March 29, 2025 • 26 mins
What if genius isn't talent at all, but a glitch in time? A portal opening to futures not yet arrived? Throughout history, extraordinary artists and thinkers have described their creative process not as invention but as transmission – receiving fully-formed visions, melodies, equations and ideas from somewhere beyond themselves.
William Blake claimed he could see "the past and the present and the future all existing at once." Mozart reportedly heard entire symphonies in his mind before writing a single note. Bob Dylan has described his songs as arriving almost complete. These accounts suggest something profoundly mysterious about the creative process – that it might be less about making something new and more about accessing something that already exists somewhere else in time.
In this mind-expanding conversation with Suzanne Clores, we explore the possibility that time isn't linear but more like a landscape that certain sensitive individuals can traverse. Remote viewers can sketch events months before they happen. Artists produce work that seems impossibly ahead of their era. Scientists suddenly grasp concepts that won't be proven for decades. What if these exceptional minds aren't creating at all, but translating visions from beyond our timeline?
The implications are both thrilling and unsettling. If time truly operates this way, our understanding of reality itself must shift. Perhaps genius isn't a rare gift bestowed on few but a capacity we all possess in varying degrees – the ability to step outside our moment and glimpse what lies beyond, bringing back treasures from these journeys into the unknown. Whether through meditation, artistic practice, or natural sensitivity, we may all have the potential to access this extraordinary dimension of experience. Visit theextraordinaryproject.net to explore more of these fascinating ideas. And subscribe to our podcast as we continue to explore the mystery of creativty
Thanks for listening.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Chris McHale (00:01):
Rise up, o young men of the new age.
Set your foreheads against theignorant hirelings, for we have
hirelings in the camp, the courtand the university who would,
if they could, forever depressmental and prolonged corporal
war Painters on you I callSculptors, architects.
Suffer not the fashionablefools to depress your powers by
(00:24):
the prices they pretend to givefor contemptible works or the
expensive advertising boaststhat they make of such works.
Imagine this A poet sits at hisdesk in 18th century London,
staring into the void of hiscandlelit room.
He is not alone.
(00:45):
Around him, figures shimmer inthe dim light.
Visions of the past whispersfrom the future.
He does not just write, hetranscribes.
His words dismissed in his timewill one day be revered as
prophetic.
Now shift to a composer, hisears filled with music no one
(01:07):
else can hear.
He scribbles furiously,capturing melodies that seem to
arrive fully formed, as ifdictated from another realm.
And today, right now, ascientist deciphers equations
that don't yet belong to thisera.
A novelist dreams of worldsthat, in time, will feel eerily
(01:30):
familiar.
What if genius is not justintellect or talent, but
something stranger, a glitch intime, a portal, a connection to
the future before it arrives.
A portal, a connection to thefuture before it arrives.
Welcome to this episode ofCreativity Jijiji, where we
(01:52):
explore genius as a form of timetravel.
Our guest, suzanne Cloris, hasspent her career investigating
extraordinary experiences, theflashes of insight, the
prophetic dreams, the eerieknowing.
Together, we are going to askthis question Does genius allow
(02:21):
us to tap into a future thatalready exists?
Buckle up, we're about to stepbeyond time itself.
I wanted just to work throughsome topics with you, because
I'm really curious what you'vegot to say, because your work
explores extraordinaryexperiences.
This is the way I see it.
So do you see the possibilitythat genius could be sort of a
(02:43):
temporal anomaly, like a mind isable to access the future?
You know, because, as we talkedabout, some artists describe
their inspiration astransmission rather than an act
of creation.
I certainly understand that.
So do you think it's possiblethat genius might be tapping
into a future that alreadyexists?
Suxanne Clores (03:05):
Yeah, so I've had a lot of conversations about
this, as you might imagine,because of the waters I've been
swimming in, the differentscientists I've been talking to
for the last decade.
That was part of theExtraordinary Project.
I really wanted it to be likean umbrella for all of these
phenomena, all of theseexperiences, whether it's a
(03:28):
random person waking up from adream where they're positive,
that they had a conversationwith their deceased brother, or
a person like you say, a genius,a creative maker, who receives
a download and a transmission Ithink is the word you used one
(03:51):
of the ideas that is beingbandied about right now in the
world of edge science andfuturism, and it's it's an idea,
it's a hypothesis.
You know, all of these, theseideas, are hypotheses, but I've
been thinking a lot about itbecause it's so visual that time
is like a landscape.
Right, it's not linear, we knowthat it isn't linear already
(04:15):
but like it's a landscape and so, depending on what direction
you choose to go, there areexperiences, people, information
, kind of waiting for you onthis landscape, right?
So I just loved that as avisual.
It's almost like, oh, am I goingto hike to this mountain today,
(04:36):
or am I going to hike to thelake today.
Which way am I going to go?
