When you say that you write less because you want something more social in experiencing, are you referring to acceptance or interaction? — javi2541997

Interaction.

And yes, one is writing to be read, at least in part, and not just by oneself. I think it is a kind of social communication. I do think of myself as communicating with others when I write. I think sharing culture, say, still has a social element, but mainly it is in isolation. I see no body language, here no voices, see no faces reacting. Nor does the reverse happen.

Even here, in a much more direct form of writing communication than in writing a novel, say, where I may get a response in an hour and we can say all sorts of things to each other, even this at the social level is a shadow of a face to face meeting. And it's a lot more direct than a novel.

There's also a way, for me, that writing literature leads to a kind of ongoing self-relation that interferes with social interaction. I am all the time noting language, dialogue and possible phrases pop up and I want to notice them as a writer.

It's a bit like being at a wedding as a guest and being at a wedding as a guest who has been asked to take both formal and informal photos for the couple. I am now experiencing the wedding through the lens, even if the darn thing isn't in front of my eyes the whole time. I am scanning for good images of people, not connecting with people as much as I would have.

And there, as the wedding photographer, I am still in the room. I can be social, but there is interference. People are aesthetic phenomena in a way they are not if I don't have that task. Writing a novel, the task is always there, at least for me, and there is a kind of distancing and obsession, which I think pulls one into oneself.

I do improv (improvisational theater) now, and that's very social. Of course there are aspects of the interactions that are distances, like the wedding photographer/friend. But before and after and in between it is much more social. Further when I'm not in the room doing improv, there is no interference when being social with others.

Music I find is somewhere in between. There are more social aspect and these can be very intimate, but I also find the secondary obsession is in the back of my mind all the time. But this could be just me. And I did much of my music on my own. I didn't have the full band experience.

We are pattern seeking creatures, and normally strive to make the most charitable interpretations of what there is to interpret, also when there is nothing to interpret but silence. But when less is said, our interpretations become more susceptible to whatever the context suggests. In this sense the meanings are not developed by the readers' minds but a context such as a romantic or modern tradition in which meanings are assumed to be hidden all over and in our minds. — jkop

I do not think that one can correctly separate interpretation of meaning by pattern, and meaning by context. The two are too deeply intertwined, and used together, that such a separation, even for the purpose of analysis is impossible. I believe the more intelligible separation is form/content. But from this perspective, "content" as what is derived directly from the author's intent becomes somewhat unintelligible, the separation being analogous to Aristotle's form/matter separation. Since "form" is what is intelligible to us, the content is left as fundamentally unintelligible, as the "subject matter" may elude us.

Patterns are formal, so if we represent the content as "context" like you propose, then the context is the author's mind itself. The desire to understand the context of a piece of writing, might incline an interpreter to attempt to put oneself in the position of the author. But this would fail, because like Fosse explains, the writer removes oneself from all accessible or outwardly available contextual influences (one's environment), and creates an imaginary context.

This is the manifest difference between speaking and writing. The speaker assumes that the hearer shares the same context (environment), so the speaker relies heavily on the surroundings for meaning (eg."bring me that hammer please"). What the surroundings, or context adds to the intended meaning, instead of the words forming this meaning, is the foundation of the silent language. In the example, the speaker does not have to explain what the hammer looks like, or its location, etc., this is all silent, and simply implied by "that hammer".

In the case of writing, the author creates an imaginary environment, or context, and this imaginary context supports the silent language. There are many factors which the author must respect in creating the boundaries of the context. The form of writing, drama, prose, non-fiction, poetry, etc., provides the foundational limitations which the author starts with. Then the context, as further boundaries in meaning, is created by the author. Fosse's use of silence breaks all the boundaries he creates with words, leaving only the foundational boundaries of the activities of the drama, and in a sense bridges the gap between writing and speaking, because the activities then produce the context rather than the words. But the impression that the gap is closed is just a sort of deception, because these activities are only a created context anyway, and so the entire environment or context is still created. The audience members are allowed freedom to explore their own imaginations not being constrained by the words of language, but the freedom is kind of illusionary as it only occurs within the boundaries already created by the activities which, which are a product of the author's mind in the first place.

Maybe, according to Fosse, suicide is a silent language... — javi2541997

As a meaningful act without words, suicide is clearly a part of the silent language. However, in itself it is extremely hurtful, if not the most intrinsically hurtful act possible. This is very ironic, because it is a physical assault on oneself rather than on another. You would think that any sort of physical assault on another would be inherently more hurtful than any type of physical assault on oneself, but suicide obviously demonstrates this to be false.

Secondary, to the intrinsically hurtful act, there is usually a further communicative act associated, with the suicide act. This may be a suicide note, which may serve to either increase or decrease the hurt, often very intentionally, or the suicide act may be accompanied by a physical assault on others. When the others are designated as enemies, this may elevate the hurtful act to the level of honourable. In this way of looking at suicide, whether it is considered good or bad, depends on how the hurt of the secondary level of meaning, the more explicit meaning, is directed. Notice that when the suicide is honourable, the secondary level of hurt negates the first, by making the act honourable. This is taken even further in the act of self-sacrifice, Jesus, and hunger-strike for example. But all these levels of meaning piled on top, cannot truly negate the fundamental fact that the act is intrinsically hurtful.

But, bringing in suicide again, I think this concept is only ambiguous if we dive into the mental state of the readers. Would you consider suicide as ambiguous? — javi2541997

No, suicide is not at all ambiguous, for the reasons described above. It is intrinsically hurtful. It is meaningful as a part of the silent language, but remember that the silent language is a part of of our communion with others. So, when one retreats, or escapes the others, into oneself, as Fosse describes in the act of writing, a person seeks to remove all influence of environment, surroundings, including others, to write a purely original and creative piece, suicide may appear to lose its essential nature, as hurtful, and this would allow the writer to create an imaginary description of it without that essential nature. But this is only an imaginary image, as the true act would remain an act within the context of the existence of others. So the silent language ensures that suicide maintains that very specific unequivocal meaning of hurt, regardless of the levels of meaning added on top, which appear to produce ambiguity.

Even here, in a much more direct form of writing communication than in writing a novel, say, where I may get a response in an hour and we can say all sorts of things to each other, even this at the social level is a shadow of a face to face meeting. And it's a lot more direct than a novel. — Bylaw

Do you think our exchange through TPF would be different if we used pictures with our real identity rather than logos?

I do improv (improvisational theater) now, and that's very social. Further when I'm not in the room doing improv, there is no interference when being social with others — Bylaw

I am interested in learning more about your experience in theater. According to Fosse, this art was a big challenge for his career because he switched written language to spoken language. Now, he has started to experience an expression of art where socialisation and interaction are needed. Between the actors or performers, and the public itself. Nonetheless, Fosse highlighted something very important: He started to feel more confident and comfortable writing drama thanks to the use of 'pauses', because he interpreted this as a silent language. Do you agree? How do you improvise pauses in your room or wherever you do this?

Secondary, to the intrinsically hurtful act, there is usually a further communicative act associated, with the suicide act. This may be a suicide note, which may serve to either increase or decrease the hurt, often very intentionally, or the suicide act may be accompanied by a physical assault on others. When the others are designated as enemies, this may elevate the hurtful act to the level of honourable. In this way of looking at suicide, whether it is considered good or bad, depends on how the hurt of the secondary level of meaning, the more explicit meaning, is directed. — Metaphysician Undercover

Although I think I followed your points, I guess I am a bit lost here, particularly regarding the suicide note and whether this act is hurtful for the suicidal. Firstly, a suicide note may serve as a farewell. Culturally speaking, suicide notes were common in the Samurai era in Japan. Before committing seppuku, some Samurai wrote their last words or just a haiku poem. A suicide note can also help the person to underline why he or she is going to commit suicide. A good example of this is Kurt Cobain's death and his famous note found next to his body. If we read his note profoundly, we can understand why he is justifying his decision to end his life.

On the other hand, to what extent do you think suicide is hurtful? I can understand that it could be devastating for the family and friends who are close to the suicidal. But if this person ends up deciding to end their life, it is because suicide would not be more painful than living itself. Most suicidal individuals do this because they find a solution to what bothers them, finally. Are you trying to argue that suicide is also hurtful for the suicidal?

He started to feel more confident and comfortable writing drama thanks to the use of 'pauses', because he interpreted this as a silent language. Do you agree? How do you improvise pauses in your room or wherever you do this? — javi2541997

If I may also reply to this...I think Fosse is also referring to the musicality of spoken language. In music every pause, and its length, are carefully considered. In 'drama' in the widest sense, pauses provide and transform meaning. In comedy, for instance, timing is everything. The saddest exchanges can be made funny to an audience with the right pauses.

I've written quite a lot of drama and feel the craft side of Fosse's remarks are on the mark. I began writing believing that eloquence was in the vanguard of my aims; but with experience I realised that the eloquence of prose sometimes/often is ineffective in drama, and the pause, alongside the rhythm of speech and interchange, matter keenly.

I'm not disputing that Fosse also means something more portentous in talking about silence, but I think the baseline is a craft-based one.

Do you think our exchange through TPF would be different if we used pictures with our real identity rather than logos? — javi2541997

A bit. I have distance students and I knew that a certain kind of reality was missing for them. Generally they get feedback from me on their homework via text. But after the pandemic people started taking distance classes who should not be taking distance classes. Less discipline, less skills, poor time management and so on. Also, I think they were people who needed to be embarrassed or afraid of the teacher. Before the distance students I have were highly motivated and driven. So, I started sending them feedback as audio files online. They hear my voice. I considered videos, but frankly that requires more fussing on my part. Anecdotal evidence: I noticed an increase in completed homework. I ended each message with a clear 'and I expect next time that.....*

I think I became more real to them.

Nonetheless, Fosse highlighted something very important: He started to feel more confident and comfortable writing drama thanks to the use of 'pauses', because he interpreted this as a silent language. Do you agree? How do you improvise pauses in your room or wherever you do this? — javi2541997

Pauses are interpersonal. I mean, they are part of the lived experience of another person. We pause to find the right words. We pause when we are not sure. Online we present this well or at least better organized flow of words. That's not as much us as when we talk.

Pauses in improv. Well, it's a sign of strong improvisers that they can pauses. In the beginning there's this feeling like you have to go fast, to show you're not thinking. And then the panic. Because most people go through some panic in improvisation. But you can see the better improvisers interersperse pauses: because they are more relaxed, because they are more connected to their characters, and people pause. There are exercises that can train this.

So, yes, pauses are part of the complete person communicating.

And you can put pauses in literature, but it's not the same thing and it's not more social than the rest of the writing process, which isn't very social.

In other less moderated forums, I encounter a wide range of jerk-like behavior. And I often think they'd never manage to pull this off in-person, because in person you would notice paused, nervous ticks, the eyes flicking to the side nervously, unexpressed emotions, tone of voice. Online you can always pretend to be calm, confident, unmoved by the others argument or comments. That facade is much harder to hold together live.

If I may also reply to this...I think Fosse is also referring to the musicality of spoken language. In music every pause, and its length, are carefully considered. In 'drama' in the widest sense, pauses provide and transform meaning. In comedy, for instance, timing is everything. The saddest exchanges can be made funny to an audience with the right pauses. — mcdoodle

First of all, you can answer this and comment on the rest of the thread. I fully appreciate your contribution and opinions. Honestly, I haven't thought about the musicality of spoken language, and being more precise, I think I haven't paid attention to it because I was mainly focused on how Fosse went from written language to spoken language. As you explained, there are techniques regarding these methods which are important to write drama. Although I agree that pauses and length are very considered in plays, I start to wonder if written language has musicality or not, or if it is just monotonous...

I've written quite a lot of drama and feel the craft side of Fosse's remarks are on the mark. — mcdoodle

Did you switch from written language (novels, for instance) to drama like him?

And you can put pauses in literature, but it's not the same thing and it's not more social than the rest of the writing process, which isn't very social. — Bylaw

Notice that what Fosse actually used in the writing process was silence and not pauses. I know that these concepts have more in common than differences, but if silence were a part of drama, he wouldn't have had problems finding something related while writing the plays. Until he didn't discover the use of pauses, he felt anxious about writing drama because he was used to using this expression in written language, but not in spoken language. Nevertheless, you raised an important point here. To what extent is silence (or pauses) dependent upon social interaction? Is silence an individualistic act? Fosse's lecture is making me ask all of these tricky questions... I guess Fosse believed that silence was an individually constructed act, but one of the surprises of his life was discovering this use while writing drama, because people would experience silence in spoken language as well.

Less discipline, less skills, poor time management and so on. Also, I think they were people who needed to be embarrassed or afraid of the teacher. — Bylaw

I have always been afraid of authorities such as teachers. I believe some folks were just pretending they were embarrassed or afraid, but for those who are genuinely afraid of authorities, going to school was a nightmare. I suffered the same fear when Fosse was a kid and he ran away from class because he was afraid of standing in class, with the teacher and the mates looking at him.

I have always been afraid of authorities such as teachers. I believe some folks were just pretending they were embarrassed or afraid, but for those who are genuinely afraid of authorities, going to school was a nightmare. I suffered the same fear when Fosse was a kid and he ran away from class because he was afraid of standing in class, with the teacher and the mates looking at him. — javi2541997

I mean, my background is nearly entirely progressive education. As in, the students bear all the responsibility. But here I am dealing with immigrants coming from cultures where their teachers were like Lords and they were peasants. If I could get every teacher to go the progressive route, I'd back off and just let these students fail until finally the rumor got around that you just had to be your own boss and fast. My style is a compromise between giving them the opportunity to learn and the smell of an authority. They are adults and I have no real power over them except the grade at the end (pass or fail). And unfortunately conveying expectations in a nebulous context does actually help them. The most successful teachers, with better statistics than me are much tougher. Which then gets these people into universities or jobs faster. So, I've learned to go against my habit, philosophy and even values.

I start to wonder if written language has musicality or not, or if it is just monotonous... — javi2541997

Written language certainly has style. For me it has a musicality, but that may be my bias: when I developed my creative writing, I did prose and drama-writing more or less at the same time. I think that has resulted in the spoken word influencing how I write. I find a lot of academic writing pointlessly stuffy and long-winded, but a danger of writing more directly is that academics can think you're just stupid :)

One difficulty in learning from Fosse, as regards philosophical writing, is that silences and pauses are subtle and illuminating in fiction or memoir, but unwise in writing about thought.

Although I agree that pauses and length are very considered in plays, I start to wonder if written language has musicality or not, or if it is just monotonous... — javi2541997

The writing I most enjoy has a poetry and musicality and playfulness that transcends or transforms the material - I am thinking of Nabokov, Edith Wharton, Gore Vidal, George Elliot, Anthony Burgess. It's this melodious playfulness, the unexpected; the 'war against cliché' as Martin Amis described it, that keeps me interested. Plots don't often interest me. I am much more interested in how things are told. The writerly magic is often in the execution, not the narrative for me. Language is also like jewelry or a shiny toy when used with some creativity and vitality.

I suffered the same fear when Fosse was a kid and he ran away from class because he was afraid of standing in class, with the teacher and the mates looking at him. — javi2541997

A lot of people are drawn to a rich fantasy life because of their social phobia. Many writers seem to be drawn to the written word because it is a way of being social without needing to be directly with people. I was a writer for some years (newspaper and magazine feature articles, reviews, op eds) and it can be very seductive to drop 'bombs' via prose and not be there for when they go off. In writing, you can say what you need to say safely and carefully, with time for preparation, in a way that many could never do in person, in conversation.

I can understand that it could be devastating for the family and friends who are close to the suicidal. — javi2541997

This is why I said it is hurtful, because it is a "communicative act". It conveys something to others, and that is hurt. And I said that it is inherently hurtful because this is the first level of meaning derived from the act, and the hurt cannot be removed through the secondary levels of meaning conveyed at the time. The suicide note can mitigate or decrease the hurt to others but it cannot negate it. The suicide note can also be used to increase the hurt. Further, certain suicide techniques can be used to increase the hurt to others, and suicide can be carried out for the purpose of hurting others. I do not see how it is possible to remove the hurtfulness from it.

Are you trying to argue that suicide is also hurtful for the suicidal? — javi2541997

No, not at all. The point was that as a "communicative act" of the silent language, that is an act of communicating without words, it is hurtful. That's why it is often argued that suicide is extremely selfish. By carrying through with the act, the suicidal person places one's own well-being as more important than that of others.

The audience members are allowed freedom to explore their own imaginations not being constrained by the words of language, but the freedom is kind of illusionary as it only occurs within the boundaries already created by the activities which, which are a product of the author's mind in the first place. — Metaphysician Undercover

I get that the author's activities and pauses can evoke a kind of freedom for us to imagine unwritten meanings. But what do you mean when you say that words constrain imaginations? I think that a true description of an imagination is constrained by what one imagines.

Words increase mutual understanding whereas in the case of silence, unspoken expectations or suggestions the relation is not so mutual, as in manipulation.

First of all, you can answer this and comment on the rest of the thread. I fully appreciate your contribution and opinions. Honestly, I haven't thought about the musicality of spoken language, and being more precise, I think I haven't paid attention to it because I was mainly focused on how Fosse went from written language to spoken language. As you explained, there are techniques regarding these methods which are important to write drama. Although I agree that pauses and length are very considered in plays, I start to wonder if written language has musicality or not, or if it is just monotonous... — javi2541997

Well, the method of music was important to Fosse, so I'm sure it entered his dramas.

Thus, it almost goes without saying, that writing is reminiscent of
music. And at a certain time, in my teens, I went more or less directly from
only being engaged with music, to writing. I actually completely stopped both
playing music myself and listening to music, and started to write, and in my
writing, I tried to create something of what I experienced when I played.
That’s what I did then – and what I still do.

A lot of people are drawn to a rich fantasy life because of their social phobia. Many writers seem to be drawn to the written word because it is a way of being social without needing to be directly with people. I was a writer for some years (newspaper and magazine feature articles, reviews, op eds) and it can be very seductive to drop 'bombs' via prose and not be there for when they go off. In writing, you can say what you need to say safely and carefully, with time for preparation, in a way that many could never do in person, in conversation. — Tom Storm

Writing allows one to talk to people without giving them the capacity to reply. However, the reader has the capacity of choice to freely decide whether or not to listen to, (read), the writer. So the writer must take this into account when deciding what to write, unless the writing is purely for self gratification.

But what do you mean when you say that words constrain imaginations? — jkop

When you read a novel, the author creates an imaginary scene. If the author is proficient, the words employed by the author, and read by the reader, constrain the imagination of the reader in a way intended by the author.

I think that a true description of an imagination is constrained by what one imagines. — jkop

I don't think that this is the case. Even the author, who creates the imaginary world, or scene, is doing this through the use of words. words provide freedom for the writers imagination, to go much further than where simple images would take one. So the writer can use words to create images which were not already imagined, but produced from the use of words. I believe that the imaginary scene created by the writer, is principally created with words rather than with images which words are put to, to describe, because words allow the writer's mind much greater freedom to go places where the simple use of images would not otherwise take it. In other words, words open up the imagination to all sorts of new territories, even within the act of writing.

Writing allows one to talk to people without giving them the capacity to reply — Metaphysician Undercover

Good point and has been the case. But often the letters and on line comments, emails, tweets and phone calls are overwhelming, also invitations to defend your thesis in debate on radio or TV, can soon mean contending with a multiplicity of replies, more than the average person would ever encounter.

I think that has resulted in the spoken word influencing how I write. I find a lot of academic writing pointlessly stuffy and long-winded, but a danger of writing more directly is that academics can think you're just stupid — mcdoodle

You are right. Academic criticism of the works of authors is pointless most of the time. I think in most cases they attack directly against the freedom of creativity. Honestly, this is one of the main fears I have of writing short stories or even a novel. If it ends up being read by 'professionals or literature critics' and would receive a lot of negative feedback. I tried to publish some works for a small championship and I didn't like the experience. The only place where I received constructive criticism was here at TPF on the short story activity.

One difficulty in learning from Fosse, as regards philosophical writing, is that silences and pauses are subtle and illuminating in fiction or memoir, but unwise in writing about thought. — mcdoodle

Because if those thoughts are not written or spoken, and remain in silence, they do not exist. Right?

Language is also like jewelry or a shiny toy when used with some creativity and vitality. — Tom Storm

:up:

In writing, you can say what you need to say safely and carefully, with time for preparation, in a way that many could never do in person, in conversation. — Tom Storm

I fully agree with this. I think I already discussed it with @Bylaw, but while it would be nearly impossible to express myself with you in real life, I can share my thoughts and feelings here on TPF freely. I even share wonders which I am not confident enough to share with my family. Furthermore, English is not my native language, so I imagine myself suffering from anxiety trying to find the exact words if I needed to communicate myself in spoken language and not in written language. This is why I relate to Fosse that much. Writing is a safe activity and helps people to express themselves.

The suicide note can also be used to increase the hurt. Further, certain suicide techniques can be used to increase the hurt to others, and suicide can be carried out for the purpose of hurting others. I do not see how it is possible to remove the hurtfulness from it. — Metaphysician Undercover

Although I agree that the hurtfulness of suicide cannot be removed, I still don't see why this act (plus the suicide note) can increase the hurt. Whose hurt are we referring to? I can only imagine suicide as a revenge act, but in most cases, this rarely happens. A person with suicidal thoughts starts giving up on life, and this makes him or her not feel motivated by anything, not even revenge.

That's why it is often argued that suicide is extremely selfish. — Metaphysician Undercover

Suicide is only considered selfish if the suicidal person was loved or esteemed by others. Many people die in the pure state of loneliness, and nobody ever remembers them...

Although I agree that the hurtfulness of suicide cannot be removed, I still don't see why this act (plus the suicide note) can increase the hurt. — javi2541997

It depends on what is in the notes. For example, if there is blame
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32343168/
And from another study, with my emphasis:

Presents a discursive analysis of 172 suicide notes left by 120 suicide victims. Instead of searching for the underlying psychological reasons for suicide in the content of notes, the authors argue that such notes should be viewed as acts of communication which serve to manage the blame accorded to both author and recipients of the suicide note. Consequently notes may provide evidence of socially shared beliefs as to when suicide is more or less acceptable. The analysis largely confirms this approach. It is found that matters relating to blame are referred to more frequently than any other issue (87% of notes). The precise arguments which are used to justify the actions of both self and others are then described in detail and some evidence is provided that the nature of these arguments may vary as a function of the social position of the author and also the identity of the recipient. The implications of these findings, and for a general use of a discursive approach to suicide, are then discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

No one should assume that suicide is an act of anger or intending to hurt someone. Clearly some people are just trying to end pain they find unedurable and see not other way to do this.

