thoughts-menu.html

<script>
function toggleContent(element) {
    element.style.display = (element.dataset.toggled ^= 1) ? "block" : "none";
};
</script>


<h2><button onclick="toggleContent(document.getElementById('thoughts_content'));"><h2>Thoughts</h2></button></h2>
<div class="hidden" id="thoughts_content">
<div class ="content-section">

<h3><button onclick="toggleContent(document.getElementById('What-is-the-point-in-writing_content'));"><h3>What is the point in writing?</h3></button></h3>
<div class="hidden" id="What-is-the-point-in-writing_content">

<ol type="1">
  <li>To transfer information more reliably and more efficiently than by word of mouth.</li>
  <li>To clarify thoughts. Often, it is necessary to crystallise ideas on paper as it is easy to 
  <ol type="a"> 
    <li>fool yourself into thinking you know more than you really do</li>
    <li> ignore inconsistencies when they are not spelled out in front of you.</li>
  </ol>
  <li>To collect thoughts. It's often convenient to put relevant information together and to use a system to make finding that information more easily.</li>
  <li>Writing gives time to deliberate over use of language, allowing the writing to become more effective. Good use of language allows writing to become more than just the sum of the information expressed on the page. Perhaps this is simply an emergent phenomenon arising from the complexity of language and the mind, but often it feels as if more is going on; this is where writing becomes an art and computers struggle.</li>
  <li> Writing gives time to consider structure. How information is divulged to the reader and in what order has a similar nature to that expressed in 4. </li>
  <li> Writing can have benefits as an activity in itself. Even if the writing is bad and the information worthless, if the act of writing benefits the writer or reader in some manner then it seems fair to say that there is value in writing regardless of the previous points. Of course, one may need to be careful as it also seems reasonable that bad writing can (and has) caused more harm than good.  </li>

</ol>

<p>
It may be worth considering these points further...
</p>

<p>
1 seems distinct from the others as it is based mostly in the material or practical aspects of information transfer. Conversely, the other points could all arguably be used in word of mouth, it just seems more natural for writing to have these benefits over oral communication as one generally doesn't put that much thought into most day to day conversations, and by a conversation's nature there are structural restraints.
</p>
<p>  
2 and 4 seem to be linked in that sense that precise use of language can add clarity. 
3 and 5 are similarly linked, where 3 is more concerned with information transfer 5 may be based more on an emotive level. Arguably, these four points could be reduced to two points. 
</p>
<p>  
6 seems somewhat related to the arguments around the value or meaning of art. With a painting, of say a bouquet of flowers, it is easy to see how one could argue that it is possible to create art which is concerned "...only with the pursuit of pure beauty – without any other preoccupation” as Théophile Gautier defined "l'art pour l'art" ("art for art's sake")[1]. With this philosophy, writing beyond simply stringing together words which sound nice together, with no thought towards making any coherent sentences, would be excluded as an art form to be pursued. On the other hand, taking the view that all art must have some meaning or message, as Mao Zedong wrote "There is in fact no such thing as art for art's sake, art that stands above classes, art that is detached from or independent of politics."[2], seems just as untenable. Instead, with 6, there is a more hedonistic viewpoint which emphasises the importance of pleasure in good writing. Perhaps this hints that beauty, meaning, and pleasure, are all important elements of good art. I would propose a simplistic definition of art in which any pair of these qualities is sufficient to define art but the combination of all three is necessary to create truly great art. The most troubling part of this definition seems to be the definition of beauty. 
</p>
<p>  
In general, point 6 is enough motivation for me to start writing. It is also liberating, as points 1-5 requires significant effort to realise successfully and the extent to which this is done can be critiqued fairly easily, but point 6 cannot be taken from me as long as the writing is still fun!
</p>


<p>
[1] "L'art pour l'art signifie, pour les adeptes, un travail dégagé de toute préoccupation autre que celle du beau en lui-même. L'art moderne (Paris: Michel Lévy Frères, 1856) p. 151; F. W. Ruckstull Great Works of Art and What Makes Them Great (New York: Putnam, 1925) p. 299
</p>
<p>
[2] "Talks at the Yenan Forum on Literature and Art" (May 1942), Selected Works, Vol. III, p. 86. Via Quotations of Chairman Mao Zedong, accessed via the Marxists Internet Archive
</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>