2025-11-05
HomeAs I was writing my response to Re: Samll thoughts, I came to realize that I did not care so much for what I was writing. I wanted to be courteous to @boyan so I knew I wanted to make a response on this blog. I didn't just want to reply on whatsapp or to make a ghost-edit on an existing entry. And I did write my response with intention, it wasn't some sort of half considered obligation that I was performing. But I was not so interested in what I was writing.
I think this is because of a few reasons.
Firstly, it's meta writing. It's a discussion about a discussion about discourse. I think I get a bit lost at this point.
Secondly, it was a bit dry, in terms of how I wrote it. I don't think it's the most interesting thing to read.
Thirdly, I didn't have to think or really reflect all that much. Well, there were points where I had to do a bit of refining on some gut feelings, but at the end of it, I don't think I really thought to myself "Oh gee, I didn't expect to write that".
I think this last point is the most important point. I don't think I would write direct response articles like that in the future. I think I will only write response articles if I feel there's some significant new ground that I can to dig into.
Well, @boyan suggested that I should start a mailing list to discuss my articles, instead of a comment section. I suggested to just write blog responses, but I guess I (at least) won't be doing that anymore. Even so, I won't be joining the mailing list (despite an earlier commitment).
Now, I can appreciate the idea of a mailing list. There's the retro aesthetic that is cool, I think it's also nice because you also own your responses, as opposed to me by having it on my blog. In fact, I welcome anyone to host mailing lists to discuss anything I write (among other things). You could even have a whatsapp group, or discord, or subreddit (shudder). Just keep me out of it.
See, what all these suffer from, I think, is that what I write there is very ephemeral. In a month or two, I won't know that I've written that email, or that message, or that comment, or whatever.
And here's the real rub, I think this results in a stagnation of thought, for me. I feel like it would be so easy for me to respond in the exact same way, to a topic that may recur again. I don't have an incentive to really ... evolve the ideas I would be writing there.
But in this blog? Well, conceptually, I don't think blogs should ... be repetitive? Like when I write something, I feel it should be new, it should feel fresh. I realized this as I was writing my response, I could see elements of this writing appear in future responses, because not every response is going to be groundbreaking. And I did not like the idea of having the same entry multiple times on my blog.
And that made me realize ... I don't know if I care for discussing what I write, over text. I think I spend a lot of time refining the minor points of a response, it feels like a poor use of my time. I don't think I'll even really want to respond via direct emails and the like.
Shit, I now realize I'm not sure I really want to discuss things over text at all.
In real life of course! Though I can already see you thinking
"But @me, aren't discussions in the meatspace the most ephemeral of all the discussion mechanisms you've mentioned".
You're absolutely right! But they require the least energy from my side to perform, because they have to be so reactive. Which then leads you to say:
"But @me, shouldn't you put energy into these discussions? By prioritizing low energy usage, it sounds like you don't care much for them. And furthermore, wouldn't it lead to poor quality discussions?"
You fool (Billy Bean / Joe Biden voice)! You have fallen into my trap!
I love these discussions and I think we will have higher quality thought. Which sounds silly, but let me expand.
First of all, one of the reasons why I hate writing a response is that I can imagine a multitude of different ways someone might disagree, and I have this desire to respond to all of it. But each response has itself multiple branches, and you have this sometimes explosion of an essay to address perhaps a small comment.
In person, I can just ask you if you agree, and there's no need to explore the whole tree.
I think also, I trust my friends to have thought deeply already, and when we meet in person, it will be substantive , it will not just be off-the-cuff reddit-esque remarks. And I actually see a very powerful mechanism here.
I can see us ruminating about whatever we want to discuss in the background of our day, puzzling over the key concepts and working out edge conditions. We stop when we are generally satisfied (though we may have missed some paths). Then, when we meet in person, we have a very fast paced exchange, building on top of each others. Fill in gaps, add new ideas till we hit some blocker.
And then we repeat this cycle. I think this will lead to just incredibly dense and rich and creamy and full of umami and oh wait wrong entry. But yes, basically, we do the easy work synchronously and the hard work asynchronously.
I hope this article expands on why I value in-person conversation so much over ... basically any other form of exchange. And also maybe it adds to my other answer about why I think friction is sometimes good.
I also hope it doesn't come off as condescending or belittling or rude or as if I think mailing lists are objectively bad. I just wanted to say why I don't care to be on them.