One complaint in mathematics is that proofs are always written as if they sprang fully formed from the head of the author [hey, there's a reference to Athena in there!] while masking the reasoning that allowed the author to arrive at the proof. The problem is the reasoning is would be very useful to understanding the implications of the proof. So it is with old writing, and blogging or it's pen and paper cousin journaling. I have noticed that by blogging the things I read and saw and experienced that contributed to my final thoughts, and by blogging the partial, sometimes contradictory thoughts along the way, I have a product much more useful than merely a persuasive piece which offends half its readers because they don't understand how someone could think that. Even if I construct the argument, it is my conception of how it should be explained; with a journal, the reader can determine for themselves which pieces of data and thought are useful (and in an easier way than following many footnotes). So, there is no slick argument to make, just thoughts to digest, and it is in the readers hands which makes it much richer. It also helps me to document for myself how I arrived at the final conclusion. Very useful. I think only now am I truly starting to realize the ways in which a blog can be intrinsically different than traditional media.
Want to comment? You'll need to create an account first.
