Condescending Ideas About Imagination

[William]

Often in argument, the imagination is derided as somehow irrelevant and suspect for that. This happens in relation to alternate experiences individuals have where the arguments against these being real - and thus 'of the imagination' are expressed - often in derogatory fashion and used in that way to procure a kind of legitimacy which itself might be construed in that fashion for the sake of giving the impression that one 'wins' the argument by adopting such method.

Q: Is the method of argument really legitimate?

My thoughts on imagination is that without this vital element of the human experience, nothing humans have created could have been created. So rather than demoting human imagination in derogatory terms, one should acknowledge that vital part it plays in the ongoing injection of invention into the external world we like to refer to as 'reality'.

Also, it has been argued that NDEs and OOBEs etc are 'products of imagination' but is this a fair comparison to make? I was recently informed by another that they believed that they had experience genuine NDEs and OOBEs and could not decide whether the experiences were real or imagined, but settled for the conclusion that these were most likely imagined - as in - the experiences were products of their imagination and nothing more.

I have not (as yet) experienced an NDE so have only anecdotal accounts to go on, but I have had a few OOBEs and can definitely say in that, that the experiences are different from what the experience of imagination gives to me.

Indeed, we understand imagination to 'not being real' because we understand the difference between what we refer to as 'real' and what we refer to as 'imagined' - it is the very difference which allows us to delineate between the states of experience.

In relation to human creativity, we understand that the process always begins within the imagination of the individual and the individual is then required to understand the possibility of making the imagined REAL by using 'the stuff of this reality' to try and make what is imagined, REAL.

Without the internal imagination, this process cannot become externalized. Without imagination the human race could not have become what it presently has become or what it potentially can become in the future.

Indeed, potential is another aspect of imagination. Without imagination, potential would never be recognized, let alone actualized.

Currently there is a focus on the argument that GOD is 'an imaginary being in the sky' which is not a new criticism by any means. But what is that really saying in terms of how the word 'imagination' is used for derogatory purposes by those arguing from such a position?

My own ideas on GOD are well enough presented on this board, and have yet to be seriously contested, but have often enough simply been hand-waved away in derogatory fashion as 'imagination', as if in doing so - those practicing such method of argument - are somehow making a relevant point which settles the issue 'once and for all' - at least, according to them. From my perspective though, such hand-waving does nothing at all in any way to convince me I am mistaken, or that my experiences are nothing more than 'imagination'.

Q: Are those in favor of arguing in that manner, truly satisfied that such is 'the end of the matter' and there is no need for them to ponder any alternatives as they settle for the dogmatism of naturalism being the most likely 'answer' in relation to all mystery and alternate experience, content in their belief that their living is simply an invention of the brain and that dying will end their experience forever?

Even so, is that the best position to adopt, given no one actually really knows for sure? Or is the position that one simply maintains through willful choice because any other alternative allows for possibilities which could act against the protective mechanism which a condescending position enforces, effectively ensuring the individual is not tempted to believe anything which cannot be experienced as reality, and that all reality must be able be verified through scientific process, in order to be called 'real'?

Or are there other explanations which I haven't considered, because they have yet to be postulated?

[Divine Insight]

Divine Insight: So attempting to use the argument that practical imagination somehow supports the validity of impractical imagination is a futile argument that only reveals a non-sequitur thinking of the author of the argument.

William: Therein your argument slips away form being practical because it forgets the reality of death. Such argument is linked to the theory that the brain is the source of all consciousness.
Within this theory is where the Condescending Ideas About Imagination are source and take shape.

What does the reality of death have to do with anything in this context?

Also, you are perpetuating a false narrative concerning your own imagined "condescending ideas about imagination".

What people reject are unrealistic ideas being imagined and presented as though they should have some basis in reality just because they can be imagined. That's not the same as having "condescending ideas about imagination", those very same people are most likely very supportive of positive, constructive, and realistic ideas that can be imagined.

For example, imagining that we could some day send humans to Mars is a positive constructive thing to imagine, that has credibility in what may be possible in reality.

Imagining that we could fly off to the moon via the power of pure free will thought without any technological aid is an unrealistic fantasy that justifies its own condescension.

So you continue to perpetuate a false narrative by claiming that imagination itself is being belittled. Only absurdly ideas held up in the name of imagination as having potential reality are being rejected as being obviously unjustified nonsense.

So the fallacy of your argument has already been called out on the carpet and yet you continue to refuse to address it.

Divine Insight: There are many things we can imagine that can be brought to fruition and many things we can imagine that cannot be brought to fruition, realizing the difference is the key to gaining a grasp on reality.

William: Some teachings advise letting go rather than grasping.
Specifically, this advice has to do with the idea that death is not the end. For some, this idea has no merit in relation to their grasping a reality easily confirmed through the senses, even that essentially that same sensual reality ends in the reality of death. Any connect one has with the experience of death and alternate realities is considered by those who imagine death is the end of their existence, to being something worthy of condescension and ridicule - no doubt precisely because of their grasp on this one reality and belief that is all there will ever be to experience.

