To blog, or not to blog, what is the point?
Frankly, it is wildly egotistic and naive (read: asinine) to expect members of the public -- strangers -- to give a tweak about what I write ... so why would you feel differently ... or anticipate my feeling any differently toward your posts? Having never touched a computer (outside the Atari 2600) before college, it may just be me projecting my take on this grand new Facebooky-world, and my distrust of it. I'm not generally interested in investing time pursuing the likes, dislikes, opinions, and daily goings-on of random individuals, so blogging wildly into the echo of cyberspace confounds me ... it is everything humanity should be moving away from, not toward ... face-to-face, physical interaction is becoming the exception, and yet, here I am tapping away. In the present, we are all entitled to our own little mental hen house tucked away on the back acres of the vast cyber-plane of the Internet, and we are all free to whisper or shout our "real" feelings about artificial realities and our own philosophical paradigms, but the question begs; why? Is the anticipation of a response a rational justification? Are we expected to poke around these text gardens seeking a seed, no matter how irrelevant, in order to feel some sense of social satisfaction? "This fella likes Huey Lewis and John Grisham, he's just like me!" Is that what we're looking for, some sort of reassurance that our actions are valid? I can understand the value of sharing practical information (investment advice, consumer goods reviews), but even then, why trust a stranger, a member of the general public? Action Movies, Budweiser, Paris Hilton, and Reality TV are all a result of the opinions of the general public. Just because it's published doesn't give it substance. And then, is every word I'm typing a hypocrisy?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment