tffb

Isn't it funny how even "anarchists" perpetually upset with capitalism aren't above marketing their own words?

Sup? I'm nil on all fronts - no anarchist, not marketing words (or don't any longer), and also not upset with capitalism (not "even" perpetually) ;)

I truly envy the sentiment that you think I am on the brink of toppling the governments the world over due to my prowess and self-righteous views and demeanor, though :) :::sarcasmmmmm:::

Perhaps it's only foolish if one expects something other/more than the sharpening of one's skills to come of it?

Indeed, and keeping perspective (for anyone reading this exchange, as to not confuse the point/subject at hand) blogs/blogging and their foolish nature (as I see them) are fine, interesting, entertaining, but the writing and potential sharpening of one's skills can (and does) come from the Meat and Potatoes of it - writing. Practice of which, at exhaustion, and for years on-end, and daily, is something I did well before Mr (now Sir) Berners-Lee really made true headway into the average household with what he called "the World Wide Web". 1991-1996 saw a grind of words in notebooks, rekindled in 2002 via .txt docs on AOL, and then bear-poked again in 2006 with the goal of getting money out of it. Good/bad things came of it all, I am sure (and I am sure all "decently" written), but my pockets still have lint, my happiness/joy is still derived out of daily activities and "busywork" at Clubhouse, and socializing over cigarettes with friendos who attend the events, and the words written, some still to be, likely won't garner much more than the (joyous?) act of just writing them.

With that context, having them on the Web isn't drumming up more importance or interest in the words than if I keep them offline, which I do mostly.

Stay well :)

inquiry

> Good/bad things came of it all, I am sure (and I am sure
> all "decently" written), but my pockets still have lint, my
> happiness/joy is still derived out of daily activities and
> "busywork" at Clubhouse, and socializing over cigarettes
> with friendos who attend the events, and the words written,
> some still to be, likely won't garner much more than the
> (joyous?) act of just writing them.
>
> With that context, having them on the Web isn't drumming
> up more importance or interest in the words than if I keep
> them offline, which I do mostly.

"having them on the web" == "accessible to most people"

Given most people are imbeciles, well... how could the web have gone any other way?

One might say the web DEI'd itself to death - the so-called "Eternal September" being the first wave of marauding takers-only "included" by increasingly greedy pioneers who became more interested in "monetizing" than being part of something interesting....

tffb

right, as to not "hinder" myself with strict Gopher/Gemini protocols (and really, I DO see them as an arbitrary "c***block" of content accessibility) yet still use the page>tree method of posting, I have a site (as of now unnamed, and remaining unnamed in any public sphere) where I am writing posts as .txt files, and just hosting it from a "front" page, with nothing much else on Index.html other than a link to index.txt, where I have (yes, in plaintext) the URLs of pages on the site (/about.txt, /meta.txt, etc). None links, so the curious and creepy must copy/paste (or type) the continuation of the URL into their browser, but one can (one-by-one) browse the site for different things. Hell, it's MORE of a chore than Gopher, when one thinks of it - but only for the "navigator"/visitor, not for those whom I want to share a singular link to. And no mention of the rest of the site per-page, so using a URL shortener would put the (shortened) URL in the person's browser, but the page would not indicate WHERE it came from, who wrote it, what the "main" page was/is for that site.

Suffice, one can pull a string or two and just see the "source" of the shortened URL in one form or another, but even that can be circumvented with some privacy-centric/anaonymous-first URL shortener of some type.

Point being, if I want to share a thing with someone, I can without (in the back of my mind) thinking they will keep turning up, expecting/wanting more (and MORE and MORE) posts, and e-mailing me for RSS feed info, and word-mincing the entries to shit, like some energy drink enamored editor of idiocy.

inquiry

I did something that I think was similar for a while, and really loved how it looked/worked. But for me there's no look or way of organizing or being gaudy or minimalist that compensates for my needing to know my mind's jigglings converted to words hung out to be potentially espied lead to similar jigglings in others', so I gave up on it.

I don't need agreement/consensus, just a recurring sense of being briefly on the same conceptual page as another or others, no matter how briefly. Sans that, posts quickly seem like stray plastic grocery bags quivering tattered ugly in trees, bushes, and corners where wind gusts conjure miniature cyclonic leaf & co. displays....

tffb

you know, you write very well Inquiry. Good to see that. Anywhere.

As for me, I sort of melded my mind from 8 years old (or so) on forward to not only write often, but w/o audience, as (as mentioned (somewhere) on here) that the Web was not around when I began to fill Three Subject notebooks (Mead!). So I suppose the ilk and juice and gist of the writing (and what I derive from it all) is there for me with or without knowledge or assumption of someone having read it. Or not read it, in this case.

There's a ring and show and shine to writing online, though. People can (not always) have input to the words, as valu(able) or valu(less) as they could be, and at least have the undeniable stance of "here's what I say - good or bad - but upper-hand is yours on the surface, because I (meaning they, the reader) is reading YOU (meaning the writer)" regardless of the response they have.

But then another nuance spits in my, your, anyone's lane: that of "to be read, not to be read" and consolidating a response from others, or lack thereof, and in the formidable mind of *becoming* one who writes, constant "return" or feedback will do near nothing to (self)enable one to JUST write. A lot of what gets put online (and elsewhere) today is that of "chopped up", outer-influenced writing tones. Having a mind and approach to writing that entails being in the Quiet Offline will let one dial-in to sincere narratives, consistent dialogues (though, not always dialogue in spoken-word fiction with characters, but the dialogue of thought, in a sense), and just more candid forms of self-expression or self indulgence or whatever.

People can choose their poison, but I find more fulfillment and just satiation with whatever I write (when I do, I am still far less frequent than pre-2022) when it's just me.

so it is

inquiry

> you know, you write very well Inquiry

Why, thank you!

I think I'm a little above average. I could probably take it further, but I've things I'd rather be doing.

> As for me, I sort of melded my mind from 8 years old (or
> so) on forward to not only write often, but w/o audience,
> as (as mentioned (somewhere) on here) that the Web was
> not around when I began to fill Three Subject notebooks
> (Mead!). So I suppose the ilk and juice and gist of the
> writing (and what I derive from it all) is there for me
> with or without knowledge or assumption of someone having
> read it. Or not read it, in this case.

Heh... I saved a lot of empty notebooks over the years, and am pretty sure one of them is a Mead.

> People can choose their poison, but I find more fulfillment
> and just satiation with whatever I write (when I do, I am
> still far less frequent than pre-2022) when it's just me.

I've pretty much exhausted topics of interest. The main one of the last year or so is of a nature that words/representations thereof actually work against living/being it: one might say that words not only can't go there, but constitute a barrier to getting there. So it's a "last frontier" of sorts, where words might be thought of as footprints along a pseudo way that

(Do you see the last/partial footprint in that?)

I (haha) can no longer not un-see the insane focus of blogging on I/me, the dwelling upon which tends to mask ineffable "suchness" en route to "enshittifying" it altogether. There's essentially no worse place/topic on which to be mostly focused from a sanity point of view.

tffb

I (haha) can no longer not un-see the insane focus of blogging on I/me, the dwelling upon which tends to mask ineffable "suchness" en route to "enshittifying" it altogether. There's essentially no worse place/topic on which to be mostly focused from a sanity point of view.

As the saying goes: "philosophy is understanding and thinking about a subject until you do not understand it anymore". Blogging is basically discertaining and dissecting one's views/thoughts, at/to oneself, until none of it makes sense or matters

bless the survivors! :D

inquiry

Hilarious! (he says.. borderline weeping...)