In this post, I’ll explain how I organize all of this in my system, which relies on Emacs and the Howm package.

I have been keeping my notes in Emacs since 2021. Before that, I experimented with a variety of solutions — Vimwiki, Tiddlywiki, Obsidian, and Tinderbox. Ultimately, Howm turned out to be the right combination of functionality and simplicity for me.

For a final draft of an article, I use LaTeX or LibreOffice + Zotero (if I’m lazy). But the list of sources in Howm serves a different purpose: it tells me which books are mentioned in my knowledge base and which quotations I have actually used from them.

For this purpose, I use an Org file. While the default format in Howm is just txt, Org lets me automate the numbering.

Whenever I add a quotation to my notes collection, I also add the book to the list and attach a “come-from” link. The entry looks like this: Author, year of publication.

Next, if I add another quotation from the same book, I insert the bibliographic key as well, using the C-c , i command.

Over time, I can see how many excerpts from a particular work have ended up in my collection. Clicking the “come-from” link displays the bibliographic information, followed by all entries with citations.

This system seems simple and effective to me. I can see which books I have worked with and when (the entries in Howm are dated), what caught my attention, and so on.

If you’re interested in using Emacs for knowledge management, you might find my book Efficient Note-Taking in Emacs with Howm helpful.

The question posed in the title is not a new one. A long-standing debate exists between proponents of streamlining intellectual labor and those who argue that doing so would not only reduce labor but also intelligence.

The prevailing belief is that having a Zettelkasten system in place makes writing a less burdensome and quicker endeavor.

Sönke Ahrens asks: “So why is not everybody using a slip-box and working effortlessly towards success? Is it because it is too complicated? Certainly not. It is rather surprisingly simple.” — A little further on, he adds — “I wonder how long it will take until the advantages of Luhmann’s slip-box and work routines become equally obvious to everyone.” (How to Take Smart Notes)

Isn’t it the real Gospel?

But there is always some Doubting Thomas.

Robert Minto has written a clever and vibrant essay about his unsuccessful attempt at note-taking– “Rank and File. What if my note-taking system could think for me?”

Cal Newport shared his skepticism about the potential of Zettelkasten in one of his YouTube videos.

Century ago Russian logician and philosopher Sergey Povarnin (1870–1952) expressed same doubts.

In his concise work “How to Read Books for Self-Education,” penned in 1924, he lampoons playfully the prevalent fascination with index cards method. Even then, Povarnin teased the obsession for collecting notes and the mirage of a “second brain.”

Regrettably, Povarnin’s contributions are relatively unknown in the West. To enrich the English-language discourse, I will provide an excerpt from the aforementioned book.

“It is worth emphasizing here that excerpts on cards and in notebooks are only an auxiliary means of reading, not the goal in itself. Some individuals tend to turn this into a form of collecting, a kind of ‘sport’ — proud of their ‘card index’ of excerpts and quotes, constantly expanding it — they do not apply it to the case at all. Of course, this form of collecting is no worse than any other. However, it provides precisely nothing useful for the mind. It’s simply an unnecessary waste of time and effort.

Much more dangerous is another type of fascination with cards. There are readers who think that with such ‘card indexes’ they can replace their mind. This is already quite bad. I once talked to such a young man. Overflowing with enthusiasm, describing his ‘card index,’ he explained how well organized it was and added: ‘For example, if I need to give a report. I — at once go to the cards. I have them on every topic. I’ll choose the ones I need, arrange them in order — and the report is ready! All the thoughts are there, I just need to connect them. Easy and good!’ In short, a new ‘improvement’ in our culture. No need to work with the mind. Ready-to-wear boots, ready-to-wear pants, ‘ready-to-wear’ thoughts.
This is the fascination that the reader seeking self-education should be warned against by all means. Let him first think about the topic of the report himself and sketch out its plan, and then review the cards and supplement or modify what is necessary. This is the right way.”

It is easy to use an index card system as a “second brain” to store second-hand ideas. This stage used to have a much less pretentious name, which is “gathering materials.”

Nonetheless, there is still a need to engage in writing. Combining discrete information into a coherent text is the most demanding aspect of this process. It signifies the progression from analysis to synthesis.

Let’s be real here — the countless combinations available don’t actually facilitate writing; in fact, they complicate it further.

The human brain uses approximately 20% of the body’s energy. If you want to create a “Second brain” you need to think twice.

Luhmann in his interview with Rainer Erd and Andrea Maihofer Luhman admited: “The slip box is more time-consuming for me than writing books.” (Niklas Luhmann. Archimedes und wir Interviews, 1987)

Speaking of Luhmann, it’s worth mentioning that he used a similar approach as Sergey Povarnin.

