Trump's Real Secretary of State – And Why He's So Dangerous<br /> by Senator [[Adam Schiff]]

reply to u/andrebartels1988 at https://reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/1jcsp6t/rant_over_online_sellers/

No, they're either ignorant or actively trying to hide the fact that their machine was bought for $5 at a yard sale and they're trying to match the pricing of pro shops that have cleaned, oiled, adjusted and repaired a machine which far exceeds the misery they're selling because they have absolutely no idea what goes into a good machine.

People doing the work to show type samples and video of their machines are usually far, far more legitimate. These people are also going to give you $2 of new ribbon for free with purchase.

Without a type sample or video, all but the rarest machines aren't worth more than $20.

Why care unless you're only after the power and the religion is a secondary thing?

I'm curious why he should be doing this? Is he anti-woman? Is he irked that women now have some power and autonomy? He apparently writes a lot about masculinity according to earlier in the article. Is masculinity only defined in contrast with femininity and control over the feminine?

What about Gods design that women should be equals? Link to Genesis story about not naming the woman until after the trouble.

Why can't Renn point to a more specific issue that actually impacts Christianity directly? How someone else chooses to identify and live, particularly people who are frequently Christian, shouldn't effect Christians in the sort of way he's proposing.

Besides "power over" others, what sort of Christianity is he really espousing? Where is the "love your neighbor?" or "do unto others?" in his religion?

Back in the day people used custom erasers for erasing. They were much harder than the softer erasers in use now, which is why modern pencil and art erasers don't work as well. For some historical methods, see these videos or here.

Secretaries also used small eraser shields to target individual letters, words, or lines. They also used larger curved shields for erasing within carbon copy packs.

Eaton used to make Ko-rec-type tabs which could be inserted for short corrections and it can still be found online as old stock.

There was also bichrome ribbon with white correction tape, but that tends to fleck off and make a mess in your machine over time. Similarly White Out is still made, but it can spill and make a mess while you wait for it to dry.

For modern typists, hand-held correction tape is probably the quickest and easiest.

This could be expanded for the widest range of history on erasing using typewriters with caveats, etc.

reply to u/Fearless_Camera_1788 at https://old.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/1ixmz88/how_to_erase/

Why Are Some Of Our Most Successful Leaders Mentally Ill? by [[Ian Leslie]]

suggested by ES

Fits into an earlier theory about insane leaders... where's the source?

direct source for this?

EACH NOTE CARD SHOULD BE AS PURE AND SINGULAR AN IDEA AS POSSIBLE, BECAUSE I WANT TO BE ABLE TO MOVE ALL THE PIECES AROUND

This quote speaks to the general idea of "atomic notes" or note size and why they should be small.

It also osculates David Lynch's idea of holding onto the essence of an idea within a story. It's almost as if the adage "take care of the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves" were applied to the fiction writing process. If you're careful with the small pieces, the bigger piece has a stronger chance of having more authenticity.

Typewriter Market: It may be better if you didn't get an Olympia SM3 typewriter today.

I'm not out to shame people for their purchases, just to caution uninitiated typewriter purchasers and budding collectors who aren't carefully watching the market.

Olympia SM3s are well-touted and excellent typewriters. They've recently been selling on ShopGoodwill in unknown condition for $120-150 based only on photos.

Earlier today, an Olympia SM3 sold for $334! So what gives? Why did this go for over twice as much as the average? To the uninitiated, the seasoned collector can look at this machine carefully and realize that even without seeing a type sample or a close up photo of the slugs that this machine is quietly hiding a script typeface of some kind. This means that two bidders would have paid an almost $200 premium for a script typeface, and one of them managed to snipe it for $1 with minutes left. Generally I see script machines going for $100-150 over similar machines without script.

Sadly, the high price on this machine earlier in the day may have suckered others into thinking these machines are significantly more valuable as it seems two other Olympia SM3s right after it both went for:<br /> * $202.03 https://shopgoodwill.com/item/222707079 * $202.03 https://shopgoodwill.com/item/222546519

And they were bid over 200 by the same two people while the "smarter" money stopped with bids at $137 on both.

Of course, neither of these later two machines have a script face, but at least two bidders were potentially reeled in by the much higher sales price of the script machine earlier in the day. This means that they've overpayed at least $50 above market for each, possibly thinking that they may have gotten a great deal. Sadly they didn't, they just overpayed the market average. The person who was sniped on both managed to save themselves $100+ today because I imagine they'll be able to get equivalent machines in the coming month for closer to under $150.

Incidentally another later Olympia portable (usually in the $75-120 range) earlier in the day went for a more reasonable $232 with a stated/photographed cursive typeface: https://shopgoodwill.com/item/222546740 This one was a stronger deal in the current market as they only paid about $110 above average for that machine to get the script typeface. The tough part is that because the description stated "cursive", they didn't have the benefit of possibly picking up a script machine with less competition.

While this is an interesting microcosm example of the current (overheated?) typewriter market (at least in the US), I hope all the buyers of these machines enjoy their purchases. If they're your first Olympias, and they need some work to get back to fighting shape, I've put together a guide: https://boffosocko.com/2024/07/14/aggregated-resources-and-playlist-for-a-crash-course-on-the-olympia-sm3-portable-typewriter/

syndication link

Thomas V. Mirus' comparison of Fr. William Most's Latin text with Hans Ørberg's.

reply to u/Active-Teach6311 at https://old.reddit.com/r/Zettelkasten/comments/1ilvvnc/you_need_to_first_define_the_zettlekasten_methoda/

#1 == #2 In German contexts, zettelkasten subsumed both ideas which can easily be seen in the 2013 Marbach Exhibition: Zettelkasten: Machines of Fantasy. That exhibition featured six different Zettelkasten of which Luhmann's was but one. It wasn't until after this that sites like zettelkasten.de, this Reddit sub, or the popularity of Ahrens' book shifted the definition to a Luhmann-centric one, particularly in English language contexts which lacked a marketing term on which to latch to sell the idea. The productivity porn portion of the equation assisted in erasing the prior art and popularity of these methods.

One can easily show mathematically that there is a one-to-one and onto mapping of Luhmann's method with all the other variations. This means that they're equivalent in structure and only differ in the names you give them.

Even Ahrens suggests as much in his own book when he mentions that in digital contexts one doesn't need numbered cards in particular orders for the system to work. If Erasmus, Agricola, or Melanchthon were to magically arrive from the 15th century to the present day, they would have no difficulty recognizing their commonplacing work at play in a so-called Luhmann-artig zettelkasten.

I would suggest that Luhmann didn't write more about his method himself because it would have been generally fruitless for him as everyone around him was doing exactly the same thing. The method was both literally and figuratively commonplace! J. E. Heyde's book, from which Luhmann modeled his own system, went through 10 editions from the 1930s through the 1970s in Luhmann's own lifetime.

reply to u/Active-Teach6311 at https://old.reddit.com/r/Zettelkasten/comments/1ilvvnc/you_need_to_first_define_the_zettlekasten_methoda/mc14p0r/

Certainly there are idiosyncracies in how each person chooses to to work with them. The primary difference I see is how much work and when each person chooses to put into a system and what outputs, if any, there are. However, at the end of the day, their similarities as systems far, far exceed their differences. Their principles may differ in slight ways, but in the end they are identical in form. If you feel differently, then I suggest you take a deeper and closer look into the variety of traditions beyond your cursory view.

As a small exercise, attempt to explain why S. D. Goitein's system allowed him to write 1/3 the notes of Luhmann and create almost 3 times the written output? Why aren't people emulating his system? Why are there still dozens of researchers actively sharing and using Goitein's notes when almost none are doing the same for Luhmann?

Another solid exercise is to look at Heyde and explain why Luhmann chose to file his cards differently than was prescribed there? Are the end results really different? Would they have been different if kept in commonplace form using John Locke's indexing method?

Pronunciation of Celtic: Why are there two ways? by [[Editors of Merriam-Webster]]

All these "rules" are really just guidance/suggestions... I highly recommend you try out the thing you would imagine to work and see how it goes. If it works for you, then great. If not, try something else. What works for someone else isn't necessarily going to work for you. How do you think these things came about? They really weren't invented, but slight variations on a pre-existing theme that someone customized for their needs.

It's called a "zettelkasten practice" for a reason. After you've been at it for a few months, write up your experience and let us know how it all worked out. What worked well? What didn't? Speculate on the reasons why...

reply to u/King_PenguinOs at https://old.reddit.com/r/Zettelkasten/comments/1hklaii/getting_started_with_zettelkasten/

The markets and level of ubiquity of these items in their heyday are so dramatically different that this is certainly an apples and oranges comparison.

However, if you want to compare the artist/users of the instrument to their machines, which is a way of potentially intuiting a potential answer to your question (one which is highly subjective), you might go by who was using particular typewriters of the time. Here's some data to consider: https://site.xavier.edu/polt/typewriters/typers.html

For that rough era in American-made machines, you'll see peak engineering/manufacturing in the 1950s out of the Smith-Corona Super Silent, the Remington Quiet-Riter, and the Royal Quiet De Luxe. Design, touch, and tuning can all be such subjective measures here so as to heavily Muddy (the) Waters ('52 Gibson Les Paul Gold Top/'58 Fender Telecaster) on style, quality, and popularity amongst the cognoscenti. Peak quality in the 60s had broadly moved to post-war Germany and Italy with machines from Olympia (SM3, 4, 5, 7, etc.) and Olivetti respectively.

For my personal money, in American machines of the time, I love the design and performance of my well-tuned, and mostly restored 1950 Royal KMG. However, the current market certainly wouldn't indicate a broader beloved status for these the way you'll see for Stratocasters. (You'll also find some horribly maintained and un-tuned machines out there on the market, which is why so much of the antique and vintage typewriter market pricing is so wildly out of whack.)

A separate flavor of question certainly, but if you're looking for a solid performing typewriter to pair aesthetically and temporally with a '64 Strat, I'd go with a Royal FP ('57-62) (which came in Royaltone or Pearl Dark Gray smooth, Royaltone or Pearl Light Gray smooth, Willow Green smooth, Sea Blue smooth, Cameo Pink smooth (Petal Pink) , Brushed Aluminum, Sandstone smooth, and Coral Rose) or the smaller Royal Futura 800 ('58-'63).

via Christian Tietze at https://forum.zettelkasten.de/discussion/comment/22075/#Comment_22075

Kaiser touches on the issue of "coming to terms" in his card (indexing) system. He preferred using the author's terminology over the indexer's. Some of the fungibility of words and their definitions was met by the use of a "logical key" to the index which was put onto guide cards for each main entry term.

I'm reminded of Jerry Maguire: "You complete me."

Is this a possible reason why reading great books in youth is so useful?

actual posted reply to https://old.reddit.com/r/Zettelkasten/comments/1gpx62s/is_a_zettelkasten_a_largely_unknown_form_of/

Taking too narrow a definition of zettelkasten is antithetical to the combinatorial creativity inherent in one of the zettelkasten's most important affordances.

OP was right on track, perhaps without knowing why... I appreciate that you scratch some of the historical surface, but an apple/tomato analogy is flimsy and the family tree is a lot closer. Too often we're ignoring the history of ars excerpendi, commonplacing, waste books, summas, early encyclopedias, etc. from the broad swath of intellectual history. What we now call a zettelkasten evolved very closely out of all these traditions. It's definitely not something that Luhmann suddenly invented one morning while lounging in the bath.

Stroll back a bit into the history to see what folks like Pliny the Elder, Konrad Gessner, Theodor Zwinger, Laurentius Beyerlink, or even the Brothers Grimm were doing centuries back and you'll realize it's all closer to a wide variety of heirloom apples and a modern Gala or Fuji. They were all broadly using zettelkasten methods in their work. Encyclopedias and dictionaries are more like sons and daughters, or viewed in other ways, maybe even parents to the zettelkasten. Almost everyone using them has different means and methods because their needs and goals are all different.

If you dig a bit you'll find fascinating tidbits like Samuel Hartlib describing early versions of "cut and paste" in 1641: “Zwinger made his excerpta by being using [sic] of old books and tearing whole leaves out of them, otherwise it had beene impossible to have written so much if every thing should have beene written or copied out.” (Talk about the collector's fallacy turned on its head!) As nice as Obsidian's new Web Clipper is this month, it's just another tool in a long line of tools that all do the same thing for much the same reasons.

Ignoring these contributions and their closeness means that you won't be able to take advantage of the various affordances all these methods in your own slip box, whichever form it takes. How will you ever evolve it into the paper machine that students a century hence are copying and mimicking and pontificating about in their generation's version of Reddit? Why couldn't a person's slip box have some flavor of an evolving encyclopedia? Maybe it's closer to Adler's Syntopicon? Maybe something different altogether for their particular use?

Those interested in expanding their practice might try some of the following for more details:

• Blair, Ann M. Too Much to Know: Managing Scholarly Information before the Modern Age. Yale University Press, 2010. https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300165395/too-much-know.
• Krajewski, Markus. Paper Machines: About Cards & Catalogs, 1548-1929. Translated by Peter Krapp. History and Foundations of Information Science. MIT Press, 2011. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/paper-machines.
• Wright, Alex. Cataloging the World: Paul Otlet and the Birth of the Information Age. 1st ed. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.

For deeper dives on methods, try: https://www.zotero.org/groups/4676190/tools_for_thought/tags/note%20taking%20manuals/items/F8WSEABT/item-list

cc: u/JasperMcGee u/dasduvish u/Quack_quack_22

reply to u/Hugglebuns at https://old.reddit.com/r/Zettelkasten/comments/1gpx62s/is_a_zettelkasten_a_largely_unknown_form_of/lwtoopw/:

I appreciate that you scratch some of the historical surface, but your apple/tomato analogy is flimsy and the family tree is a lot closer. Too often we're ignoring the history of ars excerpendi, commonplacing, waste books, summas, and early encyclopedias from the broad swath of intellectual history. What we now call a zettelkasten evolved very closely out of all these traditions. It's definitely not something that Luhmann suddenly invented one morning while lounging in the bath.

Stroll back a bit into the history to see what folks like Pliny the Elder, Konrad Gessner, Theodor Zwinger, Laurentius Beyerlink, or even the Brothers Grimm were doing centuries back and you'll realize it's all closer to a wide variety of heirloom apples and a modern Gala or Fuji. They were all broadly using zettelkasten methods in their work. Encyclopedias and dictionaries are more like sons and daughters, or viewed in other ways, maybe even parents to the zettelkasten. Almost everyone using them has different means and methods because their needs and goals are all different.

If you dig a bit you'll find fascinating tidbits like Samuel Hartlib describing early versions of "cut and paste" in 1641: “Zwinger made his excerpta by being using [sic] of old books and tearing whole leaves out of them, otherwise it had beene impossible to have written so much if every thing should have beene written or copied out.” As nice as Obsidian's new Web Clipper is this month, it's just another tool in a long line of tools that all do the same thing for much the same reasons.

Ignoring these contributions and their closeness means that you won't be able to take advantage of the various affordances all these methods presented in your own slip box, whichever form it takes. How will you ever evolve it into the paper machine that students a century hence are copying and mimicking and pontificating about in their version of Reddit? Why couldn't a person's slip box have some flavor of an encyclopedia? Maybe it's closer to Adler's Syntopicon? Maybe something different all together for their particular use?

Try some of the following for more details: <br /> - Blair, Ann M. Too Much to Know: Managing Scholarly Information before the Modern Age. Yale University Press, 2010. https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300165395/too-much-know.<br /> - Krajewski, Markus. Paper Machines: About Cards & Catalogs, 1548-1929. Translated by Peter Krapp. History and Foundations of Information Science. MIT Press, 2011. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/paper-machines.<br /> - Wright, Alex. Cataloging the World: Paul Otlet and the Birth of the Information Age. 1st ed. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.

For deeper dives on methods, try: https://www.zotero.org/groups/4676190/tools_for_thought/tags/note%20taking%20manuals/items/F8WSEABT/item-list

cc: u/JasperMcGee u/dasduvish u/Quack_quack_22

the title of the book implies an ownership of poverty (by America)... there's also an implication of authorial voice as if America is a "creator", but specifically a creator of poverty as much as it is a creator of wealth

In the framing of toxic capitalism, it's almost as if one of the things America is good at manufacturing is poverty.

If we've outsourced most of our manufacturing sector, why not also include poverty?!?

motivating question in the book

... why there is so much hardship in this land of abundance.

Don’t lose sight of why Trump won by [[Megan McArdle]]

Trump’s mandate isn’t as ‘powerful’ as he suggests. Here’s why. by [[Aaron Blake]]

What is the ultimate goal for AI4Communities? What is it supposed to do? Is it to build knowledge (only)? What space does it have for phatic communication, and why? What does it create at the end of the day? Where is it going to?

Class 2, Does Memory Matter? Why Are Universities Studying Slavery and Their Pasts? by David Blight for [[YaleCourses]]

Reply to @Edmund https://forum.zettelkasten.de/discussion/comment/21907/#Comment_21907

Doto's book is the best and tightest yet for explaining both how to implement a Luhmann-artig zettelkasten as well as why along with the affordances certain elements provide. He does a particularly good job of providing clear and straightforward definitions which have a muddy nature in some of the online spaces, which tends to cause issues for people new to the practice. Sadly, for me, there isn't much new insight due to the amount of experience and research I bring to the enterprise.

