Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Pioneer1

Where Does Your Inspiration Come From?

Recommended Posts

I have a question for writers............

I've heard many times from artists whether they are musicians, painters, or writers, that the best among them have been known to get much of their inspiration from some mysterious place "other than themselves".

They are said to get them from some sort of unknown spiritual or cosmic realm that flashes ideas in their minds through dreams, visions, and other modes.

How much is this the case from your personal experiences and from observing other artists that you know?

Does much of your work come in a "flash" of inspiration from some unknown spiritual place?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard this, too, Pioneer. It has been further suggested that songs, in particular, already exist in the nether world and are just waiting to be "downloaded" into this one by the artist who taps into them.

In classical mythologyy there were 9 Muses, female goddesses who could be called upon to be the "wind beneathe the wings" of artists. Nowadays people like me still refer to an alter ego who inspires them to create, as a "Muse".

This is a fascinating subject that deals with the mysteries of the human mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cynique

"It has been further suggested that songs, in particular, already exist in the nether world and are just waiting to be "downloaded" into this one by the artist who taps into them."

Exactly!

This is what I'm trying to get at.

I didn't want to get too spiritual too quickly but since you introduced it, I've read so many books such as those by Swedenborg who claimed this.

Many artists claim to get inspiration by using drugs, and I wonder if these drugs aren't used as a catalyst to bridge them to the "source".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are simply biological machines. Our consciousness is merely a causal observer of ideas our brains have "decided" before we are even aware of them. In fact, we aren't even in control of those ideas.

There have been tests to demonstrate our brains make decisions before we are consciously aware of them -- predicting with 100% accuracy a choice we "will" make before we even know it.

Indeed the realization that we don't know where ideas or inspiration come from is further evidence we don't control them. The speculation that they have other worldly origins are just nice stories we make up to fill in the gaps in our understanding. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you got rid of inspiration you wouldn't have any science. A theory is based on inspiration. I am not a writer. I can't tell you where my inspiration comes from nor can I tell you where my ideas come from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Del, exactly. We don't know where inspiration comes, from any more than we know where our next thought comes from.

I don't believe it comes from deceased ancestors, of any of the countless different Gods man has conjured up to worship. I think inspiration originates with us and is initiated before we are conscious of it. Of course I don't know -- how can I?

But I am willing to go with the most likely scenario; that our inspiration originates within our own biology in a chemical process no one understands beyond the basic test I described.

--------------

Note: Honestly, I was playing devils advocate to Pioneer's original post. I appreciate once you start talking about spirituality or God people emotions can run high and the topic is usually not open for real debate -- but I figured I'd give it a shot.

There has been a lot of discussion about interconnectedness, particularly since quantum physicists proposed, and have now apparently found evidence to support, the idea of a field permeating the universe -- in essence connecting everything in the universe at the quantum level.

Some, though I've never heard a physicist make this claim, suggest that this means something much more, proof of a universal consciousness, etc. I'm not sure if Pioneer meant to imply all that, but this idea was my motivation for stirring the pot ;)

I could have just gone with the program and wrote that I meditate and fast for inspiration, but I thought this might be more interesting.

I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy - You make a very convincing Devil. I believe in the collective unconscious. It could be the akashic records, a vast pool of informatio, God, Gods, whatever works for you.

Whatever you want to call it it is astounding.

I think that if you could "access" it you could create or invent from its inspiration. You would also no past,present and future. Since time probably doesn't exist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use my intuition 100 hours a year. I have done so since about 1997. I find intuition to be quite useful especially because I am impractical.

I would also say intuition and inspiration are different. Inspiration to me has a more emotions component. It produces and expansive euphoric effect. Like its root inhalation. I think in Latin it means breathing in Spirit or being filled with God. Whereas intuition is more of a mental construct. That makes you feel that your knowledge is grounded or supported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Delano

The akashic records.....

Actually this was what I was thinking about when I started this thread questioning where some artists get thier inspiration from.

I also believe that there is a difference between ideas and inspiration.

It is my belief that ideas are manufactured as a result of mental processes where as inspiration is downloaded from an outside source.

Troy

The brain is a very powerful "machine".

There are many many things we still don't know about it.

Man hasn't discovered how to unlock the vast majority of it's chambers to unleash his full potential yet.

