|
Defining
inspiration
Many years of reflection have led to the realization of
“Reality and Inspiration” (≈ 25). Those years were
dedicated to various simultaneous studies: physics, the study of
human behaviour, ballroom dancing, and the study of the art of
defining words: the study of dictionaries.
For
most people, those subjects could seem unrelated, and it becomes
my duty to associate them in order to make you see what I see.
Before
this site was put on the web, close people have read the
introduction of “Reality and Inspiration”, and despite the
fact most of them were in agreement with the content of its text,
also emerged a general agreement with the fact that my use of
the word “Inspiration” may have been too broad and vague to
not bring to certain levels of confusion.
For
that reason, it became crucial that I defined it (the word
“Inspiration”).
“Reality
and Inspiration” aims at becoming a scientific site, and for
that kind of realization, only concrete facts need to be brought
to the table and the word “Inspiration” seems to relate more
to an abstract aspect of reality than to anything concrete, at
least in the conception of our minds.
Everyone
seems to have a personal way to understand and define it, and
everyone seems to agree with its abstract quality although
everyone also seems to agree that it is a concrete and
undeniable part of all consciousness.
Everyone with a conscience is conscious of the concrete
existence of their inspiration.
All
dictionaries also agree with the claim that Inspiration is
abstract, although it is a concrete motivating force inciting to
the execution of concrete actions. The part of the definition
relating to the penetration of air into lungs is obviously quite
concrete, except for creatures that do not possess lungs and the
conscious or unconscious desire to breathe.
As
you can see, it only took seven paragraphs to bring you to high
levels of confusion; integral state of human reality.
The
first stage of the development of a theory is the philosophical
stage, and the present confusion forces us into the
philosophical meaning of Inspiration.
What is Inspiration?
Instead
of debating on the subject for weeks to only end-up with
conflicts of interpretation, the road I will follow will be to
bring some questions to the surface.
All interpretation will face an equivalent test, and all
experiences, all ages, all genders and all knowledges will not
have a chance to have discriminatory effects.
All will be equal.
Four questions will follow and
two of them may sound simplistic or ridiculous, despite the fact
that the four questions will only be four formulations of a sole
and unique question.
1
Am I inspired by what attracts
me?
2
Am I attracted by what
inspires me?
3
Am I inspired by what inspires
me?
4
Am I attracted by what
attracts me?
Despite the fact formulations
3 and 4 may seem completely weird, all those questions can only
lead to a unique answer ( “yes”) because they are a unique
question formulated four different ways.
This
exercise can only bring us to the arbitrary reality of our human
conception and perspective.
Other than this arbitrary quality, nothing could explain
why a formulation could seem logical and full of common sense,
while the other could seem completely weird just because of its
repetitive formulation.
It
is obviously very difficult for a human to liberate himself from
his human perspective. It
may be impossible.
But
with an open mind, formulations 3 and 4 could become the only
logical and sensible formulations.
Formulation
3 could be the only logical and sensible formulation perceived
by air penetrating lungs (Am I inspired by what inspires me?),
and formulation 4 could be the only logical and sensible
formulation perceived by an object succumbing to a gravitational
pull (Am I attracted by what attracts me?), if air and object
had a lucid awareness of the events.
Our
assumption is that neither air nor object have a lucid awareness
of the events, and based on that belief, our human perspective
believes itself to be the only one to have the right to assume
whatever it wants.
A
clear example of this arbitrary ability could be a human
perspective assuming that “attraction” and “Inspiration”
could be different phenomena while, at the same time,
dictionaries (written by men) can only define them similarly.
Take
your dictionary and read and study the definitions of:
attraction, Inspiration, attract and inspire.
The
only different aspect given to “Inspiration” is its nature
which is assumed to be coming from a supernatural source.
Is it really a difference or did we just forget to
mention the source of attraction?
If
you can read between the lines and on the lines, you will be
forced to realize that other than for that omission, even human
perspective can only admit to the synonymic aspect of its
comprehension of the words: attraction and inspiration.
Evidently,
this arbitrary human perspective is our only window on reality,
on our comprehension of universal functionality, and on our
understanding of words invented and defined by ourselves.
This
sub-conclusion leads us directly into traditional physics,
modern physics and the birth of a new question:
Is
our present understanding of universal functionality based on
absolute realism, or is it based on an arbitrary human
perspective?
The
question could be formulated differently:
Did
we cut too many trees uselessly making our dictionaries too
thick?
or:
Is the earth in danger?
or:
Is our sanity in danger?
Those
questions will need to wait for another time, since our present
concern will remain physics.
At
the moment those pages are written physics assumes that
universal functionality is managed by four fundamentals forces.