I do like that Doto puts at least some emphasis on why one might want to use alphanumerics even in digital spaces, an idea which has broadly been sidelined in most contexts for lack of experience or concrete affordances for why one might do it.

The other area he addresses, which most elide and the balance gloss over at best, is that of the discussion of using the zettelkasten for output. Though he touches on some particular methods and scaffolding, most of it is limited to suggestions based on his own experience rather than a broader set of structures and practices. This is probably the biggest area for potential expansion and examples I'd like to see, especially as I'm reading through Eustace Miles' How to Prepare Essays, Lectures, Articles, Books, Speeches and Letters, with Hints on Writing for the Press (London: Rivingtons, 1905).

I could have had some more material in chapter 3 which has some fascinating, but still evolving work. Ideas like interstitial journaling and some of the related productivity methods are interesting, but Doto only barely scratches the surface on some of these techniques and methods which go beyond the traditional "zettelkasten space", but which certainly fall in his broader framing of "system for writing" promise.

Doto's "triangle of creativity", a discussion of proximal feedback, has close parallels of Adler and Hutchins' idea of "The Great Conversation" (1952), which many are likely to miss.

For those who missed out, Dan Allosso has posted video from the sessions at https://lifelonglearn.substack.com/ Sadly missing, unless you're in the book club, are some generally lively side chat discussions as the primary video discussion was proceeding. The sessions had a breadth of experiences from the new to the old hands as well as from students to teachers and everywhere in between.

Naming things with respect to future search functionality and capabilities can be useful.

Why AI must be decolonized to fulfill its true potential by [[Mahlet Zimeta]], Data and technology policy expert, Freelance

reply to u/cosmic-magistra at https://old.reddit.com/r/Zettelkasten/comments/1g8diq4/any_books_about_how_someone_used_zettelkasten_to/lt4en6f/

Dude, you're taking too narrow a view at what's going on as each person uses the stored work in their particular set of "cards". Everyone is going to be different based on their particular needs. I've sketched an outline of a fairly broad spectrum of users from Eminem (low organization) to Luhmann (high organization). If putting in the level of work Luhmann did upfront isn't working for you, why follow his exact recipe?

Nabokov is an outlier in the larger group. Does he really need a heavily linked system to write what is linear fiction? Did he even need to index his cards at all? Separate boxes per book worked well enough for him, much the way they do for both Robert Greene and Ryan Halliday who follow some of this pattern as well. Nabokov generally did both research on characters and laid out the outline of his plot. Following this he'd dictate drafts to his wife Vera from the cards and edit from there. In '58 Carl Mydans got photos of some of this process. (See: https://www.thoughtco.com/thmb/tlFRyEZcBnGmBDStKWdpR1cXt0Q=/750x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/the-nabakovs-at-work-96793854-468f6ab40e914e45abdd1542fa370872.jpg ) In The Original of Laura, you're seeing the rawest, earliest outline of Nabokov's process. He hasn't gotten to the dictation/typescript level yet. As a result, it's surely not going to make much sense, and assuredly the reason he didn't want it published. Again, you have to either discover or imagine the broader process each person used. If I gave you a similar tranch of Luhmann's cards without any additional context, would they mean much to you? Could you turn them into something concrete without a lot of additional work? Why would you expect the same from these excerpts from Nabokov? This doesn't mean that they don't provide the interested party a window into his work and methods.

Others broadly indexed their ideas as they filed them, a fact which creates the exact links you seem to indicate didn't exist. John Locke's method of indexing was incredibly widespread to the point that at the end of the 18th century, John Bell (1745–1831), an English publisher, mass produced books with the title Bell’s Common-Place Book, Formed generally upon the Principles Recommended and Practised by Mr Locke. The notebooks commonly included 550 pages, of which eight pages included instructions on John Locke's indexing method. There are many extant copies of these including one used by Erasmus Darwin, which was bequeathed to Charles Darwin.

OP certainly posed a fair question (and incidentally very similar to one I posed a few years back), but the answer was broadly sketched, so anyone interested in a full answer is going to need to delve a lot further into these examples to be able to get the full picture. I was providing a list of some additional evidence to show there's a lot more depth out there than is generally being talked about. There are hundreds of one page blog posts about Luhmann's method in the last five plus years, but do any of them really encompass what he was doing? Ahrens wrote a whole book about it, but obviously people are still full of questions about the process. I gave less than a few sentences about a couple dozen well-known people as examples, so your expectations may be a little on the high side. It's pretty easy to find my own digital notes for those who want to skip some of the work, but if you want more, you're going to need to do some of your own reading and research. My response was generally to say that, yes, there's some there, there, but as almost everyone here for the last several years can tell you, it's going to require some work and lots of practice on your part to get somewhere with it. There isn't a royal road, but the peasant's path will assuredly get you where you want to go.

Pierre Anton Grillet, in the preface to Abstract Algebra, 2nd Edition (Springer, 2007) said, "Algebra is like French Pastry: wonderful, but cannot be learned without putting one’s hands to the dough." Zettelkasten methods are much the same. 🗃️🥐

Reporter John Dickerson talking about his notebook.

While he doesn't mention it, he's capturing the spirit of the commonplace book and the zettelkasten.

[...] I see my job as basically helping people see and to grab ahold of what's going on.

You can decide to do that the minute you sit down to start writing or you can just do it all the time. And by the time you get to writing you have a notebook full of stuff that can be used.

And it's not just about the thing you're writing about at that moment or the question you're going to ask that has to do with that week's event on Face the Nation on Sunday.

If you've been collecting all week long and wondering why a thing happens or making an observation about something and using that as a piece of color to explain the political process to somebody, then you've been doing your work before you ever sat down to do your work.

Field Notes: Reporter's Notebook from Coudal Partners on Vimeo.

I've never like the phrase fleeting notes, though it does serve a purpose. It's really a conflation (or portmanteau) of two separate ideas: fleeting ideas and writing them down/capturing them quickly so that they're no longer fleeting. Sort of a noun/verb in form.

Organization of the book gives preference of the practical ("how-to") over the theoretical ("why-so").

Miles touches on the interplay of knowledge written down on index cards and the knowledge which is kept only in one's mind. Some practitioners in the space from 2013-2024 seem to imply that they're writing almost everything out in far deeper detail than Miles would indicate. In his incarnation, much of the knowledge might be more quickly indicated by a short sentence or heading which the brain can associate to longer explanations.

This sort of indexing is akin to some of the method potentially seen in Marshall Mathers' zettelkasten.

I'm creating a tag here for "card index for productivity" to track the idea of productivity in writing which I'm specifically using separately from the tag "card index as productivity system" which is used to describe their use for project tracking systems in systems like GTD, Memindex, etc.

For Miles, getting the ideas down is paramount and they can later be sub-divided or re-arranged.

One of the major affordances of using a zettelkasten or card index for writing is that it forces the writer to break things down into their constituent parts, thereby making the entire process of writing far easier and less complex. One can separately focus their attention on the smaller steps of collecting, selecting, and arranging the material before beginning to actually write.

he capitalizes five words here to emphasize their importance... I wonder what he says in his section on capitalization???

Why would the city come calling to a typewriter shop calling? Nostalgia perhaps? Better would be if they came to order or have their machines serviced to keep the place open or to help the next generation continue on.

colloquial attribution to u/matttheoret at https://old.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/1g1ugrw/first_typewriter_ever/

I've picked up about 20 of the typewriters in my collection from ShopGoodwill.

Only two were impeccably/properly packaged and shipped and one of these was a special machine that I emailed them after purchase with written details and links to videos about how to pack and ship it just to be on the safe side.

Three were dreadful disasters: one was a 40 pound standard that was dropped and the frame bent drastically (it had almost no padding materials inside the box), two were shoved into cases (one upside down and the other right side up, but neither locked into their cases properly nor with their carriage locks engaged so they both bounced around for the entire trip) and put into boxes with almost no packing material. All three refunded portions of the price and/or all the shipping costs.

Most of the remainder (all portables with cases) were packaged with a modicum of care (some packing material in the case and some outside the case with reasonable boxes) and showed up in reasonable condition.

Two of the machines were local enough that I did a local pick up to ensure better care.

Generally, it's a crapshoot, but this is also the reason why I don't spend more than $20 on any machine I get from them (except one reasonably rare German typewriter in the US and a Royal with a Vogue typeface that still came out at less than $100 because only one other person noticed its rarity in the photos).

