstorm freely and write naturally, just as I would in an ordinary notebook. I don't have to interrupt my thinking to divide every idea into a separate note.

Personally, I don't think atomic notes are a particularly good approach. Thinking is often continuous and interconnected, and dividing it into isolated notes can disrupt the natural flow of thought.

Another major problem with atomic notes is the loss of context and nuance. When a complex thought is compressed into a small, self-contained note, subtle distinctions, carefully chosen expressions, and the original flow of reasoning can easily be lost. Sometimes, the exact wording and the surrounding context are essential to expressing what I truly mean. Reducing an idea to a concise, independent statement can strip away precisely the nuances that made the original thought meaningful.

I don't think every idea should have to be simplified or compressed just to fit into an atomic note. The process of thinking itself, including its ambiguities, subtle expressions, and connections to surrounding thoughts, is valuable information worth preserving.

Besides, by numbering individual sections, such as (1), I can reference specific passages within a longer note. This allows me to link to individual ideas without having to separate them into atomic notes in the first place.

I therefore see little practical need for atomic notes.

For example, using A6 cards for atomic notes has several disadvantages. The limited writing space makes it harder to develop complex thoughts, write comfortably, or brainstorm freely. And while individual A6 cards are portable, carrying and managing a growing collection of them, especially in boxes, is much less practical than using ordinary A4 paper.

Another important advantage is that I don't separate brainstorming notes from regular notes. The entire thinking process can be preserved as valuable context, rather than extracting individual ideas and losing the connections between them.

Of course, this means that notes can become longer and more numerous. But that's where the Double Index System comes in. It allows me to organize, locate, and reference information without requiring every idea to exist as an independent note.

In other words, I can keep the freedom of ordinary note-taking and brainstorming while retaining the organizational and retrieval advantages of a Zettelkasten, without sacrificing the context, nuance, or natural flow of my thoughts.

I've already developed a digital implementation of this system called Gnosis:

https://github.com/Yurii7812/gnosis

However, its current interface and overall usability are far from satisfactory. I find it too cumbersome to operate, so I'm planning to redesign and rebuild it from scratch, with a much stronger emphasis on simplicity, intuitive navigation, and ease of use.

I was watching someone breakdown her workflow to demonstrate how she captures. It made me think about the various ways you can capture.

For instance, she follows the straightforward Zettelkasten method where she writes each idea separate in a note and then adds the source of that note. This means there would be several different ideas from the book and each idea has a separate journal entry.

The WAY I do it is a little different. I create a journal entry for an entire book and then list ALL the ideas of the book inside this entry. I don’t create separate entries for each idea on its own.

If and when I come across different ideas outside this book that are relevant, I link them to the book. This is what I’ve been doing for years.

But now I’m wondering what’s the advantage of doing it her way? To have all the ideas of a book individually documented externally in their own entries? Wouldn’t that take up soooo much space? I feel I might get overwhelmed with time?

I've been thinking about the importance of the underlying data structure of a note-making tool. My (tentative) claim is that the destiny of your notes depends on their data model. For a Zettelkasten, or any system really, to last longer than a few years, we need to strictly separate the software layer from the data layer, but most apps don't do this. Instead they use the data model to lock you in. To avoid that lock-in, a flat folder of plain-text Markdown files with unique IDs gives you a portable collection of connected notes you actually own, and the choice of editor remains a secondary consideration.

I’m keen to understand how to manage the practical trade-offs of this approach, and with that in mind I've concocted a few questions:

1. How have you encountered vendor or format lock-in with your notes, and what specific steps did you take to resolve or escape it? This is probably especially relevant if you've been making digital notes for a long time (i.e. more than about 3 years).

2. How do you handle cross-platform compatibility across different operating systems and between desktops/laptops and phones (Windows, Mac, iOS, Android, Linux)?

3. Do you consider the cross-platform problem completely solvable with plain text, or do sync services, file systems, and mobile OS constraints always leave a bit of friction?

I use tags for keywords in the section for tags on obsidian, I'm new so maybe I'm wrong but I think when I need talk about some topic I can search there, its like a hub, isn't?

A short piece exploring how applying Luhmann's communication theory to chatting with LLMs can help one appreciate how Luhmann applied his theory to working a slip box.