They are: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force
and the weak nuclear force.
Like
for the omission made about the source of attraction (in its
definition), it is also often forgotten to mention that the four
fundamentals forces are unexplained, therefore not understood,
despite our conviction of the reality of their existences.
Like
by coincidence, those forces are all directly related to
attraction. Gravity
relates to attraction at the macroscopic scale, while the other
three relate to attraction at the microscopic scale.
Evidently it is difficult to argue the existence of
attraction and this does not constitute a problem, not even for
our human perspective. The
problem resides in our difficulty to comprehend and explain the
causes of attraction.
We
can not identify with certainty neither the cause nor the source
of the attraction performed by the four fundamentals forces.
Like
by coincidence again, we can not with certainty identify neither
the cause nor the source of our inspiration; inspiration that
could be synonymous with attraction if you remember correctly.
The
source of our inspiration is assumed to be supernatural and,
obviously, a supernatural source will always remain unfound and
unproven when all we have access to is nature; a portion of
nature that is, in fact, quite minute.
Like
by coincidence again, the source charging particles negatively (electrons)
and positively (protons) and the source of the strong nuclear
force are also unfound and unproven.
Could those sources also be supernatural and by that fact,
confirm what dictionaries seem to already indirectly tell us:
Attraction
and inspiration are synonymous!
Evidently,
there is no existing method and there will be no future method
to go investigate in a supernatural world to verify the sources
of our dilemmas, but nevertheless we can affirm with certainty
that we are certain of nothing.
To
this point, in our attempt to define “Inspiration” three
aspects have reached a concrete and undeniable state, rendering
them usable scientifically by way of comparison.
1
The first aspect relates to
movement.
Magnetism, at all scales, is a
phenomenon motivating movement, and inspiration is a phenomenon
motivating movement.
2
The second aspect relates to
attraction.
Magnetism, at all scales, is
phenomenon relating to attraction, and Inspiration is a
phenomenon relating to attraction.
3
The third aspect relates to
the source.
The mechanism of magnetism is
not understood, and the mechanism of inspiration is not
understood.
Taking
those three undeniable coincidences as a basis, here is the
first attempt to define inspiration.
Inspiration: Phenomenon that is not understood, motivating the
movement of an existence, through the attraction of this existence toward another existence, melting them into a union
constituting the next stage of their individual existence;
their becoming.
Since
this definition was based on three coincidences, the two
following definitions should not surprise anyone.
Gravity:
Phenomenon that is not understood, motivating the
movement of an existence, through the attraction of this
existence toward another existence, melting them into a union
constituting the next stage of their individual existence;
their becoming.
Atomic magnetism:
Phenomenon that is not understood, motivating the
movement of an existence, through the attraction of this
existence toward another existence, melting them into a union
constituting the next stage of their individual existence;
their becoming.
These
three definitions may appear similar for the simple reason that
they are identical.
Nevertheless
the three definitions still offer some differences; those to
define different words and everyone should take note that there
is nothing scientific that can disqualify their validity, since
in its present state, physics is based on four unexplained
fundamental forces; forces that have no absolute value in
reality, except in human reality, since only theoretical.
On
the other end, nothing can validate the definitions either,
since they were the fruit of my arbitrary human perspective.
Nevertheless
the previous pages can demonstrate that there is a valid
possibility that attraction, magnetism, and inspiration, may be
closely related.
But
the study of terminology and vocabulary have little chance to
bring us to the understanding of absolute reality, since terms
and words were pure arbitrary human inventions meant to make us
communicate and understand, and that despite this noble goal,
evident flaws still exist within, since gravity, magnetism,
attraction and inspiration are all not understood.
For
that verbal reason, the attempt to define inspiration will be
left aside for the moment.
The continuation of our philosophical development will be
concerned with physical aspects of some forces of attraction,
making comparisons between them, using the same method used to
this point; the way of coincidences.
In
the next three images, a note should be made that two common
physical features will be present.
They are 1- a curve and 2- velocity (movement).
Note
that their point of interaction will correspond to the physical
place where occurs one of the forces of attraction defined
earlier in an identical way.
This point will be marked by one or multiple red arrows.
|
Unlike the art of defining
words, these physical coincidental observations are
observations about absolute reality, since they require
a non arbitrary human perspective.
This
fact can bring us into redefining the words just defined,
but this time, only in a physical and geographical
manner.
Inspiration: Physical place where
velocity and curve interact and produce a force of
attraction.
Gravity: Physical place where
velocity and curve interact and produce a force of
attraction.
Atomic magnetism: Physical
place where velocity and curve interact and produce a
force of attraction.