However I am one who believes that the MIND is still magnificently superior even to the brain and not necessarily connected to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pioneer - we may be tuning into some of the same frequencies.

perhaps the personal mind is one cabinet in universal warehouse.

i am in agreement with what you say about the mind. How can the intangible be connected to the tangible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say the mind works through the brain. The brain is tangible, but the mind is spiritual. It's like body and soul. Inspiration is spontaneous; it just comes to you from The Source of all thought. An idea is the fruition of inspiration.

Khalil Gibran says: "life and all that lives, is conceived in the mist and not the crystal, and who knows but that a crystal is mist in decay." Kinda like the notion that: "thoughts become things".

Over the past few years, I have have developed a problem with recalling names. I've discovered that if I feed all the information I know about the person whose name I've forgotten, and visualize how they look, once I turn my thoughts to another subject, my sub conscious mind will spontaneously spit out the forgotten person's name... So my brain is like a computer that processess data fed to it by my conscious mind. If I go through this routine at night and fall aslleep, when I wake up in the morning, I will know the name... When people say they'll "sleep on it" when trying to make up their mind about a dilemma, there's really something to this. The mind works while you sleep and sorts things out.

Intuition or ESP is a primitive instinct that civilization has dulled.

This whole subject almost defies words because it's about the abstract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Troy - You make a very convincing Devil." Delano, thank you -- it is not easy ;) Now back to advocating for Beelzebub...

It is really fascinating what people are willing to believe. The Akashic record are open to everyone -- provided you have the money to pay a Rehki (sp?) master or someone else sufficiently skilled to convince you of something you are already inclined to believe.

The mind, which is a function of the brain, is a complex mechanism, but not so complex that it can not be replicated artificially. In fact, engineers and programmers are making great strides to achieving this. A machine has already beaten the best Jeopardy players, and can carry on a conversation with another human such that the human doesn't know they are conversing with a machine.

Indeed it will not be very long before machines are superior to man in intelligence, inspiration, intuition, compassion, and will be thinking FOR us.

Much of what we think of as ESP has already been explained by those skilled in the art -- the art of tricking people. Insights or inspiration that come to us come to us from our own brains.

Consider the fact that all brains are not equal. Some brains are simply incapable of empathy. Some brain are incapable of solving complex math problems. Some brain even struggle at performing the unconscious activities necessary to keep the body healthy.

I would even argue that a large percentage of brains working today are incapable of caring about the Akashic record, what it means, or what it has to offer. I also suspect more brains would rather watch a cock fight that attempt to access the Akaschic record.

I know that just because not many people care about or understand this stuff doesn't mean it isn't true.

But how can something so truly "universal", a basic fundamental truth, escape so many?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy you make it look easy, like it id first nature.

Your initial statement is fruit salad

Some information id like Thor's hammer.

All beliefs are personal mythology.

The mind has no mechanics the brain does. It's like comparing vision to the eyes. There's a subordinate relationship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy can you add inspiration when we don't know it's origin.

Troy re ESP. You and I have experience with ESP. does trickery ir subterfuge explain it.

At times a medium does have access to information received from a different channel.

I am not certain which functions are in the brain. When you turn on a light, what is source of the light.

If you are surrounded by lies it may be difficult to recognise the truth.

Why can't people see universals? Why can't you see your own face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy perhaps your beliefs concepts and ideas are based on your personal mythology. Even if they are based on science, scientist have a group and a personal mythology. It is easier to see others faulty thinking than our own. However beleiefs are never faulty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Del, you won't give me credit for playing Devils advocate well, instead ascribing this ability to my very nature.

OK I'll take that, but I think you know me well enough to know that I have a pretty open mind with regard to these things. I also like to think I am willing to see more than one side of an argument -- understanding it well enough to take a position on various sides.

Were your last statements meant to obfuscate reason through riddles?. When you flip on a light, the light comes from photons emanating from the bulb at light speed and vibrating in the very narrow EM frequency range that our eyes can perceive.

Vision is a function of the eyes, and our mind is a function of the brain. There is no vision without eyes and no mind with brain. Sure there are people who believe our consciousness exists independent outside the brain, I hope if this is the case my mind is infinitely better. I'd hate to think I'd be the same Troy flowing around for eternity with the same nuts walking around on earth

Of course it is easier to see fault with in others, But I don't see where I was doing that.

