This is only a SMALL potential of what my writing could be.
It’s all leading to more happiness, I hope 🙂
I really don’t care if other people don’t like my work.
Let me explain to you what my work means, and what it does not.
What does my writing, and therefore, what do my thoughts, mean?
First of all: why do I write?
I write because I think, and I think because it is my nature to think.
What does it mean to have a “nature“?
It is easily understood by declaring that it is that that occurs naturally.
It means that it is intrinsic: it is literally a part of your existence. If it were capable to not only elaborate, but merely identify literally EVERY SINGLE PART that made up your existence, to say that I would be surprised would be an understatement of an incalculable magnitude.
So if you could identify literally EVERY PART in EXISTENCE which made up what you consider to be “yourself”, then thinking would be a part of that for me.
Now, what does this have to do with writing?
First, we must discuss the relationship between thinking and communication, and THEN we must discuss different KINDS of communication.
What is thinking?
I have discussed that it is a part of my nature (My Nature, My Enjoyment, and Notes About Desires and Perfection, Personality Development), but is it anything else?
Thinking involves the head: we all know that.
It is the root of action.
Thinking, to my best understanding, is simply action with feeling.
I wrote a piece called “The Apparent Disconnect Between Thinking and Acting“, but even I have a temptation to distinguish the two, so I will attempt to discuss why it is exactly that I perceive to be a difference, although I previously discussed their similarities in the previous piece.
One of the main differences is that “action” (distinguished as different in this piece, but similar in the aforementioned piece) is visual: an action from someone else is something that you can see. It is something that you can physically feel. Something you can hear, taste, smell.
Thoughts can do no such thing.
I know that someone will say “But Cody, you can hear someone’s thoughts when they speak them,” but notice how you say what he is speaking: his thoughts.
Not all thoughts are spoken, so there is a difference between thinking and speaking.
Notice how we can say “I am speaking my thoughts”, but not “I am thinking my speaks.” We may say “I am thinking about what I am going to say,” and I can speak my thoughts, but I do not have to speak all of my thoughts.
However, if I am to speak, then a thought has to occur before the spoken word.
I don’t mean “thought” as in “generally accepted as intelligent.”
I mean the thought as an existential concept and phenomenon.
So this is to distinguish the relationship between thinking and acting, but also to define a clear difference.
I hope that you have understood both the relationship between thinking and acting as well as the distinction between the two.
Now, let’s discuss action.
I have discussed what an action is (a thought from one individual that can be received by another (I know that not all actions must be seen by another, as you can watch yourself performing an action, but the purpose of bringing up this distinction is that it is impossible for a thought to be perceived from one individual to another without an action, and I will discuss this later), such as a frown, grimace, or blank stare: something that can be visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory, and tasty (not necessarily something that tastes good, but rather something that can be tast-ed)), and I have attempted to explain what a thought is by contrasting it with action so that you can hopefully see the difference, as well as discussing what thinking is, although not as elaborately as discussing action.
So if I have discussed thinking, and I have discussed action, I must now discuss communication.
Communication is simply thoughts turned into actions that occur between more than one individual.
For example, my thought can be “I hate that person,” my action could be flipping them off, and the communication occurs (or begins, rather) when they see it.
Whatever action he takes, we have communicated.
He may scream at me to voice his displeasure, or run at me to do the same thing.
He may roll his eyes to me to communicate to me that he does not care what my thought was, or he may walk away to do the same.
This is thinking, acting, and communication defined as well as the relationship between the three defined as well as I could at this particular moment.
So now, let’s go to the final, and perhaps the most difficult of all these concepts: types of communication.
I believe it to be the most difficult because the bottom building block was existence, with thought added on top of that, followed by action and then the definition of communication.
None of these could exist without the previous (that I suggested), so this is just one more complicated level to add.
It would be impossible for me to not even elaborate on every form of communication in existence, but even to identify them, but in this case, I am going to focus on the “action” (remember my explanation) of writing, and all other forms of communication discussed will be attempts to relate everything back to the action which is the form of communication called “writing.”
What is writing?
We know it’s a thought, as well as an action, but what is the difference between different kinds of communication?
All forms of communication have the existential capability of enacting feelings of rage, disgust, peace, etc.
So what is the difference between writing and, say, speaking?
They are both thought-driven, but their communications involve different sensory perceptions. This is the key.
Writing must be seen: not heard. Writing can be spoken, and then the speech is heard, so therefore, the content of the writing was heard, but writing without speech is not heard: it is seen.
Any of those things can be thought about, which is an example of the relationship as well as the distinction between thinking and acting.
So writing is a thought and action which only has value when it is communicated by certain sensory perception.
Writing is “naturally” so: it simultaneously includes and excludes certain sensory perceptions, although it can change, depending on its application.
Writing must be seen before it can be heard, but writing is never heard: it is speech that is heard.
Speech can be seen, if you turn down the volume on your television and read lips, but all writing must be seen, then it has the option of being communicated through speech, and then heard.
But it is never writing that is heard: it is speech.
Now, I have discussed “nature”, “thoughts”, “actions”, and “communication.”
Now: why do I write?
That is the point of this piece, and if you continue reading, hopefully you can see why I decided to elaborate (if you didn’t already know that I do by nature (My Nature, My Enjoyment, and Notes About Desires and Perfection, Personality Development): I think my “nature-thought-action-communication” model can be applied to anything: I’ll look into that in the future).
My actions and my communications are chosen from the sensory perception that I receive: I would rather see and read responses instead of hearing them (it gives me a headache) and I would rather write to be seen instead of spoken to be heard, because both of these things are within my nature.
Now, hopefully I have fully explained to you why I write, although I have not elaborated on it (I may in the future), but hopefully you can understand this piece.
I have laid the groundwork for why I write, as well as providing a foundation for when I decide to elaborate more about why I write in the near future (I know that “groundwork” and “providing a foundation” are essentially the same thing, but I just like the sound of both of them and I wanted to include both of them in this piece. A lot of my writing is musical (how it sounds in my head) and I base that on my decisions more so than “grammar”, which really explains a lot about my writing style and why I do what I do. I’ll write more about this in the future).
Easy answers are not a part of my nature: exactness and precision are, and this was my attempt at exactness and precision (both part of my “nature” (My Nature, My Enjoyment, and Notes About Desires and Perfection and A Philosopher’s Mind).
My nature involves thinking, my actions and sensory perceptions involve writing, and thus, so does my communication.
This is why I write: I don’t write for any other reasons.
I don’t write specifically for other people, or for any type of reaction.
Do I want people to like my writing? Of course I do.
Is that why I write?
I have explained to you why I write, so I hope to receive no further inquiries about this.
Do I like making people laugh and teaching people?
But this was about writing, and because you can tell how much thought was required to explain why I write in “general” (keyword “general“), you can imagine the mental effort required to explain why I like to teach or why I like to make people laugh.
Pardon me, I beg you, if I don’t have answers to all of my questions that I receive from you, but hopefully, you can begin to see my nature, thoughts, actions and communications.
We are all a part of that linear equation, but this is simply my contribution to our existential equation.
(This is why I love precision and exactness. I may write more onto this piece in the future).
January 27, 2014.