After
having defined those words using coincidences based on
lack of understanding and using physical coincidences,
all that is left is for me to justify my choice: the
choice of the word “Inspiration” to define all
natural forces of attraction.
To
do that, I will return to a specific part of the
dictionaries' definition of inspiration; the part
relating to the penetration of air into lungs.
This
action is one of the most common actions in creation.
It is simple and sufficiently efficient to help
survive a great number of species, including our own.
Without
attempting to understanding the motivating source of the
act, it is easy to observe that the penetration of air
into lungs is caused by the expansion of the volume of
the rib cage.
Volume
expansion, which also corresponds to the creation of a
partial vacuum, is also called aspiration. Coincidentally, once again, dictionaries pretend that
inspiration and aspiration are synonymous, while also
claiming that they are different.
Apparently, anything can be aspired, but only air
can be inspire. If it was true, drowning would be an
impossibility.
As
we discovered very early in “Defining inspiration”
debating on definitions could be a lost cause, and we
will not loose our cause.
Whether
“inspiration” or “aspiration” is used, those
actions have the power to attract substances toward
themselves.
Volume
expansion could then become a concrete and non
discriminating force of attraction if we only consider
the synonymic aspects of the definition of
“inspiration” and “aspiration”.
In
the three cases used to demonstrate the physical
coincidental aspects of attraction (spinning sphere,
brain and experiment), the combination velocity-curve
always produces two stages of volume expansion.
Those two stages will not be the concern of our
present development, but assuming their veracity ( that
can’t be presently denied scientifically), we can
arrive to a final definition of inspirations and of its
coincidental synonyms.
Inspiration:
1- Invisible phenomenon of volume expansion,
motivating the movement of an existence, through the
attraction of this existence toward another existence,
melting them into a union constituting the next stage of
their individual existence; their becoming.
2- Physical place where
velocity and curve interact and produce a force of
attraction.
Gravity:
1- Invisible phenomenon of volume expansion,
motivating the movement of an existence, through the
attraction of this existence toward another existence,
melting them into a union constituting the next stage of
their individual existence; their becoming.
2- Physical place where
velocity and curve interact and produce a force of
attraction.
Atomic magnetism:
1- Invisible phenomenon of volume expansion,
motivating the movement of an existence, through the
attraction of this existence toward another existence,
melting them into a union constituting the next stage of
their individual existence; their becoming.
2- Physical place where
velocity and curve interact and produce a force of
attraction.
Evidently
for some people, those definitions could seem to not be
accurate when the observation is made of lungs inspiring
or of a vacuum cleaner aspiring, since those two facts
do not demonstrate the combination velocity and curve in
an obvious manner. This way of observing would only be incomplete and
superficial since the respiratory act is always executed
by a being possessing a brain which possesses the
combination, and the aspiration of an aspirator is
always executed by an electrical turbine also gifted
with the combination (velocity and curve) (current
inside a coiled wire).
The three
previous examples (spinning sphere, brain, spoon and
stream) have an undeniable physical relationship with
the combination: velocity and curve, and all three also
perform an undeniable force of attraction.
Despite great size differentials between the
examples, all three still demonstrate attraction at the
macroscopic scale, since all are clearly observable with
the naked eye.
The
microscopic world is our real great dilemma, and the
definition made of atomic magnetism only can be
speculative and theroretical at this point.
To demistify the dilemma, we can only use a non
arbitrary sense of logic, that only could reflect and
analyse concrete reality. Two observable and concrete aspects of reality will now be
introduced.
The
first relates to the ancestor and its descendent, and
the second relates to an individual and its society.
There
always exists an undeniable physical and behavioral
ressemblence between an ancestor and its descendent.
There always exists an undeniable physical and
behavioral ressemblence between an individual and its
society.
Everything
is coming from and is made of atoms.
Atoms are the ancestors of all physical
descendences. All macroscopic physical accumulations are societies strictly
made of atomic individuals.
It
then becomes very difficult to assume that the
principles managing attraction at the microscopic scale
would not reproduce descendents and societies having
physical properties and behaviors in their images.
Assuming
that volume expansion could be the force of attraction
managing the macroscopic world, there is no reason to
believe that the ancestor (atom) and the individual (atom)
would not have ressembled its own descendence.
All
macroscopic accumulations are strictly made of atoms;
nothing else.
For
this reason volume expansion will be considered by
"Reality and inspiration" as the only
plausible fundamental force of attraction.
Volume
expansion is synonymous with inspiration. Inspiration will then be considered by "Reality and
Inspiration" as being the sole fundamental force of
attraction.
Inspiration
could only have inspiration as a descendent. Inspiration
could only have inspiration as a source. |
|
