Over the span of many years, I have wondered about this concept known as 'creativity' and if it actually exists. However, only a few weeks ago while meditating, a thought spontaneously entered my mind. The thought was my inner voice telling me this message: True creativity is not possible for any living entity.
There are several philosophical viewpoints and concepts that support this message. First of all, the majority of the religions that exist in the world today believe in the existence of a 'Supreme', whether they conceive of it as a Supreme Being, a Supreme Force or a Supreme Reality (or any combination of those three or even all three at once). It may be called by a variety of names, such as God, Allah, Yahweh, Buddha Nature, Brahman etc. but it's all essentially referring to one and/or all of those three conceptions of a 'Supreme'. Furthermore, two of the most common qualities given to that 'Supreme' is omniscience and an eternal existence. If a thing has an existence that is eternal, then its existence has neither a beginning nor an end. Also, if a thing is omniscient, then it has infinite knowledge. It knows all. So if omniscience and eternal existence are combined together, what implications does this have in regard to so-called 'creativity'? It means that the constituent thoughts responsible for every painting you've ever painted, every sculpture you've ever sculpted and every song you've ever composed has been known by the Supreme even before both of your grandparents were born. Actually, to be more precise, it means that such knowledge has been a part of the Supreme without any beginning and thus such knowledge will remain a part of the Supreme without any end. Think about what I've just said for a moment. If you believe in a Supreme that is BOTH eternally existent AND omniscient, then this is an inevitable consequence of that.
Now another concept that supports my view that true creativity is impossible is the 'eternal return' concept. The eternal return concept is believed to have its roots in the civilisation of ancient Egypt, yet the same concept can also be found in the Dharmic religions of Hinduism and Buddhism. The concept of eternal return basically posits that the universe has been recurring and will continue to recur in the exact same manner an infinite number of times. As infinity is all-inclusive by its very nature, this means that every thought that you or I have ever thought has been thought countless times before an unfathomable amount of time ago and, by extension, will be thought again a countless number of times in the future as well. Not only this, but beings exactly the same as you both in appearance and in personality have thought all of those thoughts that you've thought throughout this entire lifetime of yours so far. So, in that sense, you've never 'made' anything new. Nothing is 'new'. This whole notion of 'newness' would therefore be illusory because all that seems to be new would in fact be infinitely old. In fact, to be more precise, it would be eternal.
And finally, there is the concept of the akashic records. The akashic records concept is a concept that traces its origins to Hinduism but also exists in other Dharmic religions such as Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism. It is also a concept that exists in the Western organisation known as 'Theosophy'. There are many variations of details regarding what the akashic records are actually supposed to be. However, the original Hindu conception of the akashic records concept states that every thought, every sound, every sensation, every emotion, every event and all combinations of matter and energy that has ever occurred, is occurring and will occur anywhere and everywhere are all eternally encoded within the very fabric of space itself in the form of subtle vibrational patterns which are modifications of consciousness. Thus, space is not actually a vacuum (as it has long been thought to be) but is actually a plenum instead. Space is full instead of empty. Space is fullness as opposed to emptiness.
If every thought, every sound, every sensation, every emotion, every event and all combinations of matter and energy (every everything, in fact! lol) is eternally impressed upon the subtle akash, then how can any living entity be truly creative? They can't! Just a day after I received this thought about creativity while deeply relaxed and immersed in meditation, I read a book written by the great Indian yogi Paramahamsa Yogananda known as The Divine Romance. I randomly chose a chapter from this book to read out of interest. I was surprised to read that he mentioned in that very chapter how yogi masters are able to tap into the akashic records through expanding their consciousness and can then instantaneously know whatever they want to know at will. I do not consider this to be a coincidence. He even also stated that every invention that has ever been made as well as every invention that is yet to come already eternally exist in akash as subtle thought-forms. Yogananda confirmed what I already strongly felt to be true.
Even the Sanskrit word 'srishti' attests to the impossibility of true creativity. The word 'srishti' is commonly translated into English as 'creation' but this is in fact an inaccurate translation. The true meaning of the word 'srishti' is 'a gross thing projected from a subtle substance'. What does this mean? It means that the materials which compose this entire universe were pre-existing even before this universe was born, albeit in an unmanifest state. Then supposedly the first living entity of this universe, Brahma, externally projected all of the pre-existing materials of this universe which were inside his mind through the sheer power of his consciousness. As a result, these subtle pre-existing materials gained gross shape and solidity and transformed from their unmanifest state to their manifest state. Then Brahma enters within this external universe which is a projection from his mind and becomes the first living entity in this universe. So what I'm getting at here is that if this entire universe could be but one single thought from an inconceivably great mind, imagine how infinitely greater all the limitless thoughts of the Universal Mind are! All of our so-called 'creations' as well as the thoughts that led to their so-called 'creation' have forever existed in the solitary akash and will forever have their existence there. This is why I sometimes laugh silently whenever I see 'copyright' and 'trademark' symbols. I shall now close this post by possibly paraphrasing something Paramahamsa Yogananda said in his book The Divine Romance:
"Science has invented nothing. It has only rediscovered what is already eternally existing in God."
