« cheese | Main | i dunno about this »

Sunday, October 24, 2004

i was dreaming of you

yes you. each one of you out there pouring your words into a vaccum. into a time-ordered vaccum. into a chronological, archival, irrelevancy. and why that is.

we are not capable of maintaining the interesting dialogue indefinately. it's simply not possible. sometimes we are tired, or angry, or consumed in something we care about. and our lives ebb, and flow to and away from this linear expression.

and why wouldn't it? each post is nearly an island. sure, we have categories to link similar ideas together, but lets be honest, as readers do we ever click on someone's category and read everything in it to read that entire theme? never. because categories bind in the loosest sense possible. they are arbitrary.

in the blog world, the concrete is a calendar. a week, a month, a year. I haven't the time. sorry, you are fascinating, but i haven't the time to read an entire back week, month or year --and a year is the most logical way to learn something-- of your writings.

when two humans meet in real life, there is a bluster of show. there are semi-fake faces put on, and sometimes we still connect. Those faces aren't always disingenous, but we do it. it's a social, political, saftey kinda thing. but, sometimes we crack through them, and blogs were awesome at that for a long time. you could read someone's personal thoughts and connect directly to them. it removed a barrier for understanding and connection.

as good of a starting point as that is, it fails. nothing develops past that most times. and why should it. if i sat down with a new friend, and all they did was tell me what they thought about things for the entire engagement, i wouldn't come back from the bathroom. why should i? who cares what you think? no one, really.

and this led us to a whole new layer of masks. the funny. the witty. the odd. the geek. the love gusher. backtracking to high school and trying on one more one-dimensional cover-up. because if you're funny i will read about what you think longer. or odd. or if i feel the need to be tortured with hate, i will read your love gushing. but no matter how funny, how smart, how witty or original, i will grow tired and stop reading.

see tony pierce. blah.

i can only watch a kid whose figured out what he did wrong in high school try violently to correct it for so long. he's a caricature.

but he doesn't need to be. and that's sad.

tony, like some of you out there have a lot to offer. a lot of interesting parts to you. passions. excitements. fears. loves. and all i get to share when i read you is "what you think." i never get to see what you do, where you are, what you love unless it's neatly packaged in a well-placed blog and dropped on an ever extending timeline. weeks, years, months of nothing but you filtered through your fears, hopes, lies, dreams, and other filters.

revealing nothing.
subject to passing moods and ambitions.

representing less than nothing.

there is a disconnect here. somewhere. we are social beings. we are meant to engage. and engaging doesn't mean commenting. or debating, or emailing, or reading faithfully. it means feeling. thinking. exploring. sometimes it means being disgusted, or awed. sometimes we feel kinship, or hate, or lust, or whatever.

if you had to live with me, but i dominated the conversation by 100 words to your 5, and i constantly filled your head with my own thoughts, never showing you anything, only telling--how long could you take it?

vapid. empty.
this is what our blogs have become.

only people who have some outside connection or engagement to the writer get anything out of it. it's too thin to do otherwise.

but, we are diverse, interesting humans. even the most boring human is interesting to me when i get to see more than the one layer. we are all about something. this or that. but something. we all tick a bit differently and throughout history, those differences have made our luminaries. but, it wasn't our luminaries telling us what to love about them.

ever watch a movie and there was one character that just fascinated you. you watched everything they did, pondered about them, bonded some with them, and in general engaged (again, a limited engagement)?

why? they were oblivious to you, obviously. they were just doing what they do, you brought the interesting, not them.

and thats the thing.

so, i was dreaming about my years of blogging, and you, and why this never works for long with me. and i was thinking about software, something like blog meets wiki, meets something else, that lets us more fully present ourselves, without specifically presenting a direct thought, or feeling.

how many bloggers write fiction, poetry, notes in their spiral notebooks, take pictures, paint, sculpt, play guitar, sing, play chess, watch movies 24 hours a day, have too much sex, whatever. how many? all of them do things with their lives.

when i look at this blog and ask, how representitive of me is it, the answer is a resounding "not at all". sure, it shows my primary passion has been photography, sure it shows, as much as my girded text can, that i have hopes, dreams, fears, and broken parts.

but so much of what makes me an interesting, engaged, and alive person has no place in this timeline, project my thoughts, medium.

and, i thought of this, and dreamt of this, and asked myself, if you were going to write a new tool, what might it be like...

Posted by ruzz on October 24, 2004 at 01:30 PM in the fringe mentality | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83421098b53ef00d83466cac169e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference i was dreaming of you:

Comments

i'm curious. what might it be like? how multi-dimensional can one be without the ability to use all of their senses? engagement with one another via fiber optics has always been somewhat problematic don't you think?

i'm curious. how do i fall in love or have sex when i can't use all of my senses? i can't see you as you act and react. i can reach out and touch you to feel the warmth or coldness of you. i can't smell your bodily scents to fully engage in the you that is you. i can only imagine what your voice sounds like. but that is my projection and not reality. i've never heard your voice. how do i taste your kisses via fiber optics.

answer: i don't. i will never fully engage with you without being physically involved with you (or at the very least, using more of my senses).

i am curious. what might it be like?

