I don't want to type too much while probably no one will read

a) what if those others represent the temptation for you to want vs not want to write for them?

b) what if this conflict of reason (want vs not want) tempts you to ignore the growth of self discernment as being choice within balance (need/want)?

c) do you need to write about perceivable reality as a suggestion (fiction) for others? Does nature write to those within? Does nature make suggestions?

d) what if your hesitation to express is being self restricted by your want for outcome (validation by readers to your writing)?

e) what if you could resist the temptation of wanting or not wanting to suggest (write) for others, by adapting to perceivable inspiration, which in return would grow your comprehension about the perceivable exponentially...without suggested financing by others (aka their validation).

f) what if utilizing implication (if/then) instead of reasoning (wanting vs not wanting) represents expression instead of repression aka balance instead of imbalance.

Without reason, can there be a conflict of interest within implication?

g) his-story vs alternative his-story, still represents ones consent to the suggested his-story by others. Consent to either side of the suggested, gives those suggesting, the power to define; redefine and contradict both sides of the conflict.

You need to choose to step out of the conflict (reason) instead of trying to fortify your position in a conflict already lost by tempting others as fodder to the front-line. A physical conflict like Verdun (meat-grinder) represents the mental conflict of reason (wanting vs not wanting suggested), while the suggesting few are watching the consenting many willingly grinding against each other until exhaustion.