why I write? it is not so simple question as it seems. when i search for it answers within me, i realize that i have two type of needs. one is to express and other is of being listened, or better way, being responded.
Need of expression is quite easy to understand. i write because i want to write, is the simplest form of this need. but does it really a sound explanation? if I get all that i want to write in my mind, why i want to put it on paper. ultimately writing happens in brain, then why i need to put it on paper. heres come the second part, of being responded.
this need of responded is more crucial. if one is not being responded in manner his expression deserves, then that expression alters itself in such a manner that it will get deserved attraction. simple example, if one young poet doesn't get good listener for his early love poems, ultimately he will fill his poems with bitterness about the world and theres more chance that this bitterness will be responded as many young poets face such condition in youth.
so there is no absolute writing for writing's sake or writing for responser's sake. it is an equilibrium. every process in nature is an equilibrium of its own sake. here we can sense limit of analysis. when something is analyzed, some point should be fixed as starting point or as stationary point. but there is nothing stationary in nature. so analysis starts at artificial base.
again an example, when i read a poem( in my mind analysis happens) and try to explain why i like or dislike it, i start with some stationary frame of good and bad, like and dislike in mind. this is false stationary point i am talking about.
words are approximations of ideas.
Need of expression is quite easy to understand. i write because i want to write, is the simplest form of this need. but does it really a sound explanation? if I get all that i want to write in my mind, why i want to put it on paper. ultimately writing happens in brain, then why i need to put it on paper. heres come the second part, of being responded.
this need of responded is more crucial. if one is not being responded in manner his expression deserves, then that expression alters itself in such a manner that it will get deserved attraction. simple example, if one young poet doesn't get good listener for his early love poems, ultimately he will fill his poems with bitterness about the world and theres more chance that this bitterness will be responded as many young poets face such condition in youth.
so there is no absolute writing for writing's sake or writing for responser's sake. it is an equilibrium. every process in nature is an equilibrium of its own sake. here we can sense limit of analysis. when something is analyzed, some point should be fixed as starting point or as stationary point. but there is nothing stationary in nature. so analysis starts at artificial base.
again an example, when i read a poem( in my mind analysis happens) and try to explain why i like or dislike it, i start with some stationary frame of good and bad, like and dislike in mind. this is false stationary point i am talking about.
words are approximations of ideas.
Comments