Are you saying that people who see you every day would not even notice if suddenly you were not there? — Metaphysician Undercover

But what you describe is people who see the whole, crowds of people every day, but do not notice any individuals, like yourself. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think not, and my thoughts are not unjustified. This will be embarrassing to share, but it is a good example of why I state that if I disappeared, people (in my daily life) would not care. Last week we had a Christmas meeting and lunch. We are like 35 people overall. With this small number, you would consider that it is easy to get along with people or at least be noticed, right? Well, it is clearly the opposite. Most of my colleagues already had a strong relationship between them, and it is difficult for me to integrate with them. Honestly, I am very shy, so it is true I never made a big effort to integrate myself, and I don't even feel comfortable doing so.

Well, back to the main point, when I left nobody noticed my absence. I feel I am that kind of person who is unnoticeable to most people. The one who nobody reminds of. The mates of my school and university? No... they probably don't remember (or care) about my existence.

With these premises or 'background', I personally believe that if I committed suicide, people would not care at all. Maybe you are right that they would feel a bit 'shocked' because suicide is something that impresses people... but it will not go beyond just that...

The issue being that one, the one you call the real world is not a social world at all, it is a world of social exclusion, within which you are alone. However, you have also the internet world within which you are socially active. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, exactly. I feel more comfortable here than in the 'non-virtual' world. It will be impossible to talk about these topics for me in the latter...

Fair enough, mate. It was an interesting exchange and I appreciate your contributions to my thread. I will be honest: I ran out of ideas and arguments to keep posting and replying to you. So, instead of wasting your time, I think I must stop because I am ending up in a meaningless circle, the victim of my own comments. My only, I promise the last, conclusion (regarding our exchange on the perception of suicide by the receivers) is that if I kill myself, people in the 'real' (outside the internet) world would not care. Maybe you will care cohabiting with me on the world and reality of The Philosophy Forum.

But there is another world, my daily life. The latter is a big difference in terms of socializing and exchanging concerns with the rest, as I do here. Then, my supposed suicide in the real world outside the internet would not have a special impact.

Is it a contradiction or a paradox? I don't know which one to pick up. This is why I used the example of the falling tree. The main point is as it follows: If I were absent for many months here, I think that some of you would wonder and ask what is going on with Javi. If, in this case, you noticed my death, you would care, even if you haven't even seen my face yet. But, paradoxically, it will not have the same impact on the people who see me every day.

My suicide would be like the tree which fell down unnoticed in the physical (non-virtual) world.

I hope I explained myself a bit better this time...

And, as you highlighted, I also want to know with more detail the thoughts of Fosse regarding suicide after reading some of his novels.

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...

For me it is clear that languages are different and that if there is a difference then one is to be better than another. — I like sushi

But in what sense is it better or worse? It is obvious that English is more useful overall. All the interesting content is in English. When people from different countries have a meeting, they use English. The internet is more practical and extensive if you use English. So, as a whole, English is more useful than other languages that are rarely used or known.

For example, you will not see people studying Basque or Catalan because they are not that useful for their professional objectives. Maybe we can find some individuals who study those languages because they have a passion for them, and it is amazing. But we have to admit that they are not recognized or valued by many people.

I don't know to what extent English is 'better' than Basque... It is more useful, yes. But I think that 'better' or 'worse' depends on someone's tastes rather than objective measures.

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.

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.

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...

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...

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.

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?

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.

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?

One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

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?

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?

I create in a few art forms and one of the reasons I write much less than I used to is precisely because I want something more social...in the experiencing. — Bylaw

When you say that you write less because you want something more social in experiencing, are you referring to acceptance or interaction? Because Fosse, as well as I humbly understand and interpret him, explains that writing is a lonely act because the meaning of language is different. The written language doesn't require interactions like the spoken language. Nevertheless, it is true that a written creation needs to be read... Right? This is why Fosse states that, rather than socializing, we are just sharing culture.

Any writer who thinks they came up with everything on their own is confused. But the experience, is very alone. — Bylaw

I agree. Good point.

Just because we can learn to survive longer and longer without human interactions does not displace the fact that imagination/psychosis will substitute the sensations of social interactions. Writing is clearly one method of ‘replacing’ social interactions. — I like sushi

Interesting.

Would you consider loneliness as a social disorder then? What about people who are scared of exposing themselves to others (like Fosse and myself, included)? Do we have to live in continuous contradiction because, although we can express ourselves in writing, we suffer when it comes to doing so publicly?

