The Chronicles of Narnia

Deanna,

I can't find the word "imaginate" in any dictionary, so I can't refute the definition you provide.

Robert was just engaging in a bit of linguistic fantasy.

//;-)

(Sorry. Couldn't resist. That set-up simply cried out for the delivery of the punch line. Once again, since much Objectivist humor is so needlessly into mocking - Ayn Rand even called humor essentially "destructive" in The Art of Fiction, I feel it necessary to say please take this as a friendly poke in the ribs, not as a contemptuous put-down.)

Michael

Post 81

Tuesday, September 5, 2006 - 4:56pm

Not quite - I was engaging in linguistic precision... it is a coined word, which denotes that aspect of imagining which is reality oriented, in contrasting to fantasy which in general parlance deals with the non-real [which you can see in regards to 'hard' science fiction' and 'science fantasy' in literature]... of course, in the beginning of a child's development, the usage of imagining encompasses both realms - and yes, in this beginning the child knows no difference.... but there is a difference with whether to encourage continuing with the fantasy aspect as if no different from the imaginating aspect, or to encourage the usage of imaginating, in effect directing the attention to imagining [to the extent the child is capable of] those aspects which deal with the real - to the end point where whenever the child sees the difference between the two, there will be a greater acceptance of reality-oriented imagining without this emotional sense of 'magic lost', that there would be a recognition that there never was 'magic' to begin with, or that 'magic' is found in the real world, not the fantasy...

Post 82

Tuesday, September 5, 2006 - 10:34pm

I get it, Rev' (after reading post 68)!!!

I get what you've been meaning here all along. You had directed me to this thread (from the Concepts thread) -- in order to understand the difference between fantasy (something that, by definition, can't ever be true); and imagination (something that is not, by definition, something that can't ever be true).

Thanks Rev' -- I love it when I become more enlightened.

Ed

Post 83

Tuesday, September 5, 2006 - 11:06pm

Re: MSK's Post 69 ...

You make some amazing claims, like "the fantasy parts themselves, which actually only make for confusion in dealing with the learning" or that liking fantasy is some kind of "cop out" and whatever.

Amazing, Michael? I mean, Robert made clear that difference that exists between fantasy and imagination. I, myself, had to "learn" it from him. Do you mean that you don't see how the complete separation of the "what it is that is possible" which is an essential characteristic to fantasy -- makes for confusion in dealing with learning how to live well on earth???

You seem to be saying this. You seem to be saying that it's not (ever?) sub-optimal to include, in a growing child's 'psychosphere' (read: learning environment) a behavioral model that does not, and cannot, ever be integrated with a human's life on earth. I find this position wanting.

Any time and energy spent on things that can't ever be integrated into one's life (because of the necessity of some 'supernatural' element) -- seems like time and energy that is lost forever. I, myself, lost this kind of time and energy (during my development) -- believing in many irrational things, things (like the wrong idea that you can "jinx" yourself; by speaking of something terrible) that had been indoctrinated in me.

I find these observations completely arbitrary, so I don't address them. I see nothing in reality that supports this. I certainly don't see any adult intellectually, morally or psychologically damaged because he used to believe in Santa Claus.

I am (rather; "was") damaged by my prior irrational beliefs. I was a fricken' Christian socialist until about age 30, Michael. In my mind now, that's serious time that was wasted. Time that I could've spent on becoming a better human being -- one who is that much more fit for happiness on planet earth. One who is that much more fit for dealing well with reality.

It is fantasy that held me back, that held down my soul, that kept it from soaring above all of the thunderstorms of day-to-day existence. I -- at least, partially -- blame the fantasy-enthusiasts (my friends, family, and clergy) for my mitigated personal growth. Of course, as an individualist, it is necessary that I take most of the blame, though.

When you gain sufficient understanding of the difference between fantasy and imagination -- as I recently did -- then you will cease to think of Robert's line of reasoning as something that is "arbitrary." This is not a rare dynamic. Those who fail to adequately understand differences (as I used to; on this very matter) will tend to categorize the insightful illumination of said differences as arbitrary (not adequately understanding the contrasting, essential characteristics of the 2 things being contrasted).

Quit being so argumentative -- and actually seek to understand what it is that Robert is saying.

Ed

Post 84

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 - 12:50am

Ed,

Quit being so argumentative -- and actually seek to understand what it is that Robert is saying.

