Idea or Good Idea

Back in 2017, I gave a workshop on ‘where do ideas come from’ at the department of sculpting at the Aalto University in Helsinki, Finland. The audience were art, sculpting mainly, students in their early years of their studies. I aimed to communicate the difference between ideas, and good ideas, how being authentic helps you find good ideas, and how I define authenticity. In part 2 I talk about how to use a simplified version of one of those tools called remote viewing.

Ideas and good ideas

My workshop started, after an introduction and such, with the question: what is a good idea, or, what does it mean: a good idea?

I collected the answers and wrote the results on the blackboard. It proved remarkably difficult for the students to define an idea, and none of the answers told what a good idea was. The consensus is that an idea is a mental understanding, thought, notion that exists or is generated by the mind. Crucial to note is the ‘mental’ and ‘mind’ aspect. The good idea definition will contain the mind and mental aspect, but adds three distinct attributes: time, emotions, and audience.

These three attributes that I added make all the difference and bring us to this twilight zone or fringe area of this shared reality which is registered by our five senses, and Consciousness. The main difference between an idea, and a good idea, is that a good idea is well received (emotion) by one or more individuals (audience) in the future (time). The better received the idea, by an as large as possible group, in the future makes also a difference between a good idea, and a great idea.

I consider time the least interesting attribute, as long as the positive reception by an audience takes place in the future, I am good. What is more fascinating is the intensity of the emotions and the size of the audience. A good idea is when in the future an as large as possible audience displays increasingly positive based on an artifact that has come into existence through mental and physical processes.

The question at this point remains: how to get this good idea? In the following section of this post, I talk about how you, the creator, can work on becoming more authentic. And I show a simplified form of remote viewing that could be either used as-is, or form the basis for your tools. I recommend the latter. Furthermore, the process of becoming more and more authentic enhances your ability to use remote viewing, or whatever form you develop yourself.

The reason is that, by getting rid of all kinds of fear, anxieties, and worries, you enjoy the experimentation and do not mind the failures. First, authenticity then.

Authenticity

At the core of my workshop laid the idea that being authentic is a necessity to be truly creative. Creative is mostly about freedom, to allowing yourself to allow the thoughts to bubble up from the subconscious awareness, or as I later show, through passive or active intuition. The well-informed and attentive reader might very well see the similarities between my theory on authenticity, and Carl Jung’s ideas on the Shadow and Persona.

I became familiar with Carl Jung’s work only years later, although I had heard of him and was vaguely familiar with his ideas on synchronicities. I can see the similarity between my ‘Secret life’ and Carl Jung’s Shadow. Moreover, my ‘Public life’ bears strong resemblance with Jung’s Persona. And allow me immediately add that the three phases, secret, private and public life are also not the words that originated in my mind.

Before this workshop, I was prepping for a workshop on a similar topic for the art academy in Tallinn. And in that period I came across an interview with Gabriel Garcia Márquez, a Colombian writer, in which he mentioned those three aspects of a person’s life. His meaning was different from what I propose, but it functioned at the time as a jumping board to the formula below.

Everyone has three lives: a public life, a private life, and a secret life.
Gabriel Garcia Márquez

To give credit where credit is due is also an aspect of being authentic. The need to get appraisal for an idea that is not yours, can be traced back to the fear of not feeling sufficient, and ultimately the overarching fear of expulsion from the tribe. I need to write more about the hierarchies of fears.

The less fears you have, the more open you can express your raw thoughts to those you interact with. Of course, this is not purely an internal process, but has much to do with the culture and time you live in. Working on these fears is a gradual, step-wise process that involves courage from you, and acceptance from others. What I propose is to begin to note down your fears on paper or on your computer (phone) and start at the least threatening one. In an earlier post, I spoke more about this process, with concrete examples.

I created a scientific looking formula to represent the journey through the three distinct phases, involves identifying the key variables and their relationships. Here’s the formula and explanation:

Variables:

C: Creativity (initial ideas and inspiration John has)
F: Fear (initial fear of rejection and embarrassment)
T: Trust (level of trust in those he shares with)
R: Reaction (response from friends and family)
A: Authenticity (the measure of how true John is to his initial ideas)
P: Public Acceptance (acceptance by a wider audience)

Relationships:

C (Creativity): This is the starting point, where John has initial ideas.
F (Fear): Initially high, this diminishes over time as John progresses through the stages.
T (Trust): Grows when he shares his work with trusted people.
R (Reaction): Positive reactions from trusted people boost John’s confidence.
A (Authenticity): Increases as John becomes more confident and true to his ideas.
P (Public Acceptance): Influenced by the level of authenticity and the quality of the painting.

Formula:

Let’s assume authenticity (A) is a function of creativity (C) diminished by fear (F) and boosted by trust (T) and reaction (R):

Where:

[math]F_{\text{max}}[/math] is the maximum possible fear (normalizing factor).
[math]T_{\text{max}}[/math] is the maximum possible trust (normalizing factor).

Public acceptance (P) can then be considered a function of authenticity (A):

[math]P=k⋅A[/math]

Where:

[math]k[/math] is a constant representing the impact of authenticity on public acceptance.

Explanation:

Phase 1 (Secret Life):

[math]F[/math] is high, [math]T[/math] and [math]R[/math] are zero.
Authenticity [math]A \approx C \cdot \left(1 – \frac{F}{F_{\text{max}}}\right)[/math] (low due to high fear).

Phase 2 (Private Life):

[math]F[/math] decreases as you share your work with trusted people.
[math]T[/math] and [math]R[/math] become positive values.
Authenticity [math]A[/math] increases as fear diminishes, and positive reactions boost confidence.

Phase 3 (Public Life):

[math]F[/math] is minimal or zero, [math]T[/math] is maximal, [math]R[/math] is high.
Authenticity [math]A \approx C + \left(\frac{T_{\text{max}}}{T_{\text{max}}} \cdot R\right) = C + R[/math] (high due to low fear and high trust and reaction).
Public acceptance [math]P=k⋅A[/math] is maximized.

Summary:

In your process of becoming authentic and achieving public acceptance can be modelled by understanding how creativity, fear, trust, and reactions interact. As fear diminishes and trust and positive reactions increase, authenticity grows, leading to greater acceptance of one’s ideas.

Science

The workshop ‘Ajatus’ was held at the university and one of the requirements was that there needed to be some ‘science’ supporting the claims I would present. One problem with the scientific method is that it works well with experiments that solely rely on material interactions, but less so when human intentions, emotions, and beliefs get involved.

The placebo and nocebo phenomenon are a known and accepted effect of such human intervention on what otherwise would be considered a purely matter-to-matter, reductionist process. To relegate these effects to being an anomaly is unattainable, as around 30% of the cases seem to be affected by the positive or negative belief regarding a certain medical intervention.

To test whether ideas could be pulled from some unknown thingy by silencing the mind, would require a superb design of such study. I think it is doable, but the results will probably remain speculative for many people. However, over the years, various scientists have solved a puzzle piece here and there. I have been convinced of the reality of actively getting (good) ideas from Consciousness as I have been practising throughout my life, what I have been later preaching to a larger audience.

During the workshop I introduced among others the research findings on remote viewing, morphic resonance and presentiment effects. Other notable scientists, such as Federico Faggin, Mario Beauregard, William Tiller, Bill Bengston to name a few, could be easily added here. But, this is a blog post and not a book. Below, I introduce those three aforementioned topics, and you can use your favourite search tool to find out more.

Remote viewing

In the 1970s and 1980s, the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) became a hub for the study of remote viewing, a form of extrasensory perception. Physicists Russell Targ and Hal Puthoff spearheaded this research, bringing scientific rigour to the exploration of psychic phenomena. One of their key subjects was Ingo Swann, who exhibited impressive remote viewing abilities and was crucial in developing the Coordinate Remote Viewing (CRV) protocol. Pat Price, a former police officer, also made notable contributions, showcasing his own psychic skills. Additionally, photographer Hella Hammid participated and she was remarkably accurate. Hella at some point would give the answer before the question was put forward to her. Ingo, Hella and other artists showed a natural inclination to pick up information about events that were beyond their 5-senses.

