Defense

June 16, 2009

2: If I may be blunt--and I think I may--I am tired of speculation. Specifically, I am tired of your speculation. I am tired of all of your tedious refrains from living, which is to say I am tired of everything your write. It is to no great purpose. It has no impact on anyone outside of yourself, and the only impact it has on yourself is to further alienate you from your life or to further entrench you in your prejudices.
We normally consider people who talk to themselves frequently to be crazy. What significant difference is there between talking to one's self and writing to one's self? There is none. Both are broken forms of communication by way of their requiring an insufficient number of parties to communicate. Sane people do not wear both hats, my good man.
1: You certainly may be blunt. Candor is essential to all friendships and I know your intentions are always friendly. I hesitate to explain myself for fear I will only be robbing you further of your opportunity to sleep--as tired as you are--but you seem to have enough energy to criticize. Begging your apology in advance should I keep you up past your bedtime, I will take up my own defense.
I grant you that my writing does not have a great impact, but that is not my desired effect. True, perhaps in my weaker moments, I want to be recognized for what I say, but that is not the greatest reason why I write. I am confused about so many things. I find it helpful to write in order to clarify my thinking. Even if the clarification only involves delineating what I do not know, I think this is good for my character. If nothing else, it improves my state of mind, calming me down from the frustration that flows from one's own lamentable ignorance.
At other times, when I estimate I have an approximation of truth somewhere in my consciousness, I write it down as well. It is a good thing to share what one has in abundance, provided that the shared good is really good. The truth is one such good. I have a superabundance of thoughts and observations that are candidates for truth. Isn't it good of me, then, to share?
In the event that the truth goes unseen, as a result of my scant readership, I do not think the exercise a complete waste. A beautiful thing about the truth is that its being known does not alter it in any way. The truth abides, with or without you. To that extent, I can do it no harm--by lying or by refraining from speaking the truth--or benefit--by speaking the truth or refraining to lie. The truth about truth is a great relief, is it not?
If the truth remains the same regardless of its being known, what good is it to propagate the truth? Oh, what a deftly formed question! I have now introduced ethics into this epistemological excursion. "It is good for the individual to know the truth." A simple proposition, wouldn't you say? It is by that proposition that I attribute all justification for my communication, even if it is solely with myself.
Thank you for your patience, I promise I am nearly done. You had mentioned something about alienation. I am taking myself away from my life by writing and thinking as I do, you think? Does that mean that life ought not to involve language and thought? No--you couldn't mean that. Is it possible to think and write too much, to then create a second life inside your mind while neglecting your first one? Oh, perhaps. Have I achieved that level of intellectualism? I think not! I spend much more of my time acting and even if my mind stays active during activity, I'd hardly say I am alienating myself from my life. Is there not always a voice carrying on in your head? If it's written down, its called stream of consciousness. You cannot contend that simply because my stream flows to different areas--or at a different rate--than yours that my stream is flowing off a cliff. That would be a prejudicial assessment, don't you think?
A yawn? Just one more thing before you doze off. You say that there must be two parties to communicate, and I grant you that as well. It is a keen observation. Yet, would you possibly deny that within a single person there are multiple parties? The free individual bears within herself all sorts of possibilities. If you want to think pictorially about it, we can roughly slice up a consciousness. On the left side is the part of the consciousness that contains entrenched beliefs--prejudices you called them. On the right side is the part of consciousness that contains tentative beliefs. When a person writes to clarify, she runs between the two parts. Usually this movement involves reason and logic, but it also also involves pathos (for some beliefs are more ardently believed or are given to being more believable to a person than others). In this way we have two parties communicate: the formed person and the forming person. What is the outcome of the communication? Some of the forming person becomes more solid and transfers into the "formed" part while another part--the left overs--is jettisoned outside of the tentative person and into the jungle of the possible and impossible persons.
Now I am carrying on again and your eyes are glazing over. Wake up then, and come at me again.