Sorry to say, but I didn't read all of your topic. However, going off of the title, no, I don't think God thought of Star Wars before Lucas; He knew Lucas was going to write it and how popular the series was going to be cuz you know He's omniscient and knows everything. As far as creativity, I believe it does exist and just cuz an Omniscient Being knows it's going to happen doesn't take away that it was Lucas's idea. This reminds me of a discussion between me and my friend about whether free will exist; good times, good times...
I don't think God thought of Star Wars before Lucas; He knew Lucas was going to write it and how popular the series was going to be cuz you know He's omniscient and knows everything.
If God knew George Lucas was gonna make the Star Wars franchise before that kind of thought first entered George Lucas' mind, then God DID think of Star Wars before George Lucas did (since knowledge is a mental product and so is thinking itself - which, of course, can also lead to knowledge). C'mon, man. C'mon! It's essentially the SAME thing, just spun from a different angle.
Myself, I think there is a difference between thinking and knowing something, but I can see your point. Either way, George Lucas still thought of it "first" and does not take away from his creative processes in creating Stsr Wars.
Either way, George Lucas still thought of it "first" and does not take away from his creative processes in creating Stsr Wars.
How do you know that George Lucas still thought of it "first"? Where do you derive your certainty from?
I derive my certainty from my belief that God does not make anyone do anything and gives us free reign over our thoughts and actions, and to say that God thought of something before Lucas seems to imply that Lucas didn't think of it all by his lonesome. One might say that God gave Lucas the initial idea and Lucas fleshed it out, but it would still be Lucas' choice to run with it plus I don't think God would deem it necessary for Star Wars to be created to bother with giving Lucas the idea. However, I do believe that creativity is a gift from God as is all skills and knowledge; it just up to us what we do with them.
Just to throw a monkey-wrench in the whole question of when God thought of Star Wars, God is often stated to exist outside of time, and so "before" or "after" do not apply to God. However, I'm not a capable enough theologist to fully explain how his actions in the temporal universe actually manifest apparently in response to certain petitions (parting of the Red Sea, for example) - probably to do with knowing how to achieve it and having the power to do so - so I won't dwell on the ramifications of this issue.
I'd be inclined to say the God would have known the whole Star Wars saga independently of Lucas (even the dramatic plot twist in Empire Strikes Back), but did not choose to take direct credit for it. Lucas was the first person to use their free will and creativity to actualise the story of Star Wars, and so similarly generated the idea as independently of God as you can say any thought to be, and as such can be given credit for creating the Star Wars saga. Unless, of course, the whole thing was divinely inspired, and the Church of the Jedi has a lot more going for it than the average sceptic might believe...
Following up on the "eternal return" part of the initial post, what makes you so certain that this isn't the first iteration of the return? Also, without having any possibility for variation between the returns, does it really matter if what is happening at this point has happened previously and will happen again, since there is no way to distinguish it from the first occassion it happened. It only has relevance to an observer outside the system (for instance, God - who is probably sick of hearing this argument by now!) rather than those doomed to repeat ad infinitum. Possibly more relevant would be the post-modernist doctrine of all concepts having previously been presented throughout history, and all we do is keep re-packing the same old ideas. After all, Star Wars is essentially a Western set in space following the typical heroes' journey from a peaceful existence to the heart of a struggle they were thrown into by the actions of the villains they go to defeat. All Lucas did was re-hash this old material and set a long time ago in a galaxy far far away...
I'd be inclined to say the God would have known the whole Star Wars saga independently of Lucas (even the dramatic plot twist in Empire Strikes Back), but did not choose to take direct credit for it. Lucas was the first person to use their free will and creativity to actualise the story of Star Wars, and so similarly generated the idea as independently of God as you can say any thought to be, and as such can be given credit for creating the Star Wars saga. Unless, of course, the whole thing was divinely inspired, and the Church of the Jedi has a lot more going for it than the average sceptic might believe...
Yes, that is exactly what I was trying to say! Yes, God does directly act in the affairs of man and nature (i.e.; Jesus, Red Sea, the Ten Plagues, etc.), but He is still transcendent of it all.
Sorry for continuing what is probably a finished thread, but I'm a sucker for these kinds of topics.
Being mostly a deist(So you could call me a theist... I consider myself a theistic existentialist if that counts...), I reject the notion of a higher power creating and implanting the idea of the story in GL's head. I prefer the idea that he came up with the idea itself (Or possibly gained from another source, hell there are rumors that Sheakspear stole from other people, nothing's impossible.).
Though, when I call myself a theist, I don't mean in terms of an omniscent god, I think in terms of the human spirit personified into an existense that created the world, but leaves everything else up to chance. That's how I see it, so I say no... since my definition of god is not an actual being, just a part of existence. Take that for what you will.