Area home

a creative life

  begenic love
gary e. davis
March 10 , 2019
September 5

ontogeny, begeny, what have you, let there be fantasy in free play beyond imagism—free play of all modes of intelligence (all modes of symbolization)
in creatively giving way to audacities of conceptual prospecting that could com-prehend all Time in being, as if!

Well, gods, at least give me efficacy of novelty that’s satisfying. Give me ways
to wholly semiotic play that can be fulfilling.

That reminds me of Imagination and the meaningful brain, which is not basically about the irreducibility of imagination to neuroscience, rather “the autonomy of imagination”—mind—which (that psychoanalyst has emphasized there and earlier) is about Self engagement, not merely processes that are embodied or phenomen-ological. Likewise for any theorist oriented by psychoanalysis (such as Ricoeur): It’s all about individuated mind: Self. “Like consciousness itself,” the publisher’s description of The Life indicates, “imagination resists reductive explanation.” That’s an understatement. That’s an invitation.

In the beginning, self-enhancive interest imagines freely—all the time, months before differentiation of self and other is done. (That doesn’t just happen, like
a process; otherwise there wouldn’t be attachment disorders). Then, enframing
of materiality by interests of mind (personification, largely) advances beyond early childhood to more-conceptually framed symbolization (in Piagetian senses, at least).

Also, of course, “imagination arises from our material engagements with the world.” But that’s derivative of primal and imaginative personification that serves self-enhancive appeals of individuation, I venture. In early months, self-different-iating personification of real others precedes differentiation between what’s alive and what’s not, according to important clinical work with infants. Then, far into early childhood, imaginative personification prevails over objectification because that’s more interesting.

The older we grow, the further from self-enhancive individuation time draws us, as if imagining becomes a resort to our deeper-selved resourcefulness (if not compensatory withdrawal) facing surdity of daily life, inasmuch as capability has been intently individuated. While “imagination must be understood as multifaceted, shaping our ordinary experience,” its appeal arises from manifold individuation which was not primarily about material engagements.

So, indeed, imagination “diverges from the operations of ordinary thinking,” because thinking in the first place is interested (not premised on “operations” from which it diverges). Interest, thus imagination, is integral to individuation of Self. Therefore, “imagination aids us in better understanding reality,” thanks to
the individuated background brought to “reality” (and as resourcefulness differ-entiating oneself from mere “reality”). “Imagination endows us with the sense of an inner life” because what becomes inner again was once pre-differentiated, when one is everything: being there as whatever. Imaginability finds emergence in experience as re-potentiated mergence with one’s individuated capability, finding one’s Inner Child horizoning.

relationality: mirrored in the feeling for what happens

Self, self, and interpersonal life: imagination being mirrored?

prospecting creative relationality


<—prefacing | Point of being—>






  Be fair. © 2019, gary e. davis