And I feel like that connectsto your question because, yeah,
mozart, dylan, these people andevery creative person I know
like we all have connections tomultiple selves and and so each
(04:58):
version, you know, you get a newday.
You sit down, you are chris andyou're writing music, right,
like it's almost like you'veshowed up on the landscape and
(05:20):
you're like where, what am Igoing to pull down from it today
?
And you're like what am I goingto pull down from it today?
What am I feeling?
What am I picking up, right,like what's the vibe?
And then you make something.
And I love that idea because Ijust feel like it takes a lot of
(05:41):
pressure off of you as thecreator.
You know it's a relationship,you know it's a relationship.
Sometimes, when I write or whenI compose, the walls of my room
soften, turning almosttranslucent.
The edges of reality stretchesand wavers like ripples in water
.
I'm floating, not in a dream,not in a hallucination, but in a
(06:07):
space without edges, withoutlimits, without time.
This is my creative space.
But what is it?
Where am I?
Nowhere really.
Myself ceases to exist, andthat's when I connect.
That's when every artistconnects Echoes of every
painting yet to be painted,every song yet to be sung, every
word yet to be written.
They're all hovering there,waiting, pulsing, shimmering
(06:34):
with possibility, a melody notcreated but remembered.
I began to understand thatartists were travelers.
I began to understand thatartists were travelers drifting
through a multi-dimensionallandscape and, as Suzanne says,
(06:56):
catching glimpses of theinfinite and pulling pieces of
it back with them into the world.
Are you familiar with WilliamBlake?
Speaker 3 (07:01):
Oh yes.
Chris McHale (07:04):
Oh yeah, You're Blakey.
Speaker 3 (07:08):
I mean, I actually, you know, I wouldn't say I'm a
Blake aficionado at all, but Iwas very drawn to his work from
a young age because I felt likehe was trying to capture
something important and germaneto all of us the way we work.
(07:28):
And I recently saw an exhibitat the Block Museum up at
Northwestern maybe like fiveyears ago, maybe longer ago of a
lot of his drawings, andthey're so trippy.
Suxanne Clores (07:50):
They're so trippy, they're so trippy yeah,
the trippy trippy is the word.
Like I was, I was raised inlondon and at a time when, you
know, it was still safe for kidsto wander around.
So from a pretty early age Iwas free to find my own way
around london and, uh, one of myhaunts was the take gallery
Gallery along the Thames andtheir collection of Blake was
like I don't know, I would sitfor hours, I would try to draw
(08:11):
it, you know, and I would try tounderstand it, and it was just
completely mysterious to me.
And you know, he claimed thathe could see visions.
He could see, you know, thepast and the present and the
future all existing at once.
I mean, that's pretty much aBlake quote, if I remember
correctly.
So he was right where we'retalking about.
(08:33):
So, in a sense, do you thinkhis poetry almost like and I
have worked with how are you?
going to do this and she'ssomeone who has found missing
(09:19):
people before, who has, you know, predicted world events, you
know, done a number of thingsand and it's it's almost like
you know she has to ask herselfthe part that William Blake was
talking about, like goingthrough all of these phases of
(09:40):
time.
You have to ask that part ofyourself to go to a certain
place at a certain time andobserve the details, see what
you see, write down yourimpressions and your sensations,
and all of that information isvaluable information.
(10:02):
So I think the thing aboutBlake that seemed so powerful to
me as a young person was likehe sort of knew.
I don't think anyone taught himhow to do that.
You'd probably know before Iwould.
Did he study with anyone whotaught him how to do that, or
was he just like an interiorexplorer?
Chris McHale (10:26):
William Blake was sent to drawing school
, but his true education camewhen he apprenticed with a
printer.
That was where his hands metthe ink, where his sleeves were
permanently smudged with black,where he learned to carve
letters into metal and pressthem into paper.
The mechanics of printingweren't just tools to him, they
(10:48):
were revelations.
The scent of printer's ink, theslow, deliberate process of
transferring an image, of seeingwords emerge from metal it
shaped him.
Blake wasn't just an artist, hewas a maker.
An important difference heengraved his poetry as he wrote
(11:09):
it.
Something that never existedappeared before his eyes like a
vision, and those blazing,mystical images were never
separate from his hands.
He didn't just see them, heetched.
Just see them, he etched theminto reality.
Here's the thing about WilliamBlake he didn't just follow a
(11:31):
printer's career.
He followed an intention, apull, a force that wasn't from
this world or wasn't from histime.
He was spirit-driven, and whereothers measured their skill by
technique, william Blakemeasured his by revelation.
Maybe that's why he was neverrecognized in his time.
(11:55):
His work sat way on the edgesof recognition until long after
he was gone, because Blakedidn't train to fit into this
world.
He didn't train to fit intothis world.
He didn't train to fit into histimeline, he trained to
transcend it.
