I write to observe what I find interesting and to explore things so that I can be clearer about them. And I have made a lifetime study of writers and writing and close reading--interpretation of the valid variety. Not everyone knows about these activities and motives of mine except as they too might have thought about this way of embracing and trying to evolve the world, or they have surmised as such from others who evidence similar motives. Perhaps it is time to be more transparent, though, especially in light of current events in almost every country where speech is not free and agents work to end dialogue, example Russia. Also, in light of the great variety of experiences life offers up for us to deal with, these too deserve some space in consciousness, if only to come up for a breath of fresh air.
Here and elsewhere it is pretty clear that I write for no audience. It is about my education and evolution. If one wants to catch a short ride or contribute, they have that opportunity. If not, I don't much care. I write to identify and fix a thing as it appears in consciousness (noematics). I guess that means that writing is the writer's consciousness (noematics101), and I am still in the middle of investigating that. Local cultural color and amusement also have a space in my efforts (benanoblog). From time to time, I get bitten by something, often about language (see earlier posts), or I try to synthesize the disparate parts of my researches, and I post here using different ways to present or discuss. In every case, experimentation in the interest of matching the medium with the message is a criterion: How best to put the message. Of course, there are many failed attempts and dead ends, but that is as life is. I address no one in particular (see also About to the right).
However, there are almost insurmountable challenges with my project. I am sure with recent evidence added to the pile I already have from other sources, the following--always tentative, as in a quasi-scientific approach--cautions, or caveats, can be put forth after what amounts to an eight-year experiment.
1. People do not read what the writer intended and often what s/he wrote. There is no match of experience-to-be-had and what the writer crafts. People can't or don't read to understand. Words do not confine the fantasies they lay claim to.
Two people re-create an experience in mind from the same set of words, each from his own perspective. The resulting perceptions differ: Two spirals of interpretation drilling down and sedimenting into separate conclusions, that is as it is to understanding. Woe to the world.2. People respond with their heart or emotion or self-interest first, and then--if convenient, needed, or appropriate--they might respond with their head, but only if it serves their heart or emotion or self interest. "It's about me."
3. Holding a subject at a distance and turning it round on the phenomenological axis to understand it better and then put it back down to earth, without feelings about who said what, is a myth. It is not possible. Never seen it happen. Ad hominem. "Kill the messenger."
4. On the other hand, it is very easy to present one's view or idea or whatever such that it affects the other's heart more than his or her head. Words can get you off the couch, or get you killed by one or a mob, but more to the point here: to kill or maim--revenge for perceived affront is said to be sublime.
Buncombe to all these things. But people do or show their limitations--they seem unable to restrain themselves (look at the comments written anywhere on the web where the comment entry box appears at the bottom of the web page).
5. Any statement is more about the speaker than the spoken to. Put another way, when one asks a question or makes a statement, that is about them and not the one they are talking to. Mostly and invariably. (Yes, it is a paradox.)
Enough apologetics. Read or not. You are welcome.
