6 min readJust now

–

Image by Schorsch from Pixabay

Note: This (new) notation began with only a handful of words in Sascha Fast’s article, “The Cultivation of Knowledge Is the Objective of Knowledge Work.” A single phrase about “piling up sources” and treating them as a “menu” lodged itself in my mind, and the tension it created was enough to pull an unexpectedly long thread. What started as a brief attempt to clarify that idea turned into a sprawling exploration of prepared sources, dormant highlights, and how attention — not processing — drives my reading life. The size of this note is a reminder of how often the smallest lines in someone else’s work can open the largest questions in my own.

3.2b3c2b1 Of Rabbit Trails not Taken (2026)

I spent the morning in conversation with Copilot, trying to better understand the second half of Sascha Fast’s article, “The Cultivation of Knowledge Is the Objective of Knowledge Work.” That section focuses on cleaning up one’s information diet — becoming ruthless about sources — and it led me into a deeper reflection on how I read, highlight, and return to material over time.

Sascha’s “The Barbell Method of Reading” rests on a simple but powerful structure. First comes reading for resonance: reading freely, following the author’s flow, highlighting what catches your attention without worrying about processing anything. Then comes reading for cultivation: returning to the book or the reference notes to annotate, extract, connect, and generate new questions. The first phase is receptive; the second is deliberate.

The confusing part, at least initially, was Sascha’s statement that “you can always read faster than you can process,” and that the unprocessed material becomes a kind of menu.¹ But when I looked at my own reading, the metaphor made immediate sense. Using my current numbers from “Emerson: The Mind on Fire,” I’ve read twenty‑four chapters, highlighted seventy potential reference notes, and turned sixteen of them into Zettel notations. The remaining fifty‑four highlights are the “menu” — the rabbit trails not taken, the sparks that didn’t ignite at the moment of reading.

These unprocessed highlights form a kind of “prepared source.” They are not backlogged. They are primed material — waiting in the wings, ready to be drawn upon when my current intellectual effort calls for them. Reading created the preparation; cultivation selects what matters now.

This is how my system actually works. I might read Emerson today, but the part that becomes relevant may not be the part that resonates today. It might become relevant in six months. My highlights wait for me. They are patient. They hold potential.

For example, across 12 highlighted books, 40 articles, 3 emerging folgezettel chains, and 8 active notations, I will have far more highlighted material than processed notes. Some might call this digital hoarding or invoke Christian Tietze’s Collector’s Fallacy.² But there is a nuance. The fallacy lies in collecting without thinking. Prepared sources, by contrast, are the result of reading with attention, highlighting freely, and processing only what aligns with the current effort. Reading remains enjoyable; processing remains selective.

The critical mass of a knowledge system is not in processing everything. It is in building a library of potential insights (reference and fleeting notes) and cultivating only those that align with the questions you are living right now. The fifty‑four remaining highlights from “Emerson: The Mind on Fire” are not failures. They are the ecology of my inquiry. My work is event‑driven, not system‑driven. I don’t wake up deciding to study a topic. I read until something sparks — a tension, a question, a rough draft — and a Zettel note emerges. My attention tells me which rabbit trails to follow.

The remaining highlights are dormant, not dead. They are simply unaligned with my current effort. Their value lies in their potential to become relevant when my questions shift.

Most PKM systems lack a mechanism for these dormant notes to re‑enter attention. My solution is a weekly Emerson‑style recursive review.³ I filter for reference notes (Obsidian Base), sort by “updated_at,” and revisit them in oldest-to-newest order. I reread, annotate lightly, update metadata if needed, and pay attention to what stirs. This is not maintenance. It’s more akin to gardening, allowing my system to breathe.

A note highlighted in October may come alive in January because “I” have changed. My questions have changed. My intellectual effort has changed. A PKM system doesn’t need elaborate metadata. It needs attention. Dormant notes surface when the mind is ready for them. Recursive reviews ensure the right note is delivered at the right moment.

Learn to see your prepared sources not as a backlog, but as a living landscape of potential insight.

Why This Matters: A reading and note‑taking system becomes sustainable only when unprocessed material is understood as potential, not failure. Prepared sources allow you to read freely, cultivate selectively, and return to dormant highlights when your questions evolve. This transforms your archive from a storage system into an ecology of inquiry.

Core Claim: Prepared sources are not backlog. They are the latent field of knowledge from which cultivation draws. The knowledge practitioner learns to recognize their potential and returns to it when the moment is right.

Framing Shift:

• From: Processing everything you read To: Processing only what aligns with your current effort.
• From: Seeing unprocessed highlights as clutter To: Seeing them as prepared sources waiting for the right moment.
• From: Treating PKM as a mechanical system To: Treating it as a living ecology shaped by attention.
• From: Expecting insight on demand To: Allowing insight to emerge when your questions shift.

TRY-THIS: During your weekly review, revisit a handful of dormant reference notes. Read them slowly. Notice what stirs. Let your current questions guide you. Cultivation begins when attention meets potential.

Version 1.0, last modified: 2026–01–27

Thanks for Reading!

The notations contained in “A Voice in the Conversation” are rough-draft versions of my evolving knowledge management ideas. They reflect inquiry in motion, i.e., unfinished, exploratory, and personal. I use Copilot Pro and Grammarly to assist with search, refinement, and clarity. It helps me shape the flow and grammar of my writing, but the ideas presented are entirely my own.

Related Notes in This Folgezettel Chain

Footnotes and References

(1) Sascha Fast (January 14, 2026). “The Cultivation of Knowledge Is the Objective of Knowledge Work.” Zettelkasten.de. Retrieved from: https://zettelkasten.de/posts/cultivation-of-knowledge-is-objective-of-knowledge-work/ (Verified link: 2026–01–23)

“Since you can always read faster than you can process, you will pile up a bunch of sources. From these read and prepared sources, you start to process according to the relevance to your efforts. Think of read and unprocessed sources as a menu from which you choose the current best source.”

(2) Christian Tietze. (January 20, 2014) “The Collector’s Fallacy.” Zettelkasten.de. Retrieved from: zettelkasten.de/posts/collectors-fallacy/ (Verified link: 2026–01–27)

“Let’s call this “The Collector’s Fallacy”. Why fallacy? Because ‘to know about something’ isn’t the same as ‘knowing something’. Just knowing about a thing is less than superficial since knowing about is merely to be certain of its existence, nothing more.”

(3) My notation: