Comments on: The Imaginal

By: Richard Reeve

Richard Reeve — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:02:57 +0000

Receptivity is cultivated Aaron and I so much appreciate that your presence is here to help foster it.

By: Aaron Gaul

Aaron Gaul — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:46:00 +0000

Yes, thank you Susan. Amazing how death can have such an enlivening effect.

There is perhaps a strong connection between the imaginal and death. I believe that “imagination” is expressive — I am the doer. The imaginal is receptive — I am a participant of a greater reality. Death places us in a profoundly receptive frame of mind/soul.

By: Richard Reeve

Richard Reeve — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 03:51:33 +0000

Hi Susan
Thanks for sharing this amazing story. So powerful and beautiful…

By: Susan Mazza

Susan Mazza — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:23:20 +0000

Thank you for provoking me to pause and think today about the "imaginal" Richard. Aaron's expression here resonates with me Aaron. "As we become a little more present and a little more non-existent, the imaginal appears. The imaginal allows us to participate in its reality. I think this is how we “restored the connection, and make it natural.” In my Dad's last few months, when he knew the end was near, I think for the first time I experienced another so explicitly make this shift. He was the planner, the debater, the striver, and the logical man all his life, at least in who he projected to the outside world. And in an instant he became present to now, studying his hand and remarking in it's magic, imagining what the next life was really all about, reflecting on his life as a creative process and celebrating the joy, not of accomplishment, but of experience. We connected at a level that is beyond words and anything I had experienced with him as close as we were. It was an extraordinary gift and I continue to search for how to have the imaginal present in my relationships now rather having only a brief glimpse at what seems like an end. Susan Mazza´s last blog post..5 Signs of “Leading While Distracted”

By: Richard Reeve

Richard Reeve — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 13:06:43 +0000

And in my imagination Detlef, I argue with a man critical of your blog, yet he’s never read it. Argument is a hallmark of rationality. It’s also interesting that your stated issue is Jung when this is an “introduction” to Corbin. That I disagree is a given since I posted this, but let me add that experientially, many books have allowed my to carry water with only a net. Teaching comes in many guises and I remain grateful for the things these men have introduced me too. The most fascinating of Jung’s works are written in a manner of an irrational labyrinth, the point of view being completely that of the unconscious.

I love the comic book reference, and through these teachings, I’ve been able to observe/encounter many comic book like figures, just not in the comic books.

By: Richard Reeve

Richard Reeve — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 13:01:47 +0000

Great analogies Aaron, thanks for your contribution.

By: Detlef Cordes

Detlef Cordes — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 08:25:55 +0000

Reason talking about the 'objective realm of imagination' is like Moses looking into the promised land. Reasoning about imagining we do not do the thing we talk about. Applying the laws of reason to the world of imagining is like carrying water in a net. If reason stipulates a mundus imaginalis, imagination might answer: "Sorry, Latin was always boring at school. But I would like some more of those comics we were reading under our school desk." And you might see a bleak classroom or even a picture of a cartoon. Jung maintains that all humans share certain pictures in their minds. But we don't share them in language or on the reasonable plane. The problem I see with Jung is: You cannot cross this Jordan in a book - at least not in a non-fictional book. Detlef Cordes´s last blog post..What the Aliens Found on Planet Earth

By: Aaron Gaul

Aaron Gaul — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 22:29:26 +0000

“whose reality is real?” I believe this question begins to open the door to the imaginal. Not that literally answering the question will lead us anywhere, rather the construction of the question. Notice how there is an object, the “who” and the implication that “who” creates a reality. Now let us turn this upside down and say for a moment that reality/imaginal exists. That it is here before we were born and long after we are gone. As we lose hold of our “self”, we can find ourselves more swept up by the imaginal — a little like sugar dissolved in water. As we become a little more present and a little more non-existent, the imaginal appears. The imaginal allows us to participate in its reality. I think this is how we “restored the connection, and make it natural.”

By: Screwed Up Texan

Screwed Up Texan — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 18:17:40 +0000

Interesting post. I think logic plays a role in this as well. Before we can suppose that this alternative reality exists, we must be open to it being logical that it could exist. Society tells us that if it cannot pass the rules of logic, then it must not exist. I dont neccesarily side with that view, however the question comes to who's reality is real? Screwed Up Texan´s last blog post..Screwed Up: Kicked Out

By: Richard Reeve

Richard Reeve — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:59:46 +0000

Hello Zoe,
What’s of interest is that the world view Corbin resurrects started to disappear from collective consciousness in the West back in the 12th century. Yet it’s precisely what we find so attractive in the works of Rumi and the Sufi’s.
Jung, in as much as he posits the archetypes as objective realities that can be encountered and not merely subjective unconscious fancies of the ego, falls in line with the attempt to open back up this door.