amorphous_constellation
Well-Known Member
So I was roughly thinking, that maybe at its best, internet based discussion is more akin to art than conventional communication. That is because in this form of communication, words must pass through an amorphous medium, which takes the form of a blank white block, which is the canvas. In this 'impasse,' you are required to write, think, and reconfirm what you write. The words you write then first direct themselves inwardly to the writer, unlike with non-nuanced vocalization, as the writer is forced to look at the reflection his mind creates, perusing grammar and thought with critical eye. And then, someone else is able to take the time to think about what you have written, all of which allows for an unusually large liberty for thoughts to exist in the limbo of cognitive latency
For if you are striving to communicate something intriguing, it seems as though writing offers you raw marble as a work station, (in form of paper/marble-like blocks of blank internet space) where deliberation is no penalty. With the difficulty of an artist, you might strive to reveal something profound within that blank area. Vocalized communication in real-time, however, often seems to be seasoned with frenetic impatience. You are not often at liberty to think long and hard in-between your sentences, lest your communication partner should become annoyed. Thus, a sense of aesthetic might be sacrificed more readily for mere utility
Finally, though the writer wishes to convey truth, the subjective and idiosyncratic nature of the form betrays him. In seeing that each person's descriptions of reality are idiosyncratic, with no paragraph being anywhere the same length, and diction in snowflake-like diffusion, truth takes the form of a haystack with no needle. One realizes that each thinker molds his/her own model, as one's thoughts can only accrete into written words uniquely, as their being written allows this to be observed. (I suppose the same might be true of voice based recordings of ideas) Each post you could ever make, could ever be like the unique colors refracted by the cuddlefish of the mind. I suppose then, it becomes almost up for debate on whether something is nonsense or sense. One person's clear sky is the cloud of another
For if you are striving to communicate something intriguing, it seems as though writing offers you raw marble as a work station, (in form of paper/marble-like blocks of blank internet space) where deliberation is no penalty. With the difficulty of an artist, you might strive to reveal something profound within that blank area. Vocalized communication in real-time, however, often seems to be seasoned with frenetic impatience. You are not often at liberty to think long and hard in-between your sentences, lest your communication partner should become annoyed. Thus, a sense of aesthetic might be sacrificed more readily for mere utility
Finally, though the writer wishes to convey truth, the subjective and idiosyncratic nature of the form betrays him. In seeing that each person's descriptions of reality are idiosyncratic, with no paragraph being anywhere the same length, and diction in snowflake-like diffusion, truth takes the form of a haystack with no needle. One realizes that each thinker molds his/her own model, as one's thoughts can only accrete into written words uniquely, as their being written allows this to be observed. (I suppose the same might be true of voice based recordings of ideas) Each post you could ever make, could ever be like the unique colors refracted by the cuddlefish of the mind. I suppose then, it becomes almost up for debate on whether something is nonsense or sense. One person's clear sky is the cloud of another
Last edited: