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?

[William]

[Replying to post 10 by Divine Insight]

... the imagination is just an aspect of the whole process, same as is the brain.

Exactly my position.

Not in the context of my own position, which is what I was speaking to.

So is this position itself "condescending"?

It is not the purpose of this thread to debate whether your position is a condescending one DI.

In other words, is it condescending to tell someone that their imagination is just a part of their normal secular brain activity?

It can be, for sure. Being condescending is an attitude adopted by many positions. Certainly it doesn't make for great device of argument. It is certainly more appropriate to argue with another that their imagination is just a part of their normal secular brain activity, if indeed their experiences are actually established as being 'of the imagination.' Otherwise telling them that something they know they experienced as real, is only a product of "wild imagination", isn't likely to be received as anything but condescending.

It seems to me that the only people who would feel that this is condescending would be people who believe it to be more than this.

From people who believe it isn't, yes.

I can certainly understand why they would feel that no one is "believing" them.

It isn't about that. I covered that aspect of the argument in post #9.

But it's not that other people aren't believing that they have had mental experiences.

This was also covered in post #9. People who have NDEs/OOBEs recognize their experience is spiritual, not mental. They understand consciousness as spirit, not mental. As a product of something other than the brain.

All they are saying is that this does not constitute "evidence" of anything more than this.

That was also covered in post #9 DI. The evidence is experienced by the individual and is in the experience itself. It does not matter to the one sharing their experience that this does not constitute "evidence" of anything more than this in relation to that one who has had no such experience. That's all.

In other words, for the secularist imagination is just as normal part of natural brain activity so why suggest that it is something more than this?

This was also covered in post #9. Imaginative experience is different than real experience. The secularist conflates the 2 in order to hold their argument from position.

What would you have them do? Speak nothing of their experiences and go quietly into the night? Some actually do remain silent, keeping their experiences occulted rather than risk being treated as 'having problems' but this of course does not mean that in order to do so they have to adopt the secularist interpretation. Some, no doubt do adopt the secularist interpretation, because the alternatives might be seen to be something they personally couldn't cope with.

This is not to say that there aren't valid reasons causing these mental experiences. I agree with the points made by Eleanor Longden. She seemed to explain all of this without suggesting that we need to be condescending toward anyone who is having these experiences.

Indeed, this is correct. She identified the condescending methods being used to treat her, the alienation, the idea that she had 'mental problems' the drugs used to 'combat' those problems, and eventually her non-condescending manner in which she accomplished a positive outcome in relation to something she didn't imagine what she wanted to hear, or what she did not want to hear, but rather came at her without any conscious consent on her part, which btw, was contrary to your own argument that;

People imagine what they want to hear. Not what they don't want to hear.

But then, you were arguing for 'the imagination did it' anyway, so in that I can agree, pure imagination gives the individual what they want to imagine, not what they don't want to imagine.

I agree. This is exactly how we should approach this, especially from the perspective of psychology. In fact, it would be extremely ignorant to just dismiss these experiences as being invalid, or unimportant, etc.

But this doesn't mean that we need to valid them as being evidence of the "supernatural"

NDEs/OOBEs - as I pointed out in post #9 - are a natural part of the human experience and always have been. If this natural experience connects with something which is an alternate reality, and that is consigned to being therefore "supernatural", this would be a case of human definition based in ignorance rather than anything else DI.
Many whom experience such, often express their experience along the lines of "I felt like I was finally HOME" which of course signifies the idea that they are returning to something naturally familiar rather than "supernatural".

[Walterbl]

I believe many of such experiences are real, and there is more to it that what we give them credit for.

[William]

[Replying to post 12 by Walterbl]

I believe many of such experiences are real, and there is more to it that what we give them credit for.

Given that there are many reports where the experience is more real than what we refer to as reality - which I know first hand myself - alternate realities are acceptable to those who experience them as being more than just a creation of imagination and the brain in much the same way as we would not sensibly claim that this reality is a creation of imagination and the brain.

[William]

[Replying to post 8 by Divine Insight]

Well, gee. I think a psychologist can easily see what's going on here. This man needs his previous wife to approve of everything he does so that he can free himself of guilt that he would otherwise feel.

In the act, he was seeking closure.

I did a similar thing through the use of the message board. Someone significant in my life and whom I looked up to, had sexually abused me as a youngun, and some years afterward, died before I could confront him.
I used the opportunity afforded to me through the message board to reconnect, tell the individual how his actions had affected me, got an apology, and closure...and thus healing.

Profound things happen and are still dealt with in very human ways. Keeping humble in the face of the profound is admirable, but lets be careful where we consign the source of our inspiration re these alternate experiences, if for no other reason than it allows for the potential and increases alternate knowledge useful in this or any other world.

"The brain did it" might seem reasonable, but I am not convinced, and don't even see why I would need to be.
What am I to say to my friends on the other side? "Oh 'sorry' I thought you were all just a product of my brain?" Perhaps they would simply nod knowingly and tell me they understand perfectly, because that is just the type of personality I chose to be, and then I will be have to go back in order to have the opportunity to get it right the next time.

Some stories speak of such things happening.

Reason being, the whole idea of this experience is to reintegrate by developing these connections as REAL, whilst in the dominant reality experience of the human form, INCLUDING those weird and wonderfully mysterious experiences which 'shouldn't be happening' but are anyway.

To say after the fact, "Oh I see now I was mistaken, and since I have the evidence I can now believe" does not qualify as genuine reintegration, and that is something people in such situation also intimately understand and thus decide to 'do it again'. They require the genuine.

Jeff will likely be meeting his ex-wife again in that alternate reality. I am satisfied with my understanding of that, even that he nor I can provide any evidence to support the experience-based assertion, to those who otherwise doubt.

People imagine what they want to hear. Not what they don't want to hear.

This is not an absolute, by any means DI. If anything, people hear what they need to hear, whether they know this consciously or not. Whether they listen or not is another thing...the imagination is just an aspect of the whole process, same as is the brain.

[yt]syjEN3peCJw[/yt]

[William]

From another thread post ,critical of imagination:

William: Do you realize that imagination is always the first part of the process of change?

Zzyzx: Imagination is also likely to be the first part of the progress of evil. So what?


William: So do you agree then that without imagination, change brought about in the real world through Human thought, is simply not possible?

Imagination is vital.
Perhaps the real world isn't about belittling imagination but faulting what is being imagined and made real through human invention, much of which is made possible through scientific processes, first imagined and then manifested in the real world.

Zzyzx: I trust that astute readers understand that ‘deal with life on the basis of what is actually known of the real world’ is presented as an alternative to dealing with life through imagination. Perhaps not all will comprehend, but is not my duty to assist those who choose to misunderstand or misconstrue.


William: When imagination is belittled to such extremes, I think it is a decent thing to speak up in its defense. Even dictionary definitions show how belittled the word has become by not acknowledging the vital importance of imagination in relation to human progressiveness.

Zzyzx: Does imagination get a child to the hospital in emergencies?

William: Imagination made that possible. Where do you think the idea for hospitals and vehicles and the need for speed came from? People imagined such a world and then set about building it. That is GOD in action...a major way in which GOD communes with this reality through human beings.

Zzyzx: Can one pay the rent and electric with imagination?


William: Imagination set up these systems and helped make the ideas manifest as real.
It always begins with the function of the imagination, and this is one of the things which shows substantial difference between humans and other animals.

Zzyzx: What has imagining gods to do with human accomplishment?

William: Some simply require it in order to get about accomplishing. See our discussion in another thread on this subject;
Link:


Zzyzx: Some human accomplishments start with imagination applied to the real world. Nearly all human accomplishment is made through actual effort in the real world. Until and unless imagination is put into ACTION in the real world it is just fantasy.

William: Who has been arguing differently?


Zzyzx: Those who wish to use imagination as their basis for real world decisions are welcome to do so. I do not choose to join them.

William: Some people imagine that if they can convert theists into non-theists, they can help create a better world. They then spend copious amounts of time and effort investing in that fantasy.
Indeed, most of our decisions in the real world can be traced back to the processes of human imagination.

Zzyzx: When they attempt to encourage others to take up their imaginary constructs, I challenge the claims, stories, threats, and/or promises.

William: Like I say. Any time you want to go head2head on my claim that the Earth is a living self aware intelligent creative entity which is a GOD in its own right, I am more than willing to engage.
So far I have not encountered even one non-theist who has ever been able to convince me to turn from being a theist.

Zzyzx: Let us know how it works out to live in imaginary lives (or ‘afterlives’)

William: I will continue to do so. Although we obviously have very different understandings as to what that actually means.
Imagine that!
Re 'afterlife' the same process of creativity through individual imagination manifests the individuals reality experience - only - from reports of those who have OOBEs, NDEs and Astral Travel skills, what is imagined is instantly manifested and most individuals appear not to realize this is the process they are going through, in that realm.
In many ways, it is a great device for truer justice than anything in this reality.

[Zzyzx]

.
Those who prefer to base their lives and decisions on imagination (and/or fantasy) are welcome to do so – and to pretend that imaging or ‘believing in’ supernatural entities is critical to human life.

Some of us prefer to base life and decisions on conditions and events we observe and encounter in the real world – rather than upon testimonials and celebrity endorsements. Praying for desired effects seems far less certain and effective than actually DOING something constructive.

When ill or injured, even promoters of imagination are usually wise enough to seek medical care rather than depending on help from imagined ‘spirits’.

[Zzyzx]

.
A practical alternative to imagining (and wishing, and hoping, and praying) is to consider potential courses of action, make a decision, formulate a plan, achieve the objective.

Rather than imagining (wishing / hoping / praying) to go to college -- register, take classes, fulfill requirements, graduate. If the ultimate objective is to become a university faculty member, replace imagining with going to graduate school and acquiring credentials required by the profession.

Supernatural assistance is not required (though some feel as though it is for them)

[William]

The reader please take note that posts #16 & #17 have not addressed the argument I have been making re the importance of imagination as a device to bring into this reality the creative.
Posts #16 & #17 continue to deride imagination as being something only to be associated with superstition.
In that, the posts clearly give us an example on how some folk inject condescending arguments about imagination into the real world and incorrectly delegate imagination as only the function of 'woo'.

Imagination is a key ingredient of the human creative process, without which, we simply would not have been able to have created the things which we have, into this world in which we exist.

[Divine Insight]

Imagination is a key ingredient of the human creative process, without which, we simply would not have been able to have created the things which we have, into this world in which we exist.

There's a huge difference between imagining things that are possible and bringing them to fruition versus imagining things that are impossible and acting like as if they have some sort of merit just because we claim to be able to imagine them.

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.

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]

Divine Insight: There's a huge difference between imagining things that are possible and bringing them to fruition versus imagining things that are impossible and acting like as if they have some sort of merit just because we claim to be able to imagine them.

William: True. And indeed that is part of the point being made.

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.


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.
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.