Ultimate Reality Calls for Imagination
If you do not like dragons you are lacking as a person.
Whenever possible, I like to begin a post by aggravating or at least interesting most of the audience. Thus, the above sentence. What it lacks in precision it makes up for in verbal kick. Here's what I'm getting at: Imagination—personified by the 60-foot dragon with gray-green scales and teeth like iron daggers—is not a negotiable element in life. It is vital, even central, to healthy living.
How can this be? Well, it’s hard to adjust your life to the contours of reality without imagination. Lots of it.
The argument begins like this.
AJ: Hey! Hey you, the guy in the Linux T-shirt.
'Realist': Yeah?
AJ: I've got a question. Call it a Physics question. Is everything that exists visible to the naked eye?
'Realist': Do you always start conversations this way?
AJ: Oh, come off it. Stop playing to the audience and answer the question.
'Realist': Uh, ok. No, not everything that exists can be seen. Atoms, wind, the multiple dimensions of reality (maybe as many as 39)--you can't see these things.
AJ: Right. Because they're invisible, so to speak. And yet you believe these invisible things exist?
'Realist': Of course.
AJ: Would you say you have some concept of these things, a kind of familiarity with their workings? Do you have, say, 'pictures' you associate with them?
'Realist': C'mon, man. Obviously. I majored in computer science and read books on Physics in my spare time. There are various models that attempt to depict atomic structures, wind can be thought of as 'blowing' or even 'flowing' like water. And Brian Greene visualizes some amazing theories about the 'fabric of the cosmos.' Even the quadratic equation has a kind of beautiful shape to it.
AJ: Right. That all makes sense, except for the bit about the quadratic equation. So you admit that it takes imagination to reconcile yourself to reality?
'Realist': Huh?
Considering that even the law of gravity is accentuated by imagination ("Don't go too close to the edge, or else!") it's no great leap to suggest that all sorts of unseen reality will not be hit upon without similar work.
Of course, a materialist might be able to make a convincing case that using one's imagination is escapist and delusional. (Unless he chooses the opposite course and deliberately advocates imagination because reality is so undesirable.) But someone who believes in a spiritual world, and most especially a Christian, will have a hard time defending the absolute necessity of a healthy, well-oiled imagination.
How else will we begin to live as if Christ is nearby, and walking through life with us? How else will we adjust for the reality of heaven--the priorlife--and the startling weight of eternity? How else will we pick up the little hints, the small clues, the shattered pieces of glory that make up the bittersweet mosaic of life now? How else will we cope with mystery and loss?
As G.K. Chesterton says, "Imagination does not breed insanity. Exactly what does breed insanity is reason. Poets do not go mad; but chess players do." I have a couple friends who are working their way down the road toward mental health. One of them, Rob, has come to the point of candidly admitting the fact that he 'doesn't read fiction.' When confronted with the implications of this, he confessed his deficiency. "Yeah, I need to read something besides nonfiction," he admitted. There is hope for Rob, because he knows his faith can use a shot of imagination, and he is seeking help.
Other cases are more serious.
Scott, my other friend, is still in denial. Scott is still struggling to admit he even has an imagination because he has a hard time with 'stuff that couldn't really happen.' Dragons for example. Dragons make Scott roll his eyes. He would much rather draw the quadratic equation on a chalk board. Because it 'could really happen,' you know.
Scott has yet to realize that the quadratic equation was discovered by someone who was using his imagination. But, with the help of the Lord of the Rings movies and incremental trips into books that are not about programming, there is even help for people like Scott. At least we can hope so.
For the rest of us, it's good to remember that those trips into Narnia, down Baker Street, or through Middle Earth, are not wasted. A person living hand in hand with reality would be someone who was not overly impressed at what could merely be seen with the eyes.
11 comments:
Ariel, this was a fantastic post. All too often I think Christians do neglect this aspect of their God-given humanity. If we are truly made in the image of God, then our imagination is something that God intended for us to have and utilize. We need only to look at creation to know that God has a pretty vivid imagination. The duck-billed platypus...need I say more :)
Nice. The imagination is key - we need to dream as that is one of God's gifts to us - hence my joy in spending time in those imaginary worlds, whether Lost, LOTR, Battlestar Galactica, or any other myriad ways to enjoy those worlds.