Only one of the machines was clean as a whistle and ready to type on day one. All the remainder required serious cleanings at a minimum. Two were missing internal pieces, two had repairable drawband issues, one had dramatically bad escapement issues, and one had a destroyed mainspring that I need to replace.

Only one of the group had a platen with any life left in it. One had a completely unusable platen, but it was also relatively obvious in the photos. Most of the rest were hard, but usable.

I live in the US and typically only bid on machines that are in the top 20% of their class cosmetically.

I'll echo the thought of others that I wouldn't have a machine from them shipped directly to someone as a present unless I knew they were a tinkerer and had the mechanical ability, the facilities/tools, and desire to clean and service their own machine. Otherwise, I'd do that myself and ship it to them directly.

reply to u/Tico_Typer at https://old.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/1g28v6z/i_am_curious_about_the_shopping_goodwill_websites/

Asking my own zettelkasten this question: (responses in no particular order as individual affordances are sure to vary in usefulness by user; some framed as problems while others are framed as affordances, the difference should hopefully be clear to most):

• information overload
• mitigating time loss and context collapse in regularly interrupted work
  • Acts as a ratchet and pawl for thinking work
• tool for thought, and a particularly inexpensive one
• a catalytic surface for thought - see creativity
• removal of cognitive bias by allowing direct juxtaposition of ideas
• "a plan for life and not just a book"
• creativity acceleration
• artificial memory storage/improved memory
  • spaced repetition tool
• improved search by indexing ideas over time
• Clarity/specificity: it's a reminder to be specific about what you're thinking
• a system for marshalling resources (collecting)
• new context creation through context shifting and/or erasure
• "slow burn" productivity
• focusing attention
• fun
• serendipity generation
• attempting to look cool by doing what the cool kids are doing (this usually results in failure modes however)
  • related: fear of missing out (FOMO)

Julius Reizen in reviewing over Umberto Eco's index card system in How to Write a Thesis, defines his own "insurance card" as one which contains "hard-to-classify thoughts, questions, and areas for further inquiry". These he would keep together so that they don't otherwise get lost in the variety of other locations one might keep them

These might be akin to Ahrens' "fleeting notes" but are ones which may not easily or even immediately be converted in to "permanent notes" for one's zettelkasten. However, given their mission critical importance, they may be some of the most important cards in one's repository.

link this to - idea of centralizing one's note taking practice to a single location

Is this idea in Eco's book and Reizen is the one that gives it a name since some of the other categories have names? (examples: bibliographic index cards, reading index cards (aka literature notes), cards for themes, author index cards, quote index cards, idea index cards, connection cards). Were these "officially" named and categorized by Eco?

May be worthwhile to create a grid of these naming systems and uses amongst some of the broader note taking methods. Where are they similar, where do they differ?

Multi-search tools that have full access to multiple trusted data stores (ostensibly personal ones across notebooks, hard drives, social media services, etc.) could potentially solve the problem of needing to remember where you noted something.

Currently, in the social media space especially, this is not a realized service.

Why are they referencing this third party source that doesn't use the phrase "knowledge management"? It also only mentions zettelkasten once and references Ahrens which may have been a better reference here. Otherwise, why cite this line at all?

reply to u/NoDoctor4602 at https://old.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/1fjrjns/ive_spent_a_few_days_searching_for_any_concrete/

In the mid to late-1950's and after several typewriter manufacturers made limited runs of gold plated typewriters for special anniversaries or for bonuses to salespeople. They're uncommon, but not rare. I've seen at least 6 or seven pop up on auction sites in the last 6 months. If you really want one, watch the lower end of Facebook Marketplace, ShopGoodwill, Craigslist, et al. where one will assuredly pop up for a much more reasonable price. I'm not sure if it was this one or another I've seen since April, but one of these went up for sale on ShopGoodwill.com recently and sold for about $600. A week later it was listed on eBay for several thousand just like this one. Given the timeframe, I doubt they spent any time cleaning, oiling, or adjusting it in any fashion—it was a pure flip. I've also seen this recently with Royal typewriters with a less common, but highly collectible Vogue typeface: a Royal P sold for about $900 there and was listed on eBay shortly after for over $1,500 with no indication that it was cleaned or adjusted. (If you watch some of the sites carefully, you can pick up a Vogue machine for under $100 easily enough depending on the type and condition.)

In my mind, as a collector, I'd try to find one in the wild and clean it up or I'd want it in stunning restored condition for over $2k. You might be just as well off picking up a working model for $100-$150 and gold plating the pieces yourself. It would probably be cheaper in the long run and you'd have a better machine in better condition. Some sucker with money to burn will eventually buy a Gold Olympia SM3 for over $2,000.

Here's a vew posts/videos as examples of gold plated machines:<br /> - A video of another Gold Olympia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnUHgyABjw0<br /> - Royal QDL https://typespec.com/weve-got-gold-in-them-thar-hills/<br /> - https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kasbah-mod-typewriters_n_1453776

If you're looking for something great that you'll use, I recommend visiting a repair shop that has some stock to try out some machines to see if you'd like their touch/fee/aesthetics first. Visiting a type-in or two might give you some experience with a wide variety of typewriter models as well. Then try to find a rare or exceptional version that's worth putting some money into. Why put so much into an Olympia if it turns out you're an Olivetti, Royal, or Smith-Corona person? https://site.xavier.edu/polt/typewriters/tw-repair.html (I desperately love Royals, but Smith-Coronas and Remingtons are much more forgiving of my mediocre typing technique, a fact which pains me dearly and cost a few hundred dollars and some sweat equity in cleaning and tuning machines to discover). Incidentally, I'll mention that for about $2,000 you could easily purchase a wide variety of about two dozen machines (even with shipping) and be able to get something truly exceptional in terms of condition and function.

Incidentally, the higher prices of $250-600 for repaired/refurbished/restored machines being sold by repair shops are usually what Harry Beercan is using as a pricing guide when he's selling his grandmother's musty, broken, old typewriter online not knowing that several hundred dollars in labor and parts has been calculated into the selling price.

Class 1, Why Does the Civil War and Reconstruction Have a Hold on American Historical Imagination? by David Blight for [[YaleCourses]]

So apparently German writer Michael Ende kept a zettelkasten for his writing output. It seems to be a bit more on the unpublished anthology side, but indicates that it has observations and aphorisms as well.

Why have I not seen/heard about this example before?

Why note-taking apps don't make us smarter by [[Casey Newton]]

Newton takes a thin view of the eternal question of information overload and whether or not AI might improve the situation. No serious results...

Casey Newton makes this blanket statement. Any real evidence for this beyond his "gut"?

Many "paper machines" like Niklas Luhmann's zettelkasten were almost custom made not just for searching, but for browsing through regularly much like commonplace books.

Perhaps the question is really, how is your particular database designed?

via Season 2 Episode 8: “Performance Review” - The Office<br /> https://genius.com/The-office-usa-season-2-episode-8-performance-review-annotated

Here we see in Michael Scott's incompetence the potential value of writing down our ideas as we go. Had he written down his ideas, his upcoming meeting with his boss would have gone better.

Isn't it telling that he hits on the idea of leveraging a commonly used communal zettelkasten structure (the suggestion box) to dig himself out?

Why Clinton's claim that Democratic presidents created more jobs than Republicans is slightly misleading by [[Maz Zahn]] on 2024-08-22 for ABC News

While Clinton may have left out additional detail, the root of the statement is not only broadly true, but broadly representative of the fact that Republican administrations have been devastating in general to the economy and Democrats have been handed shit at the start of their terms to clean up.

Royal KH Vintage Antique Typewriter Cleaning Wash Glossy Black Enamel Paint Tobacco removal by [[Phoenix Typewriter]]

This is a fantastic advertisement for why one shouldn't smoke. The brown is just the part that settled on the typewriter and is just a tiny fraction of what entered the typist's body.

Portable Typewriter Relabeling...how and why by [[Will Davis]]

https://new.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/1estgvf/how_did_everyone_find_their_interest_in/

Lots of individual stories about why typewriters.

The daily cards and journal entries are obviously indexed by chronological date and then within tabbed sections by month and year.

The rest of the other cards with notes are given individual (decimal) numbers and and then are put into numerical order. These numbered cards are then indexed by putting related subject/topic/category words from them onto a separate index card which cross references either a dated card or the numbered card to which it corresponds. These index cards with topical words/phrases are then filed alphabetically into a tabbed alphabetical section (A-Z).

