A Conversation with Writer’s Block Part III

I burned Cate's book today in the woods as a symbolic conclusion to this project.


WS : Your underlying premise so far has been that writer’s block is caused by a subconscious, psychological process designed to protect me from experiencing uncomfortable feelings.

WB : Yes, that is essentially what I am in a nutshell.

WS : So how do I break through?

WB : The first method is to muster the awareness and courage to break through the writer’s block which means you have to allow yourself to experience that uncomfortable feeling that you are unwilling to experience.

WS : That sounds simple enough to do from a theoretical perspective.

WB : It is simple but unfortunately it is also impossible. At the very least it is extremely difficult to do.

WS : Why is it impossible?

WB : Because you cannot change the fact that you are unwilling to experience something simply by declaring that you are willing to experience it. The truth of the matter remains that you are unwilling to experience it and making a declaration of your willingness to experience what you are unwilling to experience is simply a misstatement of reality.

WS : How does a writer get through you then?

WB : In order to bypass the mechanism that I personify a writer must distract me or sneak by me in some manner.

WS : How does a writer do that?

WB : What I am about to tell you will probably only apply to you on the level of the specific because everyone has different fears. However, it may work to shed light on the process of writer’s block in general and in that regard may help someone other than you who happens to be reading this.

WS : Lay it on me.

WB : A method you are employing right now is to write in dialog. For some reason this allows you the freedom to generate ideas in a way that writing prose does not much of the time.

WS : Why is that?

WB : I think it works because you are in a sense stepping out of your head which is where the fear resides and stepping into the head of another entity that does not have that particular fear.

WS : Yes but the head I am stepping into is created from my head so really I’m not stepping out of my head.

WB : True, but you cannot deny the results. It is a slight of hand, but it works so why question it?

WS : Are there any other methods?

WB : Sure. Recently you have been generating a great deal of material for your blog by debating a certain individual who is let’s say easily antagonized. This seems to be another way in which you can bypass me. Do you know why that is?

WS : Well, by entering into a dialog with him it is in a sense like entering into a dialog with you. We bounce ideas off of each other and together we come up with something that neither one of us would have come up with on our own.

WB : Yes, that’s part of it. The other part of it is that you sort of “get off” on fucking with the poor guy. You get a charge out of it and that charge is perhaps more enticing that the fear is scary. Does that make sense?

WS : It does although I am not proud to admit it.

WB : Part of you is not proud to admit it. Part of you thoroughly enjoys it. We’re entering into territory that you have covered extensively on this blog. It is the addictive nature of trolling that is caused by a personality that was shaped by shame.

WS : Yes. A shame based personality enjoys making other people feel ashamed. This is the primary reason why people pass judgment on others and why they cloak their judgment in morality. They judge other people because they get off on it. It feels good to put other people below them hierarchically. But they cloak this desire for relative supremacy in morality and objectivity in order to mask this true desire.

WB : Right. We don’t need to go too deep into this. It is good to acknowledge that is what is going on here and to recognize what a powerful motivating force this is. It is so powerful, for example, that you can harness it to bypass your fears.

WS : But there is an evil negativity associated with it.

WB : Yes. It is dishonest in that it claims to be doing something good and right when it is actually serving a base desire. It is also evil in the sense that it achieves its goal of benefiting you by hurting someone else.

WS : Yes, and the more I use it the more I feel pulled to the dark side and become dominated by it.

WB : It is an addiction in other words.

WS : Yes, it starts out serving me or perhaps more accurately it starts out with the appearance of serving me but eventually displays it’s true nature and becomes my master.

WB : So although it can be a powerful force it is probably better to leave it alone.

WS : It is difficult to do that. I find that it comes and goes in waves. I will indulge in the behavior. At first it is fun and exhilarating but after a period of time it begins to disgust me. At that point I cut myself off. At first being free of it feels liberating and peaceful but after a period of time it becomes stale and boring. And so I think maybe I can do it just a little bit. And so I do and the cycle repeats itself. I know that if I were to strive for a more perfect me I would divorce myself from this cycle entirely. But again it is difficult.

WB : It is but if perfection were easy we would all be perfect.

