Thanks, this is really useful. Would you say that your thinking has become more Luhmann-esque in the way you describe? (I have not read him either but your description sounds quite like the summaries I've read.)
So far, it seems to produce more unexpected analogies in my thinking than any deeply interconnected view of reality. But some of those analogies have been hard to explain to others. When that happens, the question becomes whether I'm just not able to articulate the link yet, or if I'm seeing links that aren't really useful, or aren't really there.
Hello, and thanks very much for your excellent post. I read it before I started my own attempt last month (it was posted and discussed a bit more here). I'm doing it in software, in a markdown wiki, and a few weeks later have hundreds of notes with manually maintained links (~2.7 links/zettel).
Like you, my impression has been that it has been immensely helpful. But a comment you made has slightly haunted me from the beginning:
it is also very possible that the method produces serious biases in the types of ideas produced/developed
I think I may feel similarly, but could you elaborate? What kind of ideas do you think it produces?