No one cares about your writing…only what your writing does for them
Tucker Max
1068

I like the idea that authors had better think about their audiences. The post, however, talks about only part of the precious interactions between authors and audiences, which really enrich ‘ways of’ accumulating knowledge significant for human beings.

The metaphor of buyer-seller relations applies to situations where concerned parties agree to pursue the maximum positive effects on material/psychological utilities, material/financial benefits, and so on. So, the metaphor is likely to prevent an important effect on people’s imaginative interactions with others through writing.

Writing is actually capable of mediating varying ideas, thoughts and feelings. When imagining what your writing does for audiences, it is you who are imagining, not audiences, meaning that in any case, authors cannot and probaby ought not to forget about their own and imaginary audiences’ ‘minds’. No one loses one’s mind.

It is fine if one can sufficiently correctly think of audiences in terms that one intends to serve them with one’s writing. Nonetheless, establishing human actors as if they seek for self-interests overlooks the fact that each of us is inevitably struggling with each other’s senses of moral appropriateness. Since no one knows what the absolute and universal truth is, no one can be exempted from bearing moral responsibilities for one’s ways of understanding reality. As we have been observing, rational scientific ways of understanding reality entrenches nearly all aspects of our lives. The reason for this is because we are capable of taking advantage of gaps between our abilities to establish reasons or causality without relying upon words and the belated exertion of agencies that words bestow. Put simply, we can exempt ourselves from bearing moral responsibilities for our own judgments on reality by projecting them onto reality denoted in a rational scientific manner. As Einstein said somewhere, the rational scientific logic of falsifiability is actually ‘religious’ in the sense that one can externalize all the moral responsibilities for one’s own judgments based on one’s own sense of evaluative appropriateness to it. Writing should enhance accounting for each other’s moral sentiments, rather than assuming that one sometimes forgets about it, by diversifying ways of denoting reality full of ineffable senses.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.