So if a reader thinks that suicide is being promoted through the use of the silent language, this is not necessarily the author's intention. And if the author's intent is to leave the subject ambiguous, thus allowing that one reader might see reason to move toward suicide, while another might be moved away from it, the author could feel as Fosse described. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is the main point I wanted to discuss when I read his lecture for the first time. I nonetheless changed the name of the title of this thread because it seemed to be ambiguous. I think Fosse is a brave author for including suicidal characters in his works. Sadly, I don't know how they play their roles yet. Suicide and ambiguity have always been existentially linked. The first time I ever read characters purposefully intending to kill themselves was in Yukio Mishima's works, but I thought that this was just a 'cultural' or 'only Japanese' thing then. Mishima even stated that the concept of death differs from the Japanese view to the Western view. I always think and wonder about this, but after reading Fosse, it is more clear to me. Every author expresses suicide depending on how they interpret death. Maybe, according to Fosse, suicide is a silent language, while following Mishima, suicide is an honorable act that comes from the Samurai era. Both points are valid and interesting to me, and I am excited to read more about Fosse during this Christmas.

The silent language is somewhat different because it employs ambiguity to work with possibility, allowing the audience freedom to think and imagine these possibilities. So the silence is essentially ambiguous. — Metaphysician Undercover

Interesting what you brought up here. I even correlated it with what I wrote back to this post, unintentionally. You state that silence allows the audience the freedom to think and imagine. 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? Sometimes I feel suicidal, others don't. I usually consider suicide as a legitimate and honorable act; at other times, I consider it as pure escapism, etc. This is how I have felt since I was 20 years old. The idea of committing suicide comes and goes. I thought Mishima was the only writer to write about this, but now I have discovered Fosse, and maybe he will help me understand suicide from a Western perspective.

See what I mean? — I like sushi

Yes, I see what you mean now.

On a superficial level we can state that we do not write something for anyone but by stating so we do actually appreciate that we usually do and therefore cannot escape that expressing anything is a reaching-out into the world not some isolated incident. — I like sushi

I agree, and I like that.

We cannot act outside of human social interactions. — I like sushi

This is the main cause we are debating. It is not clear to me to what extent we are dependent on social interactions. Fosse stated that, thanks to writing, he faced social problems such as speaking publicly.

Although he always (and still) considered the act of writing and being a novelist as solitary behavior, he admitted that his works had to be shared somehow. Yet, on this point, he states two different views:
1. The act of writing is solitary because it is based on the loneliness of the writer; 2. But the act of sharing this culture is common.

antonym??

Wow, I think Fosse's lecture goes beyond just semantics...

I disagree, and I personally believe that you didn't take the effort to read the thread, as that's what Metaphysician, jkop and I were discussing.

Either it is not a 'false' distinction, nor can one exist without the other. Writing is an individualistic (or lonely, as Fosse states) act because it is a written language where the writer expresses their fears and concerns, and it is even a refuge for exposing oneself publicly. But, paradoxically, once the writing is done, it needs reception. Here is where Fosse states that when his writings end up being read by the public, it is sharing the culture, but not the act of writing itself...

You can agree or not with him, absolutely. But you can't say it is a 'false' distinction, because it's not.

If he feels comfortable in it, then he does not feel guilt. Feeling guilt is a matter of knowing oneself to have done wrong and it is an uneasy feeling. When he says that fans thanked him, this is confirmation that he does not feel that he has done wrong. Therefore he is expressing that he does not feel guilt. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think I expressed myself incorrectly. I attempted to explain that Fosse—this is speculation because I haven't read anything from him—didn't feel comfortable with having suicidal characters. This is why he admitted that he used this issue so much that it seems he legitimized suicide. He was afraid of how the readers would perceive him or his writings. Just as Fosse had a fear of speaking in public, maybe he also had a fear of addressing suicide. We have to keep in mind that he writes to run away from himself... I guess this is why he addressed suicide in his writings, to confront this problem.

That's why I say it's not a matter of whether people understand him or not. When it comes to the silent language it's a matter of understanding "silent language" in general. When you understand that it works with possible meaning rather than actual meaning, you can start to see how powerful it is in its capacity to persuade people. The meaning comes from somewhere other than the words of the author. God? Maybe. Consider for example, Donald Trump as an artist of the silent language. He didn't actually tell those people to storm the palace, yet the silent language told them that it had to be done. — Metaphysician Undercover

Although I agree with you on the point that silence is not about whether the readers understand or not, I think he actually cared about it. He states on page number six: 'My first books were quite poorly reviewed, but I decided not to listen to the critics. I should just trust myself, yes, stick to my writing.'
If Fosse considered the reviews as 'poor,' then he cared about whether people were following his writing path or not. He trusted himself and decided to keep writing in the style he was comfortable with. Yet, the contradiction came later in his life when he was offered to write drama. He also says:'I wrote novels and poetry and had no desire to write for theatre, but in time I did it because – as part of a publicly funded initiative to write more new Norwegian drama – I was offered what was, to me, a good sum of money to write the opening scene of a play, and ended up writing a whole play, my first and still most performed play, Someone Is Going to Come.'

