Writing Is Not Always the Expression of What We Think. Sometimes It Is How We Discover What We Were Thinking All Along.
By Joe Cozart
Most people assume writing is the transcription of thought. I have come to believe it is often the excavation of thought.
The distinction matters because thought rarely arrives in the tidy form we later present to the world. It does not always appear as a sentence. It often arrives as recognition. A pattern. An irritation. A connection between two things that, on the surface, have very little to do with one another. Sometimes it arrives as nothing more than the persistent feeling that something is important before we can explain why.
Then comes conversation.
Conversation is where the first excavation begins. We speak imperfectly. We circle the subject. We repeat ourselves. We contradict ourselves. We reach for examples that may initially seem unrelated. We say something almost correctly, then return ten minutes later and say it again differently because the first version did not quite capture what the mind was trying to reveal.
This is not failure. It is discovery.
The mistake is believing that clear thinking must always look clear while it is happening.
It often does not.
A mind that works through pattern recognition may reach the destination before it can reconstruct the road. The recognition comes first. The explanation follows. Only later do we discover the sequence of observations that produced the conclusion.
That is why writing can feel so different from speaking, and speaking so different from thinking.
Kafka captured the discomfort of that separation when he wrote that he writes differently from how he speaks, speaks differently from how he thinks, and thinks differently from how he believes he ought to think. He saw the distance between the interior mind and its successive translations into language.
I see something slightly different in that distance.
I see a process.
Thinking discovers the pattern.
Conversation tests it.
Writing reveals its architecture.
The final page may appear orderly, but the mind that produced it may have moved through the subject in every direction imaginable. It may have begun in the middle, jumped backward, moved sideways, discovered an analogy, abandoned it, returned to the original idea, and suddenly recognized that all of those apparently disconnected observations belonged to the same structure.
Then the writer performs the final act.
He removes the scaffolding.
The reader sees the building.
This is why some of the clearest writing is produced by people whose internal thinking is extraordinarily nonlinear. The clarity is not evidence that the thought arrived clearly. The clarity is evidence that someone stayed with the thought long enough to understand what it was trying to become.
There is a profound difference between writing down what you think and discovering what you think through writing.
The first is transcription.
The second is excavation.
And increasingly, I suspect the second is where the interesting work begins.
I do not necessarily write what I think.
I write what I discovered I was thinking.
——— GMJoe™ ———
Clarity. Strategy. Sovereignty.™
Live Upstream.™
Books by Joe Cozart are available at: amazon.com/author/joecozart
GMJoe.org