Author, Alton Gansky has a couple of interesting posts at his blog, http://www.altongansky.typepad.com/, that I liked on writing creativity. I found the latest on how technology sometimes gets in the way of the modern writer particularly apropos. And it got me thinking which is a pretty dangerous (and hopefully not too boring) thing.
I have some pretty bizarre concepts rumbling around in my head that I'll try to share here over time. But one relates to this idea of creative spark. I think it was Edison who said, "Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration." But to my mind without that inspiration or creative spark, you're just another sweaty guy.
My concept revolves around the thought... that you could replace the word "inspiration" or the words "creative spark" with "revelation". As in revelation from God. The Conservation Laws(energy, matter, mass, etc) tell us in some sense that everything that's here on Earth has always been in some form and will always continue to be. I'm inclined to think that that includes ideas as well. Because the Law of Trying to Plot out a Novel says that there are no more original ideas; they've all been thought of before by somebody somewhere.
But I think that maybe the one exception to this is revelation, where God shows us something about Himself. And since he exists outside the context of the Earth, this supernaturally "violates" the above principles by giving us something that wasn't previously here, something we couldn't have come up with in a million years without him planting that thought in our heads.
Here's where the punchline for my theory, which I acknowledged as bizarre, comes in. I think that maybe every truly original idea or invention responsible for each major advance in human history therefore must have been the result of revelation. Everything else is just a recombination or variation on a theme.
I know this opens a huge can of worms (and certainly flies in the face of true humanism), and we can discuss all the implications and ramifications of this theory if true. Why would God do this? Who does He decide to reveal things to and why? Why would He or has He revealed something to someone who doesn't even believe that He exists? Just to name a few. But I'm not sure whether the theory can actually be proven or disproven conclusively, so don't come in too dogmatically on either side.
Anyway, you philosophically-minded Realm dwellers give me your takes. I've got to get off the computer and find my doodling pencil.
Writing
American Fast
-
So, let's talk about Christian fasting.
Last week I had to prep to teach Isaiah 58, which basically says "Ya'll are
fasting to get me to hear you. Why don...
3 years ago
2 comments:
You make some interesting points. Particularly, with the discussion of what "creation" really means.
I've read that Tolkien theorized that man's desire to create was one of the chief ways that he was made in God's image.
Tolkien called what man was able to do at times "sub-creation". This was part of his passion for all the world-building in LOTR. He had a deep desire to sub-create.
Your example of cloning is also intriguing. Others have theorized that this may be part of the secret knowledge mentioned in the Bible that God says man is not to have. And that malevolent supernatural beings (devil, demons, aliens, etc) may have imparted this knowledge to man.
I think the idea is likened unto giving a baby a high-powered rifle. He just can't handle the power.
I probably only disagree with you saying that you disagree with me. I'm not sure you really do. I think there may only be a difference in terminology or semantics.
Like your addition of the word "compelling" to originality. I might argue that in my mind originality already emcompasses this. Or that true originality is by definition compelling.
Also, on the surface, there does seem to be a difference between a revelation of God or from God like in the example above of other supernatural beings imparting knowledge. But I think this presupposes that God is knowable by these entities apart from his revealing things to them.
It's possible that in some cases he may just reveal things to man indirectly rather than directly.
And I realize my use the the phrase "major advance in human history" is somewhat vague. A major advance to me might not be a major advance to you and vice versa.
ZOINKS!!! Maybe you're right. In my Blogger profile, I am the one-half diabolical genius.
And there's nothing I like better than a Scooby Doo reference unless it's a Pinky and the Brain reference.
Post a Comment