The Double-Edged Sword of Knowledge: A case of Zettelkasten
(All copyrights reserved.)
It has been immensely productive to work with Zettelkasten. But it would take to be buried under a heap of shit for someone like me to finally get a little organised, something natural to people who have such a good disposition, were born of this affliction, or maybe they are just smart.
While I started working with them recently, I thought it would be a good idea to structure my older notes and recordings this way. I asked my wise friend ChatGpt to parse a dozen pages from old stuff for titles and the content, then write a summary and propose a five stages Zettelkasten. If ChatGpt’s asperger syndrome be spared, the summary dislocated the original idea a little, was yet effective. It then offered a neat zettelkasten flow chart. While the summary demonstrated a B-minus grade effective grasp of the issue, the zettelkasten was interesting, yet not the kind I would write. I went through the stage two and three notes. My words, yet arranged differently to produce a different argument. I saved his responses, cleared the chat and started a new one. Now I offered ChatGpt the zettelkasten it had produced to read, and write a short summary of the pivotal argument. The new summary indeed reflected the its own Zattelkasten, with certain degree of unfamiliarity. What just happened here? Where in the process, the content changed? I could attribute it only to LLM’s tendency to crunch the data for minimal bitesize, though I am still learning LLM and often within the scope of its linguistic mechanisation.
I printed those dozen pages and started to shuffle-read their content to notice the morphosis of the original idea and if a reductive arrangement saves some space, minimise energy usage by compromising the details it deems unnecessary, and end-up producing a false record. Then I realised that such reduction is also inherent to Luhmann’s Zettelkasten. The titles, the headings and the chapters in text are dictatorial entities put forth by the author for ease of conveying the message. “The name: What does one call thus” * Derrida [cite] Each next word comes at the expense of many ideas. Language has always been reductive. Not only does Luhmann’s method [cite] organise the space in a reductive manner, such loss of data must also occur in any system which uses language and logic in such ways. While with LLMs any fool can expand a single word to an impressive essay, what would eventually be produced is a fine dust of everything that ever happened and shall not happen ever after.
I pity fools who argue whether there be an acceleration from the left, Centre or the right of the political spectrum if at all. Does it not accelerate the same subject? A desire to build a tower high in an anticipation of its collapse earlier than without such intervention. New science has accelerated such discourses already and without any hint of a Badiouian Event [cite]. Mind your ears for next few decades of pure fucking noise of declaration of all sorts. Shuffle, grind, sieve, dilute, sieve-sieve. Organise yourself into a fine glossy paste.
I am still using Zettelkasten but with changes fitting my new need. I change the word, sign or sentence at any stage of writing when my subject reveals itself differently. Not only do I write under a suggestive heading but do change the suggestion as many times as I need to. If I must write the body, I can also rewrite the head. It should serve to follow my flight of thought and not the other way around.
The need or necessity of acceleration has exposed many paradoxes. Lower bitesize means loss of many perspectives, obscure potentialities and a redundant analytic procedure. It is not hard to imagine which ones will be dropped readily and so, not entirely on qualitative grounds but for the convenience of a few. Machinic algorithms tend to favour certain conditions which produce a certain number on the behalf of the will of a collective. A sea of hands for a Führer.
I love to write like a deleuzian[cite]snake, see only a foot ahead and let the body sway where it feels fit. A constant line of flight and deterritorialization. There’s a sense of space the body takes, yet connected to all the possible space it could take or give away, producing a larger bitsize with pockets of dead air and highly mutated ideas. Even incoherence. A point detached from its environment is not the point I would like to make. To change position not by reducing the content to its utility, but to re-calibrate a perspective with every move.
Content is something people produce for various reasons. It is a great habit to be organised at what one produces, unless such organisation dictates the content. The content produced should avail the obscure spaces to produce something new. An early and speedy intervention, even by the author himself by deciding the title when the body is yet not fully formed could produce a very one dimensional low resolution content, unless the zettelkasten could be tweaked from head to toes and at any time desired.
I am trying to understand my own situation in the world. Doing so would require not only the knowledge of such kind, but also how I sequence it peculiarly with my condition. Knowledge can not be separated from its subject and sieved for a truth convenient.
