I know hardly anyone ever reads my journal anymore. I don't blame them, I don't usually write like most people anyways. I get too damn confusing for a lot of people to even want to give a care. I say, if you cannot understand my writing, then there's the part of me that you will never understand. For the most part, I guess I could say that I'm really just arguing with an imaginary audience.
It's funny how far my words can reach, and yet the farthest it ever goes out is my fingertips because no one really ever takes the time to read what I have to say. The irony of the internet, I suppose. Nomatter, rambling on about nonsense does have its purpose in one way or another, but to really indulge oneself in this practice, there comes a point in your conscience when you have to manipulate your thoughts into phrases that are understandable by your focus, and to be able to translate those phrases into muscle contractions that are orchestrated into neat patterns that convey the context of the thoughts that were expressed from the very start.
Writing is unique in the sense that there is a physical practice in which we are able to provide a living, printed statement recording thoughts that we have at one point in our existence thought about. And so, with this, when words are written within grammatical guidelines, is there really a repetition, a regurgitation of thoughts that were once thought before? On the physical, common ideological base of thought, yes. But, when faced in context, the ideology does face towards the reality, but the inner qualities that constrew the thoughts in our conscience, these entities are unique to themselves. This is clearly my opinion which is very questionable all in itself, but is there really a uniqueness to writing, or is there something to writing that just stays the same and the thoughts that we get from writing, from the context and the guidelines to the grammer, are what creates the artificial uniqueness to writing?
Gosh darn, I do think this thought could really go somewhere. It is interesting that the mind can wander and find answers to questions that are wanting to be answered all through personal experience and logical explanations. It's not like someone is implanting thoughts into our brains because really it is ourselves whom have the final say as to what we can say or not say. Even if someone were to control our actions, is it really possible for them to control our focus? Sure there can be distractions that could draw attention, but do these people really know whether or not we would find their distration anywhere relevant without our consent? Mind controllers can only lead, but not forcefully manipulate our conscience. Even if you were to lose all conscience but leave just a sliver of focus, is there really a say for someone else to use, or is it our ability, our freedom of thought, that determines what our focus will be?
Hmm... well, ya know what I mean. sweatdrop
+Bloodys Corpse+ Community Member 
|
|