I wonder what Fosse considered a 'poor' or 'poorly reviewed' writer.

I propose that when Fosse was asked to write drama he saw the need to confront the difference head on, in order that he could proceed into the public sphere. This is when he discovered the silent aspect of language, which he was not familiar with, because he was immersed in writing only. — Metaphysician Undercover

Really? I personally think it is quite the opposite. Fosse knew how to use silence in written language, and he was comfortable using it in his novels despite receiving criticism. When he was asked to write plays, he hesitated at first because this is an art of spoken language, and he was not sure how to introduce silence there. Later on, he discovered the power and importance of 'pauses' during the plays. Since then, he started to see theatre in different ways and understood that silent language could have a place in plays as well.

I voted for names, and rooted for Philosophy of Language. I don't know if you ever take a look at J.L. Austin. There are some threads of the works of this philosopher (or linguist) in this forum as well. The concept of 'idea' reminds me when Austin talked about 'real' as a concept too. I think 'idea' or 'ideas' is a normal word. Thus, it is frequently used by people, and it is highly established in our ordinary language. But on the other hand, it is true that 'idea' is not a normal word at all, and it can be ambiguous. 'Idea' doesn't always have the same meaning. So, it is not merely to discuss if ideas exist, but what they mean at all.

For example, the inside of a literal hut is detached from its outside, and that's a property it shares with the metaphorical hut in the mind of a writer. Arguably there is no hut inside Fosse's head, yet it is a useful way for him to describe how he experiences writing. — jkop

Yes, well explained. I like this example.

Writers withdraw from busy social activities in order to think, observe, and write, and one's use of language might then, perhaps, acquire a "silent" or "listening" quality. To find out whether there is such a quality, or whether the description is meaningful is not obvious to me, but it seems to be a meaningful description for Fosse as he titled his speech 'A Silent Language'. — jkop

I don't believe it was obvious for Fosse either. It wasn't easy for him to incorporate silence and pauses into his writings. I think this became a semantic or reference that he gradually experienced over the years, reinforcing what he believed from the beginning, back when he was a child: that written language is safer than spoken language because he can convey silences. This technique was developed through his dramatic experiences, particularly through the use of pauses.

It is in this context that I approach what he says at the end of the speech, concerning suicide. He says that there are many suicides in his books. But we must take these representations as part of what is explicit. However, he seems to have some fear of the possibility that some people could interpret the implicit part, the hidden or silent part, as legitimizing suicide. Notice though, that he does not express guilt, so this was never his intention, never the hidden message he desired to convey, so such interpretations of the silent part would be faulty. — Metaphysician Undercover

Are you sure that he does not feel guilt? He expressed in his lecture that he actually received correspondence from readers or 'fans' who thanked him for preventing suicide. He felt guilty because he accepted suicide in his writings. Thus, he feels comfortable or safe speaking about this taboo through his writings. As much as he faced the fear of speaking in public thanks to writing, he faced suicide as well. Maybe he thought that due to his acceptance of suicide or suicidal characters, many readers would question whether he actually legitimizes this or not. To be honest, I think he does, but he doesn't want to go further because Fosse is not confident enough about whether people understand him or not.

I mean that is his real concern.

This balance is what I see as the context of Fosse's "silent language". Notice that I called it a retaliation, and this is because many artists who feel unduly constrained by the rules of the system will find a loop hole, or a secret way within their own mind of getting around the rules or making fun of them, ridiculing the system, or whatever, within the art itself. That's how I see "the pause" which he used. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree.

But I wonder if Fosse wanted to make fun of the system or perhaps find a way of feeling safe with himself. Remember that his lecture started by admitting that since he was a kid, he always had to face different challenges, with fear included in all of them. Fosse felt a bit intimidated by writing drama - despite it being necessary for earning an income - because he had to switch from written language to spoken language. He didn't feel confident, but this was one of his main successes as a writer paradoxically. This is why he said that he found a way to use silent language in drama, the pause. When Fosse learned that this could be included in the plays, he started to see drama in a different way. He was back to written language and silent expressions.

Fosse gives an example of "Septology" in the relation of one Asle to the other Asle, and the hidden message one could conclude concerning the "now" of time. (I'm not familiar with the writing.) — Metaphysician Undercover

I bought the first book of the septology. I will be in touch with you, and I promise I will share relevant fragments of the work in this thread.