Suzanne was speaking of remoteviewers and I wondered if, in a
(12:15):
sense, if Blake was remote,viewing his visionary futures.
I mean, is this totallyunconscious on the part of the
remote viewer?
When you said, the remoteviewer gives themselves almost
permission to move forward andbackward along a timeline and
then they get information.
They're not really consciouswhen they're doing that, right,
(12:37):
they're just writing theinformation down that they're
getting.
Is that the way you understandit?
Speaker 3 (12:43):
I mean they're conscious, but it's like, yeah,
it's kind of wild, it's likesome people, you know, some
people do go into a light trance.
Other people are just born thatway, and I think this remote
viewer was just born that way.
She, she just can it's.
And I think probably blake wasborn that way too.
(13:06):
He was an artist and a poet andso um, so he made different
things, but yeah, so, as youknow, a remote viewer is someone
who can, um, perceiveinformation across space and
time, like that's just, that'sthe simplest definition without
(13:28):
Wow, that's simple, interestingword to put it on that.
But I mean like without theparameter, without like ordinary
sensory prompts, or withoutgetting information in typical
ways that we all get information.
Suxanne Clores (13:42):
Do you think that is this a gift, or do you
think people can trainthemselves to do this kind of
work?
Speaker 3 (13:51):
Yeah, I mean, I think it's like any gift, like
musical ability.
I think everyone has some.
Some people have a lot andthey'll go very far, and other
people can basically sing happybirthday and that's the end of
it.
I think it's very similar.
(14:13):
Some people are.
You know, everyone hasintuition.
If you really want to work onit, if you have dreams of
becoming a remote viewer, youcan practice and you can improve
your sensitivity.
It's almost like meditating too.
(14:33):
Are you a meditator?
I forget.
Suxanne Clores (14:36):
Not really.
I have an ambition to be, but Inever quite have the discipline
to really do it.
Speaker 3 (14:43):
Yeah, I mean it ends up being like I think that a lot
of people feel that way.
It's like you do what you can,we do what works for you, but
some people really want to begreat meditators.
You know what I mean, and soyeah, some people don't yeah.
Chris McHale (15:00):
I know, I know what you mean yeah, so let me so
.
Suxanne Clores (15:03):
So it's this thing of time, you know, which
is, you know it's interestingbecause, well, first of all,
remote viewing, you know, scaresthe fuck out of me.
To be honest with you, I don'tknow if I could deal with being
a remote viewer, because I havea really hard time just dealing
with the day as it is you know,without without bringing a
million different things into mylife.
Speaker 3 (15:24):
Yeah, there's a very famous drawing of the 9-11
attack that was done by a remoteviewer three months before it
happened.
She didn't know what it was, soyou're getting these
impressions.
It's not like she saw the event, but she was doing a view and
(15:46):
you know, views use transcripts.
The traditional viewers writeall of their impressions on a
transcript, so sometimes thatcan be a very crude drawing.
Sometimes that can be littlephrases, echoes of conversation
they hear in their ear.
It is quite a creative process,um, but I think the difference
(16:06):
is that an artist would thenmake art out of that and a
viewer kind of brings it into umdata, you know.
And so she, she drew whatbasically looked like the twin
towers and you know two longrectangles next to each other,
and then like something thatlooked like the twin towers and
you know two long rectanglesnext to each other, and then
like something that looked likean electric fan, like a, like a
(16:29):
crude electric fan kind ofcrashing into them.
And after the event, I guesswhoever who her um tasker was,
went through and found the,found the image, and so there
are flaws to that practice andto that method, of course, but I
think, to get to your point.
(16:50):
I think what you're saying islike do people see the future on
a regular basis?
And I think the answer is yes.
Suxanne Clores (17:00):
I felt like we were close, so close to what I
had been thinking.
The conversation had beencircling the idea of brushing
against something just out ofreach, and maybe it would always
be just out of reach out of areach we could understand, but
not maybe out of reach ofsomething we could feel.
Remote viewers access differentparts of a timeline.
(17:25):
They don't just imagine, theysee, they feel it's not about
creating from nothing, butcapturing something that already
exists, something from the pastor something from the future,
and then they bring it back, putit down, sketch it, paint it.
That's their art.
(17:46):
And we were talking about artand we were talking about the
same thing Remote viewers seeingsomething along a timeline,
artists seeing something along atimeline.
I always believed that artistsweren't just inventors, they
were receivers.
They reached into somethingvast, outside of time, outside
(18:11):
of their dimension, outside oftheir moment, and brought back
what they found and astounded uswith what they found, because
we had never seen anything likeit before.
So where did it come from?
It had come from the future iswhat we were talking about.
Suzanne's work led her to anartist named Ingo Swann, who
(18:32):
didn't separate the act ofseeing from the act of creating.
