Rapid Thoughts on the Art of Writing by narodnikkki

The idea behind all of these, is to find something to do before one dies. The problem with words is that the world is full of them. You find them inside books, magazines, newspapers, publications,

-when your words do not have weight, it is so easy to discard them. words should be heavy, they should have weight, so be careful with your words because
http://www.scribd.com/narodnikkki

you might hit someone with them. the buddha said

that kind and true words renew mankind. note the word renew. this opens up analysis

-focus on one thing that you really want to write about. then write more. and more, until writing becomes second nature, without a break or distance between the though and the words being put on paper. attain that zero-level state, where there is no....

1. Maybe it is better to write this way, or that way, but in the end, you must have a point. A point is important because, what is the point of your writing? Is it to

entertain, to argue a perspective, to present a new way of looking at things, to present a new way of doing things, to present a much more sophisticated method of feeling? Be clear on the aim of your writing because words are limited and they must not be wasted. This is part of the earlier idea about the heaviness of words. Words should be heavy, they should be filled with meaning. Or not. Because some words do not have to be heavy.

2. She wakes up and tells me how do I feel. I tell her, the usual. By this I mean nothing. I feel nothing. Not the beauty of her smile, or the ......

3. In order to come up with something good, we must write a lot of not-good stuff. The idea is that writing should be done for its own sake in order for us to be able to move on to the more important second or higher stage, which is writing for the sake of something. How does one know when one has achieved that good.? This is why you need to read. Reading shows us the way to go, what works really work and what writings do not work.

4. Regarding the adage write about something you know, we must be cautious and critical of it. For if we only write about what we know, how do we improve? Of course what should have been said first is this method of knowing, which we assume to be that of gathering data in the first place, of carefully sifting through the facts and other things in order to arrive at a knowledge. Thus, it really is not a limiting thing, to write what you know, because this is actually the method of

writing. For exactly how can one write about what one does not know? Maybe this pertains to the dishonest means of certain people in swaying the opinion of other people, who do not check the facts and simply accept those things that sound good and are seemingly attuned to their own point of view. We see this more in the realm of political propaganda. (It should be noted here that the term propaganda, did not have the same negative connotation that it now has. See for example Deutschers biography of Stalin where he explains that propaganda then meant an honest and well-reasoned airing of arguments to the public. This term is used in the same spirit in the earlier movement of the Filipino Propagandistas in Spain.)

5. I have read earlier of the Chinese or Confucian concept of rectification of names. This is an idea on social cohesion which is that one must be true to ones station in life. This is a call to order. You are what your name is, and you must live up to what the name entails. One must be loyal to ones station in life and to ones overall location in the over-all structure of things. Otherwise there would be societal breakdown and chaos. Words therefore, must be used in the most accurate and honest way possible, unless of course for artistic or entertainment purposes. So there is morality involved in writing.

6. We have gone meta. That is, we have discussed about the methods without delving deeper into the subject first. This is shallow and to a certain extent, not useful. But one must not prevent this. What the attitude should be is acceptance.

We accept that right now what happens is this, and we work so that this should be transcended or overcome.

7. There should be a precedence or order as to what comes first - that is, whether one should edit while one is writing, or whether editing follows after the writing has been done. I guess it is acceptable when the errors are small, such as spelling and such, and can be corrected immediately. Whereas, stylistic and grammatical corrections can be made later. There is a differentiation between the authorial and the editorial mindset, and there should be a proper boundary between the two, so that the flow of the author would not be interrupted.

8. Speaking of interruptions, it is very important that the flow should not be interrupted. The flow is everything. Without the flow, most things are meaningless and sterile and pointless. Flow is the writers connection to the earth, the universe, or whatever transcendental metaphysical fount of creativity there is. The idea of flow must be crystallized into ones mind, but not so much that it blocks out other thoughts because that would just be counter-productive. We want the writer to write, for whatever reason the writer may have for writing.

9. Why is it that one writes better when one feels anxious, fidgety or miserable? Is it because one loses the self, or is it actually the opposite - that the writer feels only the self looming large before her? If I would defend a point, it would be the latter, simply because it is the more romantic. How can this be romantic? Well,

can you see zen monks meditating as romantic? These guys are trying their best to lose their ego, which is said to be the main cause or root of suffering. The latter point, the more romantic, embraces the self, because what else is there to know, but the self? One grapples with the self to a point past exhaustion, to find answers, to force meaning into an otherwise pointless existence. I am definitely being dramatic here.

