Sigh, I might need an intervention with the rate that I’m writing. I’m always thinking about writing in some corner of my mind.
Anyways, I plan on rambling for a bit– starting with the tone of my writing. You can treat this part as the evolution of ‘Writing Style’ since there’s a connection between that piece and this topic.
The first tone is the one I most recently used in ‘People’ and to a lesser extent ‘Companies’. I let my passion burn at its highest intensity– allowing me to charge my writing with a more emotional register.
It acts as an outlet for my emotions and serves the purpose of rousing a person’s emotions. When a fire is lit, does smoke not become its trail?
Some topics are far too urgent for me to reflect on it, complacency being a fault in these times. So, I appeal to the reader’s emotions in order to light their conscience– burning my own emotions to light their spark, a fire that is unsustainable.
When I use this tone, I recognize that I’ve discarded any excess consideration towards others. As a result, you’ll find that my words are a bit harsh– I can’t pad these words too much.
After all, I do not ask for a silent reflection but for a response of some level– so why must I soften the impact of my words? If a gentle stream fails, then a rapid torrent shall take its place.
Even if I have my doubts about it, that’ll only detract from the topic at hand– so my words must be confident. I cannot ask for conviction without showing my own first.
In times of war, a nation must have a single voice– so this tone of mine is one that suppresses doubt, the perspective of others. The people cannot be swayed by nuance for the time being, so they should contemplate it on their own.
From this contemplation, let them establish their own tone– for I’d rather see a challenge than a person moving passively. This tone of mine is the equivalent of throwing a glove at a person’s feet. It is their choice, to accept the glove or to walk away– my duty is a simple one, to challenge.
I decided to explain this tone first since it’s the one that people will have the most misgivings about– which is why I wrote the first part with a controlled version of it.
First and foremost, I do not support nor encourage violence in any way. I recognize that the rhetoric of this adopted tone has violent undertones, but its nature is metaphysical– confined to the mental and literacy scapes. They’re a part of my writing style and are symbolic as such.
Now, the second tone is one that most of you are accustomed to. It’s my primary tone of writing since it’s more natural for me, so I don’t have a specific piece for it. While I still write with passion, I let it burn at a lower intensity– to allow for an undying flame.
This tone is one that deliberates, one where rationality governs– emotion being an undertone. I spend most of my writing questioning myself– so you’ll find this tone as a reflective one. I tend to leave a way out for others in my writing since there’s a lot that I don’t know, a gap that I intend to fill with these pieces.
With this tone, I can be more considerate of others– allowing me to pad my words in various ways to cushion the impact. Regardless of tone, I do criticize behavior– by extension people. The first tone is akin to a sharpened arrowhead, while this tone is a cloth one– a tailored one.
While I may use different arrowheads, the shaft remains the same– as my intent is to educate, for a person to recognize their behavior. Some of us are more receptive, a single flutter of this cloth being enough. Others require a more direct approach, as this message is one that fails to pierce through– a trait rather than a flaw.
A proverb that my writing embodies in spirit is “Heaven never cuts off all roads for a person”, so who am I to be so callous– to sever all roads? This tone of mine overcompensates by keeping these roads open.
I have engraved my mindscape with this tone, as I have a penchant for educating. I define, then seek to expand on the definition that I have created– developing my own understanding. I’m meticulous in this regard, as I want my understanding to be understood by others.
My focus slants towards the theoretical aspect of ideas, to lay groundwork for its practicality. In the end, each theory of mine is a diagnosis of myself– as I target myself before I generalize my understanding.
With this tone, there might be a sense of distance– as I tend to write my emotions in a more subtle manner. I may bleed, but my blood isn’t going to gush out like a broken faucet. You’ll find my more positive emotions between the lines, not in them– I’ve no intent on my naivety to be displayed so openly.
The third tone of mine is one whose words are heavy. A tone that acknowledges and records, standing as testament. While I may use the tongue of the Ancients– this tone embodies this weight too well, becoming a ceremonial one of sorts– akin to the murmurings heard from the pious of yonder.
A tone whose invocation rings loudly in History’s chamber, one that is conjured of blood entirely– a sight whose elegance is retained by dictation. A tone written as an act of remembrance, to resist time’s encroachment. A tone of an era that has long faded away. A tone now resurrected as an ode to it.
For many of us have become remiss, all save for a few that lament for this bygone era. A tone whose weight is sustained, a weight that shall not falter. You’ll find this tone predominant in ‘Lament’, to a lesser extent in my other pieces.
