File spoon-archives/surrealist.archive/surrealist_1998/surrealist.9808, message 4

Subject: Re: an inquiry: sense of the imagination
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 21:29:07 PDT

                    <What gives> (?)
                    I: Magi Nation --

What gives us to the Image (question mark optional) ...

And the answer is not (yet) given.  Providence provides us with 
questions, and being is the mo(ve)ment of answering -- a response to the 
Call that never ceases to reverberate ... an utterance searching 
perpetually for its end-point (.) ...

We are unable to imagine a pure image.  Each and every image is given to 
us by the world.  We may call these hylic images 'consolidated' or 
'conciliated' _phantasms_.  (Yet) The Imagination does not work upon 
these images; it receives them -- the images are given to the Eye by the 
world, and are mediated by the imagination.

So what, then, is the imagination?  The I as parasite, reflected by & in 
the _Eye_: the external appendage of the Self that meets the world. Our 
perception, it is true, operates _in_ the world as a device operates 
_on_ a substance; an essential alienation from the world makes an 
imagination necessary: a nation of Magi (know-it-alls), open to every 
situation, reporting to the I as the Accuser reported to Yahweh, 
condemning the righteous Job, and plunging him into innocent punishment.  
So the I, as yet unrevealed to the world of others, acts upon that world 
as an alien, an 'unknown god', who injects his substance (essentially 
derived) into the populace, and thrives on interpretation.

Is the imagination, then, that which requires interpretation?

That would imply that the imagination is a symbol.  But that cannot be, 
for the imagination is the source of all symbols.

It becomes clear that the question of the imagination is not what 
requires broaching, but rather the question of the WORLD; and the 
imagination must breach the institutionalized conceptions of the world 
in order to make itself (it's Self) known.  Perhaps the essence of the 
imagination can only be known through revelation.  But, like the 
imagination (that which _gives us to_ the image), even the revelation 
requires an object -- even if that object happens to be the unknown, 
concealed depth of the SUBJECT.

The I seems to be the source of the nation of the Magi -- yet ... the 
Eye, the fetish of the interpreters, reflects its received light back to 
the I -- which is the Eye's source, its reason for 'being' (in this 
case, _extension_).  We may deduce from this that the I is therefore 
derived from the Eye -- that is, from an experience of the world, 
however _primal_.

What lies behind/beyond the I/Eye, then, would be beyond any designation 
of primality, would be that which gives the I to be(ing) via the Eye ... 
(.)  The source of imagination must be transcendently originary, since 
the imagination is the source of the I itself, of that which brands us 
'unique', 'individual' ...

The Idea of an un-begotten, non-derivative entity standing behind/beyond 
the I/(pre-)Eye is possibly the ground for the revelation that will open 
up the imagination to imagination -- that will reveal the mo(ve)ment of 
phantasy to the pure (un-sullied) Mind. And it is precisely this 
MO(VE)MENT -- not the 'actual' _phantasm_ itself -- that is a bridge 
in/to the province of imagination.

~~ Edward

          Mo(o)re to COME ...

Get Your Private, Free Email at


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005