Indeed, Will had declined to fix on any more precise destination than the entire area of Europe. Genius, he held, is necessarily intolerant of fetters: on the one hand it must have the utmost play for its spontaneity; on the other, it may confidently await those messages from the universe which summon it to its peculiar work, only placing itself in an attitude of receptivity towards all sublime chances. The attitudes of receptivity are various, and Will had sincerely tried many of them. He was not excessively fond of wine, but he had several times taken too much, simply as an experiment in that form of ecstasy; he had fasted till he was faint, and then supped on lobster; he had made himself ill with doses of opium. Nothing greatly original had resulted from these measures; and the effects of the opium had convinced him that there was an entire dissimilarity between his constitution and De Quincey’s. The superadded circumstance which would evolve the genius had not yet come; the universe had not yet beckoned. Even Caesar’s fortune at one time was, but a grand presentiment. We know what a masquerade all development is, and what effective shapes may be disguised in helpless embryos.—In fact, the world is full of hopeful analogies and handsome dubious eggs called possibilities. Will saw clearly enough the pitiable instances of long incubation producing no chick, and but for gratitude would have laughed at Casaubon, whose plodding application, rows of note-books, and small taper of learned theory exploring the tossed ruins of the world, seemed to enforce a moral entirely encouraging to Will’s generous reliance on the intentions of the universe with regard to himself. He held that reliance to be a mark of genius; and certainly it is no mark to the contrary; genius consisting neither in self-conceit nor in humility, but in a power to make or do, not anything in general, but something in particular.

Morpheus: I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why you’re here. You’re here because you know something. What you know you can’t explain, but you feel it. You’ve felt it your entire life, that there’s something wrong with the world. You don’t know what it is, but it’s there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to me. Do you know what I’m talking about?

Something in particular but not known – funny, no?

‘Another highly fallacious idea which nevertheless is very popular nowadays is the equivalence that has been established between inspiration, exploration of the subconscious and liberation; between chance, automatic reaction and freedom. Now this inspiration which consists in blindly obeying every single impulse is in reality a form of slavery. The classical writer composing a tragedy by observing a certain number of rules with which he is familiar is freer than the poet who writes down whatever flits through his head and is enslaved to other rules which he is not aware of.’

In all these experiences Queneau’s attitude is that of the explorer of imaginary universes, carefully picking up their most paradoxical details with the amused eye of the Pataphysicist, but without cutting himself off from the possibility of noticing amongst all this a glimmer of genuine poetry or genuine knowledge.

Now, there is obviously much more to say about ‘inspiration’, including the decision to run with the Fourier surname coincidence (engineering?), but what the above suggests to me is that the ‘trigger’ for thought is part of a larger process which in itself has to be initiated. I felt your treatment here of para-philosophy was somewhat disingenuous as it doesn’t make any attempt to consider the formalised nature of many of these systems (rituals) or exercises. There are procedures – coincidence engineering or, more broadly, the subjunctive thought (the IF) followed by (continued) suspension of disbelief is, as you know, one option – which are more effective than sitting around (drinking) and waiting for ‘inspiration’. But this is a starting point – does it automatically lead onto the right pattern?

I’ve always liked an example in my John Dee biography:

Newton decided to break with tradition and assert that there were seven colours of the rainbow because there were seven planets and seven notes in the musical octave.

How cool is that? (How cool is verifying a thought you already ‘know’ is true?)

Something has to be done with the desire to connect, network, transcend singular humanity and “mindmeld” in order to perpetuate thought. Until I find a way to do that.

What’s the problem? Why are you fishing? You know the answer to this better than anyone else here.

What is needed is to map and learn the 320 runs, the 20,000
landmarks, the 25,000 streets, the equivalent of the Knowledge of London.

Just the mapping would be the work of a lifetime, and open the doors you
seek. And it’s work that could be taught and passed on.

Just defining these would open doors:

– runs

-landmarks

-streets

Defining, mapping, learning then teaching a few of each is the work of a lifetime.

These are the best cabbies in the world.

Here’s a well needed landmark for all: Humility. How to get there without being craven or seen as weak is the work of at least one man’s lifetime.

http://www.theknowledgetaxi.co.uk/

And this reminds me of something in quine. Truth and falsity are equinumerous. There are as many truths and falsehoods. But truth as such is uninteresting. We are interested in interesting truth. As such, spurious connection or connection for connection’s sake is uninteresting.