As an example with the card in this post, if I wanted to remember all the books I buy from Octavia's Bookshelf, then I'd create a card titled "Octavia's Bookshelf" and list the title along with the date 2024-08-13 and file it alphabetically within the "O" tab section of the index. Obviously this might be more useful if I had more extensive notes about the book or its purchase on the 2024-08-13 card. I did create a short journal card entry about the bookstore on 08-13 because it was the first time I visited the bookstore in it's new location and decor, so there are some scant notes about my impressions of that which are cross-indexed to that Octavia's Bookshelf card. Thus my Octavia's Bookshelf card has an entry with "The Book Title, 2024-08-13 (J)(R)" where the '(J)' indicates there's a separate journal entry for that day and the '(R)' indicates there's also a receipt filed next to that day's card.

I also created an "Author Card" with the author of the book's name, the title, publication date, etc. I included the purchase date and the reason why I was interested in the book. I'll use that same card to write notes on that particular book as I read it. These author cards are filed in a separate A-Z tabbed 'Bibliography' section for easily finding them as well. (I suppose I could just put them into the primary A-Z index, but I prefer having all the authors/books (I have thousands) in the same section.)

I also have a rolodex section of people filed alphabetically, so I can easily look up Steve and Sonia separately and see what I might have gotten them on prior birthdays as well as notes about potential future gift ideas. I had tickler cards with their names on them filed in early August and now that they're in my to do list, I've moved those cards to August 2025, ready for next year's reminder. Compared to a typical Future Log I don't do nearly as much writing and rewriting when migrating. I just migrate a card forward until it's done or I don't need it anymore.

If you've used a library card index before, the general idea is roughly the same, you're just cross-indexing more than books by title, author and subject. You can index by day, idea, project, or any other thing you like. My card index cabinet is really just a large personal database made out of paper and metal.

The secret isn't to index everything—just the things you either want to remember or know you'll want to look up later and use/re-use.

Virtual Hermans - Richard Polt

Richard Polt keynote talk at Virtual Hermans 2022<br /> "The Revolution Continues"

• Blunderwood Portable at Burning Man
• Tom Hanks' Uncommon Type: Some Stories
• California Typewriter documentary released

Typewriter Shops Today<br /> - California Office Machines has closed since the film - Ken moved to Berkeley Typewriter - Ace Typewriter in Portland, OR - Tom Furrier at Cambridge Typewriter - Lucas Dul opening up in Chicago - Jack Armstrong (Teenager) in Tampa, FL - Karin Kessler - Backspace in Westport, CT - Pamela Rogow WPM, Philadelphia, PA - Typespace opened in Portland, OR - Has an event space and nurturing community - 4-5 shops in Portaland - Bryan Kravitz at Philly Typewriter doing events - placing vintage typewriters around the city - Nashville Typewriter - Kirk Jackson doing brick and mortar store - Trinity Typewriter - Mitch Ham working out of house in Cincinnatti, OH - Ian McAndrew - Iron Fox Typewriters - Wordplay Cincicy - RIchard Polt's place

Typewriter Restorers<br /> This segment is showing the most growth - El Granero in Spain (Polish Couple) - Mr. & Mrs. Vintage Typewriter - Walid and wife - Unplug Typewriter Company - Magan Siata (SP?) in Arkansas -Teipiadur - Welsh word - Laura Whittner in CA - Colombo Collection - Jennifer Colombo in Seattle, WA - Sparky - similar to USB Typewriter kit; sends text via Bluetooth to phone

Recently Manufactured Typewriters<br /> - Still made in 2022 - Rover made by Shanghai Weilv Mechanism Company still making typewriters (bad quality control, plastic, poor alighnment) the Rover, the Royal Epoch, We R Memory Keepers, Royal Classic (metal shell)) - based on the Olympia Carina (Will Davis determined) - Nakajima still doing electric typewriters - Royal Scriptor - Brother - daisy wheel - Swintec - selling machines to prisons

Modern Technology for making typewriters - 3D printing - 3DTypewriterParts.com - Pete Volz has digital files - Odin Typewriter - Ryan Mosely - Typer by Yannik Gotz - minimal keyboard and printer (concept) - Freewrite (fka Hemingway) (word processor) - Pomera from Japan - decoration made in China and not functional

Typewriters in Popular Culture<br /> - stickers - skateboards - Dark Academia - movie: Can you Ever Forgive me - Movie The french Dispatch - andretti machine from wes anderson - typewriter fashion (purses) - Lego typewriter and knockoffs - tattoos

Events (Type-ins / Type-outs)

Street Typing - Chris Vitiello made a typewriting cabinet he hides in, takes in a word and provides an answer/poetry - Brian Sonia-Wallace - The Poetry of Strangers - writing on Amtrak

Publications - The Adventures of Typewriter Troubadour - self published several books - Typewriter Rodeo (book) - Literati - Ann Arbor, MI - Notes from a Public Typewriter - ETCetera journal - Paul Rober in Netherlands - Polt, et. al. edited four volumes as books: Paradigm Shifts, Escapements, Backspaces, Dead Keys (series called Cold Hard Type) available on Amazon at cost, Margin Releases (forthcoming; Deadline March 1, 2022) - Loose Dog Press - Polt's imprint - Danielle Steele still writing on an Olympia SG1 - Evertype - Polt NaNoWriMo (looking for publisher) - Armando Warner publishing books in Spanish (he's also a typewriter restorer)

Typewriter Music - Boston Typewriter Orchestra album Delegation: The Remixes - Typophone by Albrecht Fersch (typewriter loom) - Anechoia Memoriam IBM typewriter connected to piano

Typewriter Art - Courtney Brown - octopus typewriter - titled: Self-Organization - AlteredTypewriter - Instagram altered typeslugs for creating art - Tim Youd - retypes classic novels; also does painting - Issue of Red Door (#28) The Typewritten Issue with cover by Hal Wildson to do photorealism - Kelye Kneeland - also presenting at Hermans 2022 - Keira Rathbone doing typewriter art - James Cook - portraits

Typewriters in the Pandemic<br /> - Tom Currier WBZ (CBS) interview in 2020 marked his busiest year in business. - #Covid19Correspondence by TimeTravelTypewriters (he died) - One Typed Page project by Daniel Marlow - Brian Sonia-Wallace used Zoom to aggregate typewriter poets - Poor Typist - Gregory Short - Typewriter Club LIVE - Austin Typewriter, Ink. (Austin, TX) with FB page and ATI: The Podcast - Joe Van Cleave - YouTube videos - Virtual Hermans

The Future of the Revolution - definitely not over - Mark Zuckerberg photo with typewriter on shelf behind him.... Smith Corona electric - Pavel Kuchinski artworks - Banksy did Redding Jail with escapee using a typewriter to escape - Steve with tattoo Insurgent - Munk redid image of woman changing ribbon - Giovanni Chero in FLA with image

Q&A<br /> - Blick electric - Flavio has one and one others - Polt is distracted by the electric hum when he's trying to write creatively - Polt hasn't used a thermal typewriter before - Argument for wife for why collect? "They keep their value..."

!!

I also don't just mean the script, but I mean every thing. The signatures and text block I'm also printing with my typewriter. Looking online before setting this I couldn't find much info or other people doing the same thing, so I feel like it's quite unique.

It's also insane. And I get why people aren't doing it. My book is a small collection of short stories and won't be too big. I have a friend who's a book binder that will bind the text block into a hardcover book. Very excited! Just wanted to share.

[...]

Oh no but I mean it's uncommon to make signatures and text blocks from typewriters. Like each copy of the book will be made from the typewriter.

https://www.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/1dtb8sn/im_two_months_in_to_my_writing_a_book_entirely_on/

Example of someone both writing and publishing a book entirely by typewriter.

Too many people fetishize Luhmann and his system. Yes he wrote a lot and yes he was productive, but was he as influential as any of the thousands upon thousands of writers and academics who used broadly similar methods? A lot of Luhmann's productivity boils down to how one chooses to define productivity. As an example: Isaac Newton, John Locke, Taylor Swift, and even Eminem had broadly similar not taking methods and though their note corpuses are dramatically smaller than Luhmann, their influence on art, culture, and humanity dramatically exceeds that of Luhmann.

I would posit that most serious note takers' productivity boils down to their utter simplicity and easy ability to replicate that method for decades. The largest part of Luhmann's productivity was that he not only had a simple system, but that he was privileged to use and practice at full time for the length of his academic career. (He also didn't face the scourge of peer-review that most academics are forced to run today.)

