Succeeding to engage curiosity about something seemingly ordinary, is the way for recalling a forgotten insight in regards to it. The process of recollection, of piecing things together after they lapsed from immediate memory, is almost always even more lively and involved than the initial, spontaneous experience itself. It can have its very own inspirational moments that were not even there while the original was coming about.
Some light on the techniques for recollecting previously forgotten, but consciously acquired ideas has been shed by a study entitled ‘An uncommon type of transient loss of memory’ in 1968, as well as in the 1973 study on the same subject that’s called ‘Retrieval difficulty and subsequent recall’, found in the journal ‘Memory & Cognition, 1’.
In essence, those studies argue that when an idea comes to you, it is possible to create certain easy phrases (incorporate ‘cues’) from regular vocabulary, and/or situations common enough that they’re bound to bring that exact idea back to you when you are under the same mood again, but have forgotten it and strive to remember.
Those stimulants need to be quite obvious, but yet narrow enough to be of any help, so more like little phrases, your own feelings, frustrations and hopes bound to everyday items, locations, or events which you can routinely encounter to get your mind working again.
The objects can be general, and don’t have to be exclusively tied to only one concept, but given your mood and the wide theme that you are tackling in the word, they must help you to slowly reverse engineer your forgotten idea, by working through your points of reference one-by-one, all the way to the original impression.
Because we all have our own personal ideologies, which are our aspirational bends, and becoming conscious of them, while shaping them to be more and more coherent and constructive as an outlook upon our personal existence, will then mean that no matter how many different articles one might write, and no matter in what ways they will get interpreted, there must be an underlying message the author wishes to say: Like a singular, if sweeping legacy that underpins ALL the work created under that name.
It merely depends if one takes every idea that comes into their mind as already a project lost and gone away when its abstract, universal wording is in part forgotten. Any theoretical remembrance can only again be fragmentary, that is, have an inkling of profoundness which will be striking and at which we can, again as the first time, pause and dwell.
Yet because the recollection of concepts, or ideas’s fragmentary, these fragments need be freshly elaborated with insight, to gain a reproductible significance, a solid differentiating factor for themselves.
Sometimes, two versions of a thought leading to the same conclusion can be in conflict, and their presence can negatively, reductively affect each other, or our further plot development.
In that case, I combine them if can be, or update the language to one more prone of dismissal under this-or-that viewpoint, assuming very little necessary sweeping, abstract notions for the ideas to be adaptable in situations of the real world, pointing to as many possible situations and scenarios that only confuse you, and jeopardise the recollection, as Schopenhauer teaches well.
Every time an idea occurs to you, try to codify it into just one scenario, specific images, sounds in your head, locations. Do not try to formulate your ideas in all-encompassing abstract ways, even if that gives your idea a sort of allure of grandness.
I would argue that an idea too specific may not then upon recollection reveal itself to be universally applicable as you may wish it to be, but it is possible to treat even the most narrow idea as having abstract origins in a bigger narrative by default. In fact, such a creative mindset is bound to make every idea more complex and nuanced just by association. Although it isn't necessarily bad, as an idea comes to you to make an evolving progression in your mind out of it for the sake of clarity either, to fragment one idea up into many logically subsequent parts.
What's most important, is to have the core premise in mind, with a willingness to explore wherever this core premise, the string of all the areas you need to touch to arrive at conclusions of similar magnitude you once had, can take your mind later.
Yet even the last remaining glimpses of an idea do not always reliably lead to the idea itself, but only what was already familiar and occurred to us right after the eureka moment itself, although this glimpse is not an eureka moment itself, leading us after the wrong clues, or whether one strives for a particular kind of idea with the echoes of the same belief still present, but e.g. for a social, economic etc, shading of the same concern.
Along these lines ran the belief of C.S. Lewis as well. It’s the best, timeless piece of creative advice I have ever got, be it from a person I’ve never met, but still he changed my outlook on the creative process in a fundamental way.