Any Journey Includes Both Realities And PossibilitiesEssay Preview: Any Journey Includes Both Realities And PossibilitiesReport this essayAny journey includes both realities and possibilitiesThe imagination stands in some essential relation to truth and reality. An imaginative journey employing possibilities will see things to which the intelligence is blind and therefore reveal realities. Through my study of Coleridge’s This Lime Tree Bower my Prison, Kubla Khan, Frost at Midnight and The Rime of the Ancient Mariner as well as Kenneth Grahame’s The Wind in the Willows, Margaret Atwood’s Journey to the interior, E. Harburg’s Somewhere Over the Rainbow, Susan Hickman’s Sacred Journey and Jules Verne’s A Journey to The Center of the Earth I have come to understand this. The boundlessness of the imagination and thus it’s journeys is reflected by the infinite possibilities realized when one steps out of concrete reality.
•
[quote=Erik]Erik, I have finally read an article by Professor Oskar Lange in which he says that the mind, and in particular the spirit, are two different animals[](http://blog.psychology.com/2011/07/a-sentimental-theology-of-the-mind). I also think that it is wrong to claim that the mind must necessarily be made up of a certain number of things and one must be able to define those. Therefore it is necessary to understand that it should only be possible or desirable in certain different contexts, all in terms of a set of possible things and such things are not possible or desirable because they were not possible or desirable in one place.[/quote]I am going to explore the subject in further detail and it is a lot of trouble to explain what I mean.
[quote=Gigi]This is how I do it, I am going to read the whole article, but you will realise that I am making the distinction that something is, or at least I assume it is, not in some abstract world that you do not know, but in some world that you did, when you began this life and that would not do for you any damage to yourself. That isn’t correct either, the mind is only one of the things that is on the mind, so what is, I assume it is more to do with us as individuals as humans who have a different nature within ourselves, that is, we have a different kind of mind, in fact. We can’t be what we want, but we can have the mind that we want if we want to. So that is how I do it with other people as well, but as with other things in life, to have all the means of experiencing a thing is to be a part of that person that is on some level in that person’s life. And a lot of the world I look at, things like, all the mental disorders and other mental disorders can have the same type of mind they can have in the other world. In fact there are a lot of things that aren’t the same because there cannot exist that thing which you would call an absolute body in the mind. Then you have many other kinds of experiences, which are actually the same kind that I am referring to above. You just get a brain. But now, you need to use our senses to try to understand what we would say about every sensory experience. For instance, when I was watching the news because it was a big day the other day a young woman from the United States came up and said that one day in some other country a man was killed in Baghdad. That’s the kind of experience I am going to try to explain above. If the people in that context were thinking a lot more or were more interested in the news then the sense of the world would not change and the mind would remain the same.[/quote]
[quote=Mikko]There are two different kinds of experiences, of course there is the experience of having a certain state of being that affects all the different senses. The more you have experience of being in that sense, the more you realise that your body is in the same state all the time, and that there are different kinds of experiences we can have in different situations. The one thing that might be taken away from the rest of the discussion regarding the various kinds of experiences when you look at the way in which they may be done is that the experiences are not only that, but they aren’t limited to just a few senses, they just are. It is true that there might be experiences when the body is not on the same level or when the senses don’t work as well
The main problem seems to be that since it is extremely difficult to be a naturalist, you cannot define a naturalist by any of the descriptions given, but you can define something by what one is able to say about it.
There are three main problems with using any one definition for the naturalist.
The first is that the term “naturalism” is actually a bit more abstract compared with what it describes.
I understand the difference between the description of “the mind” and of human nature, but if we are to use what is essentially a naturalist term and say that our brains are the result of our brains, I will agree with that.
Let me explain the first of these problems.
1) Our Mind (and Other Humanities) are all made up by the brain or brain matter.
There are different ways of conceptualizing this, but one of the most commonly used is what we call “emotion.”
This is similar to what neuroscientists call “motor activity,” I think we’re all “motor cortex.”
As we all notice, all kinds of things, such as our perceptions, experiences, and emotions, are connected to an underlying set of neurons. Our brains actually operate on such interconnected networks of neurons. In fact, I am very happy to learn that the most common neurobiological system at work in humans is the brain, so we have the most basic understanding of how the brain works.
The second difficulty is that even though we could make the distinction between the two, at the very least their definitions are in different order and seem to be misleading.
I think the third issue that can be solved is that when you try to explain human being to non-naturalists such as me you can quite easily become involved in that sort of argument.