As an example of someone whose methods were very similar to Luhmann's, but who was dramatically more productive (from a generic definition of it), take a look at S. D. Goitein who wrote out about 1/3 the number of slips that Luhmann did, but used them to write almost a 1/3 more articles and books! Luhmann: 90,000 slips, 550 articles, 50 books versus Goitein: 27,000 slips, 669 articles, 69 books. Interestingly Goitein's method of organization was much closer to the topical organization to the vast majority of zettelkasten/card index users (as well as Obsidian users) than to Luhmann's alpha-numeric organizational method. There isn't nearly enough scale in (psychology, cognitive psychology) research to reasonably compare analog versus digital methods, much less enough research to distinguish between methods at the scale of individual people. Everyone will respond differently to different modalities because the breadth of neurodiversity within the population. The psychology research you're citing is painfully, painfully thin and is far from reaching the level of replicability. As a result, the best practicable advice to any individual is to experiment for themselves and choose the method they feel works best for them from a sustainability perspective.

reply to u/Quack_quack_22 at https://www.reddit.com/r/ObsidianMD/comments/1doqgar/why_can_luhmann_manage_information_better_than/

I found that Luhmann's information management system is not more complicated, but it is more effective than the influencers talking about taking notes on Obsidian. Because he took notes by hand:

Studies show that taking notes by hand has a positive impact on many different brain areas. Writing by hand is slower than typing: The slowness of handwriting helps Luhmann consider and select important words to write in literature notes. -> he will remember better the brain is relaxed -> the brain is more creative: when writing literature notes -> he will come up with more ideas so he can write permanent notes. To put it more simply. Luhmann takes notes to find as many ideas as possible to write in permanent notes, then these permanent notes will become a complete essay after Luhmann connects them together. And writing citations, summaries of content and citing sources in literature are just proof that his ideas are correct (ironically, people who make content about obsidian (also Tiago Forte) just encourage copy-paste).

Thus, copying highlights from Kindle to Obsidian becomes useless if you don't understand anything about highlights and don't get any ideas from them. I don't claim that typing makes us stupid, because people who write on computers have a habit of carefully correcting spelling and arguments, which helps them think more deeply = more smart.

Sources: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nancyolson/2016/05/15/three-ways-that-writing-with-a-pen-positively-affects-your-brain/ https://www.psychiatrist.com/news/handwriting-shows-unexpected-benefits-over-typing/

P/s: I think this guy is very precise about the zettelkasten method: he takes notes on paper like Luhmann to get ideas, then he just starts copying them into Obsidian. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrvKHFIHaeQ&t=0s)

The benefits of using a typewriter to write novels and poetry. by [[Classic Typewriter]]

Let's turn your question around: What exactly are you hoping to get out of it for yourself? Do you have specific goals for your own use?

You may like the idea of having and using a hammer, but if you don't have a project that requires a hammer, then owning and trying to hammer on random things in an unfocused way is probably not the right tool for your needs.

reply to u/arealnamestakenreal at https://www.reddit.com/r/Zettelkasten/comments/1dko10r/success_histories_4_years_into_zettelkasten_and/

reply to u/baxter1207 at https://www.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/1da0voq/repairsclean_ups/l7jg8nl/

I'm pretty sure those exact words have escaped my lips...

Her: "I know you've got five typewriters already, and I'm not counting the one I know you're hiding underneath the bed. Which ones are you going to sell??"

Me (in my head): Where am I going to stash the 12th machine when it arrives later today? At least it's an ultraportable, so it won't take up as much space. Why is my least favorite machine that I want to sell her favorite machine? Will selling it upset the delicate typewriter balance in the house? I can always say that the typewriter coming on Tuesday is a parts machine that I'm using to repair two of the others so I can sell them. Is this how all typewriter repair shops began?

Me: I'm trying to finish up refinishing the two executive tanker desks and the filing cabinet in the garage first so I can get them out and make some space.

😁

Lambert, Jonathan. “Why Writing by Hand Beats Typing for Thinking and Learning.” NPR, May 11, 2024, sec. Your Health. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2024/05/11/1250529661/handwriting-cursive-typing-schools-learning-brain.

via 1949 April 06, Naugatuck Daily News, Walter Winchell In New York, Page 4, Column 5, Naugatuck, Connecticut. (NewspaperArchive)

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/09/14/writing-bleed/

Why I’m excited about Richard Polt’s book. by [[Scott K]]

Why is it that so many of Americans' gut reactions is to "kick the can down the road" rather than to solve the underlying problems?

A 'typewriter rebellion' is underway. Here's what that means and why it's attracting kids from 2024-04-15 from Joe Dana / 12 News / Phoenix, AZ

reply to u/EquivalentHead3589 at https://www.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/1cbzx1n/how_do_you_price_typewriters/

The primary difference is that listing prices don't indicate actual value. That is only determined by actual sales price. Things are worse for the listings which don't indicate much about condition as you're probably more likely to need to have the machine serviced and/or replace or recondition parts. This can often add a few hundred dollars (or significant research and time, tools, and elbow grease) to the bottom line to be able to use a machine.

I do recall a burgundy Olympia SM3 which sold in the last 4 months for right at $300 which was regularly used (loved) and serviced and in excellent condition with some fantastic photos. If you compare it to this Burgundy/Gray machine (https://www.ebay.com/itm/404901285037) for $299, but which has a missing key cap, and a damaged case, and may likely have other hiding issues. If you consider that you'll likely need to put a minimum of another $100 into this to get it up to the fighting shape that the first was in and it's still got damage, you'll start seeing the stark difference. The people with listings at $550-800 know they're not selling and they're just sitting there, so why not email them and ask more specific questions about condition and get a typed typeface sample of all the keys. Then make an offer for $200 +/- with some wiggle room for service costs once you've gotten it to see if they'll sell?

As an example, look at https://www.ebay.com/itm/226016437104 which is a Gray SM3 originally listed for $549 and now on sale for $428. The seller knows it's not moving. They state that they got it at an estate sale (probably for around $25) and they definitely did no work other than quick check of the keys. If you demonstrate that you've savvy enough to know the specific machine (what shape are the rubber washers on the frame next to the feet to prevent the carriage from rubbing against the frame? how what is the durometer measurement on (how hard is) the platen?), the market (in top shape maybe $300), and what servicing/repair costs are, they'd probably accept an offer of $150-200 and you're off to the races and they've made a solid profit.

The biggest issue in the typewriter market at present is the broad lack of information and knowledge about them on both the buyer and seller side. If you can demonstrate you've got more knowledge than the other side, you'll be in a far better position to negotiate, otherwise a seller can sit and wait an undetermined amount of time waiting for a sucker who will likely never show up.

source: Fineman, Mia (June 8, 2005). "The Most Famous Farm Couple in the World: Why American Gothic still fascinates". Slate. http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/art/2005/06/the_most_famous_farm_couple_in_the_world.html

reply to u/Lauchpferd at https://www.reddit.com/r/ObsidianMD/comments/1c6ydzp/how_much_googleable_information_do_you_have_in/

This is the wrong question to be asking. If it were useful, then Google has everything already, so why bother? Let them do all the work for you.

Most note taking methods were evolved to not only aid in sensemaking, but to help people with the exponentially growing "information overload" problem. Sure you can Google many things, but doing so usually provides "facts" and rarely ever actual insight. Thus: discover, collect, index, link, build.

If you had to search every time to use a thing, you'd lose out most of your effort to the scourge of time when you've probably seen it before and could find it internally among your own collection of millions of things (with greater accuracy as well as reliability of the information you've previously vetted) versus Google's quadrillions of things which would all need to be vetted for relevancy, accuracy, and then placement among the thread of ideas you were attempting to potentially build toward. And once you've found it to place where you need it to make an argument or complete an argument, where will you put it? in your notes? And now you've come full circle.

Save yourself the time and only do the job once.

No piece of information is superior to any other. Power lies in having them all on file and then finding the connections. There are always connections; you have only to want to find them. —Umberto Eco

reply to https://www.reddit.com/r/Zettelkasten/comments/1c4kaps/giving_you_notes_a_unique_id_the_debate_continues/kzop2yh/

I'm with you on some of this, but let me play devil's advocate for a moment, so that we might hew closer to the question u/atomicnotes has posed:

If a Dewey Decimal Number is equivalent to a topic heading or subject, then what is the difference between using these subject/category/tag headings and forgoing the work of translating into a DC number (a task which is far less straightforward for those without a library science). If there is a onto to one and onto correspondence there should mathematically be no difference.

And how does one treat insightful material on geometry (516), for example, which comes from a book classified about political science (320-329)?

In a similar vein, why not use Otlet's Universal Decimal Classification which more easily allows for the admixture of topics as well as time periods?

Separately, I'll echo your valuable statement:

"I think everyone stumbles into a system of their own. I suspect the best practice here is the one that works for you!"

Example of a church mixing religion with social and political order and resultant problems.

See also: scholasticism

Here Kaiser touches on the broader themes inherent in the concepts of atomic notes, which might be used to build up new and interesting structures. He doesn't specify the "size of a note" nor does he say that one will "know it when they see it", but he's suggesting something very close to it.

Rather than define the appropriate size, a feat which is difficult to do at best, he's providing a very narrow set of benefits for encouraging one to cut things down to size as they index them: small pieces are easier to use to build new things.

