![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
acroyearMy reply to this post:
Where does inspiration come from? Well, my view: We are created in "the image of our Creator". As such, we have the ability to create. It is simply *the gift* that came with our knowledge and our consciousness. The gifts of imagination evolved and strengthened and allowed us to survive and grow as a people, and from the early social groupings of the primates, a new concept called Culture came into being, merely as a complex sophistication of both our own social interactions, to unite our various groups, and also isolate them. We have the power to imagine our future, or our possible pasts, or our alternative present realities. Our ability to express what we know translates to an ability to express what we can imagine; for that brief moment of creating, the imagination is real enough to touch.
[Yes, my world-view is a very strange mixture of Creation and Science. I refuse to believe they don't co-exist. ;-)]
For some of us, the tedium of translating the imagination into a persistent medium is too much, and we (I count myself among these types) live often in frustration at our lack of abilities in this, while marveling at the creations of others. Something is always lost in translation, and the creator must decide if what is lost is too much of the spirit of what was supposed to be there. I tend to be too self-critical in this.
How would you prove/disprove any alternate past history? Archeology. Anthropology, Paleontology. Science and the Scientific Method. Dig up the truth, its buried under us all. There have been enough archeological finds to show that archeology can support the historical record to trust that archeology can be accurate to a great degree when digging up cultures with no historical record.
For example, archeologists were given a week to examine the ground under a demolished building in Colchester, England, before the place got turned into a shopping center parking lot. They found the large, 1-2 inch black stripe in the ground running horizontal to the surface, physical proof of the Roman record of Bodeccea's revolt and the burning of Colchester to the ground in 66 AD.
We know much of what the real/historical King Arthur was really like. Does that make the alternate pasts of Arthur any less intriguing? No, not a bit. As a culture, we exist and have the knowledge of ALL the King Arthurs of the world, both the real and the embellished. The moral truths in the Arthurian cycle are truths none-the-less, and are as important to us as the presense of the original Arthur was important to the few remaining Romano-Britons (trans: celts) holding the Germanic invaders of England at bay, giving Cornwall and Wales a chance to survive as future Celtic-speaking nations.
We are the sum of all our pasts, both the reality of the archeological world and historical record, and the imagination of all those who have written the alternatives, whether they themselves believed their version to be either reality or merely a moral truth.
Where does inspiration come from? Well, my view: We are created in "the image of our Creator". As such, we have the ability to create. It is simply *the gift* that came with our knowledge and our consciousness. The gifts of imagination evolved and strengthened and allowed us to survive and grow as a people, and from the early social groupings of the primates, a new concept called Culture came into being, merely as a complex sophistication of both our own social interactions, to unite our various groups, and also isolate them. We have the power to imagine our future, or our possible pasts, or our alternative present realities. Our ability to express what we know translates to an ability to express what we can imagine; for that brief moment of creating, the imagination is real enough to touch.
[Yes, my world-view is a very strange mixture of Creation and Science. I refuse to believe they don't co-exist. ;-)]
For some of us, the tedium of translating the imagination into a persistent medium is too much, and we (I count myself among these types) live often in frustration at our lack of abilities in this, while marveling at the creations of others. Something is always lost in translation, and the creator must decide if what is lost is too much of the spirit of what was supposed to be there. I tend to be too self-critical in this.
How would you prove/disprove any alternate past history? Archeology. Anthropology, Paleontology. Science and the Scientific Method. Dig up the truth, its buried under us all. There have been enough archeological finds to show that archeology can support the historical record to trust that archeology can be accurate to a great degree when digging up cultures with no historical record.
For example, archeologists were given a week to examine the ground under a demolished building in Colchester, England, before the place got turned into a shopping center parking lot. They found the large, 1-2 inch black stripe in the ground running horizontal to the surface, physical proof of the Roman record of Bodeccea's revolt and the burning of Colchester to the ground in 66 AD.
We know much of what the real/historical King Arthur was really like. Does that make the alternate pasts of Arthur any less intriguing? No, not a bit. As a culture, we exist and have the knowledge of ALL the King Arthurs of the world, both the real and the embellished. The moral truths in the Arthurian cycle are truths none-the-less, and are as important to us as the presense of the original Arthur was important to the few remaining Romano-Britons (trans: celts) holding the Germanic invaders of England at bay, giving Cornwall and Wales a chance to survive as future Celtic-speaking nations.
We are the sum of all our pasts, both the reality of the archeological world and historical record, and the imagination of all those who have written the alternatives, whether they themselves believed their version to be either reality or merely a moral truth.