I fed the above written into my LLM toy again. Here’s how it went:
MA:
Read the following and provide a review, both literary and from the perspective of contemporary philosophy.
ChatGpt:
Literal Review
The text presents a reflection on the use of the Zettelkasten method, a note-taking and knowledge management system, in the author's writing and organization practices. The author begins by expressing a begrudging appreciation for the productivity fostered by Zettelkasten, despite initial resistance due to disorganization. The author discusses their experience of restructuring older notes using this method, enlisting the help of an AI (ChatGPT) to parse and summarize content. The AI's output, while somewhat effective, differed from the author's expectations, highlighting potential shortcomings in the AI's data processing.
The text criticizes the inherent reductionism in both Zettelkasten and language itself, suggesting that any system reliant on language and logic inevitably simplifies complex ideas, potentially leading to a loss of nuance and detail. The author draws parallels to philosophical and political discourse, noting that the acceleration of information and ideas often results in noise rather than meaningful content. The piece concludes with the author's approach to adapting Zettelkasten to suit their needs, emphasizing flexibility and the importance of allowing content to evolve naturally rather than being constrained by rigid structures.
Review from the Perspective of Contemporary Philosophy
The text can be interpreted through several contemporary philosophical lenses, each shedding light on different aspects of the author's reflections.
Post-Structuralism and Deconstruction:
The author's critique of the Zettelkasten system aligns with post-structuralist thought, particularly the ideas of Jacques Derrida. The notion that language and organization inherently reduce complexity mirrors Derrida's concept of "différance," where meaning is always deferred and never fully captured by words. The author's concern about the reductive nature of language and structure reflects the post-structuralist skepticism towards definitive, stable meanings and the critique of logocentrism (the privileging of words as primary conveyors of meaning).
Accelerationism:
The text's mention of acceleration in political discourse touches upon themes in accelerationism, a contemporary philosophical movement that explores the consequences of accelerating technological and economic processes. The author's disdain for the acceleration of information leading to noise instead of meaningful content can be seen as a critique of the accelerationist view that faster development leads to progress. The author suggests that acceleration may lead to superficiality and a lack of depth, echoing concerns that accelerationism overlooks the qualitative aspects of knowledge and discourse.
Cognitive Science and AI Ethics:
The discussion on AI and its limitations in processing and summarizing content raises questions about the role of artificial intelligence in cognitive tasks. The author's observation that AI tends to produce "reductive" summaries touches on ethical considerations regarding AI's impact on knowledge production. This aligns with contemporary debates on the extent to which AI can or should replace human cognitive functions, and the potential risks of oversimplification and loss of nuance in automated systems.
Deleuzian Philosophy:
The author's preference for a flexible, organic approach to writing, likened to a "Deleuzian snake," resonates with the philosophy of Gilles Deleuze. Deleuze emphasizes becoming, multiplicity, and the fluidity of thought. The author's desire to allow content to evolve dynamically, without being constrained by rigid structures, reflects Deleuze's advocacy for a more open, process-oriented approach to knowledge and creativity. This perspective values the continuous transformation of ideas over static organization.
Phenomenology:
The text's focus on the subjective experience of writing and organizing notes can be interpreted through the lens of phenomenology, which emphasizes the lived experience and intentionality of consciousness. The author's emphasis on adapting the Zettelkasten method to suit their personal needs and the dynamic nature of their thought process reflects the phenomenological concern with how individuals experience and interpret the world. This approach contrasts with more objective, structured systems that may overlook the nuances of individual experience.
Conclusion
The text provides a rich tapestry of reflections on the interplay between knowledge organization, language, and personal creative processes. Through a contemporary philosophical lens, it engages with themes of reductionism, acceleration, AI ethics, and the fluidity of thought. The author's critique of rigid structures and emphasis on flexibility aligns with post-structuralist and Deleuzian perspectives, while their concerns about the reductive nature of language and AI highlight important considerations in cognitive science and AI ethics. The text ultimately advocates for a more organic, adaptable approach to knowledge management, valuing the complexity and dynamism of human thought.