---------------------------

I agree with the rest of the paragraphs of your post.

Language is based on shared labor, causal constrains and such, not whether an individual user happens to be alone. — jkop

Hmm... are you suggesting that language exists because we interact with each other? And, consequently, it can't exist if we express ourselves in loneliness. On the other hand, it is interesting how you express that language has causality. I would like and appreciate it if you could elaborate on this.

To the extent that one can experience social life by writing about it. A writer constructs, discovers, reconstructs and in some sense participates with the characters that he or she writes about. Also when writing about oneself. — jkop

Absolutely. But I think this still is an individual and lonely act; it does not lead us to construct social connections. With my plot and my characters, only I exist, but this self-awareness seems to need some connection with the rest, and this is why Fosse speaks about sharing culture.

@Metaphysician Undercover

I am back again. Thank you for reading the lecture.

I think Fosse meant to be contradictory, actually. He expressed how this feeling was a part not only of his writing process but also of growing as a person. Everything started when he was a kid. He was not able to read facing a public, but he started to write some poems or short stories at home. He felt conflicted about this mindset, but I don't know if he ever felt paradoxical. I think the line between paradoxical and contradictory is blurred here.

On the other hand, you explained very well the difference between spoken and written language. It is obvious that the main idea is that Fosse feels more comfortable with the latter, and he even considered it as a completely different way of expressing oneself.
The existence of 'others,' as Fosse stated and you also pointed out, is basic for literature. Fosse argues here that although literature is a lonely act, its sharing depends on others, and he felt here contradictory with himself again but he never gave up on the idea that he is a lonely person, so he is not really aware to what extent 'we' (the readers) are part of his life. He even states: 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.

It is interesting how you pointed out writing drama as corruption because it is a paid job, and Fosse was not free in this expression of literature. However, he surprisingly entered in a new dimension which he was not very confidence in the beginning. Yes, drama needs dialogues, and it is out from the written language which he always rooted for. Nevertheless, he also found a way to feel comfortable with writing drama- as you also pointed out - and this was with the use of 'pause' in his works. Fosse argues that this is how he approaches to silence in a spoken language art as drama, and it is indeed the most important word in his experiences of theatre plays.

Lastly, I still wonder why he feels worried about writing on suicide. He admitted that his works have many suicidal characters... I think I will discover it when I start to read his books! :smile:

I just read your answer, but I need time to develop mine and think deeply about what you wrote. I promise I will respond in the next few hours. I just need more time to focus on the topic...

:smile:

do you lean to a particular type of philosophy? — Daniel Duffy

I am interested in the Philosophy of Language. I have read a bit of Wittgenstein (specifically the work and study on him by David Pears) and discussed J.L. Austin with fellow members of this site.

Despite having a high number of posts, most of them are in the shoutbox, so I am not that learned at all. :smile:

Hello Daniel!

I am interested in taking part in this Book Group. Please consider me for this activity (or project).

I'd say writing is a social activity that one can practice privately. In this sense it can benefit the introverted or socially isolated. — jkop

Although I agree with writing can benefit the introverted, I don't know to what extent it is a social activity. Yes, a writer needs a public, and this is what, among other aspects, he is looking for. But the receptors can disappoint the writer's desires. This actually happened with some other artists such as Kurt Cobain, for instance.

Having a fear or inability in some aspect of your chosen field may be common. I worked with actors some years ago and most were pretty shy and fearful of public speaking. Comedians are often sour and glum. Etc. — Tom Storm

When they came to you, what were they asking or specifically seeking? Were they in search of safety as Fosse found in writing?

I've met several iterations of most of these over the decades. People are contradictions. — Tom Storm

I usually considered contradictions as negative behavior, but after debating in this discussion, I think I am embracing a different idea. Being contradictory in some terms can't be that bad, and I sometimes confused this term with hypocrisy, which are not even related.

What is interesting about these quirks is that they arouse our talents in different fields.

I think we all are a bit 'weird' as Fosse considered himself when he was a kid, and then when he started his writer career. Because it is contradictory to have a fear of speaking in public, but at the same time, writing stories or plays.

I understand you better now. I agree that maybe my original post is generalizing the process of writing. My intention was not to divide this into two parts but to discuss with you to what extent you agree with Fosse's lecture on the Nobel ceremony. Although it is only a seven-page paper, I think it is very worthwhile to read because he focuses on some philosophical questions and topics, apart from literature itself.

It could be somewhat paradoxical. Nevertheless, I think Fosse makes a good distinction: while writing is an individual process, sharing this art depends on companionship. This statement makes me reflect deeply on myself, even right now, as I am answering you.