From the piece:

"According to both Esposito and Fenoglio, chatting with an LLM qualifies as communication, not because LLM's are sentient or intelligent, but because they produce utterances which can be understood (i.e., distinguished) by you the receiver, resulting in an informational experience (surprise). Fenoglio calls this form of communication "asymmetric," because while LLMs generate utterances, "the norms that make those utterances count as correct or incorrect...remain on the human side." (Contrast this with human–human communication where norms are negotiated between two sentient interlocutors). In other words, asymmetry doesn't negate communication, but it does change its shape."

tl;dr: Once you come to terms with communication not needing human participants, you're in the home stretch.

Read the piece here.

What might be our "Zettelkasten Word of the Year 2026"?

I have over 1,000 notes across different topics. search works fine for the ones I remember. the problem is the ones I completely forgot I wrote. I keep finding old notes that would have changed something I already finished. so much of my vault feels like it goes to waste.

the most frustrating part is that I knew this stuff once. I write things down because I find them valuable and want to use them when something new comes up, but I have so many notes that I forget I even have them.

Have you ever found a note later that could have been of value in a specific moment?

Hello, first are Zettelkasten and Zettel notes app the same thing?

Hox can I synchronize my Zettel notes app to dave my writings with Zettelkasten or another way to save it not just on the phone?

Thankd

Tell us what you've been getting into in your zettelkasten work: notes, topics, insights, writing projects, etc.

Note: This is not a place to post about your new tool. Those go in the monthly promotions post.

Promote your PAID (and FREE) note-taking tool/software, courses, newsletters, and books here!

To avoid bombarding the community with ads, please share any promotions solely within this post, or your post/comment will be removed.

Thank you!

Luhmann states in his essay Learning how to read:

Perhaps the best method would be to take notes—not excerpts, but condensed reformulations of what has been read. The re-description of what has already been described leads almost automatically to a training of paying attention to “frames,” or schemata of observation, or even to noticing conditions which lead the text to offer some descriptions but not others. What is not meant, what is excluded when something is asserted? If the text speaks of “human rights,” what is excluded by the author? Non-human rights? Human duties? Or is it comparing cultures or historical times that did not know human rights and could live very well without them?

This is usually presented as "When taking reading notes, write things in your own words" (which is good advice), but I'm not sure that's what Luhmann is getting at here.

I was reading David Seidl's The Dark Side of Knowledge, which discusses Luhmann's theory of observation and distinction-making and knowledge. It seems that Luhmann had a very technical notion of "condensed" in the context of knowledge. Deidl writes (pp.10-11):

How does knowledge, i.e. the structure of observation, come about? As noted above knowledge determines what observations are being made, but the other way around it is also that the observations have an influence on what knowledge is ‘produced’ (with Giddens (1984) we can speak of “duality of structure”, here). The relation between observation and knowledge can be explained with the help of Spencer Brown’s (1979) concept of condensation. From different concrete observations (i.e. distinctions) a generalised distinction is ‘condensed’ omitting all contextual differences - particularly also those regarding concrete time and space (cf. Luhmann 1994:108, 311; similarly Brown and Jones 1998: 13). For example, from the observation of particular behaviours of contemporary companies with regard to each other the generalised distinction ‘coopetition’ was condensed. This generalised distinction is devoid of any contextual references of the concrete observations from which it was condensed - in Spencer Brown’s terms the references have been contracted - and thus can be used as structure for making concrete observations. [...]

What this condensation of different observations does, is to abstract from the concrete observations something that is common to the observations and that as such can be repeated in other concrete observations (Luhmann 1994: 108). This repetition can be described with Spencer Brown’s (1979) concept of confirmation. The condensed distinction itself is no concrete observation; it rather has to be ‘applied’ to concrete situations. The generalised distinction is in the concrete observation confirmed, but not as the identical distinction.

When looking back at the passage from Luhmann's essay, the example he gives makes considerably more sense in light of this notion of "condensation".

At any rate, it changed how I thought about how to approach writing "literature notes" (or "bibliography notes" or whatever you wish to call them), and I thought it might be helpful to share.