This is the reasoning for why we'll want an indexed system. The vast wealth of information may be overwhelming, but with the ability to organize and control it (by writing it down and indexing it) we can turn it into something useful.

Kaiser's argument for why building a personal index of notes is more valuable than relying on the indexes of others.

Note that this is answer still stands firmly even after the advent of both the Mundaneum, Google, and other digital search methods (not to mention his statement about ignoring advertising, which obviously had irksome aspects even in 1911.) Our needs and desires are idiosyncratic, so our personal indexes are going to be imminently more valuable to us over time because of these idiosyncrasies. Sure, you could just Google it, but Google answers stand alone and don't build you toward insight without the added work of creating your own index.

Some of this is bound up in the idea that your own personal notes are far more valuable than the notes someone else may have taken and passed along to you.

Only personal experience in your note taking practice will guide you on what is most valuable for excerpting. After time you will come to know and understand what is worth spending your time on and what isn't. You will not learn this from others experience, only your own, and this is why we call it practice.

Why does it seem so apropos that Thanksgiving, a quintessential American holiday, is the product of corporate marketing?

[[Mark Lawrence Schrad]] in Why the World of Typewriter Collectors Splits Down the Middle When These Machines Come Up for Sale<br /> at 2024-03-16 12:00 PM <br /> (accessed:: 2024-03-19 10:23:08)

https://werd.io/2024/why-i-wont-have-a-blogroll

Let's reframe things here in part because it's highly illustrative of both the phrases as well as the specific question you raise.

Imagine Andy Matuschak reading Sonke Ahrens' How to Make Smart Notes (CreateSpace, 2017) and making notes on what he feels is important. As he reads, he does what is prescribed, namely, he restates the idea in his own words based on what he's read. In doing this he takes the idea of "evergreen" content from journalism settings (and later SEO settings) which he was familiar with and applies that name to what Ahrens called permanent notes to expound on his understanding of Ahrens! (An evergreen article in newspaper work is an article which was written for a particular recurring holiday, event, or story and is regular. Why spend huge amounts of staff time writing that truly original Valentine's day article? The broad stories about gifts to give and restaurants to visit really don't change from year to year. Just dust it off and reprint it, as readers are unlikely to have saved or remembered it and it becomes free re-purposable content.)

Of course, in rewriting this definition, Matuschak adds in some additional baggage for those who aren't carefully reading his work. He adds some additional emphasis on revisiting one's ideas and rewriting them over time, which is certainly fine, but I think the novice note maker puts too much emphasis on this portion thinking that each permanent or evergreen note must eventually become polished to perfection. In practice, most seasoned writers don't and won't do this. In fact, I suspect if you looked at Matuschak's note on evergreen notes, you'd find that it probably hasn't changed since the day he wrote it other than agglutinating links from other notes.

This doesn't mean that one can't modify or change their ideas over time, this is certainly useful and good, but I suspect that the majority aren't doing it the way that might be imagined by Matuschak's original statement or the way that his idea was picked up by the (niche) digital gardening community and spread primarily in the work of Maggie Appleton. It's some of this evolution of Matuschak's definition which bled into digital gardens, which have some overlap with zettelkasten and the note taking realms, which have muddied the waters. As a result, one should take it as general advice and apply it to their own situation, needs, and practice.

For those who use their own notes for writing, one will often mark their cards/notes to indicate that they've used those ideas in various projects so that they're not actively repeating themselves ad nauseum. Some of the additional tweaks one might make to their notes from a style or context specific perspective are also left to the editing portion rather than being done in the notes themselves. As a result of some of this, unless there is a dramatic flaw in a note, there isn't generally a lot of additional work one would come back to it to revise it. If it does require that sort of major revision, then perhaps the better method would be to make a new note and linking it to the original along with an explanation of the error. I typically wouldn't recommend polishing individual notes to some Plationic idea of perfection. Doing so is often just make-work which distracts from one's time which could be better spent doing additional reading or actual thinking. If you're going to do that sort of polishing work, do it at the end when you've got a longer piece of writing you're including your note in.

The real question now, is how are you personally going to define permanent notes, evergreen notes, or other related phrases like atomic notes? This practice is called by Mortimer J. Adler and Charles Van Doren "coming to terms" with an author's work and is part of their analysis for how one should read a book to get the most out of it. I highly recommend reading How to Read a Book (Simon & Schuster, 1972 or Touchstone, 2011) as a companion to any of the usual note taking manuals.

If you want to continue the experiment on a better unified definition of permanent notes, evergreen notes, atomic notes, etc., you can find a pretty solid bibliography of note making, writing, and reading manuals to peruse at https://boffosocko.com/2024/01/18/note-taking-and-knowledge-management-resources-for-students/#Recommended%20reading.

While one could certainly go down the rabbit hole of reading all these resources, I would recommend only looking at one or two and spending your time working on actual practice. It's through practice that you're more likely to make actual progress on your own problems and questions.

reply to u/franrodalg at https://www.reddit.com/r/Zettelkasten/comments/1azoo9m/permanent_vs_evergreen_notes_am_i_thinking_about/

Why not have heart balm tortes as a pastry for Valentine's Day

reference for this?

definition: syndetic structure is one of coherency and resolution made up by referential links.

Why is no one using this word in the zettelkasten space?

The adjective "syndetic" means "serving to connect" or "to be connected by a conjunction". (A conjunction being a word used to connect words, phrases and clauses, for example: and, but, if). The antonym is "asyndetic" (connections made without conjoins)

Joy, Bill. “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us.” Wired, April 1, 2000. https://www.wired.com/2000/04/joy-2/.

Annotation url: urn:x-pdf:753822a812c861180bef23232a806ec0

Annotations: https://jonudell.info/h/facet/?user=chrisaldrich&url=urn%3Ax-pdf%3A753822a812c861180bef23232a806ec0&max=100&exactTagSearch=true&expanded=true

Here's an example of Bill Joy reading about nanotechnology and having positive feelings.

Why are people so pro-technology? Have we evolved this way over 10,000 years? Are there too many technologies with bad effects?

McCullough, David. “David McCullough Interview with NEH Chairman Bruce Cole.” Humanities 23, no. 4 (August 2002). https://www.neh.gov/about/awards/jefferson-lecture/david-mccullough-biography.

Compare with: https://hypothes.is/a/yEFMHoCkEeyl34fItJe__w (Luhmann on thinking/writing in Sonke Ahrens)

I've sketched it out elsewhere but let's memorialize the broad strokes here because we're inspired at the moment... come back later and add in quotes from Luhmann and other sources (@Heyde1931).

Luhmann was balancing the differences between topically arranged commonplaces and the topical nature of the Dewey Decimal System (a standardized version across thousands of collections) and building neighborhoods of related ideas.

One of the issues with commonplace books, is planning them out in advance. How might you split up a notebook for long term use to create easy categories when you don't know how much room to give each in advance? (If you don't believe me, stop by r/commonplacebooks where you're likely to see this question pop up several times this year.) This issue is remedied when John Locke suggests keeping commonplaces in chronological order of their appearance and cross-indexing them.

This creates a new problem of a lot of indexing and increased searching over time as the commonplace book scales. Translating to index cards complicates things because they're unattached and can potentially move about, so they don't have the anchor effectuated by their being bound up in a notebook. But being on slips allows them to be more easily shuffled, rearranged, and even put into outlines, which are all fantastic affordances when looking for creativity or scaffolding things out into an article or book for creation.

As a result, numbering slips creates a solid anchor by which the cards can be placed and always returned for later finding and use. But how should we number them? Should it be with integers and done chronologically? (1, 2, 3, ..., n) This is nice, but makes a mish-mash of things and doesn't assist much in indexing or finding.

Why not go back to Dewey, which has been so popular? But not Dewey in the broadest sense of using numbers to tie ideas to concrete categories. An individual's notes are idiosyncratic and it would be increasingly rare for people to have the same note, much less need a standardized number for it (and if they were standardized, who does that work and how is it distributed so everyone could use it?) No, instead, let's just borrow the decimal structure of Dewey's system. One of the benefits of his decimal structure is that an infinity of new books can be placed on ever-expanding bookshelves without needing to restructure the numbering system. Just keep adding decimal places onto the end when necessary. This allows for immense density when necessary. But, importantly, it also provides some fantastic level of serendipity.

Let's say you go to learn about geometry, so you look up the topic in your trusty library card catalog. Do you really need to look at the hundreds of records returned? Probably not. You only need the the Dewey Decimal Number 516. Once you're at the shelves, you can browse through that section to see what's there and interesting in the space. You might also find things on the shelves above or below 516 and find the delights of topology and number theory or abstract algebra and real analysis. Subjects you might not necessarily have had in mind will suddenly present themselves for your consideration. Even if your initial interest may have been in Zhongmin Shen's Lectures on Finsler geometry (516.375), you might also profitably walk away with James E. Humphreys' Introduction to Lie Algebras and Representation Theory (512.55).

So what happens if we use these decimal numbers for our notes? First we will have the ability to file things between and amongst each other to infinity. By filing things closest to things which seem related to each other, we'll create neighborhoods of ideas which can easily grow over time. Related ideas will stay together while seemingly related ideas on first blush may slowly grow away from each other over time as even more closely related ideas move into the neighborhood between them. With time and careful work, you'll have not only a breadth of ideas, but a massive depth of them too.

The use of decimal numbering provides us with a few additional affordances:

1 (Neighborhoods of ideas) 1.1 combinatorial creativity Neighborhoods of ideas can help to fuel combinatorial creativity and forge new connections as well as insight over time. 1.2 writing One might take advantage of these growing neighborhoods to create new things. Perhaps you've been working for a while and you see you have a large number of cards in a particular area. You can, to some extent, put your hand into your box and grab a tranche of notes. By force of filing, these notes are going to be reasonably related, which means you should be able to use them to write a blog post, an article, a magazine piece, a chapter, or even an entire book (which may require a few fistfuls, as necessary.)

2 (Sparse indexing) We don't need to index each and every single topic or concept into our index. Because we've filed things nearby, if a new card about Finsler geometry relates to another and we've already indexed the first under that topic, then we don't need to index the second, because our future selves can easily rely on the fact that if we're interested in Finsler geometry in the future, we can look that up in the index, and go to that number where we're likely to see other cards related to the topic as well as additional serendipitous ideas related to them in that same neighborhood.

You may have heard that as Luhmann progressed on his decades long project, broadly on society and within the area of sociology, he managed to amass 90,000 index cards. How many do you suppose he indexed under the topic of sociology? Certainly he had 10s of thousands relating to his favorite subject, no? Of course he did, but what would happen over time as a collection grows? Having 20,000 indexed entries about sociology doesn't scale well for your search needs. Even 10 indexed entries may be a bit overwhelming as once you find a top level card, hundreds to thousands around it are going to be related. 10 x 100 = 1,000 cards to flip through. So if you're indexing, be conservative. In the roughly 45 years of creating 90,000 slips, Luhmann only indexed two cards with the topic of "sociology". If you look through his index, you'll find that most of his topical entries only have pointers to one or two cards, which provide an entryway into those topics which are backed up with dozens to hundreds of cards on related topics. In rarer, instances you might find three or four, but it's incredibly rare to find more than that.

Over time, one will find that, for the topics one is most interested in, the number of ideas and cards will grown without bound. Here it makes sense to use more and more specific topics (tags, categories, taxonomies) all of which are each also sparsely indexed. Ultimately one finds that in the limit, the categories get so fractionalized that the closest category one idea has with another is the fact that they're juxtaposed closely by number. The of the decimal expansion might say something about the depth or breadth of the relationship between ideas.

Something else arises here. At first one may have the tendency to associate their numbers with topical categories. This is only natural as it's a function at which humans all excel. But are those numbers really categories after a few weeks? Probably not. Treat them only as address numbers or GPS coordinates to be able to find your way. Your sociology section may quickly find itself with invasive species of ideas from anthropology and archaeology as well as history. If you treat all your ideas only at the topical level, they'll be miles away from where you need them to be as the smallest level atomic ideas collide with each other to generate new ideas for you. Naturally you can place them further away if you wish and attempt to bridge the distance with links to numbers in other locations, but I suspect you'll find this becomes pretty tedious over time and antithetical when it comes time to pull out a handful and write something. It's fantastically easier to pull out a several dozen and begin than it is to go through and need to pull out linked cards in a onesy-twosies manner or double check with your index to make sure you've gotten the most interesting bits. This becomes even more important as your collection scales.

reply to u/chasemac_ at https://www.reddit.com/r/Zettelkasten/comments/19ep9rc/comment/kjempeu/

I'm curious from where you draw your "original purpose" claim? This presupposes having identified a zettelkasten progenitor who has clearly made such a statement. (If you're thinking Luhmann, you're missing the mark by centuries. And even if you're thinking Luhmann, where did he say this specifically?) While Konrad Gessner seems to have been an early progenitor in 1548, the broader idea goes much further back. Even in the early days of the commonplace book, the primary analogy was using them as "storehouses" for collecting treasure (thesaurus) aka knowledge or wisdom.

Even Luhmann's framing of his zettelkasten as his "second memory" was old by the time he wrote it:

In a short academic dissertation on the art of excerpts, Andreas Stübel described the card index as a ‘secondary and subsidiary memory’ (‘memoria secundaria and subsidiaria’), summing up in just three words the dilemma scholars had been struggling with for two centuries with respect to the use of commonplace books. As far as I know, Stübel was the first among contemporaries to speak of secondary memory. —Alberto Cevolini in “Where Does Niklas Luhmann’s Card Index Come From?” Erudition and the Republic of Letters 3, no. 4 (October 24, 2018): 390–420. https://doi.org/10.1163/24055069-00304002.

If we look even further back we read Seneca the Younger in Epistulae morales, writing positively about collecting with respect to classic rhetoric:

"We should follow, men say, the example of the bees, who flit about and cull the flowers that are suitable for producing honey, and then arrange and assort in their cells all that they have brought in;

Without a clear originator, I might suggest that historically the first purpose was for memory followed closely by learning and then accumulating wisdom and knowledge (sententiae). Using them for output only came much later.

Why is there so much bad ink in the zettelkasten space about about "collecting"? (a la the "collector's fallacy") If you collect nothing, you'll have nothing. You have to start somewhere. Collecting happens first before anything useful comes out of the enterprise. Where are all these "people [who] do nothing but boast about the amount of cards in their box"? I'm not seeing lots of evidence of them in fora or online certainly. Show us your collection of examples of those to back up the claim. Are there index card hoarders out there who honestly have tens of thousands of notes with absolutely no purpose? I suspect it's rare.

If you're a collector, collect away! Take solace in the words of historian Keith Thomas:

Unfortunately, such diverse topics as literacy, numeracy, gestures, jokes, sexual morality, personal cleanliness or the treatment of animals, though central to my concerns, are hard to pursue systematically. They can’t be investigated in a single archive or repository of information. Progress depends on building up a picture from a mass of casual and unpredictable references accumulated over a long period. That makes them unsuitable subjects for a doctoral thesis, which has to be completed in a few years. But they are just the thing for a lifetime’s reading. So when I read, I am looking out for material relating to several hundred different topics.

In addition to his card index, Martin Luther King, Jr. compiled a collection of 166 folders organized around various topics which he used to organize outlines, clippings, pages from books, and other source materials as well as drafts of sermons or speeches on those topics.

To some extent these folders are just larger format repositories mirroring the topical arrangements of his card index.

[[Dan Allosso]] in How to Read, part 2

Choosing an external system for knowledge keeping and production forces the learner into a deliberate practice and confronts them with their lack of understanding. This is a large part of the underlying value not only of the zettelkasten, but of the use of a commonplace book which Benjamin Franklin was getting at when recommending that one "read with a pen in your hand". The external system also creates a modality shift from reading to writing by way of thinking which further underlines the value.

What other building blocks are present in addition to: - modality shift - deliberate practice - confrontation of lack of understanding

Are there other systems that do all of these as well as others simultaneously?

link to Franklin quote: https://hypothes.is/a/HZeDKI3YEeyj9GcNWKX4iA

The key here seems to be the noncommitted actors. Who are they? Why are they noncommitted? Are there areas where noncommittment doesn't occur?

@Nori said: First, if you instead of an alphanumeric ID use a timestamp-based one, there is no need to “place” the note anywhere.

Too often I see this generic advice to use a timestamp ID, but no one ever mentions what affordance that practice provides or any direct motivation for doing it. In this context it's suggested to remove the need to place the note anywhere, but if this is the only benefit, why bother having an ID at all? What other tangible benefits does a timestamp ID provide? (If the only benefit is having a record of creation, then why bother to put it into the title, which usually only causes confusion and problem in most digital systems? Digital systems have much better places to store date/time created, modified, etc. if you need them for search.)

In Luhmann's case the alphanumeric ID gave direct benefits in organically creating neighborhoods of ideas in which one could easily travel and which provided concrete, findable locations for search and linking. This appears to be part of the beneficial structure for what @IvanFerrero has, so why suggest such a change @Nori?

Eric Weinstein - Why Can No One Agree On The Truth Anymore? - Modern Wisdom 676