I've been wondering about the following for some time now.

When I am writing a paper or something else (other than forum posts I mean) I tend to experience several phases in my psychological state, like optimism, doubt, fear, feelings of worthlessness, exhiliration, hope, complete loss of hope, phony, etcetera...

what I wonder about re Stef is whethet he experiences self-doubt and despair in the creative process like writing the UPB book. My guess is not, he doesn't doubt himself in any truly 'internal' way. no despair about things like 'oh, what am I even trying to say?!' or 'But this doesn't seem right, but it has to be right... fuck!!!' or 'So I spent months thinking about this, fooling myself into thinking it was original, and now I have nothing to contribute, it was all phony' etcetera etcetera

naturally, I'm not saying these thoughts are by themselves good in any way, or that they indicate emotional and creative maturity or anything, what I am saying is that they are signs of an internal seeking probing conscious self, and I just can't imnagine something like this going on for Stef. does self-doubt re creativity play a role in his head or is it just 'all gold' or something?

Coincidentally, I just posted about this sort of thing in The Molyneux Project thread.

I think Conrad is dead-on about Stefan's internal processes. After reading UPB, I don't see how he could have written it with any sense of legitimate self-criticism. His experience with FDR, of having hundreds of people telling him how smart he is, and how he's changed their lives forever, has destroyed any possibility of real, introspective humility for him. As a consequence, the only filters he has on his work are those of the people he surrounds himself with, like his wife and Greg; but a man with a best-friend for his editor is in deep trouble.

I do wonder what the outline of UPB must have looked like (assuming there was one). There's a reasonable feeling of organization to the book, but the actual content is just all over the map.

I get so screwed up just trying to read that book, because I have to flip back and see if he means what he is saying where I'm reading, or if he meant what he said earlier. Words begin to lose their meaning and I stare at the pages for a bit, and then I set it down. On Truth was a much better read, being as it was a polemic against parents, it was much more focused and covered ground with which Stef is really comfortable and fluent.

Agreed about On Truth. I didn't care for it that much, and I think it oversteps the bounds of reality in its hatred of parents, but I think it was a successful book for Stefan's audience. It still suffered from his inability to write about facts, instead depending on tenuous analogies, but it was more appropriate given the subject matter. At it's heart, On Truth is a persuasive essay; it isn't trying to prove anything conclusively and logically, which is where UPB falls on its face. Stefan doesn't have the rigor needed for good analytical philosophy, but he's a pretty successful salesman.

Tortured metaphors and dissimilar similes are the tools with which he is most facile, they offer the appearance of truth without having to be true. It's like... like truth, but more truthy, as Stephen Colbert would say.

BTW - Who is that in that picture? Is it Thomas Paine?

It's Denis Diderot.

I don't have any great attachment to him, but I absolutely love this portrait. He looks very pleased with himself. And he's pointing off to his right, as if to say "Hey dude, what's up? I'm Denis Diderot, and I'm very pleased with myself."

I agree. I like it. I thought it looked like some renderings of Paine I'd seen from his later life. I am a painter by training (watercolor), and I think it's really beautiful. Thanks!

I like the question too Conrad. Maybe I can offer some insight, because I think I tend to write with something of a similar process to Stef.

I remember writing my term paper in a senior computer science course in one night. I wrote 35 pages, checked it twice, and handed it in for an expected 50 out of 50 score. I really enjoyed that paper, because though I found the topic fairly boring, I was able to draw together 30-40 sources into a cogent portrayal of the state of the subject in the literature. I made a few false starts and took a few unfruitful tangents which I then removed, but overall the process was akin to putting together a puzzle with pieces that I could somewhat design: relaxing, creative, engaging.

This isn't to say that I'd ever have chosen to write such a paper without it being required, but rather that somehow because the requirement was unavoidable, and then accepted, I was able to put bitchiness and procrastination aside and just do it. Any twinging or serious second guessing would have deflated such a self-hypnotized state. Its like being in a particular zone which is somewhat fragile, but highly productive and not un-enjoyable.

One problem with having some modicum of talent and a lingering need to be regarded as clever is that writing is the perfect milieu for receiving predictable praise and attention. Feeling low? Just admire your cleverness, or the reviews of others. So long as one takes the time to engage this shallow but strong drive, the drive really does do all the work. Writing is a controllable expression, and with a strong innate (or perhaps more likely, beaten in) desire to be appreciated, its the perfect platform for limiting risk.

Another problem is that because some core need is being served, and cleverness or insight or creativity is the bait for positive attention, if it does fail, it is humiliating and crushing. When the medium is chosen because it offers control, and one still fails, whatever panic is being avoided resurfaces with more heads. And not insignificantly, one's growth as a writer is strongly curtailed because of the essential and hidden nature of one's motivations. Objectivity isn't an option.

I would think that for Stefan, he feels that what he writes, he must write. By whatever means through which he decides that he's the man for the job, or that the job is unavoidably his, he does reach this conclusion. Then the job is somewhat effortless. The assumption is unchallengeable (for some reason), so it is taken to be true for the duration. Because the job must be done (or death, lack of attention, loneliness, self esteem drop, recreation of family approval seeking, role-taking, etc..?), and because its success is also completely requisite, the effort of doing these things is satisfying at every step.

When a clever paragraph comes together, its a relief. A negative way of viewing this whole process is that it may be a way of earning interior relief: "I'm actually valuable, and I've proved it again". "Without such an irrational drive, who would write anything?" might be a way of psuedo-reflecting on one's strong motivation. In another sense, such an activity as a whole may be a way of avoiding an "unthought-known" fear: Eg: "If I do this, I can avoid facing this possibly disabling truth about myself...that I'm only valued for my cleverness (or whatever).". Such fear avoidance doesn't make sense, but it still works somehow.

Well, that's my exploration of un-self-conscious writing. I know with my own writing, that the stuff that I really care about, I often re-examine and find severely lacking. Letters to lovers, impassioned pleas for some cause, poetry, songs, even diaries. In those arenas I rarely come upon old work and say: "Wow, I really was brilliant. This is still sooo true!". Quite the opposite. And that is where I think Stef's apparent lack of reflection is puzzling. He's written a lot, but I don't know that I've ever seen him acknowledge that "I don't know what I was thinking, but I made some mistakes and am not in line with that essay anymore".

Surely he's grown and diverged and would re-experience his older works with some puzzlement. But I don't see it, so I start to think that he's got the inner rule: "Not only must I be happy with my cleverness after writing a piece, but for all time". This will surely trap him, if true. I can't think of any thinker who would not end up cornered by such preposterous and fragile rules. As his thinking does grow and change, he will have to hide this from himself. This means not reading his old material, and avoiding large chunks of his own process. At some point, this draws the curtains on cognition.

I wish I had more time to post now as it´s been awhile, and I hope this isn´t too ironic in light of the thread topic, but...

Alex, I always find your psychological analyses to be extremely penetrating and insightful. I think I could learn a far bit of psychology just by studying some of your posts here on LM. Just wanted to express my appreciation of all the thought you put into them.

Thanks Gabe, and ironic that I achieved my readily admitted paragraph #4 goals.

All I can think of to do about recognizing this in oneself is to keep recognizing it and then find out what fears/anxieties such drives are masking. That takes work because the masking is somewhat effective, short term.

He Conrad,

Do you know the book The psychology of Self-Esteem, by Nathaniel Branden? This book will help you understand certain aspects of your feelings/thoughts, especially doubt and fear.

The book can be bought at Amazon. You can also download it from the newsgroups, just do a search on "psychology esteem" on http://www.binsearch.net. Make sure to set 'maximum age of post' to 200. Or I could e-mail it to you, if you like.

Furthermore, I advice you to ignore Alex' reply untill you've read the book. I'm pretty sure that you'll find what he says rather silly after reading The psychology of Self-Esteem.

Greetings,

Brainjunky

p.s.: If you would like to know why i think what Alex says is rather silly, just read the book. I'm not going to waste my time arguing.