Many people say I write and publish my opinions on too many subjects, and that I am creating a liability for my future. They note that being such a vocal individual leads to natural enmies and misinterpretations of who I am as an individual. It's just too dangerous—everything you say can be used against you in the court of law and public opinion. Some go as far as to say I am an egotist who just likes to hear himself talk. Others might argue that I am crazy or delusional, and that is why I write. I disagree with all those presumptions, and believe that there is a deeper reason for my writing—a natural desire to express and a quest to find truth in a world where so much is fiction.

Writing to me is a fundamental expression of who I am, who I want to be, and who I am becoming. I see all three of these things in my writing, and I believe that you also see such things in my writing. I can never be sure who I actually am and who you percieve me to be, but I can try to influence you and your view of the world. I can define myself in words, and those words will give you a certain meaning for understanding who I really am. I have found much of my identity in what I write. It has allowed me to look back at thoughts that I had at one particular moment, and critique them against my current thought. I am who I believe I am, or at least I act as I believe to be moral and correct.

Writing allows me to challenge and play with ideas. Some ideas are never challenged or viewed in a different light, then as seen in stereotypical mass-society. It also allows me to influence my readers, to provoke them to thought, and possibly to make them change their political positions. I hope at least some of my words have had an impact on you and others, and that maybe you have thought things through in a new and more free fashion. In this form, writing is a total freedom, it is one where you can persuade and think publicly. Our heads are filled with many ideas, but until they are written down, they will never be shared or preserved for future generations to see what we are thinking of today. Private thoughts are either useless or limited in scope—only when they are shared through word or deed will they gain some kind of important impact.

To me, a writer is a an analytical person, who carefully observes the world around him, and uses his experience to document his thoughts. He freely expresses what he sees around his world, and tries to make others understand the world as he or she sees it. You can experience the world around you, but without writing and trying to explain it to others, you will never really experience it. Trying to explain it creates a number of challenges that every writer must work out, as language contains a number of limitations and the mind is naturally disorganized.

The Writing Process

Some people who rarely write, might think that writing is easy to do, a thoughtless action like chatting away at a party. If our minds clearly stored information and stored it in ways that allowed for a clear relationships, then writing would be easy. But that could not be farther from the truth. Our mind thinks in schizophrenic ways, it can only look at bits and pieces of memory at one particular time. You may be able to lead it on to other subjects, but the raw memory itself is as disorganized as a record jumping the grove.

Mopst of us have to go through a detailed thought process from idea to final essay. Many times our ideas come to us in places where writing an essay is impossible, so we either try to remember them until later, an often difficult task, or we jot them down and leave ourselves a little note. Since March of this year, I have been keeping an old college notebook, in which I jot down notes and thoughts on experiences to eventually turn into Fodder essays or even projects for college. It has worked good at storing good ideas, and reminding me of them, when they are important.

From there, I usually write a first draft, trying to note as clearly as possible in each paragraph, an important aspect of the problem. I do not extensively revise what I write to the Fodder collection, in an effort to both preserve the orginal thought and to save time and effort. There is a time for clear and concise writing, as found in academic papers, and there is a time for free and imaginative thinking.

The Limits of Words

Words often can not capture an experience, just like a photograph is limited to what is seen by the lense of the camera. It is often fustrating to see beauty all around you, and only know how to capture part of it. Words are similiarly difficult to work as they are limited by the meaning understood by readers. Neologisms have a place, but only when they can be understood by others—alien concepts need not apply to a discussion that is public.

How do you describe the green fields that surround you on a hilltop, the farmer with her cows, the smells and sounds you hear, to a way that everybody can understand—especially if you yourself can not understand the beauty? There is so much out there, and yet you can only recall and document only part of the world that you interact with.

In writing and snapshots some parts you might even purposefully avoid capture, to protect privacy or minimize embrassassment. I do not like to photograph people's houses or their livestock for reasons of privacy. In the same vien, I do not write about myself or others that would be damaging when damage is not due. Still this limitation is insigificant to the prior weaknesses found by limited language.

