Emerson’s Recursive Thinking Method | Steven Thompson
body
Sitemap## A Voice in the Conversation
A daily ledger of thought-in-motion. I follow threads, remix conversations, and trust that what moves me might matter. This is authorship as inquiry, not conclusion.
Image by Studio Iris from Pixabay
Note: This (new) notation was sparked by a passage in “Emerson: The Mind on Fire” and deepened through a journal entry where I tried to trace the contours of Emerson’s method — and how it diverges from my own. Emerson didn’t take notes to reach conclusions. He captured fragments, returned to them recursively, and used reading as a catalyst for inquiry. His notebooks weren’t archives; they were living spaces for evolving questions. As I reflected on my own habits — decades of note-taking aimed at resolution — I realized I’d missed something essential. This note marks a shift: from seeking answers to cultivating questions, from linear progress to recursive thought.
3.7c Emerson’s recursive thinking method (2025)
I’ve come full circle. After years of reading to learn, writing to clarify, and building a PKM system to support both, I find myself returning to the most foundational inquiry: how do I ask better questions?
Reading “Emerson: The Mind on Fire” by Robert D. Richardson has been a revelation.¹ Emerson’s process, at first glance, seems simple enough:
1. Capture raw fragments — quotes, observations, fleeting insights.
2. Return to them over time, annotating, reframing, and connecting.
3. Use reading as a catalyst for generating new questions.
4. Sort notes thematically, even when the categories are unclear.
5. Revisit notes years later with new lenses, allowing questions to evolve.
I recognized myself in the first step. My journals and reference notes are full of fragments — lines from books, thoughts from journals and hikes, clipped articles, and even memes. But I rarely return to them unless I’m citing something or building a Zettel notation. What I’ve been missing is the recursive annotation — the slow layering of thought over time.
Emerson didn’t just collect quotes. He returned to them, added commentary, reframed them, and connected them to other ideas. This recursive process often generated new questions. For example, a line about beauty might prompt: “Is beauty moral when it uplifts, or only when it aligns with truth?” These weren’t rhetorical flourishes — they were invitations to think further.
Reading, for Emerson, wasn’t about mastery. It was about provocation. He copied passages from Plato, Montaigne, Hindu scripture, and Carlyle into thematic notebooks — not to summarize them, but to test them against his own ideas. Feynman had a similar practice. He kept a dozen “favorite problems” in mind and tested every new idea against them.² Emerson’s version was more fluid, but the principle was the same: read to generate friction, not just understanding.
Even Emerson’s sorting process was a form of inquiry. He didn’t always know where a note belonged (Niklas Lunmann didn’t always know either). Sometimes he wrote in a general notebook and later moved it to a thematic one. The act of sorting forced him to ask: “Is this about beginnings or endings? Is this a moral insight or a metaphysical one?”
Most importantly, Emerson’s questions weren’t front-loaded. They evolved. A note written in 1832 might be revisited in 1845 with a new lens. His notebooks weren’t linear — they were recursive. The themes weren’t conclusions — they were containers for inquiry.
That’s the shift I’ve been missing. I’ve spent decades trying to reach conclusions, never realizing that the real purpose of note-taking might be to keep the questions alive.
Why This Matters: Without recursive engagement, notes become static. They record what we once thought, but not how our thinking grows. Emerson’s method offers a model for dynamic inquiry — where notes are revisited, reframed, and reconnected over time. It transforms note-taking from archival to generative.
Core Claim: The value of a note lies not in what it captures, but in how it evolves. Recursion — not resolution — is the engine of insight.
Framing Shift:
- From: Notes as conclusions To: Notes as containers for evolving questions.
- From: Reading to master content To: Reading to provoke inquiry.
- From: Sorting as organization To: Sorting as a form of thinking.
TRY-THIS: When reviewing your notes:
- Ask: What question does this fragment raise now?
- Annotate old entries with new reflections or tensions.
- Use reading to test and challenge your current questions.
- Sort notes thematically, even if the categories feel provisional.
- Revisit notes periodically to see how your lens has shifted.
Treat your PKM not as a vault, but as a workshop for evolving thought.
Version 1.0, last modified: 2025–10–13
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## Recursive Layering (annotating my notes)
Note: This (new) notation was prompted by Jamie Todd Rubin’s recent essay, “Emerson and His Notebooks,” part of his…
View original## What Makes a Note Worthy of Continuation?
Note: This (new) notation marks a change in how I’ll think about themes within my PKM system going forward. For years…
[
](https://medium.com/a-voice-in-the-conversation/what-makes-a-note-worthy-of-continuation-03d517233ae4?source=post_page-----ec6bb51ef36f---------------------------------------)## Insight vs. Inquiry
Note: This (new) notation began with a simple question: How do I balance my enjoyment of reading books that inspire me…
View original## The Questions We Live With
Note: If it isn’t already obvious, “Emerson: The Mind on Fire” by Robert D. Richardson has left a deep imprint on my…
Footnotes and References
(1) Richardson, Robert D. (2015) “Emerson: The Mind on Fire.” University of California Press. Kindle Edition.
(2) Fast, Sascha. (January 15, 2023) “Feynman’s Darlings — Or- How Anyone Can Become Brilliant.” Zettelkasten.de. Retrieved from: https://zettelkasten.de/posts/feynmans-darlings-become-brilliant/ (Verified link: 2025–10–13)
A daily ledger of thought-in-motion. I follow threads, remix conversations, and trust that what moves me might matter. This is authorship as inquiry, not conclusion.
Writing from a life shaped by finance, curiosity, and the mountains I keep returning to.
More from Steven Thompson and A Voice in the Conversation
Recommended from Medium
[
See more recommendations