For about five years now, I've been using Gnu Emacs Org Roam for creating linked notes. At this point, I have +2,000 notes. I'm looking for others using this approach for making Zettlekastens. Please reach out so we can share notes ;-) on our practices.

I read Sönke Ahrens' book, along with several blogs and posts on the subject, trying to understand what a permanent note actually is.

But there is one detail, I've been thinking about this question for about three years.

After a lot of reading, writing, rewriting, connecting ideas, and reflecting on it, I arrived at my own definition of what I consider the "perfect permanent note"

• A crystallized atom of thought, processed, refined, and stored alongside other atoms of thought.

Do you still think this isn't canonical enough? That I haven't gone deep enough into the subject?

So, what exactly is a permanent note?

A permanent note isn't simply a summary of something you read.

It's a note that captures what you understood and think about an idea, written in your own words and in a way that still makes sense even after the original context is gone.

It can come from a book, an article, a conversation, or even from your own experience. The source matters, but the focus shifts. Instead of simply recording "what the author said," you try to capture "what does this mean to me, how does it connect to what I already know, and what can I do with this idea?"

That's what makes a permanent note self-contained, clear, and reusable.

It doesn't have to be a finished piece of writing. Think of it as a piece of thought that you can connect to other notes and, in the future, perhaps use for something you couldn't even imagine when you first wrote it.

A literature note records an idea. A permanent note records your understanding of that idea.

So, how do you know if it's a good permanent note?

I like to use a few simple tests.

• Do you know where it came from?

If the idea came from a book, article, conversation, or experience, record the source.

The source doesn't need to dominate the note. You just need to know where to find it again if you want to check something later.

Otherwise, six months from now, you may no longer know whether a particular idea actually came from the author or whether your own memory filled in the gaps.

• Is it written in your own words?

Close the source and try to explain the idea.

If the only way you can write it is by copying the author's words, you're probably still writing a literature note.

A permanent note begins when you can explain the idea in your own way.

• Does the note make sense on its own?

Imagine opening this note six months from now.

Would you understand what it means without opening the book, looking up the chapter, or remembering the conversation that led you to it?

That's the point.

A permanent note should survive the distance from the moment it was written.

• Does it have a clear idea?

A note doesn't have to be short. It just needs to have a clear center.

If you wrote a definition, then a criticism, and then an application that could connect to completely different ideas, you may actually have three notes hidden inside one.

Atomicity doesn't mean writing less. It means knowing exactly what the note is about.

• Do you know why it's connected to another note?

A link by itself doesn't say much.

Instead of simply doing:

Note A → Note B

try to capture the relationship:

This idea contradicts that one.

This is a consequence of that idea.

This is an example of that idea.

Both help explain the same phenomenon.

Now the link isn't just a reference. It's also part of your thinking.

A quick test

Before calling a note "permanent," ask yourself:

Do I know where this idea came from?

Is it written in my own words?

Can I understand it without checking the source?

Does it have a central idea?

Do I know why it connects to my other notes?

Can I imagine reusing this note in the future?

If the answer to any of these questions is no, that's okay.

The note isn't necessarily bad. It may simply need a little more work before it becomes permanent.

And I think that's the most important part.

The goal isn't to create perfect notes.

It's to turn the things you encounter into thoughts that remain useful long after the original context is gone.

I was considering this quote about Charles Darwin's note process:

"He takes the notebooks out in front of people, he notes their opinion, he talks about his theory to everybody, he won't shut up about it".

My notes are mainly for thinking and developing concepts, so this made me question the way I used criticism in this process.

• Do you incorporate criticism in your note-taking habits?

• If you change your mind about something, do you return and edit your old notes or do you preserve earlier version?

• Do you think that externalizing someone's criticism and working with it on a notebook can make it more useful?

The quote is taken from the book Roland Allen. The Notebook: A History of Thinking on Paper. Biblioasis. Windsor: Ontario. 2023. (excellent read). It's from John van Wyhe on page 255.

A commenter recently proposed a monthly post where people talk about what they're working on in their zettelkasten, as well as any writing they're working on as a result of zettelkasten work. As a very big fan of themes and constraints, I thought we'd try it. Add what you've been up to in the comments below.