But as social creatures it can also be - again, not necessarily - an act that is in part revenge. Or showing others what they have done. Or showing others that they no longer have the person - 'feel that loss of me'. If any of these are put in a note, and these all can be implied also, then this can certainly add to the hurt of survivors.

That's why it is often argued that suicide is extremely selfish. — Metaphysician Undercover

And this, I think is an oversimiplification in the other direction. People who commit suicide may be in what they consider unendurable pain with no way out. Could be physical, more often emotional. I wouldn't want someone to cling to a nightmare for my sake. And that's not how I would try to talk them out of it. I think adding guilt on top of someone's suicidal ideation isn't really helpful, much less somehow correct.

The analysis largely confirms this approach. It is found that matters relating to blame are referred to more frequently than any other issue (87% of notes).

Wow, that data is impressive, because I always thought that a suicide note was written to just explain the cause and say goodbye to the world.

But as social creatures it can also be - again, not necessarily - an act that is in part revenge. Or showing others what they have done. Or showing others that they no longer have the person - 'feel that loss of me' — Bylaw

But this only happens if there is such a controversial relationship between the suicidal and the rest. Yet, it can be the scenario where a suicidal decides to commit suicide because he is bored of life or he feels depressed for some reasons which are not necessarily caused by others. I attempt to explain with these examples that suicide is an individual act that sometimes can affect others...

Reasons for suicide are similarly diverse. Some people are just fed up with living. Some people are unwell. Some are unable to deal with trauma. Some are reacting to situational factors. Suicide is one word for many situations. — Tom Storm

:fire:

But this only happens if there is such a controversial relationship between the suicidal and the rest. — javi2541997

I don't know. I mean, I think most of us can, at least in down or cranky moments, feel blame for others around us. We may question this and shift out of it in a later mood. We may think we have a bad attitude, but it's a fairly common attitude. Someone who is mightily depressed or suffering from PTSD may experience what is passing and mood dependent in others, much more deeply and for longer periods of time. Again, this doesn't mean any specific suicide has this attitude.

Yet, it can be the scenario where a suicidal decides to commit suicide because he is bored of life or he feels depressed for some reasons which are not necessarily caused by others. I attempt to explain with these examples that suicide is an individual act that sometimes can affect others... — javi2541997

Sure, this can certainly be the case also.

Or a mixture of the two. Or there is physical pain and long term illness involved. Or there are economic issues involved. And so on.

I still don't know why I bother. I've been scribbling incessantly since preschool. Why do it? Like for most who write, putting down 500 words of prose daily, along with obsessive note taking & marginalia, collecting specimens of unusual wordplay & quotations, reams of memos-to-self-cum-essays, etc is the best way I've found of keeping my own company. "Sanity"? That's saying too much. About twenty years ago I told myself I write to correct, or clarify, my younger selves; I still believe that, even more so now. But why bother go on when not one of those younger selves will ever read me. I can't go on, but I go on anyway, out of spite, or kicks, because at this age I've forgotten how to do anything else. :death: :flower:

But why bother go on when not one of those younger selves will ever read me. I can't go on, but I go on anyway, out of spite, or kicks, because at this age I've forgotten how to do anything else. — 180 Proof

I can relate to that frustration. I can't even remember how many times I highlighted this issue while discussing in other threads. One of the main problems of my generation is that most of us (not all, but an important number) don't bother to read something. Social media and cell phones have destroyed the habit of reading a book by ourselves and then forming a personal opinion. I can only say: Sorry for my generation, folks, and thanks for not giving up on writing prose. I think you can feel fulfilled after doing so.

Although I agree that the hurtfulness of suicide cannot be removed, I still don't see why this act (plus the suicide note) can increase the hurt. Whose hurt are we referring to? I can only imagine suicide as a revenge act, but in most cases, this rarely happens. — javi2541997

We're talking about the hurt to others which suicide causes. For example, people who know the person who carries out the act often feel a sense of blame and even guilt for not being closer to the individual in what is apprehended as a time of need. The suicide note can add to this feeling, which hurts. I think this is what points to with that article.

A person with suicidal thoughts starts giving up on life, and this makes him or her not feel motivated by anything, not even revenge. — javi2541997

It's all part of the silent language, which appears to be a sort of communication through feelings. The meaning apprehended by the receiver of the language is not necessarily the meaning intended by the transmitter of the language. This is due to the unreliability of the medium of transmission. Take what is known as "body language" for example, and there is also what is known as "inflection" in speech, a term derived from musical practise I believe. These forms of silent language may contribute significantly to the meaning of the spoken word, but the significance will vary considerable from one person to the other. The variance is so significant, that a person who is inclined to read the silent language will see very much meaning which another will not, and even much meaning which is not intended by the person who transmits it. Seeing the silent meaning which is not intended by the author is how we determine when a person is lying, by looking into one's eyes, or whatever.

Therefore, as much as the suicidal person is not motivated for "revenge", people close to that person may apprehend this type of meaning through the silent language. The silent language communicates through people's feelings, which is a sort of instinctual reaction, so that the receiver's conscious mind responds according to one's feelings. And as much as the conscious mind of the receiver may tell the person that the meaning which has manifested by way of feeling, was not really intended by the transmitter, this is often insufficient to suppress the feeling along with the associated meaning.

Suicide is only considered selfish if the suicidal person was loved or esteemed by others. Many people die in the pure state of loneliness, and nobody ever remembers them... — javi2541997

I think the referred to "pure state of loneliness" is fictitious. I also believe that this is the overall lesson taught by Fosse's speech, the meaning of the whole, or "moral of the story". The supposed complete isolation of a "pure state of loneliness" is actually impossible and therefore fictitious. As he described, his approach to writing was the approach of loneliness, a feeling created due to his innate problems of association, and which he later built upon, due to his problem with public speaking: "Through the fear of reading aloud I entered the loneliness that is more or less the life of a writing person – and I’ve stayed there ever since."