The fourth tone is perhaps the most severe tone, as its weight falls upon my shoulders alone. A tone that defines my ethos, by extension– a tone that defines myself in the most direct manner. A tone that can be found in ‘Bonds’ and ‘Life’, amongst other pieces.
It is akin to a needle in my collar, one whose prick is no different that a sword wound. While the weight of these words remains a constant, my conduct at times fluctuates– mandating a correction.
Out of all of these tones, this is the most harsh of them– as I am writing these words towards myself, which means that I can write without restraint. While I am accountable to others, I am foremost accountable to myself and my Lord. To rely on others to police this conduct of mine, it is an affront to my pride and shame– compromising my integrity.
The fifth tone is a tone that originates from the Nation. It is a tone whose focus is directed towards a facet of this nation, be it institutions, people, policies– or the nation’s entirety. This tone is one that uses formality as a shield– the argument of good-faith permeating its surface.
This tone is a procedural one, the most civil-oriented one. It serves as a form of inquiry, to resolve a conflict between the tongue and heart– to extrapolate the present with the past. You’ll find this tone in ‘Chains of Liberation’, ‘Churchill’, and to a lesser degree in my other writing pieces.
Statutes and policies are to be followed– for no individual is above the law of a nation. By extension, any institute that establishes its own precedent is to be scrutinized– as the people act as a check on their authority.
These tones of mine do not necessarily represent every piece that I’ve written. After all, each piece has its own distinct one. However, these distinct tones are subtones based on the tones that I’ve explained.
I have a tendency to mix these tones by using their various traits, creating a synthesis. There’s probably a few tones that I’ve missed, but if they’re that important– then I would’ve remembered. Anyways, moving on since I could write them in the future.
Over the course of my writing, it appears that I’ve neglected a certain question– the intent that I would like to convey to the readers. I don’t have an answer for this question, as I simply never thought of it in the first place.
From the very beginning, I said that I wrote for myself in ‘Why do I write?’. While this is still true today, this claim of mine has changed over time. I’ve begun to write for others, this piece being a prime example.
It’s better to say that this belief of mine has evolved to encompass others, becoming an extension of this claim.
As for intent? It’s a simple one, to understand my writings– to understand these explanations of myself. I find people to be confusing at times, acting in a contradictory manner. To say the least, I abhor these contradictions but I’m paralyzed by my lack of knowledge so I can only loathe the feeling– not the people.
In ‘Fear of Social Interactions’, I said that social interactions are a confusing aspect of our lives.
In ‘My love for people…’, I said that I enjoy the sensation of interacting with others and that I don’t like the amount of influence others have on my emotions.
In ‘Pondering on my…’, I said my flaw is my desire for control over myself– micromanagement.
In ‘Refinement of Hatred’, I wrote about my hatred of those belonging to my past. Looking at it now, it’s one that loathes contradiction itself.
In ‘Death’s Gravity’, I wrote about a person’s two sides and the vulnerability of both.
In ‘Censor’s Identity’, I wrote of two types of censorship that a person is afflicted with.
In ‘Thoughts#1’, I wrote about the expectations of this audience– observers who only watch, their mouths remain closed.
In ‘About me’, I wrote about a person’s expressions and my refusal to hate a person– to instead hate their actions. I wrote about how people tend to express themselves with actions, that it serves as an extension of their personality– for any action, be it big or small.
In ‘Outlook’, I wrote about my perception of people and the confusion brought on by interacting with them. I wrote that people have a tendency to alter themselves to conform to another person’s image.
In ‘Bond’, I wrote about the value of words. I wrote about the standard I try to adhere to and the standard I have for others– the difference between the two being Heaven and Earth. I wrote that a person’s character is what truly determines who they are.
In ‘Judgement’, I wrote about our understanding of certain concepts like power, judgement. I wrote about our understanding of emotions and went into the specifics for a few of them.
In ‘Trifecta’, I wrote about the concept of attention– how it relates to empathy and the threshold of humanity. I wrote about my regrets in regards to the choices I’ve made with people– paths that no longer exist.
In ‘Lumen’, I wrote about religion and how people practice it. I wrote about a person’s entirety being the basis of their uniqueness– not an individual part of them.
In ‘Insight’, I wrote about the preservation of social dynamics with boundaries– as people have become too comfortable in regards to testing a person’s faith.
I wrote about being confused by people, their existence itself eluding me. I wrote about my patience being tested, a virtue that was learnt.
I made the claim that these writings lead back into myself, acting as a better representation of myself than I could ever speak of– that I am no different than an open book.
In ‘Life’, I wrote about choice itself. That our worth is of two values, an intrinsic one and a derived one– derived from this path of choices. I wrote about death and its correlation between these choices we make.
I wrote about the manner that I’ve contradicted myself, a level of disgust that I never want to come near again– redefining my treatment of others.
In ‘People’, I wrote that I tried to get some feedback on my ideas so it wouldn’t be an echo chamber. I wrote that I failed due to my inability to separate a person’s shards– their different patterns of behavior.
Make no mistake, I’m still afraid of these interactions. But, I’ve realized that I’m afraid of failure rather than the interaction itself– afraid of my lapse in judgement. It seems that I’ve been remiss, forgetting that adaption and anticipation are my forte.
Even now, I enjoy these interactions. But it seems that I’ve compromised myself. You see, a mistake only counts for the first time– if it repeats itself, it becomes a habit.
In my confusion, I allowed these habits to continue– but I can’t leave these strings untied forever. If I cannot tie them, then I’ll sever it.
While my desire for control remains a flaw, it’s a more manageable one now. There’s only so much that I can control in my life. I’ve learnt that it’s better to leave myself with the tides, that it’s more fun and colorful. Instead of trying to hold the steering wheel tight, I’ll let it drift. After all, my hands are still on the wheel.
I still loathe these contradictions, just as I loathe hypocrisy. For me, a contradiction is when a person’s words and actions do not match. But my hatred is more narrow than that, as I too contradict myself– others contradicting themselves.
You see, a person’s word is their bond– a concept that I’ve made clear. I recognize that some contradictions are necessary, for a moral outcome– regardless of the morality of this process. I recognize that we live with these contradictions, that some of us live their lives with this system of contradictions.
Others have a penchant for contradicting themselves in a meaningless way, contradictions that sanction a person’s immoral conduct– one intermingled with both conscious and unconscious.
When manifested internally, I refer to it as a contradiction as a person hasn’t acted on it– ultimately leaving them with the benefit of doubt.
When manifested externally, I refer to it as hypocrisy– relinquishing this doubt. Life gives us choices, and this is the price of a person’s choice. After all, a person must choose before I can direct my gaze at them– even then, the intent behind this choice is to be discerned.
Some choices are forced ones, moral necessity being that force– so a person cannot be faulted for this necessity. There is only one doubt in my mind, is ignorance a saving grace or a death knell?
If a person makes the claim of ignorance, then let their actions decide between their redemption or damnation– as even ignorance has a price to pay.
Now, if we ignore this particular strain of contradictions, then my opinion of these contradictions would work case-by-case. In a general sense, I do enjoy these contradictions as I find them to be sources of growth.
A person can be said to have two counteracting natures. A soft nature that yields and is flexible, a concept that seeks harmony. A hard nature that is overbearing and rigid, a concept that dominates. I still believe in this, but it seems that my description of these natures is a bit too rigid.
We manifest these contradictory natures in our own form, as it’s innate– intent being foremost. Some of us use our hardness as a front for our softness while others may build iron-clad walls with their soft murmurings.
Now, I can no longer say that my writing is dominated by a single nature– as I’ve been writing with both sides for quite some time without realizing it.
As for censorship, I still believe that it’s a necessary evil– that internal censorship works in tandem with external censorship. But, I believe that I’ve made a mistake when I said that legal censorship is less evil– my basis at the time was that the law acts as a check on the cruelty of people, the cruelty of unwritten law.
It seems that I forgot about the atrocities enshrined in the models of censorship adopted by various governments, making my point moot. The dynamics of censorship can’t be constrained by this binary construct, as there’s far too many variables to consider.
My expectations of the audience have now shifted in a better light. Some of them remain observers, a silence that I expect and recognize. A few of us have become more involved, a welcome development. To them, I owe my thanks– for I’ve already benefited much from their words.
I’ve also realized that I can’t separate a person’s actions from them in a clean manner. I forgot that a person’s actions are often an extension of their personality. I once said that I would hate the actions of a person– but not the person themselves.
It seems that I’ve proven myself wrong, as my hatred of these actions will eventually spill onto its perpetrators.
My belief about natural providence remains the same, that I have my own just as others have their own. But, it seems that I’ve been suffering from a biased observation.
I want to chuckle at this absurdity, as it’s the second time that I’ve recognized this type of bias– the first time was when I was writing ‘Outlook’. The second time is now this, my attempt to synthesize ‘Outlook’ into this understanding.
I thought that it was my mistake, that I wasn’t able to understand people– but it seems that a portion of this fault resides with others now. I’m impressed that I was able to confuse myself for a solid bit.
I wrote about the greatness of humanity, the potential we have as a species to do good. But our potential to do wrong is just as great. We’ve already committed atrocities against each other, justifying them under various causes like “Science”, “Religion”, “The Greater Good” and more.
Our creativity is unmatched at moments like these, tailoring a hand to fit the glove. If we are this cruel towards our own species, how cruel can we be to nature? At the same time, we are more compassionate towards other species since we don’t see ourselves in them.
They simply don’t have the same potential as us, the potential to do evil.
The standards that I have for myself haven’t changed. I ask for perfection, as I know that I’ll fall short– but that goal serves to better myself. The standards that I have for others did change, as it seems that I’ve set them a bit too low.
I hope that people will continue to prove me wrong, letting me raise this standard a bit higher. My understanding of words remains the same, that a person is responsible for its weight.
My thoughts about our understanding of power and judgement are the same as before, as these two concepts are more resilient to change. It’s also relatively recent so there’s that. Power is still an amplifier of a person’s tendencies and our judgement is still an incomplete one.
I said that I would rather be paralyzed by indecision rather than making a choice that I’d regret. But, indecision is a choice in itself– a choice that I can no longer pick. I am a greedy person, so I don’t like losing anything. I’ve forgotten that I must first give something up to gain something else in return.
If I hesitate, then I give up the paths in front of me so I can stay on the path that already reached its end– consigning me to stagnation. Having said that, it’s time for me to start losing unless I want to end up with nothing.
My words about a person’s uniqueness are still true, as no two people can be the same in this world. We might not be able to tell the difference between the two, but I am sure that there is a distinction between those two.
When I wrote about religion, I wasn’t referring to it in a cultural manner– as my viewpoint integrated that aspect into religion itself. For me, religion is a comprehensive framework– for others, it is what they decide. After all, they are the ones practicing their faith. So, it’s natural for some people to disagree or even dislike it.
I said that patience is a learnt virtue. After all, some traits are natural for people– other traits require a conscious effort. I find that people are a good source of growth, as their tendencies contradict this virtue– a conflict that tempers it.
Sometimes, I wonder if I’m sane or if I’m just acting because of this patience. That’s a problem that I leave for my future self to deal with.
Originally, I interpreted people’s flaws as quirks of their personality– words that were naively written. While it’s true for some people, it’s only applicable on a case-by-case basis– not in a broad manner, as it seems that I’ve grossly misrepresented myself.
I am a punctual person, or at the very least– a person who makes an effort to be punctual. So as any like-minded person would, I value the time I give to others.
I made a joke about this in the past since humor is a good way to soften my words. I’ve begun to realize that time is more than capable of eroding my patience– it’s a test that I now dislike.
I recognize that we’ll be late at times, but it’s not like I’m unreasonable. Each person has their own rhythm in life, some of us move in days. So while I prefer haste, I don’t mind waiting if it’s a reasonable wait.
But it seems that some people’s rhythms span the length of weeks. A rhythm that is incompatible with my own– an irksome one.
It seems that I’ve made a mistake, as I conflated my dislike of small talk with my aptitude for it. It’s better to say that I dislike it as my conversation topics are unorthodox– defeating the purpose of small talk entirely.
I still believe that relationships should be built with these boundaries. After all, it’s easy to speak but it’s a bit hard to take those words back.
It doesn’t help that people hide their feelings and tend to explode, letting friendships collapse as a result– a pitiful end as communication could’ve resolved it.
I stand by my earlier words that said that miscommunication tropes have become popular in shows as a result of us implementing it in life. If we think that it’s relatable, then that show gets more views– so it’s a good way of understanding trends, especially this one.
It’s interesting to see how others become shy on this selective basis, afraid of being vulnerable as if we all aren’t already vulnerable.
I take my words back in ‘People’. While my conclusion may be correct, the process itself wasn’t. The mistake I made was one that I overlooked in the past, but has become particularly glaring this time.
I asked the wrong person. That in itself isn’t a problem, but this is a pattern of behavior that already repeated itself– so I should’ve known better, making it my mistake.
It seems that sentimentality has eroded my sense of judgement again, a repeating habit now. I don’t like it when these strings cover my eyes, undermining my words.
Moving forward, I’ll be moving these strings away from my eyes– a respectful distance is required if I want to see properly. Sigh, but I don’t like distance– so I’ll let a single eye be covered by it.
I once avoided conflict with others as I valued the bonds I had with a select few. I’ve been growing flowers in a greenhouse, brittle to the slightest touch. I forgot that my touch is alien to these flowers.