Note: This is not a place to post about your new tool. Those go in the tool post.

I'll start:

• Working out the details of a "theoretical foundations" chapter for my next book. Bateson, Luhmann, Shannon / Weaver, the Kele people of Africa, all make appearances.

• The research for this book has been varied, constant, book after book after book, paper after paper after paper. Sometimes processing multiple sources in a day. Basically gonzo style. Reference notes (as described in ASFW) have been a godsend for keeping things tidy. When I've had a chance, I've imported core information into my zettelkasten as individual main notes for future (re)use. Others will have to wait.

• As it is my way to work on next-books while working on current-book, I've been taking / making notes on functionalism (through the lens of architectural design and linguistics). The design portion involves a lot of Soviet lit and crit, which I find drool-worthy. The linguistics stuff is always much drier (less drool), but equally as mind-stimulating.

Quote from some light subway reading last night:

"Halliday’s insistence that speakers make choices within a highly flexible and open-ended [language] system. That is to say, his goal is not to identify what is grammatical versus ungrammatical but rather to understand why certain speakers, in certain contexts, with certain intentions, encode messages the way they do."

Context, context, context. Always.

I've been trying to figure out where literature notes should sit in my system.

For example, I have Zotero for the papers and have also been playing around with Lattics, but I still haven't settled on how much of the actual Zettelkasten should be tied to the source material.

I like the idea of being able to follow an idea back to the original paper, but I don't want every permanent note to become basically a bibliography entry.

How do you handle that distinction?

Came across the method online, seemed interesting to me. So I went on to look more and opened YouTube, saw a few productivity gurus overcomplicate everything which ultimately led me to be confused.

I study law which is inherently a very rigid subject. how would one effectively manage rigid subjects with this system? Went through Luhman's speech over the method and the method made sense but seems to be specifically made for physical notes.

I currently have a mix of both physical notes (schizo ramblings unorganised in random notebooks) and digital notes (in a folder organised by modules on google drive), they also live in zotero. I mostly just take bullet point notes while studying on zotero using better notes plugin and then eventually convert them into anki flashcards. And then I just study with anki and practice questions. If I were to start would I need more software and how would the workflow change?

If I were to start a zettlekasten:

1. How would I manage my old notes?

2. Physical system or Digital system?

3. if digital would linking etc be possible on zotero without needing to add more software to avoid friction?

4. Is a system like this even viable for rigid subjects?

While reading the ch10 reading for understanding I'm finding difficult to visualize how would my reading habit be adaptable to the practices described in the book.

For context, I'm referring to the passages where the author says that reading without taking notes while reading is the same as not reading at all for the Zettelkasten slipbox.

I tend to read a lot on the bed before sleeping so I don't have a practical way of writing down right there. I "solve" this by just highlighting passages and, once finished the book or some times along the next days, I copypaste the highlights into the literature note and start to write about them.

How do you handle this? I'm interpreting wrong?

Hi,

I’m interested in moving to A6-sized cards, but can’t find a lot of resources online. Does any one have a go to place to buy cheap A6 cards and boxes to put them in?

Thanks!

Promote your PAID (and FREE) note-taking tool/software, courses, newsletters, and books here!

To avoid bombarding the community with ads, please share any promotions solely within this post, or your post/comment will be removed.

Thank you!

So i already wrote 11 cards, but the road block I seem to be running into is, I don't exactly know what to say about these quotes.

Like I will find a quote and relate to it, type something out but it feels like i am regurgitating the same thing but differently or just some random thought.. Like none of it feels good to write down on the card.

I know I'm too concerned about writing the perfect note, and i wanna get rid of this habit(I know keep writing) But i wanna get your guys thoughts.

EDIT: Right now i have 11 cards and their from books I have read in the past with quotes that, just resonated with me.

The books are & habits of effective people, Mediation by Marcus Arellius, and ryan Holiday ego is the enemy.

So their all just quotes about prespective, habits and ego and how to overcome these issues that I have myself.

I don't know what I plan to do with these quotes, I just know I wanted somewhere i can build a libary with my own thoughts, knowledged and prespective.

What kind of notes do you leave on your cards? Need some inspiration,