This act of separating himself from others to produce loneliness was what fueled his creative talent. However, the loneliness was incomplete, not really pure, because he could not dispel the idea that someone, at some time in the future, would actually read the notes he was writing, and this idea penetrated through the writing. Therefore within his writing there was always that seed of content, subject matter, which was intended as communication with others, making his notes more than just notes to oneself. This feature, that the loneliness he created could not be completed or finished, then probably became a central feature of some of his writing.

Slowly, he came to accept the fact that the loneliness he had desired in the first place, to escape the others, find security within himself in order to produce masterful art, was a false ideal, because it could not be completed in perfection. That was impossible. So he turned himself around, finding security instead in companionship rather than within himself: "And what gripped me the first time I saw something I had written performed on a stage, yes, that was exactly the opposite of loneliness, it was
companionship, yes, to create art through sharing art – that gave me a great
sense of happiness and security."

In the end, the entire speech can be seen as an attempt by Fosse to share his loneliness, which in many ways is the deepest gesture of companionship. From the loneliness which he created for himself, are derived his deepest, most significant and formative feelings, which shaped his creative talent. He shares this with us, with what I believe is the intent of inspiring others to share in his talent.

Here's what I believe are a few key points to consider chronologically. His loneliness was initially not created intentionally, it was the result of his innate personality along with the way that he received the silent language (feelings) of others in his formative youth. He first coped with the loneliness by playing music. In adolescence he turned to writing, and then sought to increase the loneliness because it was highly inspirational, and contributive to his writing. Then he slowly came to realize the incompleteness of the loneliness and how it was the desire for companionship that really inspired the writing. So he found a way to separate the desire for companionship, from the loneliness, which allowed him to write well, without the need for loneliness. That is the difference between being alone, and being lonely. This is how writing saved his life, and he sincerely hopes that he can share this message to help save the lives of others.

People who commit suicide may be in what they consider unendurable pain with no way out. — Bylaw

This is not the way to escape the accusation of selfishness. No matter how intense and unendurable the pain may be, to put one's own interests, (to end the pain), as having priority over the interests of others, is the very definition of "selfish". So this point just does not address that accusation.

Javi offered a much more comprehensive approach, which was "pure loneliness". This would respect the fact that the selfishness cannot be removed from the act, but it renders the selfishness as irrelevant to anyone else. So it becomes a matter of I can do what I want, so long as it hurts no one else. The problem, as I explained above, is that pure loneliness is a defective concept, so I really do not believe that the hurtfulness which inheres within the act can be removed in this way.

But this only happens if there is such a controversial relationship between the suicidal and the rest. Yet, it can be the scenario where a suicidal decides to commit suicide because he is bored of life or he feels depressed for some reasons which are not necessarily caused by others. I attempt to explain with these examples that suicide is an individual act that sometimes can affect others... — javi2541997

I believe this issue is best understood through reference to the silent language which is a communication through feelings. The problem of "blame", or feeling guilt, is not exclusive to those who are close to the suicidal person. The act, suicide, is generally apprehended by us as so final, so extreme, that anyone who is even an acquaintance of the person, and sometimes not even acquainted, is affected with feelings for the person, which can amount to a feeling of blame and guilt within oneself. This is "the problem" with the silent language, it may, and very often does, communicate meaning which is completely unintended by the author. This is because it works through the feelings of the recipient of the information.

This is not the way to escape the accusation of selfishness. No matter how intense and unendurable the pain may be, to put one's own interests, (to end the pain), as having priority over the interests of others, is the very definition of "selfish". — Metaphysician Undercover

Which is precisely what the others are expecting if they believe this. We would allow this kind of thinking for many decisions. They will be disappointed if I don't [go to the wedding, movies, Friday bowling, whatever] but I had a bad fall and it would cause me a lot of pain just to go and watch] The criticism eats itself and as I said after what you quoted, it add a guilt to an already painful situation. We are constantly making decisions out of our own needs and taking care of ourselves in ways we certainly do not for random neighbors and distant cousins, but even, because we are closest to ourselves, responsible for ourselves, making decisions that may not please others, but because of what we want and don't want. Selfish is pejorative. It is certainly a decision to do something that one wants to do that others may not want. And if one has lived with some love, then most will not like it at all. Nor would they if you moved to France, probably either, because of modelling or it was the dreamt of home you always wanted. A woman wants a career and her boyfriend and parents want her to have a kid. Someone leaves a sect they are in and every single person they have know is sad and upset. Are these situations also the definition of selfishness because they put their desires and wants before those of the people they know, even love? It's certain self-oriented to make these decisions. And these outcomes may seem positive or neutral - at least to some - so, they're ok. Move to France and you may be permanently removing yourself from people's lives. And in the main were before the internet.

But the judgment there seems to just sidestep the issue: is it a good decision for that person. If it isn't then to me that's the focus. I certainly don't think the argument that 'you should continue to suffer in a life you hate for my sake and other people' is a compassionate attitude.

Yes, I would likely get angry if someone I loved killed themselves. But I'd assume they hated life and wanted it to stop and it was the best solution. My frustration that lasted would likely be over the it not being the best solution, not the pain it caused me.

I don't want people staying in agony for my sake. If there is a solution, however, that they are missing, that can alleviate their pain, THAT's my focus. Not telling them to live for my sake, however it feels, which is selfish. And I understand that the people saying this here are saying it in a general, non-specific way, but this meme goes out and adds a layer of guilt.