10. The point is that unless it is drama, unless emotions are involved, no one is going to be interested. Like, over time, my interest in Buddhism was rekindled when I found out about Herman Hesses novel Siddhartha where theres one scene where the Buddha is by this river, staring at the water, and thinking about drowning himself. Now that is fucking drama. Not the Japanese zen monks inside their temples, sitting. Sitting. Where is the drama in sitting. Maybe if the abbot or the head monk of the temple is some strict dude who does not allow any movement on the part of those monks meditating, and then a fly lands on one of the monks nose. Theres your tension. But this does not compare to that image of the suicidal Buddha.

11. Why the imagery with Buddhism? Probably (well not probably, but actually) because I have been reading a lot (or wanting to read a lot) about Buddhism lately. What interested me the past several weeks was the concept of pratityasamutpada, which is translated as dependent-arising. This concept means that things arise not out of themselves, but in relation to other things. There is no

essence that is essentially your own, you arise out of other things. In simple terms, everything is interconnected, or related or has a connection. Buddhism appeals to me and now that I actually read the more serious stuff that has been written about it, that is, those academic things that have been written, regarding various aspects of Buddhism, I am daunted by the sheer volume of things that I must go through in order to really understand the whole academic, that is, Western academic interpretation.

12. The past week I borrowed this book by this Russian author Scherbatskoi written in the 1920s I think, which deals about the concept of Buddhist Nirvana, or so it claims in the title. It is a treatise on the Madhyamika school of Buddhism, which is the main school that laid the foundation for Mahayana Buddhism. It can be said that it is due to this school that there emerged the distinct line separating Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism. The main philosopher of the Madhyamika school is Nagarjuna and what I like of the description afforded to his writings is that it is a simple negation of all things, that it is following the simple idea of nothingness and then using this nothingness towards various philosophical claims in order to make clear that which the Buddha has been saying all this time. I dont know if what I am saying makes sense, but I try. ( I should really not write these caveats and doubts, theyre too, I dont know, depressing. It hinders the unfolding of the thought/ thoughts.) All of this is related of course, to the concept of nihilism, which I also am interested in.

13. Man, I tried reading The End of Modernity by Vattimo, but it is so hard to read. What is up with all these writers being all obtuse and difficult? Why cannot they write in a simple, lucid manner? As Wittgenstein said What can be said can be said clearly. What cannot be said we must pass over in silence. Also, I think it was Einstein who said that unless you can explain the concept to a child, you dont really understand the concept at all. That is what I am trying to do with my writing - to be clear as possible and not be a difficult read. Also provide some interesting quotation or paraphrase or give ideas that people can learn from. Also, the writing must be entertaining. Now, the counter-argument is that the reader maybe just does not have the mental capacity to understand the concepts or ideas. That is a real possibility, but given that this is the realm of the social sciences, why not condescend and assume that the reader is not familiar with the work or works?

14. Humility. The writer must be humble. The three tenets of Taoism: Moderation, Humility and Compassion. I think this tenet can be applied to a lot of circumstances, in writing for example. By being humble, one is guarded from a false sense of accomplishment. Taken to a pathological level, we could tweak it not just as humility, but insecurity. An insecure writer, at least is interesting. But this is where the second of the three tenets comes in. Moderation. The writer should be secure and not worry too much, just let things wei wu wei. If one is arguing, one should not over-argue, one should not, as the saying goes flog a dead horse. Make your case, or point, then move on. Moderation tempers or

controls the wandering mind of the author into writing that which is actually crucial to the whole thesis or argument. Nothing extraneous, just a few sentences here or there to provide some more examples to make sure that the idea or concept was well-expressed for the reader or audience. The last of the three tenets, compassion, is more of a stylistic thing. That is, the tone of the writer must not be condescending, sarcastic, or other such negative attitudes. This is of course not an iron law. Compassion manifests itself through trying to understand the subject being studied earnestly, and in trying to convey that which one has learned in a manner that is conducive to open discussion, to the free exchange of ideas.