Glory, as Anyone Knows, is Bitter Stuff
Classic Gin
Sunday, 2005-01-02 | Classic Gin, Journal, Language, Philosophy
| "Mishima rather wanted a fantastic alternative to the real, imagining blissful obedience and eternal devotion, and in wishing this could vilify society for not providing his his fantasy. Paradoxically, one can simultaneously berate an emasculated people, rejoice in berating them, and yet be too angered that they are too emasculated to support one's fantasy." |
| Jerry S. Piven |
You'll forgive my recent absence. You see, I've been on 'vacation' since the 20th and the word 'vacation' for me means that I'm allowed to stumble around with my brains at half-mast, spend money like a teenage Arab and shirk the responsibilities I take deadly seriously during the rest of the year. Towards that end I've been living on a certain colleague's couch and cauterizing my esophagus with cigarettes and whisky; my 'vacation' has so far been a resounding success.
In related news, I've begun to keep a journal--I call it my 'material history' and I am keeping it because I believe that posterity may one day be interested enough in my life and death to read it. This new project, of course, suggests a host of interesting and potentially instructive questions. For example, 'why keep a journal and a weblog at the same time?' or 'is there a difference between public and private writing?' or 'is the difference between log and journal the difference between public and private?' all come to mind.
Here come the answers to those questions in order: keeping a journal and a log at the same time is kind of like keeping a mistress and a wife--it requires a substantial investment of time and resources, but in return it provides two unique venues for personal expression; one private and one public.
Which brings me directly to my second point, which is this: there is no actual difference between 'public' and 'private' writing, even though it is often convenient to use such adjectives. It is unavoidable that all writing is meant to be read by the author and at least one other person because of the simple fact that written words (like spoken ones) cannot convey meaning if they are not endowed with meaning by an author; to lend meaning to written or spoken tokens (words) demands that this meaning is lent by one party who intends to communicate with at least one other. For this reason all writing is 'public,' so to speak, but not all writing is intended for general consumption, i.e. to be read by anyone who happens upon it (and understands the language in which it is written).
This, naturally, has been building to my third point, which is that the difference between public writing (e.g. the writing you encounter here or, say, in a magazine) and private writing (e.g. the writing Kurt Cobain committed to his recently published journals or the actual diary of Anne Frank) is no difference at all; a weblog such as DemonGin.org or a 'material record' of events such as my recently begun journal are identical.
Whereas all logs are drafted with the idea that they will (1) record progress with a practiced (and thus misnamed in good faith) objectivity and (2) that someone will regard and evaluate that progress at some point, all journals are drafted with the idea that they will (1) record impressions or events with a practiced (and thus honestly named) subjectivity and (2) that someone will regard and consider those impressions if the author or circumstances beyond the author's control (but within the author's intention) permit him to.
Point (1), which describes the feigned objectivity in the case of the log and heightened subjectivity in the case of the journal is the same for both forms of writing. Feigned objectivity is stylized subjectivity just as the heightened subjectivity of a journal is stylized subjectivity; in each case the writer seems to say 'I have chosen to order my impressions and observations in a certain way in order to mitigate or exult my inalienable subjectivity but not to thereby escape from or transcend it.'
Of point (2), which describes the certain destiny of the log and the uncertain destiny of the journal, we can also say that it proves that the journal and the log are identical; the log is written so that it might stand up to critical scrutiny and the journal is written with the expectation that it will resist and deny critical scrutiny by virtue of its author's alleged desire to save it for his own eyes. Put another way, the writer of the log attempts to resist being called 'incorrect' or 'false' by carefully tracking progress and the writer of the journal attempts to resist being called 'incorrect' or 'false' by pretending that his work was not intended to be read (when, as we have learned, this is in fact impossible and all writing exist to be read by a party in addition to the author).
So finally we see that there is no actual difference between the log and the journal; though they appear to be different (i.e. one is public, the other private) they are not different at all because of the fact that they are writing and all writing is subject to the golden rule of normativity: tokens are lent significance by agents in order that that significance might be interpreted by other agents.