There are times when I feel the necessity to censor myself. I shouldn't share every feeling or thought that comes to mind. I have come to understand that it not only applies when the things you say may hurt others, but when it also may be injurious to yourself, not in a physical way, although that should be considered, but in an emotional way. Everyone tells you not to bottle things up but there are things that should remain in the bottle. Exposing certain thoughts and beliefs will change the dynamic and may prove to be an unsettling experience. For those reasons I believe there are things best left unspoken and unrecorded.
It is a very difficult thing to explain. When you wish to explain your sentiment just for informational purposes, it often comes off as looking for sympathy or compassion. That is the usual way people react to these types of things. Sometimes you just want to talk, not necessarily have anyone listen, but talk. That is something you can do with your best friend. Your best friend understands. Those that do not understand offer a response. There are no responses for some things. Respectful silence can be therapeutic.
This blogging began as a means of recording my thoughts and memories. It has changed over the years somewhat but the intent is still the same. I am finding however I do need to " censor " what I write to a degree. It only concerns me when I find myself " censoring " because I fear my popularity may be affected. Not that I feel like I have a huge following or anything but I do value the " readership " I do have. To say anything else would be less than truthful. Yes, I contain a degree of vanity. The last few sentences are an example of what I am talking about. Those sentences could be construed as a means to gain favor. The truth is, they are informational. I am far more comfortable with self deprecation that I am with boasting. That doesn't mean I don't have pride however, I was just taught not to be boastful.
I wonder though if one should speak posthumous. That is to say to write those thoughts and memories down that you censored in life for consumption after your passing. A sort of " tell all " type thing. As a general rule I find those tell all books " interesting " but always feel a tinge of guilt reading them. That is because they are usually written by a living person and it feels like gossip. Should we read a person's diary after their passing ? Had they wanted me to read that wouldn't they have shared it in life ? It is something to consider. If I " speak " posthumously it may still hurt the reader. It certainly has the potential to alter their perception of me. It could work in my favor or crush whatever image the person holds. That's a risk. Do I even have that right ? Is " leaving things " out the same as being untruthful ? Should we live our lives with full disclosure ?
Some of you may remember Paul Harvey. He was most noted for his " the rest of the story " pieces. Those pieces often explained things and shed light on motivations. I think that is the type of things I am thinking about, explaining the motivation. Why did I do or say certain things. They were always good things in Paul Harvey pieces. Stories of silent heroes. Their actions in life, although unknown at the time, created those heroes. Now, I'm no hero nor am I famous. Most of his stories involved one of those traits because they were of general interest. When it comes to the average Joe that interest would only effect a few. The bottom line is that I would want that story to be a positive one, just like Paul Harvey's stories. The things I do not share must be questionable. Why should that change after my death ?
I do believe you are not dead as long as your name is spoken. As long as someone remembers you. I would want them to remember me as I was, not as I should have been. I wouldn't want to disappoint. That is the fear. Full disclosure in death is just as risky as full disclosure in life. The only difference being you don't have to deal with the results after you are gone. Self censorship is a good thing. Censorship by others, including government, is not. The question is, should the record be sealed ? Should your death be the end ? Or should you tell the " rest of the story ? " You're the only one that knows it.
It is a very difficult thing to explain. When you wish to explain your sentiment just for informational purposes, it often comes off as looking for sympathy or compassion. That is the usual way people react to these types of things. Sometimes you just want to talk, not necessarily have anyone listen, but talk. That is something you can do with your best friend. Your best friend understands. Those that do not understand offer a response. There are no responses for some things. Respectful silence can be therapeutic.
This blogging began as a means of recording my thoughts and memories. It has changed over the years somewhat but the intent is still the same. I am finding however I do need to " censor " what I write to a degree. It only concerns me when I find myself " censoring " because I fear my popularity may be affected. Not that I feel like I have a huge following or anything but I do value the " readership " I do have. To say anything else would be less than truthful. Yes, I contain a degree of vanity. The last few sentences are an example of what I am talking about. Those sentences could be construed as a means to gain favor. The truth is, they are informational. I am far more comfortable with self deprecation that I am with boasting. That doesn't mean I don't have pride however, I was just taught not to be boastful.
I wonder though if one should speak posthumous. That is to say to write those thoughts and memories down that you censored in life for consumption after your passing. A sort of " tell all " type thing. As a general rule I find those tell all books " interesting " but always feel a tinge of guilt reading them. That is because they are usually written by a living person and it feels like gossip. Should we read a person's diary after their passing ? Had they wanted me to read that wouldn't they have shared it in life ? It is something to consider. If I " speak " posthumously it may still hurt the reader. It certainly has the potential to alter their perception of me. It could work in my favor or crush whatever image the person holds. That's a risk. Do I even have that right ? Is " leaving things " out the same as being untruthful ? Should we live our lives with full disclosure ?
Some of you may remember Paul Harvey. He was most noted for his " the rest of the story " pieces. Those pieces often explained things and shed light on motivations. I think that is the type of things I am thinking about, explaining the motivation. Why did I do or say certain things. They were always good things in Paul Harvey pieces. Stories of silent heroes. Their actions in life, although unknown at the time, created those heroes. Now, I'm no hero nor am I famous. Most of his stories involved one of those traits because they were of general interest. When it comes to the average Joe that interest would only effect a few. The bottom line is that I would want that story to be a positive one, just like Paul Harvey's stories. The things I do not share must be questionable. Why should that change after my death ?
I do believe you are not dead as long as your name is spoken. As long as someone remembers you. I would want them to remember me as I was, not as I should have been. I wouldn't want to disappoint. That is the fear. Full disclosure in death is just as risky as full disclosure in life. The only difference being you don't have to deal with the results after you are gone. Self censorship is a good thing. Censorship by others, including government, is not. The question is, should the record be sealed ? Should your death be the end ? Or should you tell the " rest of the story ? " You're the only one that knows it.
No comments:
Post a Comment