Even truth can be hard to document, especially when the truth is a falsity in itself. Truth often contradicts societal doctrines; it often challenges who we are in ways that are deteremental to others. While truth is a virtue in society, sometimes fiction (made-up truth) does a better job explaining a situation, one that may exist in reality but whose critique is better in non-reality.

Overcoming the Difficulties of Writing

Good wwiting is not an easy task. It involves a great deal of risk, as when you write, you are revealing yourself to the world in a way that you do not even understand yourself. The public is a daunting audience to face, but it is made easier by consitutional protections for speech, such as the First Admendment of the Federal Consitution and Article I Section 8 of the State Consitution. Placed together with the public's support for free speech, one can feel relatively safe writing as he or she believes right or best illustrates their point.

I believe there should be a robost discussion of all issues, although it is desirable to have a discussion of a specific subject to stay on topic without getting on too many sub-topics. Sometimes we have to pull in thought from various disciplines, but we should not become distracted from the discussion. To have such a robost discussion we must be allowed to free explore all ideas, which requires a complete protection of all words. We must seek to discuss an issue in the most truthful manner, even if the truth may appear to take the form of a lie at first glance. Such a society can only exist when we have an absolute first admendment protection—literally no governmental infererence in the expression of speech.

If such a society where to exist, then people would feel more open and more free to express. I used to think such a society was the norm in contemporary society and particularly it's insitutions of higher education—but my free speech case has lead to me doubting such a doctrine. I know there are exceptions to the first admendment, and some have suggested that I have gone too far in this particular case, but I have my doubts that such people are correct. I still think we live in a largely free society, where we can express our opinions and seniments on all subjects, no matter how frightening they may be—it's just that I had some bad luck and made a mistake with a certain individual.

Any doctrine of truly free speech, still has to have limits. I advocate the limiting of speech that advocates or is intended to provoke immediate physical action, before a full discussion of the issue can take place. Such speech may be desirable if it was not for the possiblity of limiting a discussion before it can be fully completed. Maybe violence is an acceptable policy choice, as decided after a fully debate of the issue. No less of an insitution, then Congress has authorized the slaughter of innocent and not so innocent Iraqis for US political reasons—they believe or believed that violence was the right solution for freeing Iraqis from the evil dictator Saddam.

Anything beyond limiting speech that advocates or is intended to provoke immediate physical action, makes our jobs as writers and public thinkers much more difficult. I do not write for censors, nor do I want to have to carry the burden of making my thoughts appropiate for those in government. I hope that you agree with me on these points, and that you do not strive to make your thoughts politically correct. Maybe government is wrong, after all, it seems they have made enough mistakes in the past. Popular political correctness seems to be more of a fad then anything else—and it's purposeful blinders are increadibly obvious to a person like myself.

Conclusions

To write is to be fundamentally human. It is to think publicly; it is to express how you feel about the world around you. You can disapprove or approve of many phemonon around yourself, but unless you step in front of a keyboard or a little notebook, your thoughts will be meaningless. I see a lot of myself being revealed in my writing, and I see a deeper development and thought appearing as I explore an issue. Much of what defines me as an individual is defined by my writing.

Writing is not an easy task. Often it requires notes, drafts, revisions, and extensive modification before going to press or placing your material in a public place. I certainly cut corners on this process, depending on the quality of the writing I am seeking. Still, I believe that even drafts offer a lot of insight, and there are many poorly edited documents of very high quality—the US Consitution comes to mind.

Everybody should write, and they should be able to write without retribution. Any doctrine of free speech should protect writers, it should give them an absolute right to freely express and think about all issues as they so please. Exceptions to that doctrine should be limited solely to speech that prevents a full discussion of the issues, speech that prevents instead of provokes further ideas. We aren't to such a society yet, but I have great hope for a new tommorow. Keep writing!