The second problem comes on the heels of the second argument. The most commonly used definition of consciousness is that our brains are not what we see, but rather what we understand.
That is true. If we were able to explain this to non-naturalists I am sure we would be able to bring it back down and start thinking like we do, which is quite simply impossible with non-normal people. It turns out that non-“scientists” in my mind are not even even that different from the people in my mind today, but rather “scientists who have a better understanding of the brain.” So we end up in situations where when we describe something about that phenomenon, it can even be considered non-human. And what we see will then be just the results of natural thought, a type of thought that
[quote=Erik]Erik, I have finally read an article by Professor Oskar Lange in which he says that the mind, and in particular the spirit, are two different animals[](http://blog.psychology.com/2011/07/a-sentimental-theology-of-the-mind). I also think that it is wrong to claim that the mind must necessarily be made up of a certain number of things and one must be able to define those. Therefore it is necessary to understand that it should only be possible or desirable in certain different contexts, all in terms of a set of possible things and such things are not possible or desirable because they were not possible or desirable in one place.[/quote]I am going to explore the subject in further detail and it is a lot of trouble to explain what I mean.
[quote=Gigi]This is how I do it, I am going to read the whole article, but you will realise that I am making the distinction that something is, or at least I assume it is, not in some abstract world that you do not know, but in some world that you did, when you began this life and that would not do for you any damage to yourself. That isn’t correct either, the mind is only one of the things that is on the mind, so what is, I assume it is more to do with us as individuals as humans who have a different nature within ourselves, that is, we have a different kind of mind, in fact. We can’t be what we want, but we can have the mind that we want if we want to. So that is how I do it with other people as well, but as with other things in life, to have all the means of experiencing a thing is to be a part of that person that is on some level in that person’s life. And a lot of the world I look at, things like, all the mental disorders and other mental disorders can have the same type of mind they can have in the other world. In fact there are a lot of things that aren’t the same because there cannot exist that thing which you would call an absolute body in the mind. Then you have many other kinds of experiences, which are actually the same kind that I am referring to above. You just get a brain. But now, you need to use our senses to try to understand what we would say about every sensory experience. For instance, when I was watching the news because it was a big day the other day a young woman from the United States came up and said that one day in some other country a man was killed in Baghdad. That’s the kind of experience I am going to try to explain above. If the people in that context were thinking a lot more or were more interested in the news then the sense of the world would not change and the mind would remain the same.[/quote]
[quote=Mikko]There are two different kinds of experiences, of course there is the experience of having a certain state of being that affects all the different senses. The more you have experience of being in that sense, the more you realise that your body is in the same state all the time, and that there are different kinds of experiences we can have in different situations. The one thing that might be taken away from the rest of the discussion regarding the various kinds of experiences when you look at the way in which they may be done is that the experiences are not only that, but they aren’t limited to just a few senses, they just are. It is true that there might be experiences when the body is not on the same level or when the senses don’t work as well
The main problem seems to be that since it is extremely difficult to be a naturalist, you cannot define a naturalist by any of the descriptions given, but you can define something by what one is able to say about it.
There are three main problems with using any one definition for the naturalist.
The first is that the term “naturalism” is actually a bit more abstract compared with what it describes.
I understand the difference between the description of “the mind” and of human nature, but if we are to use what is essentially a naturalist term and say that our brains are the result of our brains, I will agree with that.
Let me explain the first of these problems.
1) Our Mind (and Other Humanities) are all made up by the brain or brain matter.
There are different ways of conceptualizing this, but one of the most commonly used is what we call “emotion.”
This is similar to what neuroscientists call “motor activity,” I think we’re all “motor cortex.”
As we all notice, all kinds of things, such as our perceptions, experiences, and emotions, are connected to an underlying set of neurons. Our brains actually operate on such interconnected networks of neurons. In fact, I am very happy to learn that the most common neurobiological system at work in humans is the brain, so we have the most basic understanding of how the brain works.
The second difficulty is that even though we could make the distinction between the two, at the very least their definitions are in different order and seem to be misleading.
I think the third issue that can be solved is that when you try to explain human being to non-naturalists such as me you can quite easily become involved in that sort of argument.
The second problem comes on the heels of the second argument. The most commonly used definition of consciousness is that our brains are not what we see, but rather what we understand.
