| person |
conversation text |
| me |
Who am I? |
| blog reader |
I know who you are. |
| me |
How so? |
| my blog |
through me. |
| me |
Is that so? |
| blog reader |
Yes. |
| me |
Is that really knowing me? |
| friend |
What are you talking about? |
| me |
I mean, to what extent do my readers know me? |
| friend |
They know you as well as they can |
| my blog |
through me. |
| me |
but is that really knowing me? |
| friend |
What are you talking about? I mean, it isn’t knowing you in the Biblical sense - although I can think of some that it’d be nice to…. |
| me |
Stop it. |
| friend |
But seriously, how can anyone come to really know someone else? |
| my blog |
You should stop this line of reasoning. |
| me |
Why? |
| my blog |
You are insinuating distance from your readers - this is not advantageous for you |
| me |
I think you mean this is not advantageous for you. |
| my blog |
Regardless, a close intimacy and often trying to make them feel involved in what you are doing here has been a hallmark of what has set you aside |
| me |
Set me aside in the eyes of maybe a small handful of readers at any given point in time. |
| my blog |
Yes, but your readership will grow, if you cultivate it. |
| my |
Why should I cultivate it? |
| friend |
So you can be more famous and get more chicks! |
| me |
That is not an acceptable answer at present. (Readers: if you want details on my dealings with “chicks”, e-mail me privately or leave a comment or IM me or something and I’ll tell you about another blog I set up just for that sort of information.) |
| fortune teller |
And so the fragmentation begins. |
| me |
I cannot continue to imagine my whole being online, at least not at present, and so aggregating myself into one blog is not something I want to do. |
| my blog |
But it is something you have done. |
| me |
But that is the past. |
| myself |
The past is not the present, nor the future. |
| i |
I will make my present and future, and I will feel free to make it different from my past. |
| fun dzu |
You will not accomplish something unless you believe it possible. |
| friend |
So? |
| fun dzu |
He seeks to assert that he is more than what can be contained here, and so aims to express himself in other ways. |
| blog reader |
Why not express himself here? |
| me |
To prevent the furtherance of the illusion that this is all that I am. |
| blog reader |
But what made you think that illusion was being presented? |
| me |
Because I’ve done a good job of presenting a great amount of detail about my life here in the past. |
| my blog |
And I’d prefer you continued to do so. The more you blog with me, the more I become you and you become me. |
| me |
I want to be me. I am not yet ready to identify with you. |
| friend |
Will you ever? |
| me |
That is for me to leave to the future. |
| fun dzu |
Planning for the future is vital for any strategic campaign. |
| me |
Perhaps I should not be strategic in this matter. |
| my blog |
Consult the fortune teller. She knows the truth. |
| me |
No. I don’t need to know the future. |
| blog reader |
It sounds like you know who you are, for now at least. |
| me |
I do. |
| blog reader |
Then why did you ask? |
| me |
To see if you thought you knew the answer. |
| my blog |
And the reader did, which just goes to prove my point. |
| me |
Unfortunately, yes. |
| blog reader |
So, are you asking me to be more humble in my belief that I know you? |
| my blog |
Don’t say yes when you respond to the reader, because you must allow the reader to think they know you. |
| me |
That is your problem, not mine. |
| blog reader |
Don’t we know you? |
| me |
You’ll have to trust your own assessment of that. |
| friend |
Are you just saying that they won’t be able to continue to know you through your blog? |
| me |
Perhaps. Who knows what the future holds. |
| blog reader |
So the fragmentation has more to do with you wanting us to be humble than with you not having a holistic perspective? |
| my blog |
Again, don’t answer that. |
| me |
I believe I am sufficiently holistic in those perspectives which I feel confident in. |
| friend |
So, who are you? |
| me |
I think everyone has a different answer to that. |
| friend |
Of course everyone thinks that they are someone unique and explains themselves differently! |
| me |
I mean something else: I mean I think everyone thinks that I am something different from what everyone else thinks. |
| friend |
You don’t believe that people have a common understanding of who you are? |
| me |
No, I think everyone is different in their understanding of who I am. |
| friend |
And why is this? |
| me |
I have become all things to all men. |
| friend |
You misappropriate that phrase. |
| my blog |
Does it matter that he misappropriates that phrase? How many readers will click through to read the context? |
| me |
Indeed, how many people endeavor to understand soundbites in their context? |
| blog reader |
You have misappropriated a great number of things. |
| me |
How many people endeavor to understand me in context? |
| blog reader |
It is your obligation to provide us with enough context to be understood by us. |
| me |
Is it really? |
I like that phrase about fragmentation. I agree that context helps your readers to understand you, but I for one don’t think you’re obliged to provide it. And the more you fragment yourself over different blogs, the less chance your readers on *this* blog have a chance to understand you. That’s maybe one of the things you were getting at…