To him, painting wasn't justself-expression.
It was transmission, a messagefrom somewhere else pulled into
form.
I thought about that.
I thought about the sketchesand the paintings and the songs
and the poems that seemed toarrive fully formed, like they'd
(18:56):
been waiting for someone tocatch them, pull them out of the
air.
Maybe that's what art really isnot just creation, but
translation, pulling somethingfrom the unseen and giving it
shape.
And maybe, just maybe, timewasn't a straight line at all,
(19:19):
maybe it was a place whereartists could step in and out of
hands, reaching forward,reaching backwards, reaching up
and down, all directions at once, finding these images, finding
these bits of language and wordsand languages and sounds and
(19:40):
songs and poems, finding allthat, bringing it back and
giving it actual shape in ourtime.
Speaker 3 (19:48):
Pieces of this project are research fellowships
and I recently had the IngoSwann Research Fellowship down
at the University of WestGeorgia Ingo Swann Research
Fellowship down at theUniversity of West Georgia and
most people don't know who IngoSwann is, but he was a
Manhattan-based painter in the70s, 60s, 70s, 80s was really
(20:14):
his time, I think as a painterand he was very into psychic
research and very into this ideaof multidimensionals or
interdimensional information,not only symphonies available to
us or images, but languages,entire lives, other people lives
(20:42):
.
I've I've heard this a lot, notjust from the swan archives, but
you know a lot ofparapsychology archives talk
about this.
During the heyday ofparapsychology that was like,
which is now a shunned science,you know.
But that is there.
There are huge bodies ofliterature saying just that, um,
(21:05):
that the, the information isavailable.
It comes up a lot too with withum children who remember past
lives, supposedly like their ownpast lives.
I know that was something wediscussed a little bit maybe,
but I think the idea is the same, like the information is kind
(21:29):
of in parallel, as you say.
Suxanne Clores (21:32):
I mean, I believe all time is concurrent.
You know, basically that's whatI've always believed.
In other words, my grandparentsare still alive.
At the same time, I'm alive andGeorge Washington's wandering
around there too, somewhere.
You know, we're all alive and Iuse the word connection.
You know it's like we've useddifferent words, but to me it's
(21:55):
really about connection.
So a lot of what you're talkingabout raises, could raise,
ethical questions, right?
I mean, if you can reallymaster some of this, you know
you could use it for not good.
Are there people out thereusing this stuff for not good?
Speaker 3 (22:12):
I mean probably, but I also think it's part of the
conversation.
I think that when you do kindof tap in to your altered state
or your state of connection andyou do find that this will
happen, even if you meditate foryears, like you do have access
(22:35):
to other people's information,it just kind of floats in, it's
just part of what happens.
I mean, you can look in, likeVedic scriptures, and you'll see
evidence of this.
It's part of what happens whenyou cultivate this part of your
mind and it's supposed to beunifying, to be unifying Right,
(23:07):
um.
But I think that there areimportant ethics to consider
generally.
Like you're right, I agree,like we are not emotionally
responsible.
I feel like people are notemotionally responsible in the
way that they used to be.
I don't even know if it'semotional.
It would be ethicallyresponsible too.
But generally you don't reallyhave permission to access other
people's space unless they giveit to you.
(23:31):
Right, you have to, unless theygive you permission.
So, like with the remote viewer, she can't view someone
ethically unless they give herpermission to do so.
Suxanne Clores (23:43):
Do you think that we're going to ever be able
to unlock that kind of abilityconsciously?
Do you think that that'spossible?
We could get to that placewhere we can consciously do that
.
Speaker 3 (23:54):
I think that you'll always have to shift into an
altered state, but I think youcan get better at that.
I think you can shift moreeasily and you can consciously
make that choice to shift andit'll be easier to walk back and
forth through those doorways.
I do think that that's true dothink that that's true.
Suxanne Clores (24:21):
And and what would happen?
I mean, what would happen if welived in a world where people
could do that?
Just, it was just part of ourexistence?
Speaker 3 (24:26):
I mean, I think we'd all have to get better
boundaries, but I also think itcould be really beautiful.
I feel like there could bereally interesting new kinds of
relationships and connectionswith people that have the
potential to create good.
That's what I think.
Suxanne Clores (24:48):
I've always thought that maybe reincarnation
was the answer to the mysteriesof exceptional genius.
I mean, how do you explainShakespeare, mozart, beethoven,
van Gogh, bob Dylan?
It's as if they had livedmultiple lifetimes is the way I
always thought about it andaccumulated their rare skill
(25:10):
across centuries, arriving inthis world already carrying the
weight of mastery.
But after talking with SuzanneCloris, I began to see another
possibility, one even moreintriguing.
What if artists slip back andforth a long time?
What if their true skills isn'tjust talent but an ability to
(25:32):
move between moments, pullingfrom the past, from the past
glimpsing the future?
And maybe the real magic ofheightened creativity lies in
doing the creativity withawareness or, at the very least,
a heightened sense of what'spossible.
(25:53):
My guest today on Creativity toGigi was Suzanne Glores, a
fascinating mind exploring thesevery ideas.
Visit the Extraordinary Projectat theextraordinaryprojectnet
to connect with her work and, ofcourse, visit us at studio to
ggio.
And please subscribe to thispodcast and stay connected to
(26:17):
the conversation.
I'm Chris McHale, and thanksfor listening.
Rise up, o young men of the new age.
Set your foreheads against theignorant hirelings, for we have
hirelings in the camp, the courtand the university who would,
if they could, forever depressmental and prolonged corporal
war Painters on you I callSculptors, architects.
Suffer not the fashionablefools to depress your powers by
(00:24):
the prices they pretend to givefor contemptible works or the
expensive advertising boaststhat they make of such works.
Imagine this A poet sits at hisdesk in 18th century London,
staring into the void of hiscandlelit room.
He is not alone.
(00:45):
Around him, figures shimmer inthe dim light.
Visions of the past whispersfrom the future.
He does not just write, hetranscribes.
His words dismissed in his timewill one day be revered as
prophetic.
Now shift to a composer, hisears filled with music no one
(01:07):
else can hear.
He scribbles furiously,capturing melodies that seem to
arrive fully formed, as ifdictated from another realm.
And today, right now, ascientist deciphers equations
that don't yet belong to thisera.
A novelist dreams of worldsthat, in time, will feel eerily
(01:30):
familiar.
What if genius is not justintellect or talent, but
something stranger, a glitch intime, a portal, a connection to
the future before it arrives.
A portal, a connection to thefuture before it arrives.
Welcome to this episode ofCreativity Jijiji, where we
(01:52):
explore genius as a form of timetravel.
Our guest, suzanne Cloris, hasspent her career investigating
extraordinary experiences, theflashes of insight, the
prophetic dreams, the eerieknowing.
Together, we are going to askthis question Does genius allow
(02:21):
us to tap into a future thatalready exists?
Buckle up, we're about to stepbeyond time itself.
I wanted just to work throughsome topics with you, because
I'm really curious what you'vegot to say, because your work
explores extraordinaryexperiences.
This is the way I see it.
So do you see the possibilitythat genius could be sort of a
(02:43):
temporal anomaly, like a mind isable to access the future?
You know, because, as we talkedabout, some artists describe
their inspiration astransmission rather than an act
of creation.
I certainly understand that.
So do you think it's possiblethat genius might be tapping
into a future that alreadyexists?
Suxanne Clores (03:05):
Yeah, so I've had a lot of conversations about
this, as you might imagine,because of the waters I've been
swimming in, the differentscientists I've been talking to
for the last decade.
That was part of theExtraordinary Project.
I really wanted it to be likean umbrella for all of these
phenomena, all of theseexperiences, whether it's a
(03:28):
random person waking up from adream where they're positive,
that they had a conversationwith their deceased brother, or
a person like you say, a genius,a creative maker, who receives
a download and a transmission Ithink is the word you used one
(03:51):
of the ideas that is beingbandied about right now in the
world of edge science andfuturism, and it's it's an idea,
it's a hypothesis.
You know, all of these, theseideas, are hypotheses, but I've
been thinking a lot about itbecause it's so visual that time
is like a landscape.
Right, it's not linear, we knowthat it isn't linear already
(04:15):
but like it's a landscape and so, depending on what direction
you choose to go, there areexperiences, people, information
, kind of waiting for you onthis landscape, right?
So I just loved that as avisual.
It's almost like, oh, am I goingto hike to this mountain today,
(04:36):
or am I going to hike to thelake today.
Which way am I going to go?
And I feel like that connectsto your question because, yeah,
mozart, dylan, these people andevery creative person I know
like we all have connections tomultiple selves and and so each
(04:58):
version, you know, you get a newday.
You sit down, you are chris andyou're writing music, right,
like it's almost like you'veshowed up on the landscape and
(05:20):
you're like where, what am Igoing to pull down from it today
?
And you're like what am I goingto pull down from it today?
What am I feeling?
What am I picking up, right,like what's the vibe?
And then you make something.
And I love that idea because Ijust feel like it takes a lot of
(05:41):
pressure off of you as thecreator.
You know it's a relationship,you know it's a relationship.
Sometimes, when I write or whenI compose, the walls of my room
soften, turning almosttranslucent.
The edges of reality stretchesand wavers like ripples in water
.
I'm floating, not in a dream,not in a hallucination, but in a
(06:07):
space without edges, withoutlimits, without time.
This is my creative space.
But what is it?
Where am I?
Nowhere really.
Myself ceases to exist, andthat's when I connect.
That's when every artistconnects Echoes of every
painting yet to be painted,every song yet to be sung, every
word yet to be written.
They're all hovering there,waiting, pulsing, shimmering
(06:34):
with possibility, a melody notcreated but remembered.
I began to understand thatartists were travelers.
I began to understand thatartists were travelers drifting
through a multi-dimensionallandscape and, as Suzanne says,
(06:56):
catching glimpses of theinfinite and pulling pieces of
it back with them into the world.
Are you familiar with WilliamBlake?
Speaker 3 (07:01):
Oh yes.
Chris McHale (07:04):
Oh yeah, You're Blakey.
Speaker 3 (07:08):
I mean, I actually, you know, I wouldn't say I'm a
Blake aficionado at all, but Iwas very drawn to his work from
a young age because I felt likehe was trying to capture
something important and germaneto all of us the way we work.
(07:28):
And I recently saw an exhibitat the Block Museum up at
Northwestern maybe like fiveyears ago, maybe longer ago of a
lot of his drawings, andthey're so trippy.
Suxanne Clores (07:50):
They're so trippy, they're so trippy yeah,
the trippy trippy is the word.
Like I was, I was raised inlondon and at a time when, you
know, it was still safe for kidsto wander around.
So from a pretty early age Iwas free to find my own way
around london and, uh, one of myhaunts was the take gallery
Gallery along the Thames andtheir collection of Blake was
like I don't know, I would sitfor hours, I would try to draw
(08:11):
it, you know, and I would try tounderstand it, and it was just
completely mysterious to me.
And you know, he claimed thathe could see visions.
He could see, you know, thepast and the present and the
future all existing at once.
I mean, that's pretty much aBlake quote, if I remember
correctly.
So he was right where we'retalking about.
(08:33):
So, in a sense, do you thinkhis poetry almost like and I
have worked with how are you?
going to do this and she'ssomeone who has found missing
(09:19):
people before, who has, you know, predicted world events, you
know, done a number of thingsand and it's it's almost like
you know she has to ask herselfthe part that William Blake was
talking about, like goingthrough all of these phases of
(09:40):
time.
You have to ask that part ofyourself to go to a certain
place at a certain time andobserve the details, see what
you see, write down yourimpressions and your sensations,
and all of that information isvaluable information.
(10:02):
So I think the thing aboutBlake that seemed so powerful to
me as a young person was likehe sort of knew.
I don't think anyone taught himhow to do that.
You'd probably know before Iwould.
Did he study with anyone whotaught him how to do that, or
was he just like an interiorexplorer?
Chris McHale (10:26):
William Blake was sent to drawing school
, but his true education camewhen he apprenticed with a
printer.
That was where his hands metthe ink, where his sleeves were
permanently smudged with black,where he learned to carve
letters into metal and pressthem into paper.
The mechanics of printingweren't just tools to him, they
(10:48):
were revelations.
The scent of printer's ink, theslow, deliberate process of
transferring an image, of seeingwords emerge from metal it
shaped him.
Blake wasn't just an artist, hewas a maker.
An important difference heengraved his poetry as he wrote
(11:09):
it.
Something that never existedappeared before his eyes like a
vision, and those blazing,mystical images were never
separate from his hands.
He didn't just see them, heetched.
Just see them, he etched theminto reality.
Here's the thing about WilliamBlake he didn't just follow a
(11:31):
printer's career.
He followed an intention, apull, a force that wasn't from
this world or wasn't from histime.
He was spirit-driven, and whereothers measured their skill by
technique, william Blakemeasured his by revelation.
Maybe that's why he was neverrecognized in his time.
(11:55):
His work sat way on the edgesof recognition until long after
he was gone, because Blakedidn't train to fit into this
world.
He didn't train to fit intothis world.
He didn't train to fit into histimeline, he trained to
transcend it.
Suzanne was speaking of remoteviewers and I wondered if, in a
(12:15):
sense, if Blake was remote,viewing his visionary futures.
I mean, is this totallyunconscious on the part of the
remote viewer?
When you said, the remoteviewer gives themselves almost
permission to move forward andbackward along a timeline and
then they get information.
They're not really consciouswhen they're doing that, right,
(12:37):
they're just writing theinformation down that they're
getting.
Is that the way you understandit?
Speaker 3 (12:43):
I mean they're conscious, but it's like, yeah,
it's kind of wild, it's likesome people, you know, some
people do go into a light trance.
Other people are just born thatway, and I think this remote
viewer was just born that way.
She, she just can it's.
And I think probably blake wasborn that way too.
(13:06):
He was an artist and a poet andso um, so he made different
things, but yeah, so, as youknow, a remote viewer is someone
who can, um, perceiveinformation across space and
time, like that's just, that'sthe simplest definition without
(13:28):
Wow, that's simple, interestingword to put it on that.
