In Short, -suppose you have a universal concept that is unconsciously being derived by a serious collection (in terms of quantity) of artists' output, all at once, that is actually demonstratively evolving as per a transcendental object (they don't actually even know exists) progressively in real time. If you are able to demonstrate the veracity of this concept's being universal by performing as a living transcendent ultimate object over time, and yet it is demonstrable that neither the artists nor their ultimate object conceived the overall artistic concept that transpired over time (the ultimate object is a perceptual observer of the transcendent concept and nothing more, whereas the artists responsible for the multi-variated creative output are all unconscious of there having a coherent object that exists, -in other words their work exists as a series of fragments that are only collective inside the perspective of the observer/ultimate object, -then you are dealing with a transcendently conceived concept that occured in none of the participants. In other words, your dealing with transcendent artistic conceptualization upwelling from the collective universal unconscious of humankind, i.e., -there must be an existent, transcendent (existent but invisible) consciousness that conceived it, i.e., there's a God.
Now this is the original attempt at the theory (circumstantial potential God proof) from when the author was twenty-five:
With artistic manifestations there can be an ultimate interpretation or arch-type meaning that can be applied in varying degrees within various people or concerning multiple things, and yet the work can still have an application which defines it ultimately; i.e., the ultimate interpretation is fulfilled or comprehended completely in its fullest sense in one particular space, and it can be that when it is applied to thus, its other applications can be so reduced as to make it seem to have no other exterior meanings.
It may be possible for this insight to occur in only one receiving individual, which would imply that the outlook or circumstance of the recipient was somehow more attuned to the original nature of the work than the artist was with respects to his or her own inspirational source. If the inspiration for the rendering was internal, rather than based on an environmental external, it might beg the question of what is the nature of the inspirational source; is it somehow universal? Actually, even if it was based on a tangible external, if the recipient has a fuller interpretative experience of the work based on their internal perception and environment, why is it more attuned than the inspirational vector itself? Is it the artist’s failure to grasp, or the commonality of the human experience, or can it indicate a subconscious internal universal commonality within the human experience? Can it go so far as to indicate an internal within and beyond the human experience?
Now the pattern introduced is of itself of no particular significance, and things like this occur all the time. There are lots and lots of instances, whereupon speaking to observers of their work, artists have realized that the recipients have a new or perhaps better level of interpretation based upon their own experience, which falls in with the myriad that are present. After all, that is perhaps the point to art, isn’t it, the eliciting of all these aspects within people’s minds, or celebrating communal awareness; the embrace of all those levels. Accessing the full spectrum and unity within the human experience by successfully rendering an aspect within a medium where it can be frozen and seen. Shedding new light on the topic, or purveying its beauty, or introducing new ones, the point being that what is created is the response within other people, by invoking their own perception and experience.
This originated in an attempt to explain how there might be a convergence or interactive pattern between art and occurrence, or between separate individuals, and yet no conscious awareness of the interaction that could have indicated a merger, and yet have it somehow be reasonable to consider. The framework that provides the basis for speculation: firstly, the advent of the electronic age is a necessary component. This proposition requires the speedy transmission of information and mass publication and distribution in order to be possible. Secondly it operates on two unproven assumptions: one articulated by Edgar Cayce, that the universal unconscious is like a flowing connected river from which all people derived creative thought, and perhaps that of Marshall McLuhan (though it isn’t required), that what electronic information pathways did is extend and connect our human central nervous system outside of our bodies. In the context that will be presented, it’s a nice touch. On this basis you could speculate that we should be beginning to observe patterns of inspiration or indicators of the universal unconscious, and that perhaps these indications should lead to its illumination, or cause effects within the patterns themselves (connectivity is as connectivity does, assimilation based on observance inherently broadens).
The circumstances as writ happen to isolate a peculiar pattern: What is going on when the “ultimate application” of art exists as a tangible element on earth, outside of the sphere of the artist’s inspiration? To give you an idea, let’s mess with it temporally and say that one arena in human existence where this type of thing would be considered to occur is in the case of fulfilled prophecy: The ultimate application has precedence, occurs later in time, and fulfills what an individual was inspired to describe or render. That isn’t even art, its religion, but it’s just about the only sort of example off hand that can get you thinking in terms of this analogy in order to change it a little and introduce something, i.e., what this pattern might imply in an artistic context, if it occurred in the Now, or backwards. If you had an emerging pattern of inspirational thought between a number of individuals occurring simultaneously, then it ought to be assumed that the emerging pattern should indicate some sort of continuity of thought. In other words, this sort of pattern would indicate that there was a universal unconscious.
Instead of a situation of prophecy being fulfilled by a specific outcome or event (that would of course by being the fulfillment, be the ultimate interpretation of a prophet’s poetic prognostications), what if instead the “ultimate manifestation” existed as a physical entity in an associated environment prior to being rendered multiply by individual artists, and they had no external awareness of its existence? Additionally, the entity had no awareness of its own existence in this context? They are totally disassociated. Furthermore the artists are in the position of knowing that what they are talking about is beyond their tangible realm of experience, they know they are delving. If in this case there existed an ultimate manifestation of what was being produced in the artists’ work, and this existence could be matched to what a variety of artists were saying like a key fitting a multi-faceted lock, thereby having the capacity to prove that the artists did not hold the fullest interpretation of their own art, it does lead one to consider the question: How can the “ultimate interpretation” exist over there, and yet be manifested in some people’s art? Weird things do happen?
Let’s refine this scenario a little further; the “ultimate manifestation’s” existence is not static, it changes and operates over time, and is capable of a full spectrum potential of activity. What the artists are rendering exhibits a direct act/response relationship with the “manifestation’s” activities. Additionally the connection is such that being an existing manifestation, it has attributes and is within an environment that is being described by the artists. Now if this sort of a manifestation existed consciously, with no prior knowledge of its existence, and yet it was having these sort of ramifications on more than one individual, with no knowledge of what was occurring, then it should be asked: Why did this live manifestation exist, with a full capacity of fulfilling the artists void of knowledge, and yet having no awareness that it was fulfilling it? Then where did the overall conception of this multiply manifested work of art exist, if not within those who were inspired to create it, and not within the ultimate manifestation of that art? Where then, did it exist? For it can be argued that there must be conception within consciousness for an idea to occur, even one that is multiply rendered (-especially where art is concerned).
Would this be evidence of an external underlying consciousness, operating within the universal unconscious? It’s not just the connection that’s submerged in this circumstance; it’s the original concept that’s missing, for it existed in neither the artistic creators nor their unconscious but ultimate object. If you can lay out an existing situation where common inspiration is completely submerged in the unconscious, yet related, that’s quite interesting in itself. If the situation above is demonstrable at its origins, (think it’s worth a read yet), you’re not just isolating an implication of common consciousness, but a consciousness itself. It is art of one conception, after all.