Removing "I" from Your Written Word

It is the least necessary word when proving a point. Dissemblance is a way to remove the blame from the person's identity when pointing fingers. If Karen is your accountant, and you want to speak poorly of their work to a fellow employee, you call her your accountant. Especially if she's your employee and if you have any intention of climbing the ranks at your workplace. It is just plain good politics. It requires the listener to fill in the blanks with their imagination. It is more to the point, since identity isn't really a thing (because we are all one) and Karen is also not disposable, when your accountant is and can be replaced. In this the manager didn't know how to replace her and kept talking about it. Every time we were in the office, he kept saying my accountant this my accountant that. But her name was Karen. Soon enough Karen was fired. Forcing others to fill in the blanks did a great job of minimizing work place rumors and when she was let go, everyone shared a bit of remorse. After all, her work didn't directly effect the rest of us. We didn't need to know. Dissembling the self is perhaps even more effective. If you have a story, you can always replace your self identification by using you or we. Teachers do this all the time. Personally, we is preferential since we are doing it together. It brings you in. You on the other hand, can come off as commanding and not everyone responds to that. Perhaps both are valid and are a clear distinction. Self Identification has a particular effect. It is narrative and does serve a powerful purpose in fiction. Social media has a particular problem with self identification, where people really believe they have a lot going on in there, enough to embody temporary constructs. They will solidify themselves within those confines they proclaim to resist. If you have such a big problem with gender in the first place, why identify at all? This why neutrality should be a net norm. However, everyone knows sexual identity sells. Are the things you believe actually your thoughts? Where do thoughts even come from? Possession of answers to such fleeting thoughts runs people into the type of psychosis and misery loop people claim to dread. Yet, there they are, believing they are more than just a dream in god's wake. That isn't to say you are nothing. You are still a part of this shared experience. We all are. Its just that the request is joy and the one doing the giving and receiving is not you. If you believe in free choice then you are forced to believe you are an idiot, which is true, we all are. If you believe there isn't then you have to accept god's cruelty, and that's a hard pill to swallow. But if there is no choice, then you couldn't swallow it without permission, and if there's choice, you will never live up to your full potential. Is that all so bad you would burn it all? Well good news, it's all being burnt whether you like it or not. We didn't choose to be born, we all must die, even god before it all starts over. Have fun.

0 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

In this quickie I'm going to focus on making everything I would otherwise state as negative (or what I call aggressively neutral) as a positive. Intentionally (and maybe aggressively) positive. Keep i

This is a mental note. Kitty says my blogs are negative. I'm going to stop that. I see blogs as everyone's personal rant space. After all, they are completely useless in every other sense. I'm not ev

If you don't, it will. People talk talk talk about definitions but they are just words and emotionally backed concepts. Consensus is difficult to impossible. The shadow is an idea that you have pent