If I want these relationships of mine to truly prosper, then I shouldn’t be afraid of losing some in the process. I curbed my love of conflict to allay these fears.
Conflict is essential, as it is the precursor to synthesis– elevating a bond’s stability after the crisis is over.
After all, it’s not like I’m the only one who can choose– some people have lost me before I lost them.
If I didn’t mention a part of my writing, then those words remain as my truth. It’d be a waste of time for me to change my words when the meaning is still the same.
There’s also a chance that I might’ve forgotten about it, but that’s something that I’ll eventually address later on if needed.
When I say that I want my readers to understand, it’s a simple idea. If they’re able to gain a single insight from my writing, then it’s enough. I believe that my writing is a good source of knowledge, even if it deviates from the norm.
While the intent of my writing may change depending on its tone, it’s always pointing towards reflection in some way– the proverb “All roads lead to Rome” strikes true.
Person-wise, what do I want others to understand about me from my writing? I don’t know, as I want them to know everything and nothing at the same time. I don’t like being confused when it comes to people, so why should I be the focus of this loathsome emotion?
Instead, I leave it up to them.
If they’re able to understand my writing, then they’ll know– if they don’t understand or simply chose not to read, then they’ll remain ignorant to the end. It’s not like I make it easy for people to read this in the first place.
I already established that I’m a greedy person, and this greed is reflected in my writing– the attention of my readers. If a person makes an effort to read, then they have my blessings. I ask that they leave with an understanding of my structure, I find that I’m too rich to be summarized.
I ask for their undivided attention. I shall not plead, nor beg, nor demand for it– as the first extreme is coercion and the second deprives me of my dignity. While I may not be able to reward them, my writing certainly makes it worthwhile for them– acting as compensation.
I recognize that some of us prefer to skim instead. You’ll find that my writing punishes this act, as both structure and spirit reject it.
I see it as a person reneging on the choice they made to read it. There is no shame in not reading entirely, it’s a more respectable choice than skimming. After all, they committed to it entirely.
Now, I can’t tell if you did it or not until you speak about my writing. From there, I can recognize the difference between a person’s understanding and a half-baked one.
I recognize that my writing has a level of intensity that may make it hard for a person to read it. I recognize that oftentimes, I don’t leave breathing room for others. With time and effort, I plan on slowly correcting these traits– so I do understand why some people skim.
It took me an entire week to write this– so how could I expect a person to give an immediate response to this? So, take your time and read at your own pace.
Just as a chef wants his food to be eaten in a certain way, I want my writings to be read in a certain way. I can wait, as I have to match their patience in reading.
If they commit, then how dare I not join them? I still have some shame left in me.
In regards to the intent that I want my readers to understand, I have no single answer for them. There’s too many answers for me to pick, so let them decide. I’ve already written the answers– both here and in my other pieces.
Author’s note: Alright, it’s been a solid minute since I wrote a piece this long. Originally, I planned on finishing this by the 29th so I could work on a special New Year piece. I kept on writing, so I gave up on the first deadline and tried to finish it by the 31st.
I wanted to say that this was my last piece of the year but now it’s the first piece of the year smh.
A special thanks to the people who gave me feedback for this writing piece. If it wasn’t for them, I wouldn’t have expanded my piece so much. I should ask for feedback more, but I don’t want to pester people.
This piece took a while to write since I referenced nineteen different pieces directly and a few more indirectly.
It was fun combining these pieces into this one, since they’re all different from each other– the total word count being 20,000 if I’m being conservative about it. I’m too tired to check so I’ll update it in the caption if I do.
This will most likely be the first piece of mine that I have to split into three different parts– more pain for me since Instagram loves screwing with my uploads.
I’ve experimented a bit with the formatting so it’d be more breathable for people. That’s why you’ll see more one-liners. A side-effect to this is that I’m going to need even more slides, so this piece might take 4-5 uploads.
Happy New Year to those of you reading and as always– congratulations for reaching the end of this piece.
** 01-Fear of Social Interactions 03-Why do I write.. 04-My love for people and interacting with them 05-Pondering on my flaws 07-Life of Vertical Ethics. 08-Writing Style 09-Refinement of Hatred 10-Vulnerable. Death’s gravity. 18-Churchwill 12-Chains of Liberation 14-Lament 15-Looking Back.. 16-Censor’s Identity Repeating 17-Thoughts_1 19-About me 20-Outlook 21-Bonds 22-Judgement 23-Trifecta 24-Lumen 25-Insight 27-Life 28-Companies 29-People