The results of these experiments were mixed. Some sessions produced remarkably accurate information, while others fell short, showing the unpredictability of remote viewing. Despite the inconsistencies, the successes were significant enough to catch the interest of intelligence agencies, leading to further exploration and use of these techniques.

Today, remote viewing continues to be practised, both within certain government projects and by private individuals and groups. While it remains a controversial topic, the techniques developed at SRI have endured, demonstrating a lasting legacy in the field of parapsychology. Various groups around the world use remote viewing for entertainment, business and other reasons.

Morphic Resonance

Rupert Sheldrake conducted research on unexplained animal behaviour, notably in his book “Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home.” He explored the idea that pets, particularly dogs, possess a psychic connection to their owners, enabling them to anticipate their return home. Sheldrake collected anecdotal evidence and conducted controlled experiments, finding that some dogs exhibited behaviours suggesting they knew when their owners were on their way back.

In another area of his research, Sheldrake examined how security personnel, such as those in military or police operations, often intuitively avoid detection. He proposed that this might be due to a form of collective consciousness or morphic resonance, where individuals can sense when they are being observed or are in danger, thus enhancing their survival and effectiveness.

Presentiment studies

Julia Mossbridge has conducted extensive research on presentiment, the phenomenon where individuals seem to have a physiological response to future events before they occur. Her studies focus on the idea that the human body can sense and react to significant future stimuli, such as emotional or physical events, seconds before they happen. Mossbridge’s experiments typically involve monitoring physiological indicators like heart rate and skin conductance, revealing subtle changes before the presentation of stimuli. Her findings suggest that our understanding of time and consciousness may need to be expanded to account for these anticipatory responses, challenging conventional scientific views on perception and intuition.

Meditative states or modalities

In his book “The Paranormal World of Creation,” Grant Cameron explores how various meditative states, meditative modalities if you like, intersect with creativity, presenting numerous examples from different domains. He gives examples of many artists, writers, musicians, and inventors who gain inspiration through any of the many forms of ‘silencing the mind’.

Cameron discusses instances of telepathy, where creative individuals report receiving ideas from other people or entities. For example, author Philip K. Dick claimed to have received visions and information from an unknown intelligence, influencing his writing.

Visions and dreams are another modality where creativity and the silencing of the mind intersect. Paul McCartney famously dreamed the melody for “Yesterday,” which became one of The Beatles’ most iconic songs. Additionally, Cameron highlights automatic writing, where writers like W.B. Yeats and his wife produced substantial mystical literature by channelling messages from beyond.

Near-death experiences (NDEs) and out-of-body experiences (OBEs) also play a role. Some people report a surge in creativity following NDEs, such as painter Mellen-Thomas Benedict, who became a prolific artist after a profound NDE. Robert Monroe, known for his explorations of OBEs, gained unique creative insights and knowledge during these experiences.

I agree with Grant Cameron that these diverse modalities suggest a broader connection between Consciousness and human creativity, proposing that creative minds may tap into a universal Consciousness or external intelligence during moments of inspiration.

This ‘tapping into’ often happens naturally, like when driving a car on a road you know very well. Furthermore, on a road you drive for the first time but which is so monotonous, your mind numbs, and you realise after some time that you have not actively been watching the road. In both situations, the 5 senses remain active and alert, but the conscious awareness, the realisation that one is thinking, has been delegated to the back seat.

Grant Camerons lists about 70 meditative modalities, and many you shall recognize as something that takes place in your life too. I took this a valuable conclusion from his book, as I am in favour of demystifying ‘meditation’ and making it more accessible. Having this said, there are also situations where you want more control over when you establish a connection with Consciousness (you are always connected, of course) and what information you like to receive from Consciousness.

In part 2, I explain how we used a simplified version of remote viewing to gather accurate data on a series of photos that were chosen in the future, randomly, after the exercise was over. The purpose of this exercise was to give the students the experience of tapping into a future event and get a feel for what kind of data comes back and how to interpret it.