Only living people can imagine living after they have supposedly died. Why is that? Because they are still alive and while alive they are capable of imagining such things. After they die they will not longer be able to imagine being alive.

William:
To those ones, even if they were to experience alternate realities through OOBE, NDE, Astral Projection - such experience would be consigned as "only imagination - not real" and thus even their own alternate experiences - should they have them - would have no value in relation to 'the real world'. They cannot bring them into this real world, so project their beliefs and views and theories and opinions about such, onto all.

Therein, they are unable to acknowledge that imagination is a connecting factor in relation to how GOD moves data, inspiring those with eyes to see and ears to hear through something other than simply the medium of this particular reality matrix.

Such imagine that death is their final destination, based on their sensory grasp of eyes that see the cadaver, ears that hear the final rattle, noses which smell the decay, hands that touch the cadavers cold lifelessness - they taste death and pour scorn on those who imagine anything differently, or experience alternate realities from which these imaginings are sourced.

There is no evidence that any dead person ever came back to life. Let's not forget that NDE means NEAR DEATH EXPERIENCE. No one has shown that any of these people had actually died.

And far more importantly are the following FACTS:

1. People who claim to have had NDE's all report back with different experiences, mostly related to their actual experiences in this life.

2. People who have NDE's often associate them with different Gods and mystical creatures associated with the cultures in which they live. Or of people who they had personally known, or have read about etc.

3. No one who has reported an NDE has ever been able to report back with any useful information that isn't already known, such as a cure for a disease, or similar type of thing.

In short, there is no credibility to NDE's, so if you need NDE's to support your position then you have a position which lacks credence.


There's nothing wrong with having imagination and using it for practical productive purposes. In fact, that is strongly encouraged. People who can imagine practical solutions to real problems are highly valued and well-recognized for their imagination, they are even referred as being "brilliant" or "genius".

But trying to use that fact to try to obtain support for imagined ideas that have no credence is just a very bad argument that doesn't hold water.

You can't fly to the moon without technological assistance. Yet you can imagine flying to the moon like Peter Pan.

So what? Just because you can imagine doing something doesn't give it credence.

[Purple Knight]

Often in argument, the imagination is derided as somehow irrelevant and suspect for that. This happens in relation to alternate experiences individuals have where the arguments against these being real - and thus 'of the imagination' are expressed - often in derogatory fashion and used in that way to procure a kind of legitimacy which itself might be construed in that fashion for the sake of giving the impression that one 'wins' the argument by adopting such method.

Q: Is the method of argument really legitimate?

It's a common brushoff but I'm not sure it qualified as a good argument. It qualifies as, we do not have this thing, so we cannot assume this thing can exist, but assuming it can't exist is off the table just as much.

My thoughts on imagination is that without this vital element of the human experience, nothing humans have created could have been created. So rather than demoting human imagination in derogatory terms, one should acknowledge that vital part it plays in the ongoing injection of invention into the external world we like to refer to as 'reality'.

I agree, though we're not a telepathic species so it's not shareable. People do tend to forget personal experience is a huge part of being a person, and brush off even their own experiences as unscientific. I've had experiences nobody would believe if I told them, with the result that I know certain things are true that others don't know, so I won't say, I saw this therefore I'm right. I will try to obtain better information. But that doesn't mean I think there's any doubt; I saw these things for myself so I know there's not. I just have to document it properly in order to prove it.

I have not (as yet) experienced an NDE so have only anecdotal accounts to go on, but I have had a few OOBEs and can definitely say in that, that the experiences are different from what the experience of imagination gives to me.

So are dreams. And I'm not entirely convinced that this is just imagination unleashed, with us suddenly having the power to create what we otherwise could not.

Currently there is a focus on the argument that GOD is 'an imaginary being in the sky' which is not a new criticism by any means. But what is that really saying in terms of how the word 'imagination' is used for derogatory purposes by those arguing from such a position?

There are ways God could be both imaginary and real. For example, if the energy of thoughts, collectively focused to one end, could do something. So let's say 50 people imagine up the same god, which now lives in their collective consciousness and can now, to some degree, affect reality. Get 2000 people, and it's a bigger effect. Is this being "real" Well, we've now come to a point where we can show at least a potential situation where you're demonstrably correct about the imagination being part of reality.

I've been called crazy by people who say there is no point speculating on, for example, what Klingon culture thinks of something beyond what is revealed in the show because, it doesn't exist, the Klingons aren't real, end of story. To me it's these people who are... well, trying not to turn crazy into a bastard-word that means everything and nothing like real... let's call them, overly sane. As in, they fall off the spectrum on the other end, but they still fall off just as much (to me anyway) as the guy ranting naked in the street who thinks Scotty is about to beam him up.