If we really believe they had a better choice, well let's tell them that. If we don't know, and they are in agony, out there, throwing guilt on top of their agony might work for a short time. MIght have the opposite effect. While they'll feel guilty for the successful act, now they can feel bad about considering it.

Therefore, as much as the suicidal person is not motivated for "revenge", people close to that person may apprehend this type of meaning through the silent language. The silent language communicates through people's feelings, which is a sort of instinctual reaction, so that the receiver's conscious mind responds according to one's feelings. — Metaphysician Undercover

Understood, why am I to disagree with those good points? Nevertheless, I still think that the receiver is not a key element of suicide. You are treating the receiver as a person who necessarily represents the cause of suicide, and this is not necessarily the main point. We both agreed that there are different causes of suicide. Keep in mind that there are people who commit suicide because they feel lonely. In this case specifically, there is no receiver for communicating the silent language of suicide. Then, this act happens unnoticed. I do not know if you were ever aware of the 'Ministry of Loneliness' in Japan. The University of Tsukuba pointed out important data regarding the main cause of suicide among the Japanese people, and the study states: Researchers from the University of Tsukuba analyzed the degree of influence of social isolation, loneliness, and depression on suicidal ideation during the COVID-19 pandemic using data from a large-scale national questionnaire survey. The results revealed that loneliness had a direct and stronger impact on suicidal ideation than economic hardship and social isolation. It also indirectly affects suicidal ideation through depression. https://www.tsukuba.ac.jp/en/research-news/20230517140000.html

According to this data, lonely individuals tend to be more suicidal than social ones. We can conclude that those suicidal individuals have no receivers for their acts because loneliness is the main cause of this thought.

Note: It is true that the main cause of suicide depends on each country. But Japan has a serious and extensive experience regarding this topic, and I think we can consider their data as reliable.

Here's what I believe are a few key points to consider chronologically. His loneliness was initially not created intentionally, it was the result of his innate personality along with the way that he received the silent language (feelings) of others in his formative youth. He first coped with the loneliness by playing music. In adolescence he turned to writing, and then sought to increase the loneliness because it was highly inspirational, and contributive to his writing. Then he slowly came to realize the incompleteness of the loneliness and how it was the desire for companionship that really inspired the writing. — Metaphysician Undercover

Very interesting what you wrote in this paragraph, and I liked it. But would you consider it a desire rather than just the average transformation we all experience in our lives? I don't know to what extent Fosse desired companionship, but he started to learn more about his life and communicative skills. He began to have a fear of speaking in public, and he ended up reading a lecture in a Nobel ceremony. He just faced his fears.

Which is precisely what the others are expecting if they believe this. We would allow this kind of thinking for many decisions. They will be disappointed if I don't [go to the wedding, movies, Friday bowling, whatever] but I had a bad fall and it would cause me a lot of pain just to go and watch] The criticism eats itself and as I said after what you quoted, it add a guilt to an already painful situation. We are constantly making decisions out of our own needs and taking care of ourselves in ways we certainly do not for random neighbors and distant cousins, but even, because we are closest to ourselves, responsible for ourselves, making decisions that may not please others, but because of what we want and don't want. Selfish is pejorative. It is certainly a decision to do something that one wants to do that others may not want. And if one has lived with some love, then most will not like it at all. Nor would they if you moved to France, probably either, because of modelling or it was the dreamt of home you always wanted. A woman wants a career and her boyfriend and parents want her to have a kid. Someone leaves a sect they are in and every single person they have know is sad and upset. Are these situations also the definition of selfishness because they put their desires and wants before those of the people they know, even love? It's certain self-oriented to make these decisions. And these outcomes may seem positive or neutral - at least to some - so, they're ok. Move to France and you may be permanently removing yourself from people's lives. And in the main were before the internet. — Bylaw

I don't see your point Bylaw. Acting for one's own interests with disregard for the hurt it will cause to others is what selfishness is, whether or not that is a good thing or a bad thing. However, if this to you, means that "selfish" is pejorative, then it is you yourself who is saying that such a thing is a bad thing.

I think this is a very good example of how the silent language works. I describe an act as "selfish", you hear the word as pejorative, and this stirs negative feelings in you. So you proceed to look for examples where selfishness wouldn't necessarily be negative, in an attempt to dispel the negative feeling which your own interpretation of the word, as pejorative, has aroused within you.

Understood, why am I to disagree with those good points? Nevertheless, I still think that the receiver is not a key element of suicide. You are treating the receiver as a person who necessarily represents the cause of suicide, and this is not necessarily the main point. — javi2541997

The point is that there almost always is receivers, so the receiver becomes a sort of necessary accidental. Whoever the receiver (the living person who is affected by the suicide) is, is not necessarily a specific individual, so is in that sense accidental, but there almost certainly will be such an individual, or individuals.

In this way, it is sort of like the act of writing itself. The writing is not directed at any particular individual, but it is still necessary within the writer's mind, that there will be a reader. The writer, in as much as one might intend to write solely for oneself, knows that ultimately the writing must be composed in such a way as to ultimately be read by someone else. Likewise, as much as the suicidal may be wrapped up in loneliness, carrying out the act solely for one's own sake, the individual still knows that ultimately the act will be in some way interpreted by someone else.

Keep in mind that there are people who commit suicide because they feel lonely. In this case specifically, there is no receiver for communicating the silent language of suicide. Then, this act happens unnoticed. — javi2541997

Perhaps, in principle, this is possible. The extremely lonely person goes off somewhere, and no one ever notices the difference. In my analogy above, of the writer, this would be like a person writing, knowing the writing would never be read, and even hiding it to ensure that it wouldn't ever be read. This would be a sort of odd behaviour, actively writing to no one, and even intentionally hiding the material to ensure that it was never read. Would this be indicative of mental illness, or can we say that a person who keeps a personal diary, and ensures that no one will ever read it, is acting in a sane way? How can this be reasonable?

According to this data, lonely individuals tend to be more suicidal than social ones. We can conclude that those suicidal individuals have no receivers for their acts because loneliness is the main cause of this thought. — javi2541997

I think that there is usually receivers, because people do not live in total isolation, and sometimes the suicidal do not adequately plan to dispose of their own bodies. We have to consider that anyone in proximity will be affected by the suicide, in some, usually negative way.

Very interesting what you wrote in this paragraph, and I liked it. But would you consider it a desire rather than just the average transformation we all experience in our lives? I don't know to what extent Fosse desired companionship, but he started to learn more about his life and communicative skills. He began to have a fear of speaking in public, and he ended up reading a lecture in a Nobel ceremony. He just faced his fears. — javi2541997

We all grow up differently despite categorization like introvert/extrovert. The issue here I believe is the question of how we each learn to cope with our own peculiarities. Different introverts develop different coping mechanisms. I think that Fosse did very well. And, I think that he's trying to help and teach others.

This would be a sort of odd behaviour, actively writing to no one, and even intentionally hiding the material to ensure that it was never read. Would this be indicative of mental illness, or can we say that a person who keeps a personal diary, and ensures that no one will ever read it, is acting in a sane way? How can this be reasonable? — Metaphysician Undercover

It is not reasonable, I agree. But we have to remember that a suicidal person loses all kinds of reasonable ways. Maybe they decide to hide or burn their diary or stuff because they don't want to be remembered. What kind of things are inside the brain of a person who wants to end their life? Who knows...

We have to consider that anyone in proximity will be affected by the suicide, in some, usually negative way. — Metaphysician Undercover

But who would be this affected 'anyone'? It could be my parents, but imagine that they are already dead. Could it be my friends? I don't have any. What about the colleagues at work? I don't have a strong relationship of confidence with them, so if I disappear or die, they would not notice it. Hmm, my neighbors? The building porter? Who exactly would miss me if I am extremely isolated? Again, if my suicide would negatively affect someone, the latter had to respect or care about me previously. Not all suicides resonate in the lives of others. A person dies in the silence of a room or jumping from a cliff. This discussion reminds me of the debate on the tree that falls down, but nobody heard or noticed it...

I don't have a strong relationship of confidence with them, so if I disappear or die, they would not notice it. Hmm, my neighbors? The building porter? Who exactly would miss me if I am extremely isolated? — javi2541997

It's really not a matter of having someone who would "miss you". For most people, if someone they are acquainted with dies, it has an affect on them. Further, suicide seems to have a special type of affect because it is always perceived as an avoidable death. So it's kind of like they feel that they have played a role in the death, just by knowing the person, and not acting to give the person "help". I think that's the silent language. I haven't read any of Fosse's material, but it would be interesting to see how he portrays suicide.

Again, if my suicide would negatively affect someone, the latter had to respect or care about me previously. — javi2541997

I could disagree with this, but it would not be correct to disagree, because what really is the issue here is what it means to "care" about another. There is a bond which human beings have between themselves, supporting what is known as empathy, so most of us have an innate or instinctual tendency to "care" about others, no matter who the other is. Because of this, it's really redundant and meaningless to say "the latter had to respect or care about me previously", as this is already given, that people naturally care about each other no matter who the other is

This discussion reminds me of the debate on the tree that falls down, but nobody heard or noticed it... — javi2541997

There is a sort of irony here, and it is related to how I described Fosse as turning toward loneliness, maximizing loneliness, in his early ambition of writing. The most pure, original, creative artwork comes from the artist's communion with oneself, the "other" must be completely removed so that the writing is not directed toward, or intended to impress any particular or specific type of "other". However, it is impossible to completely remove the "other" because there must be some sort of "other" or else the writing would be completely uninspired as the intention would be that no one would ever read it, so there would be no need to write anything with meaning. Therefore the person's self becomes the other, as the author writes for oneself to read, effectively isolating the individual.

The irony is in the role that the self plays as "the other". You, in your writing refer to "the tree that falls down". So there is implied in this statement that you have some knowledge about this situation, you know that a tree fell down. But then you proceed to say that nobody "noticed" it. So your second statement contradicts what is implied by the first. The first implies that you know a tree fell, while the second implies that no one could know this. So it doesn't explicitly contradict, but there is an implicit contradiction, and that's where the irony come in.

The silent language works with what is implied, not explicit, like the example above, when Bylaw said "selfish" is pejorative. But the thing is that some implications are overt, conventional, practically a definable aspect of the meaning, like "selfish is bad", whereas other implications like what is implied by "the tree that falls down", are very well hidden, and only grasped by particular individuals in specific ways. So in reality there is a huge grey area, a lack of demarcation, between what is implicit and what is explicit.

To get back to the point now, when the writer increases the aloneness to the point of desiring the loneliness of self-isolation, for the sake of inspired writing, the self becomes more and more important, as not only the transmitter of the message, but also the intended receiver. This excludes the possibility of irony and any sort of doubt as to interpretation, to the point that such tools can only be produced by self-deception. And that's the case with your example, "the tree that falls down". You have fooled yourself, tricked yourself into thinking that you can talk about this fallen tree without anyone knowing that this fallen tree exists, when clearly you must know about it to talk about it.

Our philosophical language is full of such expressions, where people trick themselves like that in order to create the appearance of a philosophical problem. What is really the case, is that these writers, philosophers, are actually not considering the full implications of the words they use, being completely immersed in themselves, and the effort to creatively produce a philosophical problem which they might share with others. So they end up not completely considering the implications of the words, thereby fooling themselves, presenting the so-called problems to others and actually making a fool of themselves. In other words they engage in self-deception for the sake of creating something which appears philosophically creative to others, when in reality the creativeness is just self-deception.