Posted by: veronicalynne | Oct 25, 2004 2:17:04 AM

there are limits, and thankfully so. I'm not interested in engaging on a personal level with every human on the planet. not at all.

but, dead people, through their works, whatever they maybe: architecture, literature, painting, scupture, playwriting, whatever, have shown, through their own personal interests, experiences, and works things we could never be shown through a peptic monologue of unending explanation.

you can still learn about me, life, people, the world, and possibly yourself, through your projections (or interpretations, or impressions) of whatever it is i produce.

but, when all the medium affords, in it's strictest sense, is a one way stream of effectual self-constructed propaganda, you get nothing more than a fleeting identification.

moreover, you get an explicit picture, narrow, shallow, and not representitive of my passions (and passions are a premium, lest we waste the conquests of our elders, who afford us these privilaged lives) in any way.

let me ask you, when you look at my photo of those clouds, and you connect..

can you taste them? feel them? smell them? hump them via acytone curls?

ridiculous.

but you still connected. you used my creation, to understand, or feel something about yourself, rather than to understand, or feel something about me.

which is richer?

Posted by: ruzz | Oct 25, 2004 3:10:56 AM

i just realized i didn't answer your question, what would it be like.

i haven't imagined the specifics of managing such a beast, but the outside, the part the reader sees, would be as interesting, or boring, drab or colorful, deep or shallow, as the person controlling the site.

i would like to offer people a pallette. a free-range of multi-format, multi-media, in which, with which, they could persue their natural interests, but allow us to peek inside along the way.

essentially, as a memoir is to a novel, as a blog is to a propaganda poster.

a perfect example is you v.

you talk about your love, your gushing love. you told us, directly or indirectly, about your love.

you were described as: "gushing love."

great. i'm happy for you. i dont see it. i don't feel it. and your blog, despite the message put forth, does not, to me, represent a life lived gushing love.

perhaps you do. i don't know from here. but, i know that even if you did, your blog would be an extremely taxing way of allowing us to partake in the fruits of a life centered around love.

like a writer who does not write. a painter who does not paint. or they both do, but never show anyone. they talk about their works of art, but we never see them.

the art, or the love, for our purposes, for our learning, does not even exist.

it rings false.

were mother theresa to blog, and talk of her trials, and show pictures of her work, and share thoughts, and connected experiences, through a cadence i could follow, by intent, not a calendar, i may, on my own learn about a person who lived their life giving (which, is quite the point of love, me thinks).

but, we're she to crawl from her annointed grave today, pop over to typepad and start a blog. i doubt very much, she could resist the urge, to tell us--rather than show us--this life.

Posted by: ruzz | Oct 25, 2004 3:43:07 AM

good. very good. i am beginning to understand.

so perhaps the next question is how much does the blogger REALLY intend to share. if i understand correctly, you feel if you are not going to share it ALL, don't bother.

the more difficult part of this as i see it would be for individuals to really understand their ALL before they can attempt to share it with anyone else.

i will need to ponder on the example of myself. it is a very good example indeed. i can see your point. vl.com shows nothing of that part of me. yet, she does exist. am i fully conscious of her? perhaps not yet.

i also like the example of your photos. i do indeed connect. it may very well be that they do not tell me much directly about you, but i do feel a connectedness to you through your art. i have often felt this through your poetry also.

so maybe it is through the medium that we seek this connectedness to life in general??? in a world that seems more and more void of passion, this could be part of the reason for the blaize.

how to show passion? express passion through a myriad of mediums. interesting ruzz. interesting indeed.

Posted by: veronicalynne | Oct 25, 2004 11:08:22 AM

"the more difficult part of this as i see it would be for individuals to really understand their ALL before they can attempt to share it with anyone else."

I think you are getting warm to what i see, but still thinking about it in terms of telling.

you are still thinking, i would show this, or show that. deciding what to show, is the same as telling us something. its a blog.

what i am talking about, more than that, is a tool that helps people who create things, words, photos, paintings, sculpture, ideas, chess games, video games, whatever, a place to put information (mostly public, i would imagine) in a central place. with, or without supporting commentary.

in this case, i would use myself, i would like one sight, that afforded a home for my poetry, photography, painting, writing, philosophy, chess matches, experiences, dreams, whatever.

all in one.

think like this:

a poetry page, linked by a keyword to whatever article you want, but the poetry page, contains a topical description of poetry, from a world history view, then a description of poetry from your view. and the collection of your poetry by themes, or date, or alphabetical, or periods (my mel period, say) or whatever.

now, expand this thought, what if you were grouping your writings by periods in your life.

what if your writings were like "my incorruptile period", "my post-divorced drink every day for a year period"

the construct is flexible as your imagination, but, i don't think it would take much imagination.

if you stopped consciously trying to present who you are, and just showed the parts of your life (links, stories, commentary on other articles, writing, photos) all of it we get a fuller picture.

meh. my fingers hurt now :P

Posted by: ruzz | Oct 25, 2004 1:02:13 PM