Mundis Imaginalis - Theosophy.Net2024-03-28T23:55:31Zhttps://theosophy.net/forum/topics/mundis-imaginalis?commentId=3055387%3AComment%3A139340&feed=yes&xn_auth=noI think that few people have…tag:theosophy.net,2014-09-06:3055387:Comment:1394152014-09-06T04:44:05.919ZJohnhttps://theosophy.net/profile/JohnEMead
<p>I think that few people have looked at Corbin. His ideas are considered revolutionary by most scholars. His work led to the creation of the term Imaginal. He worked with the Eranos Foundation during the years they studied Jung’s concept of Active Imagination. He is considered a revolutionary thinker.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I am still hazy on how he interprets both the “where and how” it limits and excludes wild and unbridled speculations w.r.t. Imagination (and the folly it can bring) from Imaginal…</p>
<p>I think that few people have looked at Corbin. His ideas are considered revolutionary by most scholars. His work led to the creation of the term Imaginal. He worked with the Eranos Foundation during the years they studied Jung’s concept of Active Imagination. He is considered a revolutionary thinker.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I am still hazy on how he interprets both the “where and how” it limits and excludes wild and unbridled speculations w.r.t. Imagination (and the folly it can bring) from Imaginal thinking in his theory, as well as how he reconciles the use of images in a truly iconoclastic religion like Islam (Sufism, his specialty). These are critical to understand from his viewpoint before I can have any interpretations of my own worth mentioning. In the meantime, I am trying to understand him. The above two items seem to make his work key in scholastic thinking on Imagination by most authors I have read. I think most on this site have not heard of him and find him confusing, otherwise they would have said something by now. Due to lack of interest, I am less inclined to push the issues any further.</p>
<p>If you understand his work well, perhaps you can expand on the two issues above?</p> If you and I, or anybody else…tag:theosophy.net,2014-09-05:3055387:Comment:1394142014-09-05T19:55:34.621ZMark Kusekhttps://theosophy.net/profile/MarkKusek165
<p>If you and I, or anybody else were to "discuss Corbin's definition and concepts" about anything, that would still be our respective interpretations, in my opinion.</p>
<p></p>
<p>do you really want to rebuff the only other voice interested in the discussion?</p>
<p></p>
<p>I am very familiar with Corbin's material, have had it in my library for years and quite capable of offering my opinions, views and explanations (re interpretations)</p>
<p></p>
<p>Now that you've posted the source…</p>
<p>If you and I, or anybody else were to "discuss Corbin's definition and concepts" about anything, that would still be our respective interpretations, in my opinion.</p>
<p></p>
<p>do you really want to rebuff the only other voice interested in the discussion?</p>
<p></p>
<p>I am very familiar with Corbin's material, have had it in my library for years and quite capable of offering my opinions, views and explanations (re interpretations)</p>
<p></p>
<p>Now that you've posted the source material, and everyone can access it and imbibe it for themselves if they want to, what more is there to say except our respective views and interpretations? Why should anyone be interested in your interpretation vs. one they can easily make for themselves?</p>
<p></p>
<p>Just curious.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Plus, it took you several posts into a discussion before you clarified what it was that you really wanted to discuss.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Corbin's (or any other academic's) definition and conception of imagination will also be similarly limited and merely their personal interpretation, in my view. nothing absolute or exhaustive, certainly nothing to get overly excited about or inordinately over-value, especially vis a vis the direct experience of imagination which we all have access to by birth.</p>
<p></p>
<p>So if I were to ask you what YOU thought of Corbin's definition and conception of mundis imaginalis, whatever you might say in return is somehow antiseptically free from admixture with your own personal views and completely objective in some academic sense? I don't think so.</p>