Writing, too, is one of the tools I use - it takes some imagination to keep up a daily blog!
The ancients recognized the imagination as a way of knowing--that is, a way of getting at truths that might not be easy to articulate via whatever empirical evidence we might have at hand. For me, one of the great themes of both LOTR and Christianity is hope--and how can one even begin to talk about hope without the capacity and appreciation for the imagination?
So, yeah: I dig dragons.
The quadratic equation could totally happen. At least, that's what a dragon told me one time. And he'd know.
Don't forget the Dungeons... we can't have Dragons without Dungeons... They go together ;)
Good topic. A couple thoughts, my friend:
Could it be possible that what we really have here is two groups of people with opposite mental tendencies, each being content to misunderstand and look past the other? Is it valid to suggest that "since I like dragons and since other people who like dragons say liking dragons is the way to go, then it must be the way to go?" I'm not saying there's anything wrong with liking dragons, I'm just saying there's nothing wrong with NOT liking dragons.
Your illustrations that combine science and imagination are a bit misguided in my opinion. I think the type of mental exploration involved in things like scientific invention, creative system design, and even the creation of revolutionary new theories about the cosmos is completely different than the "imagination" involved when someone says "wow, cool" as a dragon flies across the movie screen. Scientists begin with a set of disjointed truths, and from there they attempt to fill in the gaps using other equations, experiment results, etc. Theories are built up from fact (or sometimes other yet-unproven theories), not built down from some grandiose, fanciful picture. A physicist may say, "You know, I see this beam of light behaving this way, maybe what's really happening is _____ and if that is true then..." but he doesn't say "hmmm... today I think there are 39 dimensions. I'll now try to prove it because I think it would be cool if there really were 39 dimensions." (Also, the quadratic formula in particular is probably a bad example of something that was "discovered by someone who was using his imagination" since it follows from straight equation manipulation, but I get your point). So, I guess I'm saying that I think the mental exploration involved in science has a much different flavor to it than the imagination that causes someone to like Lord of the Rings et. al. I'm definitely not saying one is better than the other, I'm just saying different people have different preferences.
In defense of "Scott:" I do have an imagination, yes even me... it's a vital part of my walk with the Lord (as mentioned by Ariel and others). My imagination comes to life when it is founded on things eternal... when it has a heavenly motivation. It struggles when it's motivated by Hollywood or by man-made print. I’m proud to say that when it comes to dragons and Math, I choose Math.
Scott
Scott,
I think there's an important distiction between fantastical imagination and concrete imagination. While I don't think it's essential to have both in high degree, I just don't UNDERSTAND how a person could so completely lack a healthy hunger for fantastical stories.
Concrete imagination, although not always founded on fact, always has a goal or point to it. While it might be enjoyable to some, there's not much play or fun involved in deriving equations. Fantastical imagination, however, is inherently LACKING in a goal. It simply is. This, I believe, is why Tolkien so vehemently denied that Lord of the Rings was an allegory of any sort. It was just a story to him, and to add an allegorical or moral underpinning is to move the story, albeit slightly (Narnia, for example, still resides very close to the fantastical on the continuum), towards the concrete pole. The Bible, I would contend, resides somewhere in the nebulous middle. It's stories, history, and instruction, all in one inscrutable package. But without at least a rudimentary appreciation of the fantastical pole, I feel, a believer has a one-dimensional appreciation of the Bible. Anyone who can read about Balaam's donkey, divorced from the theological implications of his disobedience, and doesn't enjoy the fundamental "story-ness" of it, needs a lesson in fantasy. Likewise, anyone who reads the story of the prodigal son, divorced from the obvious personal ramifications for that person (which, granted, is difficult to do), without feeling a mixed sense of joy and sadness (in a word: bittersweetness), is starving for a serious helping of some Arthurian legends, some Sherlock Holmes, or even some Dragonlance, to say the least. From my observation and friendship with you, Scott, it doesn't seem that you have a fundamentally one-dimensional appreciation for the Bible. But I've never seen your buried love for the fantastical manifest itself in other areas (with notable odious exceptions: see Labyrinth, Cats). I'm still trying to find the right de-repression antidote that will move your appreciation of the fantastical beyond David Bowie in tight pants, Michael Jackson in tight pants, and men dressed as cats in tight pants. Hmm... that's weird.
