Akahele - Node what you don't know
-- by Anthony DiPierro





P.S. I'd like to reiterate that Akahele is now open for guest authors to add to our publishing cycle. Click here for details.

Doh. I don't think I'm going to read that piece, just on the cluelessness of that statement alone.

Writing serves many purposes-- clarification of thought, catharsis, communication, education/exposition, persuasion/rhetorical, etc. Writing for yourself, or for your audience, are simply DIFFERENT activities. It rather like masturbation vs. sex. It's not an issue of integrity so much as what you're trying to get done.

DiPierro, you wanker.

Well, to be fair, this was in the context of the statement that came immediately after it: "Ultimately, only an author can judge whether or not his or her work was truly honest."

I'm not sure I agree with that either, though... it's not like it's never possible to know if a person is lying (as opposed to just being mistaken) just by reading what they've written. Besides, fiction can be a means of expressing truth too, after a fashion. You just have to make your intentions clear, right?

Fiction is a great scam. You get to tell the truth while pretending to lie.

Look at all the stuff Thomas Hardy got away with, by novelizing it. Charles Dickens, too. And Mark Twain in Huckleberry Finn. The apology: “It was fifteen minutes before I could work myself to go and humble myself to a nigger.” This after Huck discovers from Jim's hurt feelings that Jim is a human being like himself.

Most truths these days would get you banned from the UK for hate speech if you tried to discuss them as reality. I think in Britain they'd rather have wizards and magic wands and flying broomsticks just now.

Mighty big of you, Milty.




We don't want you readin' our stuff, anyhow.

Well, you have to admit, it is kind of a blanket statement - if you're writing for a scientific, technical, or medical journal, for example, the whole question of "integrity" is almost moot. Your claims have to be provable by others, your methods feasible, and your conclusions logical - in that context, "integrity" is practically an either-or proposition. Whether or not you have it, or rather your piece of writing has it, isn't necessarily a matter of personal character at all...

What I got out of this particular entry was that non-discussion content tends to be "one-way," and therefore its purpose is to teach (as opposed to learning from others) - which, in turn, suggests that someone who's writing it without being paid to do so may be pushing some sort of agenda or other. It's something I'd certainly agree with, as long as narcissism and job-seeking can also be considered "agendas" - as opposed to just ideology and other forms of sociopolitical manipulation.

There is a certain irreducable pleasure in understanding how something works. Equally irreducible is passing that understanding on to somebody else, so that they don't fumble around as long as YOU did, not getting it.

I don't think this pleasure can be explained in simpler terms, or else I would. Why are so many basic reproductive and child-rearing behaviors enjoyable? Because those who didn't enjoy them didn't pass their genes along.

"Mr. Armstrong, just what IS "jazz?"

"Lady, if I got to explain it, you'll never know."

If the writing was as interesting as the choice of accompanying photos it would have been Akahele's best post so far. I think it would be an interesting Web 2.0 exercise to see what other posts might be crafted around the same pics.

For what it's worth, I'm not the one who wrote that summary (in fact, I hadn't even read the summary before just now), though the phrase "Integrity comes from writing for yourself, and not for your audience" is contained in the article which I wrote.

I guess I should start writing my own summaries.



I believe you're taking my comment out of context. I'd apologize for having explained myself poorly, but you admit you haven't read the article, so, well, read it first then I'll apologize .



But is it ever possible to know that a person is being completely honest (in a sense beyond merely factually correct) just by reading what they've written? You left out half my sentence - "Ultimately, only an author can judge whether or not his or her work was truly honest (in a sense beyond merely factually correct), so only by making oneself the sole arbiter of success can 100% honesty be part of the goal."

My statement was much more nuanced than you're making it out to be, and both of you left out what I think was an important clarification of what I mean by "writing for yourself" - by "writing for yourself" I mean "making oneself the sole arbiter of success". I'm going to fix the summary. I shouldn't have let someone else write it for me. For that I do apologize.



I specifically said I wasn't discussing fiction. That's an interesting question, but one which I'm not ready to tackle.



Thanks! I had much more fun doing the pics than the writing. Unfortunately, the deal I made with my fellow Internet Review Corporation members included writing articles. Maybe you can convince them to let me out of that promise?

Is the latter possible using a static, non-fiction medium? Maybe it could be done through fiction (or, more broadly, through art), which has an incredible ability to convey concepts succinctly in a way that a textbook or encyclopedia article cannot. And clearly it can be done through discussion. But I really don't see non-fiction capable of doing that.

Maybe I'm wrong, though.



Exactly.

By that argument, wouldn't passing along understanding to those with different genes be unenjoyable? After all, the key unit of evolution is the gene, not the person - even genes which are destructive to the host can be selected by evolution. So what's right for evolution is irrelevant to what's right for a person. I live for myself as a person, not for myself as a collection of genes. My choices are controlled by me, not by my genes. And taking the opposite position on that leads to an incredibly scary line of thinking. Imagine if the way to gain pleasure were to spread one's genes. Then forget it. People aren't ants. People shouldn't be like ants.

I enjoy passing along understanding because I choose to enjoy passing along understanding, and to the extent I choose to enjoy passing along understanding. "Passing along understanding" is not inherently enjoyable. The enjoyment of passing along understanding is not coded in our genes. So I disagree with you that this is irreducible.

Do you enjoy "passing along understanding" to anyone in any situation? Would you enjoy passing along understanding of how to use a gun to someone who wants to kill you? If not, then it's not an irreducible pleasure. It's a pleasure which is based on your analysis of the results of passing along that understanding. If you would enjoy "passing along understanding" in such a situation, well, that's pretty fucked up.