My Proof that there’s a God underlying certain inspiration in the universal unconscious, based on a circumstantial model.
I’m speculating that with some artistic manifestations there can be an ultimate interpretation or arch-type meaning that can be applied in varying degrees within various people or concerning multiple things, and yet the work can still have an application which defines it ultimately; i.e., the ultimate interpretation is fulfilled or comprehended completely in its fullest sense in one particular space, and it can be that when it is applied to thus, its other applications can be so reduced as to make it seem to have no other exterior meanings.
I was thinking that it may be possible for this insight to occur in only one receiving individual, which would imply that the outlook or circumstance of the recipient was somehow more attuned to the original nature of the work than the artist was with respects to his or her own inspirational source. If the inspiration for the rendering was internal, rather than based on an environmental external, it might beg the question of what is the nature of the inspirational source; is it somehow universal? Actually, even if it was based on a tangible external, if the recipient has a fuller interpretative experience of the work based on their internal perception and environment, why is it more attuned than the inspirational vector itself? Is it the artist’s failure to grasp, or the commonality of the human experience, or can it indicate a subconscious internal universal commonality within the human experience? Can it go so for as to indicate an internal within and beyond the human experience?
Now the pattern I’ve introduced is of itself of no particular significance, and things like this occur all the time. There are lots and lots of instances, whereupon speaking to observers of their work, artists have realized that the recipients have a new or perhaps better level of interpretation based upon their own experience, which falls in with the myriad that are present. After all, that is perhaps the point to art, isn’t it? The eliciting of all these aspects within people’s minds, or celebrating communal awareness; the embrace of all those levels. Accessing the full spectrum and unity within the human experience by successfully rendering an aspect within a medium where it can be frozen and seen. Shedding new light on the topic, or purveying its beauty, or introducing new ones, the point being that what is created is the response within other people, by invoking their own perception and experience.
When I came up with this what I was trying to do was explain how what I am trying to exhibit might not be crazy; how there might be a convergence or interactive pattern between art and occurrence, or between separate individuals and yet no conscious awareness of the interaction within the merger, and yet have it somehow be reasonable to consider. These are the criterion or framework I lay out as a basis for speculation: firstly, the advent of the electronic age is a necessary component. This proposition requires the speedy transmission of information and mass publication and distribution in order to be possible. Secondly it operates on two unproven assumptions: one articulated by Edgar Cayce, that the universal unconscious was like a flowing connected river from which all people derived creative thought, and perhaps that of Marshall McLuhan (though it isn’t required), that what electronic information pathways did is extend and connect our human central nervous system outside of our bodies. In the context I’m about to outline, it’s a nice touch. On these basis you could speculate that we should be beginning to observe patterns of inspiration or indicators of the universal unconscious, and that perhaps these indications should lead to its illumination or cause effects within the patterns themselves.
This is the pattern I was considering: What is going on when the “ultimate application” exists as a tangible element on earth, outside of the sphere of the artist’s inspiration? To give you an idea, let’s mess with it temporally and say that one arena in human existence where this type of thing would be considered to occur is in the case of fulfilled prophecy: The ultimate application has precedence, occurs later in time, and fulfills what an individual was inspired to describe or render. That isn’t even art, its religion. You’re automatically invoking explanations that attribute some form of external inspiration as responsible, be it Godly inspiration, or that of other spiritual or mystical powers. For those who have no belief in spiritual entities beyond ourselves, it can simply be taken as an indication of underlying universal currents or powers within our subconscious but outside human perceptual experience. Whatever your dish, I think you’re caught, 'cause concluding with these open ended external-isms, (none of which can be resolved), is the equivalent of admitting that we are dealing with things we cannot explain. They are beyond our perceptual experience, implying a form of connection or power that extends beyond ourselves.
I’m not here to prove this point; I am interested in what this pattern might imply in an artistic context, if it occurred in the Now, or backwards. I think that if you had an emerging pattern of inspirational thought between a number of individuals occurring simultaneously, then it ought to be assumed that the emerging pattern should indicate some sort of continuity of thought. In other words, this sort of pattern would indicate that there was a universal unconscious, and if so, then the network should bear out some sort of connected pathway or relation of thought in order to exist in the first place.
My context in question is this: what if the “ultimate manifestation” existed as a physical entity in an associated environment prior to being rendered multiply by individual artists, and they had no external awareness of its existence? Additionally, the entity had no awareness of its own existence in this context? They are totally disassociated. Furthermore the artists are in the position of knowing that what they are talking about is beyond their tangible realm of experience. If in this case there existed an ultimate manifestation of what was being produced in the artists’ work, and this existence could be matched to what a variety of artists were saying like a key fitting a multi-faceted lock, thereby having the capacity to prove that the artists did not hold the fullest interpretation of their own art, it does lead one to consider the question: How can the “ultimate interpretation” exist over there, and yet be manifested in some people’s art? Weird things do happen, I suppose.
Let’s refine this scenario a little further; the “ultimate manifestation’s” existence is not static, it changes and operates over time, and is capable of a full spectrum potential of activity. What the artists are rendering exhibits a direct act/response relationship with the “manifestation’s” activities. Additionally the connection is such that being an existing manifestation, it has attributes and is within an environment that is being described by the artists. Now if this sort of a manifestation existed consciously, with no prior knowledge of its existence, and yet it was having these sort of ramifications on more than one individual, with no knowledge of what was occurring, then it should be asked: Why did this live manifestation exist, with a full capacity of fulfilling the artists void of knowledge, and yet having no awareness that it was fulfilling it? Then where did the overall conception of this multiply manifested work of art exist, if not within those who were inspired to create it, and not within the ultimate manifestation of that art? Where then, did it exist? For it can be argued that there must be conception within consciousness for an idea to occur, even one that is multiply rendered, don’t you think? (Especially where art is concerned!) Would this be evidence of an external underlying consciousness, operating within the universal unconscious? It’s not just the connection that’s submerged here, It’s the original concept that’s missing. Do you think you can assume that inspiration is completely submerged in the unconscious? In this case then, Who’s responsible for it?
