A quick look at the beauty of having one's own personal laboratory full of thoughts and ideas from a philosophical perspective. In the safety of one's own private laboratory you are free to experiment with different perspectives and ideas, without being tied to any perspective or idea.
It is like one's own personal garden or a forest where you nurture different ideas that you come accross building them up into something of your own. Here you are free of judgement to experiment with new ideas. I feel like every great thinker must maintain such a system at their disposal.
Having read many philosophical works including various books and essays I have developed a specific sense of what they are. It is an enframed idea, that has been carefully curated to be able to be expressed and shown to the world. Many young writers and artists often get too caught up in the process of this end goal, that they forget the sheer massive personal libraries such authors had maintained at their disposal.
This issue has been lurking in my mind, as someone writes in such a structured manner only once I am confident enough that I have maintained enough organic knowledge for a short blog post where I 'take a picture' of my current understanding of the topic and post it on here for you to be able to read in clear manner. For posting my doodles and scribbles that are chaotic unstructred and difficult to understand for anyone other than me would be an ineffective manner of sharing knowledge with the world of the outside.
Behind the end goal of the essay in a philosopher's laboratory in which he molds and shapes different ideas, mixing them up with other ideas. Every once in a while a spark occurs and an idea might explode. One in order to be a writter must write for oneself, firstly to have built up a deep vocabulary of ideas and a stock of knowledge.
This essay if it has found you is a piece of advice for any aspiring authors and artists. Start experimenting; do not seek perfection, as the end goal of the published work is merely a flawed enframing. You specifically design it and remove certain pieces to make it palitable to the average man. It is actually a less perfect medium. The personal library of knowledge you have is but a more perfect existence by itself, as it is unbound by such censorship of the editorial process. So be thy not afraid to experiment, as the experimentation is a higher order good than the end result or should I say enframing of your ideas. They are merely mediums of communication, just channels to show what you have been up to. It is a highly structured way of sending a text message.
The true work is done in the laboratory of every philosopher, where one has the most fun getting messy and experimenting with the most outrageus of thoughts. Ideas are elastic, and moldable. If we take for example an idea such as 'liberty' one may be inclined to define it and put it inside of a box. It was quite an ironic quest attempting to put a concept such as liberty itself into a box; quite the contradiction. One seeks to be free yet the other seeks to enframe it and define it. A definition is not eternal, it is limited and it will change accross the temporal plane.
Modern emphasis on only that which is finished(a so called "result") has lead to a decadence of thought and low quality mass produced trash with the sole purpose of being sold. Do not contribute to such a mass of garbage that will be forgotten by next Tuesday. For their fame is as temporary as their enframing of their ideas which has been done thoughtlessly and hastily. You can be a great author who will be celebrated past your time, ascend the time if you write down your mind with that as your goal. The thoughts and ideas as values in themselves, become one with your idea and as such you are to achieve greatness and your thoughts would be discussed in the next millenia.
This puts into question the very process of enframing and publishing the work in the first place. If an idea is temporarily defined by the confines of its time and place, how can we say that the idea is truly expressed in its fullness inside of a published treatise? The simple answer is, it is merely a 'photograph' of the idea, carefully enframed into its place. To define a concept and expect its meaning to be same once we revisit the concept is as riddicilus as taking a photo of a fish inside of the ocean and expecting it to be here the next time we arrive there.
Does this make the concept of a published work meaningless? Quite on the contrary I would perhaps ponder; it is usefull to enframe a concept for communication and contextualisation. Enframing has taken away quite a bit from the original idea, made it tangible and consumable to the general population. It is in a sense a neccessery evil to do, we can try to combat the act of the enframing as much as we can, by not letting the temporality of the published work consume our thinking and force us to amputate our work so it can be enframed easily. We embrace the process of thinking, as ideas are not simply existing, they are becoming.