The writing process is actually a bit strange (at least for me; not entirely sure what others experience). When one gets to thinking, one seems to be generating visualizations, or these sorts of metaphorical structures of association and parallel causation, which serve as a kind of organizing framework, which often possess a distinct shape which you could call an abstract form. These structures can then be rationally mapped and put into words.
Of course the structures themselves are probably an intermingling of the rational and the visual. One is still generating these limited categorizations which can be compared and contrasted and situated into hierarchies (or broken down from them), but then at the same time, one is associating images with them to organize them, and then part of how one organizes concepts has to do with how one feels about them.
Feeling is particularly important to the causal effects built into a given work. Is something good, and does it feel pleasurable to think about? Emphasize, amplify, preserve, and repeat it. Is something bad and painful to think about? Contradict it and sanction it and see if there is a way around it. Of course this depends on the writer's purpose as well. One may feel inclined to question something that normally feels good, or revisit and re-evaluate something which is painful.
This entire process proceeds through states, with some states invoked by the process itself, and which emerge as a product of what has been set into motion. One word, phrase or image could mushroom into an entire constellation of meaning when one gets going, and then one has to decide how to size this constellation down so that one can share it.
And again, these experiences could also be very different based on the discipline or the character of the writer. I suppose a more general point I am trying to make is that processes of creation or even communication typically have to pass through multiple regions of the brain which are doing different things, and that pathway differs depending on the activity and the personal history of the subject. But something that only takes a couple of seconds could still be highly refined, and influenced by multiple centers of production, all working to fulfill their own evolved functions, and that any utterance or creation presupposes the complex processes of a living body, which is situated in an environment and a society, all with their own complex processes which are affecting each other, undergoing constant change in historical time. No single artifact, whether audio, visual, or lingual, is just that thing. It implies everything else.