If I disagree with you about something that does not mean I see fault in you. I only ascribe fault in a person who fails to see the truth when it is presented or made plain. Like the person who insists the world is round when it has been proven it is flat. In a topic like this, the source of inspiration, no one can "prove" anything. We are just exchanging and challenging ideas.

---------------------

There is a LOT we do not know. But I do get nervous when people take situations and ascribe them to otherworldly causes -- with certainty over a more likely physical one. For example, like Cynique I too have thought about a problem gone to bed an woke up with a solution, or completely new insight.

I just assumed my brain worked on it unconsciously -- I'd never make the leap that my deceased grandmother gave me the answer or that the universe helped me out. It might be true, but it would not be my first assumption.

Sometimes I have that dream where it feels like you've been thrown into bed wake up with a start. Some have told be that was my body returning from an out of body experience. That might be true, but it will take a lot more for me to be convinced of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy I think this time you are mistaking my points for my feelings.

perhaps there wasn't enough levity. First nature doesn't exist as saying.

I was talking in analogies and parables.

I would say the mind is a function of the brain. It just makes more sense that tangible is subordinate to the tangible.

You have describe the process of the light bulb, but what is the source.

I will challenge ideas but less comfortable challenging beliefs.

I find the concept of the unconscious strange. Conscious, subconscious, preconscious are all okay.

What was riddly, I'll see if I can answer and get back on topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Del most people "points" are either expressions of facts or feelings. Feeling can be interpretations of facts or beliefs. I don't challenge facts. I do challenge interpretations of beliefs.

Sometimes I may be ignorant of a fact and challenge it as if it were a belief until I learn.

I believe most of what you wrote are believe -- open for challenge. I do not make a distinction between a belief and an idea. What do you see is the difference between the two?

What was riddly? Your question about the source of the light from a bulb. What was the point of the question? One can easily ask what is the source of anything. Ultimately the answer is unknown -- perhaps unknowable; as you can infinitely regress, repeatedly asking the same question, "What is the source?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting you challenge beliefs not ideas, I do the opposite. Why one and not the other.

A belief does need to be proven, actually once you prove a belief it ceases to be a belief.

I have no idea about the source of light. I believe the source of light is the mind. Space is the universal mind, the planets are the brain.

I think there are only beliefs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a better example Del. Remember when we were discussing digital sampling and I said mathematically one could reproduce an analog signal, 100%, with enough samples. You disagreed with this. Your belief ran counter to fact. I challenged your belief until a point that I realized you were fixed.

Look, we know what the source of the light is, and have for 100 years. The idea of the light being the sourced from the mind runs completely counter to what we know.

The same goes for space being the universal mind. While that may be an "idea" that you "believe" in, it would be be something that I would readily embrace.

Our minds are SO limited and space is infinite why would something so measly as our minds be represented in space in a way that we can conceive?

I do not believe that humans have the ability to really understand the universe any more than a housefly understands our solar system. We don't even understand ourselves.

If would be nice if we did. But if we were close to being that smart we would not be killing each other over the color our our skin or for having different beliefs...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Delano

"Pioneer - we may be tuning into some of the same frequencies.

perhaps the personal mind is one cabinet in universal warehouse.

i am in agreement with what you say about the mind. How can the intangible be connected to the tangible."

I've been reading a lot about Near Death Experiences and Out of Body Experiences these past few years. It's really educated me on a lot of things with regards to the mind and various powers in the body.

Cynique

.

"I'd say the mind works through the brain. The brain is tangible, but the mind is spiritual. It's like body and soul. Inspiration is spontaneous; it just comes to you from The Source of all thought. An idea is the fruition of inspiration."

I'm beginning to believe that the brain is more of an "antenna" to receive and broadcast the works of the mind and beyond.

Troy

If your basic premise is that people people's beliefs should be grounded in reality, I hear exactly what you're saying and agree.

But I've learned there's more to "reality" that just what we see on a daily basis. I've had personal experiences myself that have confirmed this.

We know that certain animals like birds see a greater range of colors and other sights than humans.

We know other animals have a much much better sense of smell and can smell things that humans don't even know exist.

I was looking at a report today on CNN about animals who can detect cancer and other diseases even before they can be seen on an MRI!