WS : Assuming we all want to be perfect…

WB : Good point.


Filed under Uncategorized

49 responses to “A Conversation with Writer’s Block Part III

  1. thordaddy

    Even in your NOW genuine quest for a more perfected self made aware by a desire to resolve all mental conflicts, YOU DELUDE YOURSELF as to the true nature of “thordaddy” FOR THE PURPOSE of a self-sabotaging. There is simply not existing within ANY OF YOUR RETORTS actual evidence of a true belief in the idea that you are “f$&king” with some “poor guy.” Stripped down to its bare naked letters, your rhetoric is, in reality, incredibly pathetic now GIVEN the size and scope of the dialogue and the informative analytics which measure the impact of my work HERE. If your take were more in line with reality then “we” would have witnessed some sort of piling-on effect by equal-minded winston Scrooges. “We” have “seen” NOTHING of the sort. And of course, AS YOU HAVE REITERATED time and again, I have no actual side ready to pounce upon you. So what is closer to reality is that your fans are mere spectators in no way prepared to engage in the dialogue as they leave you all alone to do the best you can. Then again, YOUR SIDE does not really BELIEVE in doing the best one can. Your side DOES NOT BELIEVE in the perfecting of the self. Your side only believes in the annihilation of the self AS absolute liberation.

    And now your continued obliviousness to the above is the very empirical evidence one would look for so as to declare this dialogue to be amongst a radical autonomist and a white Supremacist.

  2. thordaddy

    What is clear is that when a radical liberationist meets true belief, he is at a loss, SELF-EVIDENTLY. And when that “true belief” is “Perfection as operating paradigm” then said liberationist INEVITABLY morphs radical AS HIS ONLY MANDATED REACTION. So if YOU REJECT “Perfection as your operating paradigm” THEN you will just self-annihilate. In other words, if your spirit is not put to the idea of Perfection THEN your Ego will be busy devising many ways to annihilate your Self so that its “perfection” IS SIMPLY OUT OF THE QUESTION.

    And this is exactly where the masses “stand.” Perfecting their selves is out of the question… Out of their minds… A real absurdity… And you stir this pot THROUGH your anti-white Supremacy.

    • In your world does striving for perfection include threatening people?

      • thordaddy

        In your world, striving towards (p)erfection JUST IS threatening.


        In “my” world, striving towards Perfection only need seem include a “threat” to the self-annihilators that their self-annihilating ways are throughly exposed and rejected.

      • LOL! It’s not at all threatening. How could it be threatening if I have no idea what you mean by it and you refuse to offer a definition?

      • thordaddy

        How are you able to write of “perfecting” the “self” and have no idea what “Perfection” is when I write of it?

      • Our ideas of perfection are obviously different.

      • thordaddy

        Hint: radical autonomy.

      • thordaddy

        “Our ideas of perfection are obviously different.” — wS

        Yes, but the reality of Perfection is not different towards us nor is our difference towards Perfection unaccounted for.

      • So how can you claim any greater authority as to what is perfect?

      • thordaddy

        Meaning, the ABILITY to write of (p)erfection while possessing no idea of (P)erfection is evidence of radical autonomy… Evidence of multiple Selves in conflict… Evidence of the conscious capability to detach one Self from another Self and disappear communications between these Selves.

      • I think you use “radical autonomy” and “perfection” to mean whatever you want them to mean at any given moment.

      • thordaddy

        Who claimed any authority here?

        YOU ARE CLAIMING that you have no idea what (P)erfection is EVEN THOUGH you wrote above about the notion of “perfecting” your “self.”

        I say the “ability” to “do” such a thing… Know (p)erfecting and not know (P)erfection is evidence of your radical autonomy.

        It seems in the proper order of things that one would know (P)erfection FIRST before they hashed out the meaning of (p)erfecting?

        Not wS though. You possess special powers.

      • For the thousandth time I want know YOUR definition of perfection as you seem to be using a definition that does not accord with the standard dictionary definition that I and everyone else uses.

