More of the Exploration of my "Thought" Processes

I was just going to add that, as far as blogging goes, I tend to use these blogs for different purposes at different times and to make not much effort to "map out" my purposes, if any, for writing any given thing. On one day, the blog can be an attempt to practice technical writing and to help myself learn a few new things or remember things I've read. On another day or posting or even part of the same posting, the blog(s) might be more like a kind of "talk therapy" that allows me to make wild, sweeping generalizations and to "rage against the machine" of society. If I do a posting and sound like a Jeckyl-and-Hyde, raving, rage-filled maniac, the reality is that I'm quietly typing as the "Zen master" and lamenting the way the world is set up, for the most part. I'm not someone who would ever hold onto seemingly hate-filled sentiments or anything, but I've noticed that blogging in a relative state of isolation can make me not as aware of these sorts of unconscious sentiments that can seem to be just filled with a vituperative ugliness. In reality, they're not intended to be that, and I'm not thinking that, at the time. But it's like they can sometimes end up being that way and seeming that way, to the extent that I or any other person might read the posting, later on, and feel that the posting doesn't show me at my finest hour. I think the entry of some vague, unconscious associations of some kind into blog postings may just be a result of the amount of writing that can go into a blog. I've sometimes read postings of mine and been shocked by the things that the posting might seem to be saying. In many cases, I wasn't really conscious of those potential implications. It's like writing for a blog causes one to have a sometimes-excessive amount of freedom of expression. But there can also be something about my writing style that can make it seem as if there's some organized, systematic "mayhem" or maniacal quality to the person writing the posting ("me"). The whole thing about blogging being like talk therapy can almost create an alternate persona at times, and I haven't seen much of any need to restrict the extent to which I can silently slip into this sort of altered state. Writing long postings on a blog and exploring lots of different topics can cause one to enter almost a trance or dream state, to a certain extent. I'm just saying that it opens up one's mind.

There are also some other aspects, such as the fact that many postings include this juxtaposition of precise, dispassionate language and discussions with random attempts at humor or wild generalizations that I haven't had much of a need to censor in my blogging. That can make it seem as if the wild statements are a reflection of an organized, inexplicable form of "madness" or something along those lines. In reality, I think I can just organize my sentences in ways that sound intense, when it comes to discussions of anything. I just haven't really had the energy to be extremely conscious of my tone, in some postings, because no one reads the blog and because the blog has always been more about organizing my thoughts on scientific topics and discussing any and every controversial topic that may come up. Another thing is that it has been really difficult to tell who my audience is or should be or needs to be or could conceivably be, etc. As a result, I tend to shut out attempts to shape my postings to specific audiences. I tend to jump around and may, when I try to think of some possible need to include a warning for such and such a reader who might, a year down the road, read the thing, include some statements that might be more of pure scientific interest and others that might be more about logistical or other details. The other thing I was going to mention is that I can sometimes end up communicating, in relation to some topics, like a person would in a debate. It's like I'll start with some vague or simple, generic sentiment and then allow the "debater-type" discussion to evolve or devolve into an argument that may be extreme and be a caricature of my true feelings about the matter. A lot of the complex discussions have always had a "hammed-up" quality on this blog, and that can be bad or good. The result can end up being a mixture of different things, etc. I've griped in generic ways about all sorts of topics on here. Nonetheless, when I see the ways I can end up allowing the less rational and superficially-angry facets of my thinking to mix with rational discussions, I don't, in a lot of these cases, like the things that I see, either in myself or in my postings. When I look closely and explore the issues and the extreme sides of some of the things I see in the world or in medicine, I sort of remember the ways things can just go on and on in the world (or, for example, in my life, in the past) and defy all reason and become devoid of hope, etc. I remember the way it feels and don't like remembering, and the result can be some sort of apparent tirade or seemingly-calculated expression of outrage that may just be mostly a journey into or exploration of some concept or concern. That's not to say that I don't have some thoughts and opinions that can seem extreme, but I haven't really made an attempt to carefully distinguish between statements that reflect my true feelings or perceived motivations (or, upon subsequent analysis, unconscious motivations) for saying things and statements that can constitute a "mixed bag," as discussed above. I generally have assumed that any one or any collection of statements that I've made have not been of much significance to anyone, and, even as that is likely to still be the case, that approach is not necessarily the best one and can lead to things that are troubling for me to see, to say the least.