Lastly, literature has its own language, and it is very different from silence or a shout. I think this is why it is important to highlight how some writers, like Fosse, were able to confront suicide in the process of writing but may not be capable of going to a therapist and talking about it.

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

Although the reasons for suicide can be diverse, do you agree it is usually based on escapism as a common factor? Notice that I debate about this side because it is what I interpreted from reading Fosse's lecture.

Most people seem to write for themselves and an audience of readers they hope to acquire. — Tom Storm

I thought about this after reading the attachment. I mean it is true that writing is individualistic, but it is needed to acquire some feedback. I would not say 'audience' because I would sound arrogant. Fosse, himself, admits that he received very poor comments and reviews on his works, but he never changed the idea of keeping writing in what he believed was the best technique: loneliness and self.

I agree with your post, and I appreciate your contribution to my thread.

I don't know to what extent facing death, not only our own but that of our loved ones, will survive in the next generations. We are currently living in a period of time where people care very little about everything. There are no initiatives to do much, and the sense of comradeship has been lost. Instead of being an individualistic society, it is a selfish one. We can be lonely and individual yet show some affection to others when they are approaching death; it is not that difficult to do. Sadly, most people don't consider mental health and its issues a big deal; they just move on, trying to fill their lives with basic needs: work, watching TV, sleep, etc. But not sitting down and realizing whether we are happy or not, or if we want to live or die, etc.

We are not ready to talk and debate about death, nor suicide. Most of the younger generation misunderstands those concepts and tends to overreact or overuse them. For example, they may feel depressed or overwhelmed because the landlord is raising the leasing fees.
This attitude only leads to not treating depression and suicidal thoughts seriously. I doubt that a person would take their own life just because their income is low, but it is more plausible if they consider this option when they don't see any projects in their lives, etc.

But, do you know what is the worst? We have established a sense that not having a purpose for living is normal because Millennials are screwed, etc.

So suicidal characters in good writing transcends just being characters in the plot, they aren't just devices or causes for dramatic tensions or tragedy, but a communication of ideas that exist on the fringes of our experiences as people and individuals in and beyond society. — Christoffer

Yes, exactly. I tried to explain this as well, and I think that's what Fosse is referring to.

And it also seems that people are utterly terrified that they would start to be seduced by the idea, that they would somehow get infected by the thought and do it to themselves. — Christoffer

I fully agree with this. There have even been some political and organizational campaigns on this issue. Japan has usually set the highest standards for avoiding suicide, considering this act as an offense. Although the rates go up and down, they remain at 'high' numbers, with more than 800 suicidal persons per year. Initially, I thought this was a cultural phenomenon, but the government there expresses concern about the numbers. Well, this problem has reached Europe too, with citizens deciding to end their lives. Some see ending life as suitable when it is not worth living, rather than continuing until death 'approaches us' due to age or sickness.

But I think the main part is that suicide is primarily a failure of society and the people around the person committing suicide. — Christoffer

Is it a failure of society rather than the sloppiness of the state? While citizens who die from terrorism or gender violence are recognized as failures of the state, those who die by suicide are not given the same status. This surely happens because of the significant influence of religion in the state over centuries. A suicidal person tends to be considered as 'sick,' a mad person. Generally, the only backup is to provide pills to people with suicidal thoughts, creating an atmosphere of perpetual disorder with reality, instead of sitting down and listening to what is going on with this person.

Furthermore, I believe that we should consider a new approach to speaking and interpreting death. This is something that we will all experience sooner or later, but we often sweep it under the rug.

If we are not able to speak about death freely, we will continue to reject the existence of suicide.

It has always figured in the literature, even oral tradition of self-sacrifice and self-destruction. — Vera Mont

I agree.

Why? Climate may factor in, culture and a historically fatalistic disposition? — Vera Mont

I remember debating about this a few years ago. Even ChatGPT argues that suicide is universally frowned upon and doesn't distinguish among cultures, something that I fully disagree with.

Idealistic North Americans, in any case, are far more prone to denial, even of what is staring them directly in the face, than are the more realistic and pragmatic North Europeans. — Vera Mont

Do you think that idealistic North Americans tend to avoid suicide rather than romanticize about it?

Because it is part of the human experience. Death by sickness, death by old age, being murdered and committing suicide are constant outcomes in our human lives. — Christoffer

Then, it is understandable how some authors incorporate suicide or suicidal characters. It is natural and even more realistic than some other fictional environments, plots, dialogues, etc. Stating this doesn't endorse actual suicide but provides another perspective in an artistic way. At least, a portrayal of suicide in a story can be more relatable than a plot where characters go to Mars and come back.