But I mean like without theparameter, without like ordinary
sensory prompts, or withoutgetting information in typical
ways that we all get information.
Suxanne Clores (13:42):
Do you think that is this a gift, or do you
think people can trainthemselves to do this kind of
work?
Speaker 3 (13:51):
Yeah, I mean, I think it's like any gift, like
musical ability.
I think everyone has some.
Some people have a lot andthey'll go very far, and other
people can basically sing happybirthday and that's the end of
it.
I think it's very similar.
(14:13):
Some people are.
You know, everyone hasintuition.
If you really want to work onit, if you have dreams of
becoming a remote viewer, youcan practice and you can improve
your sensitivity.
It's almost like meditating too.
(14:33):
Are you a meditator?
I forget.
Suxanne Clores (14:36):
Not really.
I have an ambition to be, but Inever quite have the discipline
to really do it.
Speaker 3 (14:43):
Yeah, I mean it ends up being like I think that a lot
of people feel that way.
It's like you do what you can,we do what works for you, but
some people really want to begreat meditators.
You know what I mean, and soyeah, some people don't yeah.
Chris McHale (15:00):
I know, I know what you mean yeah, so let me so
.
Suxanne Clores (15:03):
So it's this thing of time, you know, which
is, you know it's interestingbecause, well, first of all,
remote viewing, you know, scaresthe fuck out of me.
To be honest with you, I don'tknow if I could deal with being
a remote viewer, because I havea really hard time just dealing
with the day as it is you know,without without bringing a
million different things into mylife.
Speaker 3 (15:24):
Yeah, there's a very famous drawing of the 9-11
attack that was done by a remoteviewer three months before it
happened.
She didn't know what it was, soyou're getting these
impressions.
It's not like she saw the event, but she was doing a view and
(15:46):
you know, views use transcripts.
The traditional viewers writeall of their impressions on a
transcript, so sometimes thatcan be a very crude drawing.
Sometimes that can be littlephrases, echoes of conversation
they hear in their ear.
It is quite a creative process,um, but I think the difference
(16:06):
is that an artist would thenmake art out of that and a
viewer kind of brings it into umdata, you know.
And so she, she drew whatbasically looked like the twin
towers and you know two longrectangles next to each other,
and then like something thatlooked like the twin towers and
you know two long rectanglesnext to each other, and then
like something that looked likean electric fan, like a, like a
(16:29):
crude electric fan kind ofcrashing into them.
And after the event, I guesswhoever who her um tasker was,
went through and found the,found the image, and so there
are flaws to that practice andto that method, of course, but I
think, to get to your point.
(16:50):
I think what you're saying islike do people see the future on
a regular basis?
And I think the answer is yes.
Suxanne Clores (17:00):
I felt like we were close, so close to what I
had been thinking.
The conversation had beencircling the idea of brushing
against something just out ofreach, and maybe it would always
be just out of reach out of areach we could understand, but
not maybe out of reach ofsomething we could feel.
Remote viewers access differentparts of a timeline.
(17:25):
They don't just imagine, theysee, they feel it's not about
creating from nothing, butcapturing something that already
exists, something from the pastor something from the future,
and then they bring it back, putit down, sketch it, paint it.
That's their art.
(17:46):
And we were talking about artand we were talking about the
same thing Remote viewers seeingsomething along a timeline,
artists seeing something along atimeline.
I always believed that artistsweren't just inventors, they
were receivers.
They reached into somethingvast, outside of time, outside
(18:11):
of their dimension, outside oftheir moment, and brought back
what they found and astounded uswith what they found, because
we had never seen anything likeit before.
So where did it come from?
It had come from the future iswhat we were talking about.
Suzanne's work led her to anartist named Ingo Swann, who
(18:32):
didn't separate the act ofseeing from the act of creating.
To him, painting wasn't justself-expression.
It was transmission, a messagefrom somewhere else pulled into
form.
I thought about that.
I thought about the sketchesand the paintings and the songs
and the poems that seemed toarrive fully formed, like they'd
(18:56):
been waiting for someone tocatch them, pull them out of the
air.
Maybe that's what art really isnot just creation, but
translation, pulling somethingfrom the unseen and giving it
shape.
And maybe, just maybe, timewasn't a straight line at all,
(19:19):
maybe it was a place whereartists could step in and out of
hands, reaching forward,reaching backwards, reaching up
and down, all directions at once, finding these images, finding
these bits of language and wordsand languages and sounds and
(19:40):
songs and poems, finding allthat, bringing it back and
giving it actual shape in ourtime.