      • thordaddy

        Not only have I defined (P)erfection on multiple different occasions using multiple articulations…

        Objective Supremacy…
        God of the Bible…
        He who wills all right…
        He who is without sin… Flawless…
        Jesus Christ…

        But you have continuously DEMONSTRATED with your queries THAT YOU DO NOT BELIEVE in (P)erfection EVEN THOUGH you apparently know the definition of (p)erfection and can write of “it” as though “it” were a real thing.

      • So when you strive for perfection what exactly do you do? Provide an example.

      • thordaddy

        I never claimed to “strive towards (p)erfection,” but if I did I would be attempting to be sinless every step of the way. Can you dig? And WHY can you not acknowledge (P)erfection, ever?

        Hint: apostate.

      • I believe you have claimed that on several occasions. Why do you feel that I don’t acknowledge perfection?

      • thordaddy

        Does (P)erfection equal (p)erfection in your mind? How do you account for this false equivocation?

      • The capital letter is used at the beginning of sentences and with proper nouns. What’s your point?

      • thordaddy

        So God of the Bible and Christ are not proper nouns?

      • thordaddy

        So it should be written “god of the bible” and “jesus christ?” This is your take as a professed roman catholic?

      • Perfection is an attribute not God Himself. Look at Mark 10:18. Jesus says “only God is good” not “only God is Good.” In the same way I say that “God is perfect” not that “God is Perfect.” This example will hopefully clear up your confusion.

      • thordaddy

        I understand YOUR CLAIM…

        (P)erfection, ie., objective Supremacy, does not exist.

        I disagree.

      • I never made that claim. You continuously try to put false words in my mouth. Why do you think you feel the need to do that?

      • thordaddy

        And it is because this disagreement is so fundamental that “we” cannot even coexist as mutually-professed believers in Christ.


        You ideologically reject separation and thusly demand integration.

        Deleteriously bizarre.

      • As far as I am concerned you are more than welcome to separate. Other than the fact that you are fun and easy to bait I’d rather have nothing to do with you.

      • thordaddy

        Bait me?

        You have CONCEDED to being a roman catholic who rejects objective Supremacy, ie., Perfection, JUST AS I HAVE STATED from the beginning of this dialogue.

        So you have done nothing to bait me. You have only taken much time to admit to what was already known at the start.

      • I am a Roman Catholic but I never stated I reject objective supremacy. How can I reject a term I don’t know the definition of?

      • And yes baiting you is so easy. I don’t even need to refer to you directly and I instantly get two replies of more than 100 words. It’s funny.

      • thordaddy

        When have I ever written of “objective (s)upremacy?” Such linguistic formulation does not even resonate with me. It reeks a liberated taint and appears a liberationist perversion. It’s lip-service with a pulsating cold sore.

        And the essence of “baiting” is having many fish in which to catch with only one provoked a custom-made kind of bait. Here though, there is only one fish, who, not interested in anything you have at the end of that hook, but rather, set out to prove true my initial claim of your radical autonomy. And I have done just that very thing.

        A “Roman Catholic” who rejects Perfection, ie., objective Supremacy, as real.

      • I reject your undefined terminology and shame based compulsion to judge and label other people thinly disguised as pseudo-intellectual, self-righteous morality.

        As for baiting you I’ll let your 500+ rambling comments speak for themselves. (Lol!)

  3. thordaddy

    You could assuage a lot of your guilt if you were more inspired to embrace the truth of this exchange INSTEAD OF creating this false reality where you represent some bully-cat character shamefully toying with a pathetic little mouse OR I represent some unforeseen “evil” that leaves you no choice but to separate and fully disengage.

    These ^^^ false realities are the “mechanisms” by which you are to stay in control of this domain.


    You are not serving up Truth.

    • I find it very interesting that you choose to accuse me of feeling guilt. People as hyper-judgmental of other people as you are tend to be horribly guilt ridden themselves. It is not surprising that you see me as a mirror of your own imperfections.

      • thordaddy

        People as hyper-judgmental of other people as you are tend to be horribly guilt ridden themselves. — wS

        This is without substance because “people” is ACTUALLY ONLY the PERSON* of winston Scrooge.

        So what you have done is take this UNIQUE DIALOGUE and you attempt to deconstruct “it” by imagining its redundancy. Reduce and reproduce.