I have to say the same thing about you reading my posts. I read the following and had to stop right there:

You seem to be saying this. You seem to be saying that it's not (ever?) sub-optimal to include, in a growing child's 'psychosphere' (read: learning environment) a behavioral model that does not, and cannot, ever be integrated with a human's life on earth. I find this position wanting.

That is so far removed from anything I ever wrote that I had to read it three times to believe it came from you. You used to be good at reading. What happened?

(Try the following reasoning with my writing: "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and acts like a duck, it's a duck." That manner of thinking works a lot better.)

I do not think an adult who likes fantasy is "copping out." I certainly don't think Yaron Brook is "copping out" by supporting Terry Goodkind's art in the name of Objectivism (despite some disagreements I have with some of Dr. Brook's writing). I don't think that Ayn Rand was "copping out" by finding enchantment in a story about unicorns and even using it in a course about fiction writing from an Objectivist slant. I find it amazing anyone would claim this.

Also, we are not talking about the same thing with fantasy. I was specifically talking about fantasy as entertainment and children's stories. Like the lady first asked about. Remember her? You started talking about fantasy as religion. Stolen concept time?

Back to fantasy my way. Do I get my turn on the stolen concept merry-go-round?. (Scratching head and pausing, because I really used to like hobby horses...)

How's this?

I am sorry that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy seem to have stunted your growth and impaired your learning processes and made you so terribly unfit to live until you eschewed them.

//;-)

Is that what you are saying? Of course not. If so, you would be the first I have ever heard tell of this.

I look around me and see young children having no problem at all operating complex things like computers, DVD's etc., while still believing in Santa. Or even believing in standard religious fantasies like Angels. Their rational development for learning seems to be in place just fine, so I am at a loss to see the "learning confusion" that is alleged. A concept like "confusion in dealing with the learning" is supposed to have referents in reality.

The education problems in American schools stem from other sources, not fairy tales.

I agree that a case could be argued for "learning confusion" with religion, though, depending on the concepts involved. I'll go with that because I have seen it. For example, I have seen some kids pray to God for help instead of studying, thus they flunked their tests. Things like that. I never heard of a kid flunking a test because he replaced reality with the Easter Bunny to pass it, though.

btw - I have no doubt that using imagination in the manner Robert has said is a good thing. Even a beneficial thing for learning. I make no contrary claim about that at all. I agree. I disagree with his negative appraisal of fantasy entertainment and children's stories. I find his comments about them arbitrary. One type does not preclude the other. You can have both and still grow up to live a sane, rational and happy life. People do it all the time. Those folks are my referents.

There's probably other "amazing things" I could mention if I looked, but please don't get me started. In general, I like Robert.

Michael

Post 85

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 - 2:05pm

Michael, when I said that you were giving fantasy-enthusiasm 'the okay' -- you said this ...

That is so far removed from anything I ever wrote that I had to read it three times to believe it came from you.

... and then you add THIS rejoinder ...

I look around me and see young children having no problem at all operating complex things like computers, DVD's etc., while still believing in Santa.

Well, first of all, what you are saying -- is what I said that you were saying: ie. that fantasy is (always?) at least innocuous, if not beneficial. Now to be sure that you are making this point about the goodness of fantasy, one only need look back to your post 54 ...

I think you completely miss the point of the psychological need served by fantasy (but Rand sure didn't).

But, the thing missed by this proposition of yours, is that a more reality-based imagination could be substituted and still serve this psychological need (which is exactly what the Reverend has been saying in this Greek-god-forsaken thread). No one is against the human use of imagination -- it is its misuse that is up on trial. You want to acquit -- and you make your case by claiming that there are no victims. But this is quite a stretch (as I said before).

I, myself, feel victimized by childhood fantasy (in spite of my immense character and psychological development now) -- though you haven't yet integrated what I've said about that. Rather, you utilized the argument from intimidation in saying ...

Is that what you are saying? Of course not. If so, you would be the first I have ever heard tell of this.

This reaction to what I had said is a kind of preferential subjectivism -- ie. it can't be true, unless it's been run across YOUR mind before. You go on ...

I look around me and see young children having no problem at all operating complex things like computers, DVD's etc., while still believing in Santa.

