Questions: Do you write in order to figure out your thoughts and maybe find new ones that branch off the old ones? Do you write in order to find out more about yourself, subconsciously? Is it possible to subconsciously analyze yourself? Does the fact that people read your writing make you alter it, whether you realize it or not, like the quantum physics property 'observation changes things?'
Well. Most of the time I write to figure out my thoughts, in a kind of stream of consciousness manner. The opposite of that would be writing with the purpose of conveying something to someone else. As for writing to find out about yourself, Oscar Wilde once said that art reflects the artist more than the subject matter and I agree with him. Subconsciously, which is even more telling than what is consciously revealed. That's why I think formal writing, as in writing a novel or short story, is so intensely personal that I feel uncomfortable sharing any of the stories I've ever written. And even here, knowing that people can read what I've consciously chosen to share (since this is a blog after all and everyone involved has agreed to participate in a collective consciousness around someone's experiences) changes what I say.
It's an issue of awareness. I wrote about awareness before, in my post about virtual realities. Specifically about how even if you were immersed in one so realistic you'd have no idea it was artificial unless someone told you, once you did know it was artificial it would lose...something. I'm perhaps a little obsessed with what actually is the difference between being in the box, oblivious, existing, and knowing that you're in the box--by knowing, have you stepped outside of it? No, I don't think so. Because to step outside of the box you have to experience what is outside of it. Simply knowing you are in it does not mean you experience what is not in it. It's like having a negative and a positive control in biological experiments. Awareness is the catalyst step but you've still gotta get outside the box. Or the labyrinth, as Simon Bolivar put it (cool quote btw). Actually, a lot of my posts are grounded in the issue of awareness. Does being aware of something make it less pure? If you're aware of the effect you have on someone, does that make you manipulative, for example?
I'm aware of a lot of things that I don't mention. That often makes me feel dishonest. But maybe that's an idealistic view of relationships among people, and honesty/sharing. I've realized that most people are aware of things that they don't mention, which sometimes overlap with what you're aware of, and so both of you are aware of the same thing but neither of you mention it. So the awareness is there but the mentioning of it is not; it appears that this happens a lot. I sound like an alien observing the humans. But seriously, this baffles me in an odd way. I want to mention this shared awareness--I guess because active acknowledgement rewards my closeness receptors. Very neuroscientific. So since my perception or awareness is fallible, I wonder if I should just take other people at their word since they choose what they share. Or should I keep in mind that sometimes people don't say what they're thinking because of more complex reasons, like politeness or shyness, and ultimately would be happy to be coaxed into sharing (I remember Walter once told me he didn't feel he needed to get to know his girlfriends actively, because they'd share what they wanted to and that struck me as douchey...gut instinct although I think I have a more balanced opinion on that philosophy now).
I think that people become closer by talking about what they believe in, regarding social things involving people and not necessarily Great Ideals like environmental socialism. I guess that could be considered a "girl thing" but I'm in the girl box! I can't get out! I've noticed how people who share things about themselves that are personal seem to connect better with others--like if you're having a conversation with someone you just met, and they mention how when they were in high school they used to idk skip seventh hour and go home, you bond better if you say something about your experience rather than ask them more about theirs. It's like trading personal "I's." That's something I don't do very well, unless the other person talks less than me. Then I sometimes have to search for things to say and fall back on I's. Although I do seem to be drawing a maybe false dichotomy between personal I statements ("I have become more optimistic since high school") and statements that reflect your philosophy ("I think people become closer by talking...").
Ahhhhh. I've confused myself. It's very rare that I can think my way to the bottom of a belief. Right now my brain feels like spaghetti, or headphone cords, because those always get tangled up. That reminds me of this theory a good friend of mine came up with (hope he doesn't mind that I share it/perhaps butcher it), where people are like tangles of string and when you have a relationship of any sort with someone, you mix your tangle with their tangle. The significance is the tangle, wherein each person is a cacophony of thoughts, emotions, rules, beliefs. i liked that theory, it was sufficiently messy. another simile that i like, which i recently decided upon after a conversation with crystal regarding her and austin, is how a relationship (this time specifically a romantic one) is kind of like a plant you need to nurture, separate from the plant of your friendship. every couple should have these two plants and can't be missing one. that's why doing couple-y things like going to dinners/trips together/being romantic are actually really crucial too and not just contrived romance--it feeds the second plant, while you should always be feeding the friendship one in your interactions so it need not be so pointed. contact! copenhagen. copernicus. okay i'm like not actually awake right now which is probably a sign that i should do the real sleep thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment