User Tag List

First 12

Results 11 to 13 of 13

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007


    Quote Originally Posted by Loxias View Post
    I love metaphors, but I don't agree much with the ideas I've seen you bring so far.
    I don't hate you though.

    Very interesting text in the OP. btw
    The ideas I speak of are relatively new theories.

    One great problem with the American culture is that new natural science theories spread very rapidly through the society but our human science theories take generations to filter down to TomandJane. That is why it is so important for TomandJane to develop an intellectual life when their school daze are over.

    I recommednd that everyone become a self-actualizing self-learner when they finish their formal education.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007


    Quote Originally Posted by Loxias View Post
    I love imagination, it's my main tool of production, I live for and by it.
    However, through this I know intimately how hard and conflictual it is to conciliate imagination and reality, to make the imaginary happen. Because the imaginary alone leads nowhere, unfortunately.
    We are still humans inserted in reality that we can't escape, and we have to abide by the rules of reality, which works on conflicts and dominance. The lion eats the antelope, the strong kills the weak.

    I find that imagination is an important but vague and amorphous concept.

    Aristotle considered imagination to be an intermediary between perception and thought. Our perception process accepted the input from our senses and operated upon them by creating images that facilitated rational thought, “the soul never thinks without a mental picture”—Yates.

    In the eighteenth century ‘fancy’ and ‘imagination’ were somewhat synonymous and were applied to non-mnemonic [for or relating to memory]. Images that flowed before the ‘mind’s eye’ were “source memories” if they contained the temporal and spatial order of the original experience, if without these spatial and temporal groundings they were dream-like fantasies.

    For Coleridge, the imagination is "that synthetic and magical power, which reveals itself in the balance or reconciliation of opposite or discordant tendencies…dissolves, diffuses, dissipates, in order to recreate; or where this process is rendered impossible, yet still at all events it struggles to idealize and unify. It is essentially vital [characteristic of life].”

    M. S. Abrams considers that re-creative imagination would fall under the traditional headings of simile and metaphor.

    Kant describes imagination as a productive faculty of the mind that enables representations of reality to be formed. Imagination is a synthesizing element of mind.

    Arjun Appadurai describes imagination as a constitutive faculty of modern subjectivity. He describes it as collective imagination wherein lies a “community of sentiment”. As an example the modern concept of nation as “an imagined political community…it is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their community.” Just the concepts of globalization and immigration become images, symbols are images, it becomes a container image. For Appadurai, "The imagination is today a staging ground for action, and not only for escape." He describes the concept “culturalism” as a conscious mobilization of identities as being the most general form of the work of imagination.

    CS (cognitive science as expounded in “Philosophy in the Flesh”) has determined that Western tradition has seriously confused the nature and importance of imagination. The traditional objectivist thought of Descartes and Kant has seriously overlooked the pervasive structuring of thought by unconscious conceptual metaphors.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009


    I totally love metaphors we live by I'd begun to reach similar conclusions after I finally stopped dismissing and began to understand Jung's preoccupation with alchemy and acient legends.
    All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
    Chapter IV, p. 448. - Adam Smith, Book 3, The Wealth of Nations

    whether or not you credit psychoanalysis itself, the fact remains that we all must, to the greatest extent possible, understand one another's minds as our own; the very survival of humanity has always depended on it. - Open Culture

Similar Threads

  1. Do we live in an obscene culture?
    By Lark in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 02-15-2010, 05:20 PM
  2. Are We Governed by Nitwits?
    By wildcat in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-31-2009, 01:43 PM
  3. Do we live a “lie of character”?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-12-2009, 03:51 PM
  4. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-12-2008, 01:38 AM
  5. One sentence philosophies to live by
    By ThatsWhatHeSaid in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 107
    Last Post: 04-17-2008, 07:52 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO