Motivation for public communication

In Gershen Kaufman's book Shame he takes some time to explain why he is writing the book:

I offer this book not as a finished product but as a stopping point for reflection in an ongoing exploration, not as inviolate truth or knowledge but as one man's evolving view. ... I offer [this view] because it has shown itself useful, and what is useful ought to be communicated. ... It is from such shared communications that we move toward ever more accurate understandings.

There are 2 big points I take from this that make me want to share more with the world:

  • This is a snapshot of an evolving view. Sometimes I'm afraid to put my voice out there unless I can prove that it's the right view. But reading Kaufman's words I feel a sense of ease in recognizing that this is just an evolving view, and that's OK. In fact it's even a good thing, given the infinite complexity of the universe and the impossibility of really having a "right" view.
  • What is useful ought to be communicated. I think real human experience is useful. I'm considering this blog as part of the citizen science project of being human. I'm sharing my experience and views as authentically as I can so other people can integrate them into their reality in whatever way suits them and then they can build on it and return it back to the universe. This is being a good ecological steward.

The "evolving view" piece is a particularly useful reminder. If viewed as more fixed/static, words can be scary. I'm reminded of Plato's/Socrates' criticism of written words:

They seem to talk to you as though they were intelligent, but if you ask them anything about what they say from a desire to be instructed they go on telling just the same thing forever.

The fact that your old words don't update as your viewpoint evolves or as they are misinterpreted is an inherent disadvantage within the writer/reader relationship. But it also provides a uniquely beautiful level of freedom to the exchange. Is that not why books are such a powerful force? The reader can take what they need out of it, not constrained by what the writer intended to give.