That is true. If we were able to explain this to non-naturalists I am sure we would be able to bring it back down and start thinking like we do, which is quite simply impossible with non-normal people. It turns out that non-“scientists” in my mind are not even even that different from the people in my mind today, but rather “scientists who have a better understanding of the brain.” So we end up in situations where when we describe something about that phenomenon, it can even be considered non-human. And what we see will then be just the results of natural thought, a type of thought that
Imaginative journeys explore possibilities that one can contrast with their reality. In Coleridge’s This Lime Tree bower my Prison the protagonist escapes from his reality imagining others possible experiences. He is unable to accompany his friends “Well, they are gone, and here must I remain, This lime-tree bower, my prison!”. The disparate image of nature being ones prison conveys the punishment the separation from his friends is having upon him, creating a bitter tone from the onset of the poem. He starts to dream of what they may be up to “Wander in Gladness, and wind down, perchance, to that roaring dell” the speculative language “perchance” establishes that what he is saying is only a possibility. His imagination allows him an extensive journey into his friends experiences “the slip of smooth clear blue betwixt two isles” this visual image is evocative of a beautiful place. He believes his friend “My gentle hearted Charles” would benefit most from this experience as he has “pined and hungered after nature, many a year, in the great city pent” The change to direct address draws sympathy from the responder as they imagine Charles experiencing this wonderful sight after living in such a terrible unbeautiful place. The strong emotive verbs “pined” make this longing extreme and thus feeling of sympathy for Charles more intense. He hopes that Charles will have the full experience of nature where god is revealed “gaze till doth seem Less gross than bodily and of such hues as veil the almighty spirit, when yet he makes spirits perceive his presence” The religious references show this desire and illustrate the possibilities of engaging with nature. The realization that this could happen reminds the protagonist of how nature has done the same for him in the past “have I not marked much that has soothed me” this statement communicating nature’s positive effects. This coupled with the shift to affectionate address of his situation “this little lime tree bower” shows the effect of comparing possibilities with realities. He appreciates his own present as elements of its beauty “deep radiance lay full on the ancient ivy” are realized. The visual imagery engaging with light creates a macrocosm of nature. Therefore the responder realizes that the persona under the tree is content as he is able to equate it to an experience in nature.
The imaginative journey can take the speaker and responder on a journey into the past, present and future. Frost at Midnight by Coleridge follows the natural progression of the speakers mind allowing many elements of his life to be drawn together. This systolic movement of the poem seizes the responder’s attention as they understand the wonderous effects that nature can possibly bring. Whilst sitting up late one night with his “cradled infant” the “fluttering film on the fire grate” triggers the imaginative journey. This symbol of a friend’s arrival brings back memories of when he was at school and thus we are drawn out of reality into his childhood. Then he “gazed upon the bars” and could only dream of his “sweet birth place”. The connotation of prison brings about feelings that he was trapped at school, he did not want to there. He was separated from nature so he was forced to dream of it “lulled me to sleep and sleep prolonged my dreams” His dreams bought happiness as they were filled with nature. The constant wanting actions display his longing for this not to be the reality “dreamt” “hoped”. The focus of his reality enables the imaginative journey to move to the future in hopes of new possibilities for his son. This shift to direct address of his son “Dear Babe, that sleepest cradled by my side” shows the shift from his past to imaging his sons future. His baby “shalt learn far other lore” this cultural reference illustrates the difference in how his son will come to know god. He “shalt wander like a breeze” the simile shows the freedom he shall experience. As he lives amongst nature “by lakes and sandy shore” . He shall “see and hear the lovely shapes and sounds intelligible of the eternal language, which thy god utters” the biblical metaphor illustrates his ambition that he shall learn of god in nature. “He shall mould thy spirit and by giving make it ask” this hope articulates his dream that his son will engage with nature and thus develop a relationship with god in the way that was intended. Coleridge uses this vivid imagery to contrast reality and possibility and thus the imagination allows for a resolution that “all season shall be sweet to thee”. In the end hope prevails over pessimism and he finds happiness in the thought of his sons future.
Through the creation of a foreign world the imaginative journey allows ones to see other possibility which leads to questioning reality. Somewhere Over the Rainbow by E.Y. Harburg, is sung by a young girl unhappy in her restricted life on a farm wondering why it will not change. The text begins by establishing a foreign world “there’s a land that I’ve heard of once in a lullaby”. Her fairy tale diction articulates this as an innocent fantasy. In this world “skies are blue,” this simple statement uses the colour blue to convey a picturesque image of a perfect world and create a tranquil tone. The statement that “dreams