smart notes & rosi braidotti
a sudden late evening report from prin.lu
In last two days I read from two different sources connected to philosophy of by Rosi Braidotti, with deep questions and also abstract thoughts. In context of what I just read about Zettelkasten and this method of taking 'smart notes', I wonder about how would I write some notes down about what I read, and store them into my 'slip-box', aka 'second brain'.
I probably won't find a way if I don't try.
A note on tools: I feel I'm comfortable with Emacs editor quite a lot. There's a muscle memory, it's fully hackable and customizable although that means additional time to learn more Emacs Lisp and then develop some extra extensions (or use existing elisp libs) to enhance note writing, storing, and retrieving.
Most of the reading is on BOOX tablet, where I can add annotations. But these annotations are not that useful if no permanent notes are generated from them.
"Reading, thinking, and writing", said Ahrens (2022). That's what I remember from that book, as a summary:
It is a simple system. Make:
- fleeting notes (quickly noted down, discarded)
- literature notes (linked to, and stored with to bibliographical data) + bibliography
- project notes (archivable, transactional)
- permanent notes (most important, this is The slip-box)
Permanent notes are linked (as followups, or based on relevance) and are written in your own words. They are written with care, often from fleeting notes or literature notes.
Writing accompanies all activities. Don't multitask. Develop habits, routines. Research and write (notes) about what interests you, regardless of current project or literature. Write down questions. Think (and write) with an eye on the slip-box. Write permanent notes as reusable ideas, notes that can perhaps work in different contexts. Note minimal bibl. references on the notes. Try to get 'the gist' of things, and use your own words to explain it in a note.
Fleeting notes are just for a day or two. They should be reviewed at the end of the day and useful ones translated into permanent notes. Same with literature notes. Never copy verbatim text, always try to use your own words.
Brainstorming is not a good idea. It's archaic and useless. So is underlining in a book (something I did a lot while reading Ahrens' book - I also like quotes, so I might be storing these with bibiliographical notes anyway).
Willpower is not a road to self-discipline. Joy is. Using slip-box as your second brain is about things that interest you, that challenge you intellectually, something you can always play with.
OK, I need to go through all the underlines to get more points here.
If I can perhaps return to Rosi Braidotti. I read from two sources. One was a review of her book Posthuman Knowledge (2019) by Gabriel O. Apata from 2021 in "Theory, Culture & Society" journal. I was looking for inspiration about attitudes towards technology, how to articulate my ideas, that I keep returing to. I will need to quote the most interesting part, in my view, about 'transversal divergence':
What is new is that Braidotti moves up a step and frames posthuman knowledge in critical terms through her idea of ‘transversal convergence’, based largely upon the belief that the methodologies of traditional humanism are ill-equipped to deal with the crises of its own making. New methodologies or cartographic tools that are based on the inclusivity of ‘transversal convergence’ are needed to deal with these problems. Thus, ‘the posthuman is a navigational tool that enables us to survey the material and discursive manifestations of the mutations that are engendered by advance technological developments, climate change and capitalism’ (2). This is because ‘Posthuman knowledge is fuelled by transversality and heterogeneity: multiplicity and complexity shall be our guiding principles and sustainability our goal’ (Apata 2021)
The other source was her earlier book - from 2011 - 'Nomadic Theory', and specifically the chapter on technoculture and machines ("META(L)MORPHOSES: Women, Aliens, and Machines") where there's so much interesting to digest, it's hard to point out much, but maybe something that explains why Deleuze and Guattari talk about machines so much, or what do they mean with this concept:
"...there is a materialist tradition in French philosophy of science that runs through Bachelard and Canguilhem into Foucault and Deleuze’s systems of thought. This tradition construes technology halfway between mind and body, reason and the imagination. More importantly, it stresses the anthropocentric dimension of the technological universe: the machine imitates the embodied human, and vice versa, in a relationship of mutual receptivity that defies binary polarization. This cybernetic imaginary, machine friendly and evolution minded, is very fitting for the contemporary context." (Braidotti 2011)