The spectrum of REAL-ity or what is "real" is much much greater than most humans REAL-ize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pioneer - I agree. I no longer something isn't possible or at least I try to keep an open mind.

So no matter how improbable I don't say impossible, because I haven't experienced it.

I have been interested in the

esoteric since I was a preteen.

I believe I know that reality is what you believe. I have met Wizards, Witches, Psychics, Channelers, shamans energetic healers, Yoruba priest and priestess. Some more effective than others. When I meet someone that is less effective, I don't say their field is rubbish. I say they may be off or they are off today.

I think it limits your world the more you negate ideas.

I think you can be rigorous without being dismissive.

If you have an opinion about something you haven't experienced that is ignorant.

If you hear a person playing piano badly you don't say piano is a bad instrument. I hear some of the people I meet use that reasoning.

I had a two friends who could read my mind. It was a bit disturbing because she would respond verbally to what I was thinking. Then I had a former friend who wad an energetic healer, could see and read auras, could tell you the future by you talking, and he was good with spells.

Long story short I realized he was not a friend. So I blocked him from reading me mind. He was a bit suprised and he didn't like it

So I am less likely to say that is impossible.

What I do find with inspiration, intuition and thinking is that some times are better than others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..the idea of the light being the sourced from the mind runs completely counter to what we know.

The same goes for space being the universal mind. While that may be an "idea" that you "believe" in, it would be be something that I would readily embrace.

Our minds are SO limited and space is infinite why would something so measly as our minds be represented in space in a way that we can conceive?

I do not believe that humans have the ability to really understand the universe any more than a housefly understands our solar system. We don't even understand ourselves.

Scientists are not totally ignorant about space. They know the universe is expanding. They can make reasonable assumptions about black holes and white dwarfs. They have picked up waves left over from the big bang, have realized that our sun is just a small star, are regularly discovering new galaxies and planets, the latest one, which is millions of miles away, appears to be an Earth twin.They are also tracking asteroids heading in the general direction of earth. And Man did, after all, land on the moon, while now, Explorer is sending back pictures of the surface of Mars. What we don't know is whether a housefly understands our solar system. It just might. It may have been clued about something by roaches who have survived for eons and eons and eons. The fact that scientists know what they don't know is knowledge in itself.

I think it limits your world the more you negate ideas.I think you can be rigorous without being dismissive.

If you have an opinion about something you haven't experienced that is ignorant.

If you hear a person playing piano badly you don't say piano is a bad instrument. I hear some of the people I meet use that reasoning.What I do find with inspiration, intuition and thinking is that some times are better than others.

You seem to be enthralled not only with metaphysics but quantum physics, Delano. They are both mind blowing, not to mention mind expanding. When you shift into their sphere, nothing is impossible. Reality fluctuates. One of my flights into free thoughI convinces me that memory and imagination are phenomena that allow me to travel back in time...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cynique,

I think any answer that you need is inside.

The universe is not random.

I believe there are eorlds were

space and time do not exist.

Why is the black hole in the centre of galaxy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a scientific opinion is overated. I would say most people are susceptible in believing an expert opinion. The don't question or ask the question. Where is the personal bias. Since this will effect the professional.

I think meaning is more important than fact. Which may be why myth is more important than science.

Your theories about the world say more about your thinking than the world - Albert Einstein.

Is there a reality without the mind = Is there beauty without inspiration = probably not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy if facts are proven wrong or inadequate they are beliefs. So all facts are beliefs until proven wrong.

It is nonsensical for me to challenge someones belief. Or to say their belief is ridiculous.

Ithink that my beliefs help me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy - I am pretty certain that an analog signal and digital system can replicate one another. You may not here the difference but there would be a difference. Analog is like a circle digital is like a square. One is continuous the other is discrete. A circle is a square with an infinite number if sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cynique scientists are essentially ignorant about the universe. Indeed the more they learn the more they realize how much they really don't know. :-)

Del I don't follow your reasoning. A fact is a fact, it is not a function of a belief. It is what is is. It is not up for discussion. Generally scientists are very careful about saying what they "know".

If a fact is "proven" wrong then it was not a fact, maybe it was a theory, or a belief, but a fact can't be proven wrong.

Pioneer, scientist can reproduce the near death experience in a person. Again, man makes up stories to explain what they don't understand. it is natural, but it does not make it true. I'm not discounting your experiences...I'm just saying...