“At first, I make a plan for what I want to write, and then I retrieve from the slip box what I can use.” (Archimedes und wir Interviews, 1987)

In his famous article on Zettelkasten, Luhmann remarks: “Scientific publications are not created, at least in my experience, by copying what has already been recorded in the slip box for this purpose.” (Kommunikation mit Zettelkästen, 1981)

This doesn’t appear to be the most straightforward way of writing. It is just the right way.

One of Luhmann’s cards was titled “Geist im Kasten,” which can be translated as “Ghost in the Box.” However, there is no spooky connotation intended here. The term “Ghost” is most likely being used in the Hegelian sense, referring to “der absolute Geist” or something similar.

According to Luhmann, his visitors were unable to comprehend the true nature of the Zettelkasten. “Spectators come. They get to see everything, and yet nothing but that — much like in a pornographic movie.” (ZK II Zettel 9/8,3)

This phrase echoes the famous thought experiment of Ludwig Wittgenstein, which also involves a box. However, instead of a ghost, Wittgenstein’s scenario features a beetle. He writes: “Suppose everyone had a box with something in it: we call it a ‘beetle’. No one can look into anyone else’s box, and everyone says he knows what a beetle is only by looking at his beetle. — Here it would be quite possible for everyone to have something different in his box. One might even imagine such a thing constantly changing.” (Philosophical Investigations, § 293)

While Luhmann was generous enough to let spectators look into the box, they didn’t perceive his b̶e̶e̶t̶l̶e̶ ghost. The experience of pain or the experience of the Zettelkasten cannot be adequately shared with others.

There are certain things that humans have in common, which helps us understand each other better than we understand bats. But there is still something transcendental, buzzing in the box, which can’t be explained.

Anyone who wants to investigate Luhmann’s Zettelkästen in detail needs to start with reliable sources. The most trustworthy source would be Luhmann’s texts itself. He didn’t describe his system thoroughly but left some valuable insights.

1. The slip box itself implicitly contains the techniques of work. However, extracting and analyzing these techniques is not an easy task. It is necessary to use source studies in order to determine the role Zettelkästen played in the processing of information and the production of new texts.
2. Inside of Luhmann’s Zettelkasten there is a series of entries on the principles of note-taking.
3. Luhmann’s system theory has many parallels with his understanding of Zettelkästen, as the slip box is also a system. Luhmann’s statements about slip boxes can be better understood in the light of his theory. However, such a comparative analysis is also an extremely complex endeavor.
4. The article “Kommunikation mit Zettelkästen. Öffentliche Meinung und Sozialer Wandel.” Here, Luhmann openly shares his thoughts on the nuances of the system.
5. The chapter “Lesen lernen” in the book “Niklas Luhmann. Short Cuts.” Here, Luhmann discusses reading and briefly mentions his index card system.
6. Luhmann’s insightful interview with Rainer Erd und Andrea Maihofer in the book “Niklas Luhmann. Archimedes und wir Interviews” delves into his writing practices. In this conversation, Luhmann reiterates most of the points made in his article. However, the interview format makes the material more vivid.
7. Another interview that delves into Luhmann’s working style is his conversation with Wolfgang Hagen in “Warum haben Sie keinen Fernseher, Herr Luhmann? Letzte Gespräche mit Niklas Luhmann.
8. There’s a three-minute segment in the documentary “Niklas Luhmann — Beobachter im Krähennest” where Luhmann showcases his system
9. There are almost certainly scattered memories of Luhmann’s students and colleagues. He told many people about his Zettelkästen. Some memories may be shared by his children. It is incredibly difficult to collect such material, although it is where valuable insights can be gleaned.

In Niklas Luhmann’s slip box, in one chain of his thoughts, there is an interesting observation about the nature of Zettelkasten (It is the card ZK II Zettel 9/8j). He writes:

In the Zettelkasten, there is a note containing an argument that refutes the claims on all other notes. However, this note disappears as soon as you open the Zettelkasten. That is, it takes on a different number, disguises itself, and becomes impossible to find. A wild card.

This metaphor transforms notes into a deck of cards, turning a research project into a game of solitaire. It introduces an element of playfulness and jest. The interlocutor, in this case, becomes a joker, a trickster. Nevertheless, this element may be essential for the entire project’s existence. Zettelkasten shouldn’t be deadly serious. It is not a grave for thoughts nor a place for only grave thoughts. The transformation of ἐπιστήμη into ἐπίστημα happens too often.

Another notable sociologist, Peter Berger, aptly expressed the idea of the need for humor in science:

…study itself will profit greatly from those insights that one can obtain only while laughing. Sociology will be especially well advised not to fixate itself in an attitude of humorless scientism that is blind and deaf to the buffoonery of the social spectacle.¹

— — — —

1. Berger, Peter L. Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective. New York: Anchor Books, 1963. p. 165.