[nobspeople]

Often in argument, the imagination is derided as somehow irrelevant and suspect for that. This happens in relation to alternate experiences individuals have where the arguments against these being real - and thus 'of the imagination' are expressed - often in derogatory fashion and used in that way to procure a kind of legitimacy which itself might be construed in that fashion for the sake of giving the impression that one 'wins' the argument by adopting such method.

Q: Is the method of argument really legitimate?

My thoughts on imagination is that without this vital element of the human experience, nothing humans have created could have been created. So rather than demoting human imagination in derogatory terms, one should acknowledge that vital part it plays in the ongoing injection of invention into the external world we like to refer to as 'reality'.

Also, it has been argued that NDEs and OOBEs etc are 'products of imagination' but is this a fair comparison to make? I was recently informed by another that they believed that they had experience genuine NDEs and OOBEs and could not decide whether the experiences were real or imagined, but settled for the conclusion that these were most likely imagined - as in - the experiences were products of their imagination and nothing more.

I have not (as yet) experienced an NDE so have only anecdotal accounts to go on, but I have had a few OOBEs and can definitely say in that, that the experiences are different from what the experience of imagination gives to me.

Indeed, we understand imagination to 'not being real' because we understand the difference between what we refer to as 'real' and what we refer to as 'imagined' - it is the very difference which allows us to delineate between the states of experience.

In relation to human creativity, we understand that the process always begins within the imagination of the individual and the individual is then required to understand the possibility of making the imagined REAL by using 'the stuff of this reality' to try and make what is imagined, REAL.

Without the internal imagination, this process cannot become externalized. Without imagination the human race could not have become what it presently has become or what it potentially can become in the future.

Indeed, potential is another aspect of imagination. Without imagination, potential would never be recognized, let alone actualized.

Currently there is a focus on the argument that GOD is 'an imaginary being in the sky' which is not a new criticism by any means. But what is that really saying in terms of how the word 'imagination' is used for derogatory purposes by those arguing from such a position?

My own ideas on GOD are well enough presented on this board, and have yet to be seriously contested, but have often enough simply been hand-waved away in derogatory fashion as 'imagination', as if in doing so - those practicing such method of argument - are somehow making a relevant point which settles the issue 'once and for all' - at least, according to them. From my perspective though, such hand-waving does nothing at all in any way to convince me I am mistaken, or that my experiences are nothing more than 'imagination'.

Q: Are those in favor of arguing in that manner, truly satisfied that such is 'the end of the matter' and there is no need for them to ponder any alternatives as they settle for the dogmatism of naturalism being the most likely 'answer' in relation to all mystery and alternate experience, content in their belief that their living is simply an invention of the brain and that dying will end their experience forever?

Even so, is that the best position to adopt, given no one actually really knows for sure? Or is the position that one simply maintains through willful choice because any other alternative allows for possibilities which could act against the protective mechanism which a condescending position enforces, effectively ensuring the individual is not tempted to believe anything which cannot be experienced as reality, and that all reality must be able be verified through scientific process, in order to be called 'real'?

Or are there other explanations which I haven't considered, because they have yet to be postulated?

Indignation and personal experiences are too often discounted as nothing more than that. While they may, indeed, be nothing more than the mind and its abilities, it's possible they're more than that. Unless these instances are looked in to specifically, nothing more will be learned.
There's a lot humanity doesn't know. To me, it's perfectly fine to say I DON'T KNOW when one doesn't truly know. Unfortunately, some see that as weakness and refuse to say it when that's really what they think.
Imagination is a crazy thing capable of coming up with weird, amazing, crazy, strange, lovely, terrible things.

[TRANSPONDER]

I'm not even sure that I have anything to contribute here or indeed whether the topic is relevant to Theism let alone Christianity. But anyway...

Human imagination is remarkable. It's fascinating. Both what we do with it and how it evolved

Yes, I think evolved. A lot of stuff, the brain social instinct, morals, respect for authority, survival and fear of death and storymaking I see as evolved instincts further made complex by organised society. That now seems to be the place to go to find out what makes us tick and also how we should tick. The right way to live has often been a puzzle and religion frankly hasn't helped and Philosophy has been hamstrung by not knowing what morality was. Biology is what will help us to understand that.

This isn't to trash it, no more than understanding quantum or Black holes makes us despise nature. If anything it is even more amazing and wonderful than if we just see it as a huge billboard for God. And that's how I see consciousness and imagination. It is amazing and mysterious, but to be demystified, understood and used for our betterment, not used to bewilder ourselves, peddle tall stories, delusions and exploitative mythologies.

And that's where I am and nobody else has to agree and I've seem all the attempts to make the various Consciousness apologetics packages Gaps for God (or at least 'the supernatural') and appeals to Unknowns or efforts to reverse the burden of proof.

So I'll leave you lads to have your fun, I've had my say.

And I'm such a gude boy...I've remembered to check before I hit the Send button...