<p></p>
<p>I'll lurk for a while and see what you come back with about that, otherwise, what you have said about Corbin so far is nothing I can't come to by myself.</p>
<p></p>
<p>If the intent of discussion is not to share our personal apprehensions, evaluations and interpretations of it, why should anyone bother discussing it?</p>
<p></p>
<p>Why, for example, do you find Corbin so valuable a reference to something that is innate?</p>
<p></p>
<p>If I'm being honest, my feathers start to ruffle whenever I read you saying things about judgeng "wild" or "correct" theosophical views for anyone else but yourself.</p>
<p></p>
<p>If you seriously want to discuss, please reply, otherwise let it be and hope someone else becomes interested enough in what you judge to be correct or incorrect to listen to your views.</p>
<p></p>
<p>.. and that would not be personal interpretation? gimme a break.</p>
<p></p>
<p>I'll watch with curiosity to see what if anything happens and if anybody else engages how you response to them.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Theosophy is not bound by a definition</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p> we are discussing Corbin's de…tag:theosophy.net,2014-09-05:3055387:Comment:1393412014-09-05T05:23:59.193ZJohnhttps://theosophy.net/profile/JohnEMead
<p>we are discussing Corbin's definition and the concept of how it is interpreted in academia.</p>
<p></p>
<p>I started a discussion on Imagination in general. That should work for people's ideas and concepts in any general framework. See imagination.</p>
<p>we are discussing Corbin's definition and the concept of how it is interpreted in academia.</p>
<p></p>
<p>I started a discussion on Imagination in general. That should work for people's ideas and concepts in any general framework. See imagination.</p> so your interpretation? LOLtag:theosophy.net,2014-09-05:3055387:Comment:1393402014-09-05T00:13:13.398ZMark Kusekhttps://theosophy.net/profile/MarkKusek165
<p>so your interpretation? LOL</p>
<p>so your interpretation? LOL</p> That will be another topic. I…tag:theosophy.net,2014-09-04:3055387:Comment:1393052014-09-04T22:24:52.003ZJohnhttps://theosophy.net/profile/JohnEMead
<p>That will be another topic. It is not Mundis Imaginalis/Imaginal.</p>
<p>That will be another topic. It is not Mundis Imaginalis/Imaginal.</p> Perhaps you are, but I am tal…tag:theosophy.net,2014-09-04:3055387:Comment:1393042014-09-04T21:01:28.799ZMark Kusekhttps://theosophy.net/profile/MarkKusek165
<p>Perhaps you are, but I am talking about the faculty of imagination as I directly experience it and offering my own interpretation of meaning.</p>
<p>Perhaps you are, but I am talking about the faculty of imagination as I directly experience it and offering my own interpretation of meaning.</p> We are only talking about Mun…tag:theosophy.net,2014-09-04:3055387:Comment:1393032014-09-04T07:20:57.822ZJohnhttps://theosophy.net/profile/JohnEMead
<p>We are only talking about Mundus Imaginalis, or the Imaginal as defined academically. Its reach and benefits into thinking are very relevant. It is a powerful theosophical tool. One key aspect, or problem, is to find a way to distinguish idle imagination, folly, fancy, wild speculation with no basis etc. (i,e, what Pantajali calls "fancy" in his 5 ways of thinking/mind).</p>
<p></p>
<p>A tool, imagination, can lead to invalid thinking is one does not learn to distinguish the wild thinking of…</p>
<p>We are only talking about Mundus Imaginalis, or the Imaginal as defined academically. Its reach and benefits into thinking are very relevant. It is a powerful theosophical tool. One key aspect, or problem, is to find a way to distinguish idle imagination, folly, fancy, wild speculation with no basis etc. (i,e, what Pantajali calls "fancy" in his 5 ways of thinking/mind).</p>
<p></p>
<p>A tool, imagination, can lead to invalid thinking is one does not learn to distinguish the wild thinking of many theosophists. It is a sacred tool to help guide to correct thinking, enlightenment, and should be used carefully in analysis/learning.</p> It's very interesting to me a…tag:theosophy.net,2014-09-01:3055387:Comment:1394122014-09-01T20:12:12.470ZMark Kusekhttps://theosophy.net/profile/MarkKusek165
<p>It's very interesting to me also, to note the inter-dependance being established right here and now as well, in this exchange, between imagination and description (i.e. linguistics, or Logos, Vach, Nada, Word, etc.).</p>
