Earlier today, I made a very cryptic blog post. In it, I announced it was cryptic. It was for me. It was to mark a mental breaking point. Many would do this in some sort of private journal, but I am lousy at keeping those, and it is important to me to note these things. If you go back even just a few posts on this stupid blog, you will see a number of them. They are typically cryptic. As noted on the most exalted Christie's blog, (link withheld pending authorization) the other day, while she was in town, Mia, her and I had a discussion on blogging, and whether cryptic entries that intentionally limit the comprehending audience are out of bounds: "Mia is sick, and is nonetheless having a vigorous debate with Patrick about the purpose of blogs and the obligations inherent in keeping one (or rather, if indeed there are any,) and whether or not it's okay to be cryptic in a blog post, to narrow one's intended readership from post to post. I'll weigh in on this at another time, after I've given it some thought." I'll explain my earlier post now, not because I concede the argument about blogs, information transfer, and audience manipulation, but because it was an incredibly stupid thing for me to do. The title was Cake or Death?, an Eddie Izzard bit(scroll down) I was recently made aware of by the same most exalted Christie, in which an incredibly easy choice is raised by his straw man of the Church of England: Tea and Cake, or Death. This is a very easy choice. Anyone can make this choice. You see what I did with "lowers" and "raises" there? I used it in juxtaposition with an incredibly difficult choice. The options were not cake and death. They were complex, circuitous, and shattering. They have been tearing me up, and the options I raised were deliberately chosen to be truly understood by me and me alone. This is where the really stupid part comes in. The fact is none can be chosen. That's why it's such a hard set of options. That's why it contrasts so well with cake or death. The easy and plainspoken versus the impossible and hidden. It's called the science of listener attention. We did repetition, we did floating opposites and now you end with the one that's not like the others. Sometimes the intended audience of something is yourself in the future. Sometimes in knowing how to make a point to that audience you give someone else the wrong idea. Sometimes in reaching across vast stretches of time, you need to utilize the science of listener attention. I will not stop making these posts, as I am not forcing anyone to read them, and this very same day one of them from two years ago proved immensely useful to me. However, I apologize for the one earlier today. I did not do my due diligence in properly shrouding it - limiting it to its intended audience: me in the future. The key to a good cipher is that it resolves to one thing, and one thing only. It cannot lend itself to non-garbage results, or the integrity of the message breaks down, or as was likely the case today, misinformation is spread. It was very stupid. It was almost certainly misinterpreted, and for that I have nothing but apologies. Another standing policy of this blog, however, is that I do not take things down that prove embarrassing or shameful. I own them, and leave them there to serve as a reminder in the future. [and we figure out a way to fix the rest] Comments:
Add a comment
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||