        This is not a redundant dialogue… This comprehensive JUDGEMENT OF “you” is a singular phenomenon still emerging.

        You are NOW attempting to abort.

        *”People” does not equal a particular “person.”

      • thordaddy

        I feel guilt where I know I’ve committed acts of self-annihilation. And it is… As it should be.

      • Your type of hyper-judgment only comes from being judged yourself probably by your parents. It only exists in a population of judgmental people and cannot exist within the sole context of an individual. As such, it reflects the shame you feel or repress. As such it is a true act of self-annihilation which is probably why you are so obsessed with this term and why you desperately need to accuse others of this imperfect trait.

      • thordaddy

        Notice how you turn certainty into “hyper-judgement” as the mechanism to change the frame.

        The AIM is Perfection.

        This you have conceded.

        The ONLY QUESTION is what separates the white Christian from the white Supremacist.

        I say “nothing” and you say “everything” without saying anything.

      • I base my assertion that a personal philosophy a racial supremacy is inconsistent with Christ’s teachings on Christ’s teachings. You base your assertions regarding racial supremacy on your personal feelings.

      • thordaddy

        Where have I used the phrase “racial supremacy?”

        This slight-of-tongue is your attempt to passively deny the legitimacy of striving towards objective Supremacy as white men ALL WITHIN the scope of Truth that is Christianity.

      • I would rather speak of truth and substance and not get mired in your quibbling word-play.

      • thordaddy

        You are the one playing with a liberated language. Using words and phrases that I have not used. Refusing to acknowledge that your linguistic limits are self-imposed and in no way a real imposition on reality.

        We’ve established your desire to perfect yourself.


        We’ve also established that you reject objective (S)upremacy, ie., (P)erfection.

        What YOU haven’t done is reconciled the above.

        I have reconciled the above with my assertion of your “radical autonomy.”

        Where’s the beef?

        Other than you just don’t know?

      • LOL! I use standard dictionary definitions and rules of grammar. The fact that I don’t abide by your made up definitions and grammar rules does not mean I am using a liberated language. That also does not mean that I necessarily reject the concepts which may or may not exist in your head. I cannot accept or reject something you have not clearly defined.

        Actually, your quibbling about the use of capital letters is entirely consistent with your views on race in that they both share a common theme of emphasizing form over actual substance.

      • thordaddy


        So when I write “white (S)upremacy,” I put the Substance “over” the racial aspect. You can say the Substance envelopes the racial remnant.

        And when you write “white supremacy” then you are entirely consistent with your belief in a “universal equality” that sets the substance at the equal level of the racial aspect. This results from a subconscious embrace of a strictly material paradigm which ultimately collapses all “things” into “equality.”

        So now that we have established a mutual consistency, the issue of separation becomes inevitable.


        You will NOW walk “things” back AS YOU CANNOT ACCEPT the idea that the Substance is equal to the racial aspect…


        This shall force you to WRITE “white (S)upremacy.”


        You CANNOT DO IT…

        You WILL NOT ACKNOWLEDGE objective (S)upremacy.

        You DO NOT BELIEVE in Perfection.

      • Why do you feel the need to tell me what I believe? You don’t know what I believe. You have made assumptions as to what I believe based on the fact that I cannot understand the way you inarticulately express your ideas and that I reject all your silly labels, your hyper-judgmental attitude and generally evil / negative energy.

        Here’s an idea… Why don’t you mind your own business? Why are you compelled to pry into, cast judgment and otherwise gossip about other people?

      • thordaddy

        You are a self-proclaimed Roman Catholic so I know exactly what you are SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE. And you are supposed to believe in objective Supremacy, but you don’t. So your claim of “Roman Catholic” is entirely suspect as Roman Catholicism proper is the claim to objective Supremacy, ie., the claim to Perfection.

      • I have never seen the term “objective supremacy” used in the context of Roman Catholicism. I don’t know what it means so I can’t say whether I believe it or not.

        Suggestion : Instead of expecting me to conform to your made up (i.e., autonomous) vocabulary that no one except you understands why don’t you use the standard lexicon? That way we could engage in a meaningful discussion and it might clear up some of your confusion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s