This misses the point. Hell, you can teach a bear to ride a bicycle, for Zeus-sakes! An operational, mechanical efficiency says nothing of the psychological growth and maturity (or the stunting thereof) that is actually the point of contention here. What I'm saying (and the Reverend, too), is that fantasy CAN hamper or mitigate one's own sense of self-efficacy (ie. one's pride in being an effective human being on earth).

In the 2nd Donahue interview of Rand, a self-acknowledged Christian woman from the audience got up to ask Rand: "What is it so hard to accept gratitude?" Rand then told the woman about how it was so psychologically unhealthy to be in this position of blaming YOURSELF for all of your mistakes -- but 'blaming' (praising) GOD for all of your successes. It is this inward sense of being a 'fit with reality' that the Reverend and I are talking about. You continue ...

The education problems in American schools stem from other sources, not fairy tales.

Michael Shermer would flip his lid -- if he heard that. Let me get this straight, when the channeling of a 30,000 year old queen (Ramtha?) is taught (even done!) in an Eastern Philosophy/Eastern Religion class, that's not a huge, fairy-tale-based problem of education? This is kind of a tangential cheap-shot, Michael -- but did you know that the 2 Columbine slaughterers committed their heinous crime during the hour of their Eastern Philosophy/Eastern Religion class???

Teaching fantasy can be life-taking, even though -- for most of the cases -- the 'life' that is lost can only be found by looking for the lack of a glimmer in someone's eye, as they produce something of value; but, with unearned humility, decline recognition for their merely earthly (or, merely humanly) deed.

That sucks, Michael. Would you, at least, admit to THAT?

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 9/06, 2:07pm)

Post 86

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 - 3:27pm

To Ed and The Rev,

in order to understand the difference between fantasy (something that, by definition, can't ever be true); and imagination (something that is not, by definition, something that can't ever be true).

If you read my post or if you take the time to go look in a dictionary, you'll see that this statement is entirely false. By definition, there is no difference whatsoever between imagining and fantasizing. On what basis can you dispute the Merriam-Webster dictionary and still insist that you are being rational? I know I'm new to Objectivism, so maybe I haven't made it yet to the reading where Rand or Branden or Peikoff said that rational thought dictates we make up brand new words with our own personal defintions to fit our own personal beliefs. Yes, I meant that to be sarcastic, but I also truly want to understand this line of thought. Please explain how this practice of ignoring the dictionary and making up words is objective.

Post 87

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 - 3:34pm

Ed,

adequately understanding the contrasting, essential characteristics of the 2 things being contrasted

But the 2 things being contrasted have no rational difference, at least not one to which I can be reconciled.

(Sorry, Ed and Michael, to barge in on your exchange.)

Post 88

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 - 4:27pm

They aren't the same. From Merriam Webster's:

Main Entry: ¹fan�ta�sy

Function: noun
Pronunciation: 'fan-t&-se, -ze
Inflected Form(s): plural -sies
Etymology: Middle English fantasie -- more at FANCY
1 obsolete : HALLUCINATION
2 : FANCY ; especially : the free play of creative imagination
3 : a creation of the imaginative faculty whether expressed or merely conceived: as a : a fanciful design or invention b : a chimerical or fantastic notion c : FANTASIA 1 d : imaginative fiction featuring especially strange settings and grotesque characters -- called also fantasy fiction
4 : CAPRICE
5 : the power or process of creating especially unrealistic or improbable mental images in response to psychological need <an object of fantasy> ; also : a mental image or a series of mental images (as a daydream) so created <sexual fantasies of adolescence>
6 : a coin usually not intended for circulation as currency and often issued by a dubious authority (as a government-in-exile)

Main Entry: imag�i�na�tion

Function: noun
Pronunciation: i-"ma-j&-'nA-sh&n
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin imagination-, imaginatio, from imaginari
1 : the act or power of forming a mental image of something not present to the senses or never before wholly perceived in reality
2 a : creative ability b : ability to confront and deal with a problem : RESOURCEFULNESS c : the thinking or active mind : INTEREST <stories that fired the imagination>
3 a : a creation of the mind ; especially : an idealized or poetic creation b : fanciful or empty assumption

(Note the exclusion of "fantasy" in the definition of "imagination." Note as well the emphasis of "unreal," "improbable," "unrealistic," in the definition of "fantasy.")

Post 89

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 - 4:31pm

Stipulating Definitions Defined

Deanna, I take no side regarding the points being argued regarding fantasizing and imagining. To answer your question, one need not accept Merriam-Webster's (or whatever standard reference's) definitions for two reasons.