The brain is an amazing thing, but it can be easily fooled. Some otherwise normal people can be made to do astonishingly evil things, with seemingly very little effort. A charismatic leader can get hundreds of people to kill themselves with the promise of being picked up by a comet, or 42 virgins in heaven. Or they get get them to exterminate some Jews or believe they are superior to blacks and enslave them for centuries. Even the God fearing, Nobel Peace prize winning Barack Obama, has a "hit list".

My honest opinion is that nobody "knows" anything -- or they know so little it may as well be nothing. Some can can spin a better tale than others but they are still all stories.

Scientists are much more rigorous in their thinking because they won't start saying something is true until is has been tested and they are always testing. They've broken Newton's laws when they started looking at matter at the quantum level, then they broke Einsteins laws when they looked at Black holes.

EVERYTHING to a scientist is open for analysis.

The majority of people KNOW far too much about the universe. It may be the dictates of their religion. They are right and ALL other belief are wrong. People who say they know the answers make me nervous.

I'm curious fellow, but I'm find with not knowing, over accepting the beliefs of someone who claims that they do.

____________________

Del now I see why you are confused about the Digital to analog thing. The information is simply stored digitally. You can here this they are discrete samples. Once the signal is decoded into an analog signal (that you can hear). The signal is a accurate representation of the source signal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A transformed signal is not identical to the original. Not matter whether you start analog or digital. A sample is a representation of the population but it is not the population.

A scientist can be a deist, be an atheist or agnostic. Most scientist are atheist and some think that scientist who aren't are irrational. The only rational or scientific religious stance would be agnostic. To say that you don't know. To assume knowledge in one field makes you an expert in others is both arrogant and ignorant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are not very many pure Atheists, people who are certain there is not God, higher power, universal mind or any of the other stuff you mentioned.

I'm inclined to agree that most scientists would be agnostic, Since they simply can not prove there is no an after life.

--------------------------

Throwing up my hands in exasperation, Del I'm afraid I'll have to give you an "F". What you are saying does not make sense. You are comparing something completely unrelated and drawing a false conclusion. Not everything can be explained or understood with an analogy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Troy, since you think nobody knows anything, that pretty much negates all of your contentions and rebuttals. :P We have to assume that you don't anything either and that what you assert can be doubted, which is why I challenged your statement that a housefly doesn't know anything about our solar system. Obviously speculation has nothing to do with truth. Once the door to skepticism is open, anything can be relegated to the unknown. That future discoveries can alter present conclusions, dilutes the constancy of facts. In the big picture, everything can be questioned because an overview could reveal that what is assumed to be right is wrong and what doesn't make sense is actually logical. So life is, indeed, a mystery, and it's folly to trust what you think you know for sure. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want my honest opinion.....

I think MOST scientists, just like most professors and other members of Academia actually DO believe in God.

If you investigate, you'll find that most scientists, professors, policy makers, and others who hold prominent positions in this society are MARRIED.

Why do such educated men and women who believe that humans are essentially animals and know that man is polygamous would even take such a self-imposed restrictive institution like marriage seriously, let alone engage in it?

Not only are they married but they tend to talk in terms of morality, decency, attend religious ceremonies, maintain ancient traditions, take "oaths" in court....and engage in other behavior that would be considered strange for people who don't believe in a higher power.

One of the biggest tricks the West has played on the rest of the world is tricking them into not believing in a Supreme Being.

A Supreme Being that THEY clearly believe in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on now, Pioneer. Do you really think the West has any influence on Third World countries who hate us? Furthermore, the Middle East and the Eastern countries are very saturated with their religions. And just because people are Atheists doesn't mean they have no ethics or morals. In addition to being a well organized segment of society and, unlike to a lot of religious hypocrites, Atheists are quite often people who have high morals and lofty principles and who love their fellow man and choose to lead the kind of lives that will benefit the common good. :rolleyes:

Also, many scientists can reconcile their belief in a Supreme Being with their scientific positions. It's not that hard to accept that an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient force is the Master of the Universe and therefore, among all other things, the origin of what we call science. -_-

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pioneer - There was a survey of scientists 80% and they were atheist

They thought the 20% that weren't atheist weren't rational. So even though the assume they see rational they aren't. The only rational position id to be an atheist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×