Writing

...

Rather, as one is writing and thinking about what to write next is where the mind opens and begins to think on a wider scale. Critical thinking comes to mind as opposed to some outside force influencing what’s being written.

Writing as Revelation, a kind of perfect writing that is unchanging and set in stone writing that is not questioned, I do not understand who has the authority to create such writings. Why aren’t these writings questioned? Without religion or law all forms of writing seem to be up for interpretation. Why aren’t all forms of literature viewed with this sense of permanency? If viewed this way, I think our whole world of literature would change but unfortunately people need some extreme higher power to have written something in order for it to be viewed as constant.

The five definitions of writing have shown me different views on written literature but on a broad spectrum I still view language as strictly a medium for our thoughts. The human mind is so utterly complex with a weak medium that does not seem capable of accurately notating how we feel or think. Take a piano, the inner workings of a piano is much more simple than the human brain, though written music is a more complex language than the english language. To me this means that in order to try and discover how to make written language a better medium for our brains we first need to better understand our brains. Critically analyzing written language and/or the writing process seems necessary but I am unsure if we can improve and find a more accurate medium or if we will only create more complexity in our written language only resulting in more misunderstanding and different opinions.