First, published definitions are normally based on common usage and are often philosophically inaccurate or otherwise misleading. I would suggest that you look up "selfishness" in the same dictionary and see whether that definition is one that would be consistent with what Objectivism teaches.

Second, it is a valid technique to stipulate (assert for case of argument) one's own definition, so long as one does so explicitly and stays consistent. Rand explains these matters at length in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology which is her most significant published work. If you have not read it, be aware it is a small but very dense book. I found the first time that I was reading it that I did not quite get all the points, but upon re-reading it a week later (it is rather short - the edition on shelves now has more pages of supplementary material than pages of her original text) I found that everything "clicked" into place.

Furthermore, even if two words can be considered to have the same definition, they often have different connotations as for example "dead" and deceased." The first term has a boatload of emotional baggage, and can be used metaphorically as in "Ahmedinejad has dead eyes" that the second term, which is more clinical and neutral. Headlines read "Zarqawi Dead!" rather than "Zarqawi Deceased." for a very good reason.

The most important issue is that one always understand one's own definitions and the implied or explicit definitions of those whose arguments one is listening to. People who just "pick up" a new word from hearing others repeat it without considering what it means will end up tangling their neurons in knots.

Since you have a young child, it can be very enlightening to always define terms for him when he asks what something is or learns or uses a new word. E.g.: "A vegetable is a fleshy part of a plant that we eat, and a fruit is a part of a plant that comes from a flower and has seeds." "Mom, is a tomato a fruit? I thought it was a vegetable?" "Well, all fruits are vegetables, since they all come from plants, but yes, a Tomato is a fruit, but people usually call it a vegetable because it isn't as sweet as most other fruits are." This example may seem silly, but the principle comes in handy when it comes time to talk politics and adult matters.

Finally, I myself would define imagination as recalling and/or rearranging ideas in one's head to consider something absent or not-yet existent (1) per Teresa's post. I would define fantasizing as imagination of that which is wished for, whether or not it can exist (5) per Teresa's post. But each of these terms can, as her helpful reference shows, validly have different meanings and definitions depending on the context.

Hope I've been helpful.

Ted
(Edited by Ted Keer
on 9/06, 4:51pm)

Post 90

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 - 4:49pm

Ed,

A personal question, in what what Christian sect were you raised? Where I grew up Catholic near Phila., all the kids that went to public school either stayed religious or were agnostic. All the kids that went to Catholic school became atheists. I went to public school, there was one bible-toter from the midwest who was like an alien among us. It was as if he spoke Basque. When I became an explicit atheist at 16, I had the 'aha' moment; "My god, God is no different from Santa Claus." To me, the example was actually beneficial. What sort of fantasies were you being encouraged in?

Again, forgive/ignore if being too personal.

Ted

Post 91

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 - 5:03pm

Ted:

I believe that the author of the book you referred to is The Jesuits by Malachi Martin. Yes, it does chronicle much of the Marxist 'activism' in RC, and most of it centered around the title's referent. They became enamored of the 'doing works' aspect of the religion and got away from the scholarly orientation they had once been known for.

Others:

Re this 'imaginate' prob, hey, if we could have no prob with Tim Burton's 're-imagining' (!?) of one movie or another, then why make a to do about 'imaginating' a fantasy? :D

LLAP
J:D

Post 92

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 - 5:00pm

Ed,

You are on to a psychological construct that is simply not true. I suggest you check some premises rather than twist my words.

One example of this twisting (other than the example I cited, which caused even more amazing conclusions) is that you go from stating "A can replace B" (which I agree with, and where "A" is "imaginating" and "B" is "fantasy") to "B is bad" (which is a crock full of stolen concepts and oversimplification). Then you try to attribute me with saying "A can never replace B," or "B is only good and never bad," which I never said. Ever. Weird.

Another example. I wrote:

I was specifically talking about fantasy as entertainment and children's stories. Like the lady first asked about. Remember her? You started talking about fantasy as religion.

Which part of that is hard to understand?

I'm sorry, but your campaign to prove the evil of Santa Claus and unicorns will not hold up. At least I am not going to go for it. I also have a vastly different experience than the torture you endured as a child. I have fond memories of these things.

If you want to be taken seriously on this, separate Santa from religion. That would be a good start.

Michael

Post 93

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 - 8:40pm

Which image displays a healthier mind?