Oh man. I should have known this post would stir up a local firefight.
I'll go ahead and admit that I enhanced the dichotomy between imagination and 'science' in order to step on some toes. I feel the post was a success as far as that goes.
I think I'll even stand up for my argument that imagination is enshrined in the halls of science and yes, even Math. Imagination, as I'm describing it here, is the mental fuel that humans use to visualize something previously unknown or unseen. As Scott says, people may have preferences as to how they employ their imaginations (reading Tolkien vs. conceptualizing new theorems) - but the commonality, I think, is greater than people suspect.
Thus, I know that Scott has an imagination, as demonstrated with his obsessive love for new code. Of course, Scott would be a healthier, more rounded person if he was able gain a panoramic perspective on imagination - get outside the geometric box.
Of course, I also kind of like Mark's idea of "concrete" vs. "fantastic" imagination. Some people are turned off by the more bizarre manifestations of the "fantastic" (I might even include myself) while others seems to revel in them. Ultimately, I think we have to gain a degree of comfort with both sides, if for no other reason than we live in a concrete, outcome-governed world which is ruled by a fantastic, logic-transcending God. Perplexing mysteries intermingle with revealed laws.
As to the observation about tight pants, it's hard to know what to say.
" people may have preferences as to how they employ their imaginations (reading Tolkien vs. conceptualizing new theorems) - but the commonality, I think, is greater than people suspect."
You may be right on this, but I still struggle to make the connection between fact-based scientific "imagination" and the fanciful "imagination." Perhaps I struggle because I don't see it in myself... and that's all I know.
I've also been wondering about the artistic "imagination." Where do those thought processes exist? Ariel and others might suggest that it too is part of the overarching human Imagination that we "use to visualize something previously unknown or unseen." This Imagination would then encompass artistic, fantastic, and scientific thought. I think I would challenge the artistic inclusion as well. This question may expand our disussion exponentially, so consider that it was intended as hypothetical. (forgive me if I've put words in your mouths)
Good talk.
Scott
I'm of the crowd that thinks that imagination is imagination. There's no parceling some out to art and some to science. It is what it is. How we flavor that imagination is where we get into areas of left brain vs. right brain. I, myself, have an artistic imagination. I think of things in terms of nuance and shading and story. But my Dad has a very mathematical mind. He looks at numbers and sees all sorts of relationships that people like me will never see. But I admit to having moments of pure enjoyment with numbers and science. I love astronomy. I love inventory counting. I also love writing and art and (sometimes) poetry. I think people look at the world in many different ways. I knew a guy in the Navy that would not read fiction. He didn't like it. He didn't think it was his thing. And yet, he'd spend every weekend playing role playing games - a sure sign of imagination run amok! So, I think we all have the same amount of imagination - I just think we tend to use it differently.
This Imagination would then encompass artistic, fantastic, and scientific thought...
As Scott suggests, I wouldn't be too uncomfortable with this assertion. On a general level, imagination materializes in all kinds of arenas. It emerges in a human predisposition to ask, What if? and then visualize an answer. As John B. notes, "The ancients recognized the imagination as a way of knowing." I would emphasize that in the spiritual realm, this is central, vital, unavoidable.
I do feel the inadequacy of this wide angle perspective, though. I find it hard, in a more narrow sense, to divorce imagination from a strong love of Story. I didn't really play up this focus in my post...but it's close to the heart of this 'debate' I think.
Why?
Because we're living out a story, a redemption story. In terms of spiritual development, story is far more powerful than data-bytes. The Bible reflects this, even in fantastic terms (case in point: Revelation). In the end, I tend to think a discomfort with 'story' can limit someone's experience of the Christian life.
But this topic is different from the point of the original post.
Maybe what Scott is describing is a hesitancy to invest oneself in things that 'couldn't really happen.' Many people have this trait, and it could predispose one to an interest in the sciences rather than liberal arts... Also, it's an attitude that Jesus didn't discount, giving Thomas 'concrete proof' of the Resurrection. By the same token, faith could be more of a 'show-me-the-evidence' battle for this type of person at first. In the long run, I'm not sure it matters, though. Thomas went on to evangelize India...
I think I need to write a post on Story.
Post a Comment