IN WHAT WAYS IS THE IMAGINATION LIMITED?

The imagination can be limited in many ways. However, my overarching view on what limits the imagination is: that perceiving the imagination as something that solely comes from the mind is what makes the possibility of it limited. Instead, we can view imagination as a fully integrated cognitivist and non-cognitivist activity; by doing this, we open up many more discovery, innovation, and creativity opportunities.

Singular interpretation of imagination being only an activity of the mind limits possibility. This limitation can be traced back to Immanuel Kant's theory on the imagination - "that it is a pervasive mental capacity that contributes to the cognitive, aesthetic, and moral aspects of our lives" (Haworth, 2014). Kant's theory highlights that the imagination contributes to aspects of our lives, but it is clear that it considers imagination a pervasive mental capacity. This theory may not be the earliest point in history that the imagination is linked to mental capacity, but it is perhaps one of the most influential.

Haworth (2014) notes that Kant inspired many philosophers ranging from Hegel to Sellars and Heidegger to Strawson. Therefore, to some extent, Kant's legacy opened up our understanding of imagination. The fact that we now view it as a pervasive mental capacity [1] is somewhat progressive in contrast to some philosophers of the time who "understood the imagination as something that operates in even more restrictive limits, e.g., just in acts of make-believe or visualisation" (Haworth, 2014).

While Kant's theory on imagination is historically held up as being broad and inclusive - more so than other philosophers of the time, it is still limiting. Kant's theory has shaped our modern western culture, which has limited our perception of the imagination. To such an extent that we now put the mind on a pedestal. Consequently, this restricts non-cognitivist activity [2]. I fully agree that the imagination needs the mind, and it plays an important role. The imagination uses mental capacity that contributes to many aspects of our lives and can take on the form of a mental creator, receiver, and interpreter. However, the legacy of Kant's theory has perhaps been oversimplified when it could have been opened up and expanded. The general everyday limiting consensus that we are now left with is that imagination is purely a mental capacity. In my view, this is an unimaginable conclusion of imagination.

Some current philosophers have progressed past Kant's theory and opened up this 'unimaginable conclusion.' In their paper "The Extended Mind," Andy Clark and David Chalmers (1998) present the idea of active externalism [3]. In this theory, objects within the environment function as a part of the mind. Clark and Chalmers state that separation between mind, body, and environment does not exist, and external objects play a significant role in assisting cognitive processes. In their view, the mind and the environment act as a "coupled system" that can be seen as a complete cognitive system. In this extended cognitive system, the non-cognitivist activity must function with the same purpose as the cognitivist activity [4].

The Extended Mind is a theory that opens up our worldview of the mind and, by association, the imagination. We can take this further by creating a theory where non-cognitivist and cognitivist activity is fully integrated but does not have to function with the same purpose as each other. By doing this, we could have a vehicle for infinite discovery, innovation, and creativity, but we must overcome an overarching problem to achieve this.

This problem is our inherent discomfort with chaos. Because of this discomfort, we have developed tools to create order from chaos, such as Google, strategies, art, and war. Order provides humans with so much comfort and meaning that we have an inbuilt desire to call a war on nature and make it art [5]. We have taken the natural phenomenon of the imagination and slowly gone to war on it over time, so we can make neat and ordered art out of it [6]. The Google effect (also known as digital amnesia) is an example of an outcome of ordered chaos. The effect of this creation is that we now tend to forget information [7] because we know that it is available via Google (The Decision Lab, n.d).

Thomas Kuhn's statement - "you do not see something until you have the right metaphor to let you perceive it" (Gleick, 2008), demonstrates how we can use the art of metaphors to order chaos. However, our intrinsic need to order chaos limits our multidimensional and multi-sensory connection to nature and our potential. Kuhn's statement highlights how our need for order imposes multi-sensory limits. He mentions one sense - sight ('you do not see something), which limits the types of perception. If we were to change his statement to "you do not see, hear, taste, feel or smell something until you have the right metaphor to let you perceive it," we would have a more chaotic metaphor, but it opens up perception.

So far, two core problems have been presented  - singular interpretation of imagination in that it is an activity of only the mind and the overarching problem, which is our inherent discomfort with chaos. The first part of the first problem (singular interpretation of imagination) could be presented as an answer to the overarching problem, but this is an unsatisfactory answer, as we have just discovered.

My suggestion to widen our perception of imagination is that it should be interpreted as a 'gift from the gods.' A gift so vast that the receiver cannot open it in one sitting. It is a gift that comes in many shapes and forms. One that shifts and changes depending on the perception of the receiver. Thus, embracing chaos and harmonising a natural phenomenon rather than ordering it.

In my previous essay, I answered the question - can truth be invented? If so, why? If not, why not? This essay draws upon Thomas Kuhn's reference to elementary prototypes for revolutionary transformations. In this reference, Kuhn uses the duck/rabbit illusion analogy. He states, "what were ducks in the scientist's world before the revolution is rabbits afterward. The man who first saw the box's exterior from above later sees its interior from below, and scientists must learn to see a new gestalt" (Tymieniecka, 1995). I make a point that perhaps Kuhn would agree with - it is not just scientists that must learn to see new gestalts; we all must embrace this intrinsic ability.

Baruch Spinoza claimed that only one infinite substance exists. This substance is nature, and everything, including God, is part of it. This leads me to argue that the imagination can be viewed as part of this infinite substance. It is always present and available as a gift if we receive it, and it is by intrinsically seeing new gestalts we can embrace this potentiality.

Like a gestalt, the infinite invention of truth and the imagination relies on our ability to spot patterns and see that a whole is different and not more than the sum of its parts. We must widen our view to notice that a whole is not a fixed total of fixed parts. The whole is a fluid total made up of fluid parts. Like water, the whole flows and is never the same in a single moment. A worldview that embraces chaos is that life mirrors water in that it is never still; it too flows and is in a constant state of flux [8].

Grant Mitchell Munro (2015) highlights that the idea that paradigms bias our thoughts and actions is not new. This bias was displayed in "the Apollonian-Dionysian dichotomy of Ancient Greece. Apollo (god of the sun) stood for rational thinking, logic, and order, whereas Dionysus (god of wine and dance) embodied irrationality, emotions, and instinct" (pg 2). He points out that ancient and western philosophy has adopted these two paradigms. In the form of "linear-based analytical thinking (e.g., Aristotle, Democritus, Bacon) or systems-based holistic thinking (e.g., Plato, Anaxagoras, Hegel, Marx), with rare examples of overlap" (pg 2).

Like life, the whole is a paradoxical paradigm. We perceive one truth from the whole only to have it contradicted by another. Due to our worldview constantly being shaped by irrationality, emotions, and instinct, we seek to employ rationality, logic, and order. We find ourselves in constant states of tension which creates paradoxical paradigms. These states are the crux of our creativity, and this is where our imagination thrives if we allow ourselves to overlap and harmonise and not just order.

Referring back to the duck/rabbit illusion, we can apply paradoxical paradigms to this analogy. Rather than change our worldview to see just the rabbit instead of the duck or just the duck instead of the rabbit, we can transform our worldview so we can see both simultaneously or perhaps even all possibilities of both combined.

Below is a gestalt model I have developed and included to guide my thinking as we move forward in our exploration. The model includes seven possible components of the imagination. They are mind, sense, ego, nonlocal realism, self, surrender, and nonsense.

The model as a whole is a multidimensional interpretation of imagination. It is not a complete answer, nor is it the only answer. Likewise, no one component in this model is entirely accurate, nor is any one by itself truly compelling (as we have already explored with the mind). The whole and the many possible connections inside the gestalt provide us with a 'gift from the gods.' This gift is a chaotic representation of a paradoxical paradigm in that each line transmits tension between the two points. The chaos is in the tension created when two points connect, for example - mind and nonlocal realism. At this connection point, our worldview (paradigm) creates the paradox [9].

I refer to the model above as a multidimensional interpretation because a typical gestalt is created when one component is placed with another. Multiple combinations can be created, but it should not stop with these simple combinations. When more than one plus one is put together, the 'more' starts to change form and shift. When multiples are grouped in different combinations, each combination is joined together, and when we add multi-sensory perception - we create an infinite gestalt. When we perceive imagination in this open-ended way, it becomes a natural phenomenon that is infinitely and chaotically different than the sum of its parts.

Now let us explore the gestalt model further. We have already covered the mind, so we now look at two more components of the imagination to move this exploration on. Next, we explore sense and nonsense and consider how they fit into a multidimensional approach.

Sense and Nonsense

Earlier in this essay, we examined Kuhn's statement - "you do not see something until you have the right metaphor to let you perceive it" (Gleick, 2008). Kuhn mentions one sense - sight (you do not see something) in his statement. I outlined that if we were to change his statement to "you do not see, hear, taste, feel or smell something until you have the right metaphor to let you perceive it," we have a chaotic metaphor, but it opens up perception.

The basic definition of perception is becoming aware of something through the senses. It is our senses that provide us with a perception of something. Without our senses and our ability to make sense, we would not perceive, and our non-sense would be pure nonsense, which suggests that the more senses we engage, the more we perceive.

We can view this through two types of lenses. Let us take a short-sighted view and see what is right in front of us. We see that the sensory overload that we all sometimes experience from multi-sensory perception is problematic, perhaps because the combined sensory perceptions contribute to creating nonsense. However, if we take a long-sighted view and look out further afield, we see that the nonsense is not the problem. It is our relationship with nonsense that is the problem.

As I write this paragraph, I sit in an environment designed to enhance my senses. There is a scented candle burning and filling my nostrils with the scent of Jasmine. An overhead fan is blowing, and the gentle breeze brushes my skin. I have recently eaten something sweet and can still taste the flavour in my mouth. The curtains are closed so that the warm light from the candle fills the room. I am listening to music that adds to the harmony in my environment. This sensory experience could be interpreted as nonsense if I tried to make sense of it by only using my mind [10]. Instead, I can centre myself [11] amongst the input to receive through my senses. This imagination process is subtle and happens without prominent mental events [12].

Nonsense can be likened to chaos and sense to order. We cannot have one without the other. Likewise, our imagination cannot thrive without the relationship between the two. Just like chaos, nonsense makes us inherently uncomfortable. Just like order, sense-making provides us with meaning and comfort. To fully embrace the potential of our imagination, we need to increase our comfort level and harness the beauty of the sense and nonsense relationship.

In the spirit of nonsense, I will propose a contradiction to what I argued earlier in this essay. Earlier on, I explained how singular interpretation was limiting and highlighted the benefits of the whole.

We now look at the positive aspects of limitations by using constraints. Sharples (1999) outlines that "constraints allow us to control the multitude of possibilities that thought and language offer. There are so many ideas that we might have and so many possible ways of expressing them that we have to impose constraints to avoid thinking and writing gibberish. A constraint is not a barrier to creative thinking, but the context within which creativity can occur". In other words, we need the chaos of nonsense, so we have something to constrain. Within our imagination lies a process of opening up our senses to nonsense so we can make sense.

It is important to note that imagination as a pervasive mental capacity plays a role as a constraint. It is a crucial role, but let us again open up our worldview. Perhaps what could be achieved is not just mental gains but also mental losses. I propose that in order for our imagination to thrive, we need to lean into our mental nonsense and lose our minds so we can come to our senses [13].

Next, we look at ego and surrender and again delve into the relationship between the two. We will then explore how both collaborate with sense and nonsense and relate to the mind.

Ego and Surrender

Although shaped by Sigmund Freud, our view of the ego is now often used in two different ways. We view the ego as the mediator between the id and superego [14], and we use the ego to refer to the self. We commonly refer to someone as having a fragile ego or might state that someone's ego is out of control. Here we are not criticising someone's ability to navigate between the id and the superego; we are criticising the person and how they present (McLeod, 2021).

At first thought, you might think that the ego should not hold a place within the model because it is an imagination disabler, not an enabler. Zen Buddhists would agree - their theory is that memory is not responsible for the lack of imagination but the ego. The ego is not an imagination enhancer, but it acts as a practical constraint. Its role as a constraint and mediator or as an impersonator of the self is vital for opening up and making sense.

The role ego plays further increases when diametrically opposed by the act of surrender. When we surrender our ego, we let go. We let go of beliefs, how we think of ourselves, and how we perceive the world. When we surrender, we open up and allow in the unexpected.

"Surrender is simple and yet complex. It can be inviting, not threatening. It can be fulfilling, not defeating. It is an act that does not merely affect a natural progression of change; it is alchemical in its magical ability to transmute us from one state of being into another. It is a tool that we can wilfully employ for beneficial development" (Moze 2018, pg 1).

Together ego and surrender create a beautiful process of holding on and letting go, creating new insight. I demonstrate this in the Hegelian-style dialectic below.

Our senses, sense-making, nonsense, and mind are all involved in holding on and letting go. The ego constraints and holds onto certainty, order, and what is known. If we allow ourselves to surrender our ego, embrace our senses, allow the nonsense in and lose our minds, we form a new belief. This belief is then measured against our current reality through sense-making. A new perception is formed, which we further measure against the truth, and new insight is created. In this process, the imagination not only thrives but curates and creates.

Next, we look at self and nonlocal realism, delve into the relationship between the two, and explore how they collaborate with the other components in the model.

Self and Nonlocal Realism

Edward S Casey, in his essay titled 'Comparative Phenomenology of Mental Activity: Memory, Hallucination, and Fantasy Contrasted with Imagination,' highlights that: "many previous philosophies and psychologies of the mind have failed to provide adequate accounts of basic differences between imagining, remembering, hallucinating and fantasying. Nevertheless, each of the acts is related to perception very differently, ranging from apparent replication (in hallucination) to distinct discontinuity (in imagination)". The contrast of imagination against memory, hallucination, and fantasy and the discontinuity of the imagination is essential to explore here. All four are categorised as mental activities, but other ways to interpret imagination could be to refer to it as self-activity or even nonlocal realism activity.

In order to interpret imagination as self-activity, I am referring to the self as the vital whole-being that makes us unique from others. Within the constraints of this definition, we can see how important the imagination is in creating a being that is unique to others. It takes imagination to be different, and the self can embody this. Again the mind should not be forgotten as it has a role to play in the self as a part of our vital being. Although, it is the receptors and projectors of the whole self that creates imagination.

In their essay, The Nonlocal Universe, Andrew Lohrey, and Bruce Borehamb explain that "nonlocal realism is the term we use to represent a holistic and integrated worldview that displays the reality (hence realism) of a particular integrated, interconnected universal field of relationships. The reality of this paradigm is established by the evidence that the universe we perceive and measure is nonlocal and by an analysis of the integrated nature of the meanings we make." They go on to explain that "nonlocal realism is closely related to the view espoused by Erwin Schrödinger that the overall number of minds within the universe is just one" (Lohreya & Borehamb, 2020). They further outline that the mind has "erected the physical outside world out of its mental stuff. The interconnected universal consciousness implied by the concept of one mind constitutes the nonlocal, singular implicit reality of a universal consciousness that has embedded within itself the local and explicit conscious mind of each individual" (Lohreya & Borehamb, 2020).

The nonlocal realism component of imagination adds a hyper dimension to the interpretation of imagination as a whole. Here we have a holistic and integrated whole within a paradigm. The hyper dimension is made up of the view that all the minds in the universe are one - one interconnected universal consciousness. If we embrace this thinking, we can no longer think of our minds as local because if we take this universal view onboard, we view our minds as part of a universal whole. Nonlocal realism is a component that has infinite possibilities within an infinite gestalt.

Combining nonlocal realism and this way of thinking with self, sense, ego, surrender, and nonsense is an example of a possible elementary prototype for revolutionary transformations. While this prototype may be far from perfect, it is in the process of creating a prototype that we can hold onto and let go of multidimensional inspirations. Not only can we embrace rabbits when all we could see before were ducks, but we can also apply paradoxes to transform our worldview so that any other form for non-form can emerge. We gain a multidimensional appreciation of the box not just as a local whole made up of the exterior and the interior but of all the possible local and nonlocal, paradoxical and nonsensical potentialities.

A Gift from the Gods

After exploring my thesis that the imagination is a 'gift from the gods,' I conclude that while this is a far less robust offering than Kant's, it allows chaos to create infinite possibilities of the imagination. Thus, paving the way for multidimensional [15] opportunities for discovery, innovation, and creativity.

The imagination must not be limited by singular interpretation. It is a phenomenon that cannot be fully ordered into a theory. Imagination is an infinite gift that comes in many shapes and forms. It can never be fully defined as it shifts and changes depending on our perception. The imagination is so vast that all we can do is embrace its beautiful chaos and play [16] to harmonise this natural phenomenon into our own and collective infinite potential.

Footnotes

1 The nature of the human mind is a central concern in all of Kant's major works. His view of the mind is shaped by two fundamental distinctions: activity vs. passivity and form vs. matter. For Kant, the paradigmatic activity of the mind is judgment, which involves the unification of representations through concepts. This activity is directed at intuitions/sensations, which are distinguished by our passivity in receiving them (Marshall, n.d).

2 This includes whole-being and nonlocal influences.

3 Not to be confused with semantic externalism.

4 Using a smart phone is an example of non cognitivist activity functioning as an extension of cognitivist activity.

5 As in art as representation, expression and form.

6 Google is an example of going to war on the imagination and also of being neat ordered art of all three categories highlighted in footnote 5.

