(e) None of the above. (pinky_thebrain) wrote,
(e) None of the above.

Mumble jumble

Do you think we have an obligation to figure out what it is we're trying to say before we say it?

Yeah, it's contextual. What about the context of online blogging/commenting? Do we have space, are we given space, to kinda stumble over our words, to not say what we intended to say, to not really know what we mean, to - I mean - even be wrong and take it all back?

I generally try to do the whole "think before you speak" racket. But really? Good thinking sometimes happens as a communal event with one or more other people. You start talking and you find words emerging from your mouth in unexpected ways - sometimes revealing, sometimes ridiculous. You throw these words at other people and in some mystical feedback loop, conversation happens, and your ideas are clarified like brain butter.

Conversation grows thoughts, and I love it. But sometimes, e.g. when commenting on other people's blogs, I feel like it's inappropriate to write something poorly-thought-out. I need to Have A Point: both know what it is, and express it clearly. It's as if because I'm writing words down I have an obligation to be more essay-like or authoritative.

What happens if I don't have a point, I just want to talk? Or there's something I want to say, just I can't put my finger on it?

I trust it's okay to fumble a tentative-draft-point-of-view post in these cases. It's the only way I can begin to express myself sometimes.
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
I think that few people expect any blog comment to be a fully-realised Thesis of Pertinent Wisdom. It does happen sometimes, and can be a delight when it does, but it's certainly not the expectation.

I understand that drive to clarify, though. When thoughts are still in the head or in the air, they lack the Permanence of the written. Writing can be like extracting a string of crystals from the percolating chaos of thought, and in those crystals we can see both facets and flaws. It's natural to want to choose the right ones, and arrange them in a pleasing fashion :-)
i think it's hard to ever have smoething completely worked out without having a dialogue, an exchange .. some back and forht etc .. otherwise it's like there's no feedback loop.

and so on a place like livejournal with a much slower feedback loop people are more likely to go down paths that aren't necessarily productive. whereas in real life, you can adjust what you're saying to make sure the recipient understands where you're coming from.
actually, thinking about this a tiny bit longer, it seems like some people have the notion that what is written is done, and some people have the idea that what is written is to do. like a past/future orientation.

So people who perceive things being written as already having made up your mind about them, will see unmeshed ideas as less correct.

Whereas people who perceive things as "to do", will see ideas that are too thought out as being narrow-minded and fixated on outdated modes of thinking or such.

Anyway, from the same given text, different people can take things different ways. And you can't ever possibly expect to be able to communicate in full to a group of others in a way that everyone takes things the right way.

So in that way, writing is like art. It's open to interpretation.
and critics will always find something wrong with it, even if they're looking at it from a totally different perspective or comparing to other things you've done.