Speaker 3 (19:48):
Pieces of this project are research fellowships
and I recently had the IngoSwann Research Fellowship down
at the University of WestGeorgia Ingo Swann Research
Fellowship down at theUniversity of West Georgia and
most people don't know who IngoSwann is, but he was a
Manhattan-based painter in the70s, 60s, 70s, 80s was really
(20:14):
his time, I think as a painterand he was very into psychic
research and very into this ideaof multidimensionals or
interdimensional information,not only symphonies available to
us or images, but languages,entire lives, other people lives
(20:42):
.
I've I've heard this a lot, notjust from the swan archives, but
you know a lot ofparapsychology archives talk
about this.
During the heyday ofparapsychology that was like,
which is now a shunned science,you know.
But that is there.
There are huge bodies ofliterature saying just that, um,
(21:05):
that the, the information isavailable.
It comes up a lot too with withum children who remember past
lives, supposedly like their ownpast lives.
I know that was something wediscussed a little bit maybe,
but I think the idea is the same, like the information is kind
(21:29):
of in parallel, as you say.
Suxanne Clores (21:32):
I mean, I believe all time is concurrent.
You know, basically that's whatI've always believed.
In other words, my grandparentsare still alive.
At the same time, I'm alive andGeorge Washington's wandering
around there too, somewhere.
You know, we're all alive and Iuse the word connection.
You know it's like we've useddifferent words, but to me it's
(21:55):
really about connection.
So a lot of what you're talkingabout raises, could raise,
ethical questions, right?
I mean, if you can reallymaster some of this, you know
you could use it for not good.
Are there people out thereusing this stuff for not good?
Speaker 3 (22:12):
I mean probably, but I also think it's part of the
conversation.
I think that when you do kindof tap in to your altered state
or your state of connection andyou do find that this will
happen, even if you meditate foryears, like you do have access
(22:35):
to other people's information,it just kind of floats in, it's
just part of what happens.
I mean, you can look in, likeVedic scriptures, and you'll see
evidence of this.
It's part of what happens whenyou cultivate this part of your
mind and it's supposed to beunifying, to be unifying Right,
(23:07):
um.
But I think that there areimportant ethics to consider
generally.
Like you're right, I agree,like we are not emotionally
responsible.
I feel like people are notemotionally responsible in the
way that they used to be.
I don't even know if it'semotional.
It would be ethicallyresponsible too.
But generally you don't reallyhave permission to access other
people's space unless they giveit to you.
(23:31):
Right, you have to, unless theygive you permission.
So, like with the remote viewer, she can't view someone
ethically unless they give herpermission to do so.
Suxanne Clores (23:43):
Do you think that we're going to ever be able
to unlock that kind of abilityconsciously?
Do you think that that'spossible?
We could get to that placewhere we can consciously do that
.
Speaker 3 (23:54):
I think that you'll always have to shift into an
altered state, but I think youcan get better at that.
I think you can shift moreeasily and you can consciously
make that choice to shift andit'll be easier to walk back and
forth through those doorways.
I do think that that's true dothink that that's true.
Suxanne Clores (24:21):
And and what would happen?
I mean, what would happen if welived in a world where people
could do that?
Just, it was just part of ourexistence?
Speaker 3 (24:26):
I mean, I think we'd all have to get better
boundaries, but I also think itcould be really beautiful.
I feel like there could bereally interesting new kinds of
relationships and connectionswith people that have the
potential to create good.
That's what I think.
Suxanne Clores (24:48):
I've always thought that maybe reincarnation
was the answer to the mysteriesof exceptional genius.
I mean, how do you explainShakespeare, mozart, beethoven,
van Gogh, bob Dylan?
It's as if they had livedmultiple lifetimes is the way I
always thought about it andaccumulated their rare skill
(25:10):
across centuries, arriving inthis world already carrying the
weight of mastery.
But after talking with SuzanneCloris, I began to see another
possibility, one even moreintriguing.
What if artists slip back andforth a long time?
What if their true skills isn'tjust talent but an ability to
(25:32):
move between moments, pullingfrom the past, from the past
glimpsing the future?
And maybe the real magic ofheightened creativity lies in
doing the creativity withawareness or, at the very least,
a heightened sense of what'spossible.
(25:53):
My guest today on Creativity toGigi was Suzanne Glores, a
fascinating mind exploring thesevery ideas.
Visit the Extraordinary Projectat theextraordinaryprojectnet
to connect with her work and, ofcourse, visit us at studio to
ggio.
And please subscribe to thispodcast and stay connected to
(26:17):
the conversation.
I'm Chris McHale, and thanksfor listening.
Popular Podcasts
Cold Case Files: Miami
Joyce Sapp, 76; Bryan Herrera, 16; and Laurance Webb, 32—three Miami residents whose lives were stolen in brutal, unsolved homicides. Cold Case Files: Miami follows award‑winning radio host and City of Miami Police reserve officer Enrique Santos as he partners with the department’s Cold Case Homicide Unit, determined family members, and the advocates who spend their lives fighting for justice for the victims who can no longer fight for themselves.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.