7 The word 'information' is another example of ordered chaos. We need to put things in formation.

8 This is a metaphor that is also a Dionysian paradigm.

9 It is useful at this point to refer back to my adaption of Kuhn's statement about metaphors. Instead of just 'seeing' this gestalt and being  compensated with a limited worldview I encourage the viewer to 'see, hear, taste, feel and smell' it.

10 We can interpret a sensory experience as nonsense by limiting ourselves to our mental faculties - we are 'too much inside our heads'-we view it as just scribbles rather than words.

11 As in the whole self - local and non local.

12 Can be likened to a deep mediative state.

13 Psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, and psychotherapist Fritz Perls sums this up in his quote - "Lose your mind and come to your senses." (pg 255 Butler-Bowdon, 2019).

14 Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic theory highlights three areas of the human psyche. The three areas are the id - a primitive and instinctual part of the mind, the superego - which operates as amoral conscience, and the ego - the logical part that mediates between the desires of the id and the virtues of the superego (McLeod, 2021).

15 Local, nonlocal, paradoxical and nonsensical dimensions.

16 As opposed to work.

Bibliography

Brown G, Laland K. (2002) Sense and Nonsense Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Behaviour. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Butler-Bowdon, T. (2007) 50 Psychology Classics. London, John Murray Press.

Butler-Bowdon, T. (2013) 50 Philosophy Classics. London, John Murray Press.

Casey, E. (1976) Comparative Phenomenology of Mental Activity: Memory, Hallucination, and Fantasy Contrasted with Imagination. Research in Phenomenology Vol. 6 (1976), pp. 1-25.

Clark, A. Chalmers, D. (1998) The Extended Mind. Vol. 58, No. 1 pp. 7-19

Connor, S. (ed.) (2004) The Cambridge Companion to Postmodernism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Edelman, G. Tononi, G. (2001) Consciousness: How Matter Becomes Imagination. London: Allen Lane.

Gleick, J. (2008) Chaos: Making a New Science. London, Penguin.

Haworth, M. (2014) Genius Is What Happens: Derrida and Kant on Genius, Rule-Following and the Event. British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol 54, No 3,pp. 323 -337.

Heisler, M. (2018) Ego and Surrender. Available from https://www.itsmylifeinc.com/2018/12/ego-and-surrender/ (Accessed 21 October 2021).

Humphreys, V. (2021) Using the Imagination in Gestalt Therapy. Available from https://iahip.org/page-1076215 (Accessed 21 October 2021).

Lohreya A, Borehamb B. (2020) The Nonlocal Universe. Commutative Integrative Biology, 13 (1): 147–159.

Lunbeck E, Musser A and McGowan T. (2019) Sigmund Freud’s The Ego and the Id. Available from https://daily.jstor.org/virtual-roundtable-on-the-ego-and-the-id/. Accessed 21 October 2021.

Mann, S. (n.d) The Reaction to Chaos. Available from http://www.dodccrp.org/html4/bibliography/comch06.html (Accessed 3 November 2021).

Marshall, C. (n.d) Kant: Philosophy of the Mind. Available from https://philpapers.org/browse/kant-philosophy-of-mind (Accessed 9 December 2021).

McLeod S. (2021) Id, Ego, and Superego. Available from https://www.simplypsychology.org/psyche.html (Accessed 3 November 2021).

Mitchell Munro, G. (2015) A manifesto for agile urbanism: a citizen-led blueprint for smart cities, smart communities, and smart democracy. Faculty of Architecture, University of Cambridge.

Moze, M. (2007) Surrender: An Alchemical Act in Personal Transformation. Journal of Conscience Evolution, Vol 3: Issue 3.

Pope, R. (2005) Creativity: Theory, History, Practice. London, Routledge.

Sharples, M. (1970) An Account of Writing as Creative Design. University of Sussex.

The Decision Lab. (n.d) Why do we forget information that we just looked up? The Google Effect Explained. Available from https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/google-effect (Accessed 10 March 2022).

Tymieniecka, A. (ed.) (1995) The Elemental Passion for Place in the Ontopoiesis of Life. Passions of the Soul in the Imaginatio Creatrix, Analecta Husserliana, The Yearbook of Phenomenological Research, Vol XLIV.

This essay forms part of a portfolio of essays that were submitted as part of the Diploma of Creativity Theory, History and Philosophy undertaken at the Institute of Continuing Education at The University of Cambridge.

The title of the assignment has been taken from the course.

All images in this document that are not cited are from www.canva.com and can be used for free for commercial and noncommercial use.