Should have said, "the workings of a healthier mind," or "healthier view of life," or "healthier projection of values," etc., etc..
Hope whatever you're doing is enjoyable, Ed.

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 9/07, 4:57am)

Post 94

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 - 9:00pm

As time is of the essence, I must shorten and consolidate my responses; here and now, in this fantastic thread ...

1) Deanna, what Teresa and Ted said.

2) Ted, I grew up Protestant, was taught that tables needed "punishment" if you banged into them as a child, and that wishing hard can make things so (and that speaking evil things, if the devil hears you, can make THOSE things come true, too).

3) Michael, ahhhh, Michael. Ye, to whom I wish to say so many things (nearly all of them cordial). You know how I love to write imaginatively -- don't you? For 'tis now, when things are really heating up here, that I must temporarily bow out of this discussion -- in order to avoid something much larger and more ominous than your personal understanding of my position on this very matter.

You see, something has "come up" and I am going to have to "go away for awhile." I will be "invisible" for some time (several days, perhaps a few weeks), until I "take care" of what it is that is pressing on me now. But believe me when I say that I will "make it" -- no one here, has heard the last of me. This is not the first time that I've had to respond to such an ominous and pressing need -- with a drastic exactitude only seen in spy films.

Until that later date -- when I am, once again, both safe and secure ...

Ed
[I am NOT a double-agent, I swear. I merely love to get a chance to write cryptically -- and there is at least someone here who knows this much (and more) of me]

Post 95

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 - 9:52pm

Ed,

I don't know if this is pertinent, but I just heard thunder in the distance and dug up a frog with your name sewn in its mouth and smoke coming out of its eyes.

Be careful. It's not good to piss off certain fantasies. They might imaginate on you.

I like you in addition to Robert (I mean that), and... well... you know....

Michael

Post 96

Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 8:27am

Ted Keer said: Hope I've been helpful.

Ted, you've been helpful in pretty much every thread I've seen you in. Keep it up. :-)

Teresa: What the hell is that thing in the bottom picture in your post #93? (I don't recognize it.)

And finally,

MSK said: Once again, since much Objectivist humor is so needlessly into mocking - Ayn Rand even called humor essentially "destructive" in The Art of Fiction, I feel it necessary to say please take this as a friendly poke in the ribs, not as a contemptuous put-down.

I know that was originally directed at the Rev...but can I assume the same is true of the (more personal) jabs you're taking at Ed? I know you guys are really in disagreement on this point...but Ed Thompson is not exactly a troll who deserves a good jab. I'd like to think these are just further examples of "friendly rib-pokes" from one respected Objectivist to another...are they?

Of course, Michael, I'm overprotective of Ed, who is the love of my life. (Now I know how katdaddy feels when someone is rude to the love of her life...) ;-)

Erica

Post 97

Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 8:55am

Teresa: What the hell is that thing in the bottom picture in your post #93? (I don't recognize it.)
Exactly, Erica. Fantasy is unrecognizable. <g>

It's a detail of a grotesque painting in 3D, sculptural form (as if it was worth reproducing that way), I think it's Bosch. I don't know which painting.

Post 98

Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 9:08am

Now, some things are worth coming out of "hiding" for (and possibly missing the deadline to vacate a soon-to-be-former abode). That's right, I have exactly 1 hour and 8 minutes (oops, 1 hour and 7 now!) to vacate my current place of residence, and I've got a little over an hour's worth of work to do -- in order to make that happen on time. But, like I said, some things can't wait.

To make the point quite clear, there are more important things, on this 3rd planet from the sun, than deadlines and late fees. I mean, what the hell is a "life" without a "sense of" it, really?! [1 hour and 5 minutes now -- sheesh, time can sure be unforgiving; it never stops when you want/need it to!]

Anyway, the reason for my interlude is to acknowledge a truly great woman -- one who is standing by her man, in this Greek-god-forsaken thread. I had hoped and dreamed for other ways to 'go public' about this woman of my dreams -- but sometimes life throws something new at you; and you either have to catch it, or get out of the way. This is one of those times.

Thank you, Erica, for your thoughtful concern regarding my cantankerous debate with 'Sir Michael'. Leave it to a woman to keep men honest and civilized.

Ed
[yes; as you may have already surmised: in love with Erica]

Post 99

Thursday, September 7, 2006 - 9:34am