<p></p>
<p>The fact that we are attempting to talk about imagination to that degree, relatively conditions the whole affair.</p>
<p>It's very interesting to me also, to note the inter-dependance being established right here and now as well, in this exchange, between imagination and description (i.e. linguistics, or Logos, Vach, Nada, Word, etc.).</p>
<p></p>
<p>The fact that we are attempting to talk about imagination to that degree, relatively conditions the whole affair.</p> As to the first postulate, yo…tag:theosophy.net,2014-09-01:3055387:Comment:1391502014-09-01T20:04:46.240ZMark Kusekhttps://theosophy.net/profile/MarkKusek165
<p>As to the first postulate, you could also look at it as transmuting body, or awareness of what is body. I think there is an interdependent relationship to acknowledge regardless of which viewpoint you examine mind/body from.</p>
<p>Are we discussing imagination or any of its arisen products with regard to their form?</p>
<p>Are we discussing imagination or any of its arisen products in relation to a consciously distinguishing and observing or participating subject?</p>
<p>I think a term like…</p>
<p>As to the first postulate, you could also look at it as transmuting body, or awareness of what is body. I think there is an interdependent relationship to acknowledge regardless of which viewpoint you examine mind/body from.</p>
<p>Are we discussing imagination or any of its arisen products with regard to their form?</p>
<p>Are we discussing imagination or any of its arisen products in relation to a consciously distinguishing and observing or participating subject?</p>
<p>I think a term like "noetic value" can have many possible nuances or interpretations of meanings, some of which depend on the inter-relation of these factors.</p>
<p>I do like the connection drawn between noetic value and creativity.</p>
<p></p>
<p>In our sleep we dream</p>
<p>and in our dreams</p>
<p>we create worlds.</p>
<p></p> Corbin's two Postulates from…tag:theosophy.net,2014-08-31:3055387:Comment:1392382014-08-31T17:36:05.421ZJohnhttps://theosophy.net/profile/JohnEMead
<p></p>
<p>Corbin's two Postulates from <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/21749897/MUNDUS-IMAGINALIS" target="_blank">Mundis Imaginalis:</a></p>
<p></p>
<p>"</p>
<p>Any progression in spiritual space is accomplished by means of this transmutation, or better even, the transmutation itself is what spatializes the space. It gives rise to the space that is there, as well as to the "nearnesses", the"distances" and the "far-off" places.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The first postulate is that this Imagination…</p>
<p></p>
<p>Corbin's two Postulates from <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/21749897/MUNDUS-IMAGINALIS" target="_blank">Mundis Imaginalis:</a></p>
<p></p>
<p>"</p>
<p>Any progression in spiritual space is accomplished by means of this transmutation, or better even, the transmutation itself is what spatializes the space. It gives rise to the space that is there, as well as to the "nearnesses", the"distances" and the "far-off" places.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The first postulate is that this Imagination must be a purely spiritual faculty, independent of the physical organism and therefore able to continue to exist after the latter has disappeared. Sadra Shirazi, among others, insisted on this point on several occasions. Just as the soul is independent of the material, physical body, as to intellective capacity for the act of receiving the intelligibles, the soul is also independent as to its imaginative capacity and its imaginative activity. Moreover, when it is separated from this world it can continue to avail itself of active imagination.<br/><br/>A second postulate results: spiritual imagination is indeed a cognitive power, an organ of true knowledge. Imaginative perception and imaginative consciousness have their function and their noetic (cognitive) value within their own world, which is — as pointed out earlier — the 'alam al-mithal, the mundus imaginalis, the world of the mystical cities such as Hûrqalyâ, wheretime is reversed and where space, being only the outer aspect of an inner state, is created at will.</p>
<p>"</p>
<p>-----------------</p>