How Important are Fantasies?
I raise this question because I believe that fantasies are very important in life and I know of many who see them as not of great significance. In speaking of fantasies, I am making reference to imagination generally and the conjuring up of images in the mind. The specific way in which they develop into fantasies is when we enter into the mental states based on the imaginary multisensory realities which we create. It involves a certain intent to follow the fantasies.
One of the main reasons why I think that fantasy is important is for how it shapes our mental experience. Personally, I think that how we make sense of the world, in interpretation of experience. I find that while life gives facts, the way we build them up as stories with which to live, and I think that it affects our whole pleasure and quality of life. Of course, we can also create horrific fantasies if we choose to do so. Also, while I say that we create fantasies through choice, I do believe that fantasies do arise in some instances spontaneously, or even in an intrusive way.
The two other ways in which I believe that fantasies are important mental constructs are for creativity and for the shaping of motivational intention. We use fantasies and images for writing, art and for many other aspects of creation and development of ideas. Also, the aspect of motivational intent is our fantasised projections of possible courses of action are likely to influence the choices we make. For example, if someone is planning to move to an area, they are likely to fantasise about how it will like to be living there. Fantasies also come into play when we are thinking about relationships with others and are related to the whole way in which we develop desires.
We live in a world abundant with fantasy and imaginary constructs, ranging from art, television, fiction and, of course, the whole genre of fantasy fiction itself. It is at the core of the whole mythic structure. I consider it as being of extreme importance, but used to get told off at school for being a daydreamer and having an overactive imagination. So, I am just interested to know how important people think that fantasy in the whole process of thinking and as mental states?
One of the main reasons why I think that fantasy is important is for how it shapes our mental experience. Personally, I think that how we make sense of the world, in interpretation of experience. I find that while life gives facts, the way we build them up as stories with which to live, and I think that it affects our whole pleasure and quality of life. Of course, we can also create horrific fantasies if we choose to do so. Also, while I say that we create fantasies through choice, I do believe that fantasies do arise in some instances spontaneously, or even in an intrusive way.
The two other ways in which I believe that fantasies are important mental constructs are for creativity and for the shaping of motivational intention. We use fantasies and images for writing, art and for many other aspects of creation and development of ideas. Also, the aspect of motivational intent is our fantasised projections of possible courses of action are likely to influence the choices we make. For example, if someone is planning to move to an area, they are likely to fantasise about how it will like to be living there. Fantasies also come into play when we are thinking about relationships with others and are related to the whole way in which we develop desires.
We live in a world abundant with fantasy and imaginary constructs, ranging from art, television, fiction and, of course, the whole genre of fantasy fiction itself. It is at the core of the whole mythic structure. I consider it as being of extreme importance, but used to get told off at school for being a daydreamer and having an overactive imagination. So, I am just interested to know how important people think that fantasy in the whole process of thinking and as mental states?
Comments (78)
Fantasies are not only important for all the arguments you wrote above but also to leave from reality.
Sometimes, our days, weeks, months or even years are heavy. We have situations which are difficult to face and it makes us be depressed or sad. With fantasy we can, at least, leave for a moment from these negative feelings and then create a new scenario in our minds. This is one of the most surprising facts from humans. We can create fantasies or abstract worlds as refuges from our pain. I am agree with you statement that this is totally healthy but with some limits. We can't let fantasy being part of our lives so much. Nevertheless, I defend it can be the only output for children or another person who is literally suffering.
For example: Imagine a kid that when he turns back from school his family is somehow broken. Probably fantasies as playing football like the best or fighting against dragons in the book he is reading can give to him so chill vibes and not being sad all the time. So, thanks to fantasy he can be another person in another world.
Sorrowfully, I think this only works in Kids or Young minds because when you get older you start losing the ability of dream/having fantasies.
Because metaphysics, which is knowledge of the real...begins at the pont where possible direct and indirect sensory experience come to an end, all its concrete intuitively-derived settings-out...are works of fantasy.
(Scheler, The Constitution of the Human Being)
You suggest that 'when you get older you start losing the ability of dream/having fantasies'. I know that I fantasise in the same way that I did when I was a child. So, I wonder to what extent most adults change from the kind of fantasy life they developed as children and adolescents. I would guess that it probably depends on whether they changed their whole approach to thinking. I wonder if it depends on whether they follow an arts based perspective or another one. I also do question whether many try to live a life of embodied fantasy in real life rather than in their own minds. Perhaps, the ones who indulge in fantasy most, are those who have a less fulfilling life.
The book which you refer to sounds interesting and the quote which you give. It seems useful to think about fantasy in relation to the what is considered to be real. Many people may consider fantasy as the 'unreal' because it is in the mind primarily, but fantasy can be seen as symbolic structures for making sense of what appear to be facts.
Probably when we can still have fantasies as we were kids. But what I want to say is that these adult fantasies are less vivid than the infant ones because when we are kids we tend to have a limitless imagination and everything surprises us more than we are older.
Also, as you explained, I am agree in the fact that perhaps all these people who are more in fantasies are the same which their lives are not fulfilled. So, they need something to escape from the reality.
To be honest, I do not think this a problem since the moment can help them. But it is true that in the long run can be dangerous if they end up not distinguishing reality/fantasy.
"We can feel what we have never exactly experienced, and wish for something that we have never personally known....there is a gradual shrinking of the realm of wishing [as one ages]."
But conversely, eventually,
"there is a transformation in the realm of striving from what was originally a 'will'...to a 'wish,' when the impracticability is experienced, so, in each individual's old age what was once a 'will' becomes a 'wish.'"
His conclusion approaches what I'd call my own metaphysical position of "radical experimentalism":
"[The] original productive power of imagination...is subjected by the noetic acts of spirit to an increasing correction, critique, and selection."
I imagine that differences lie with how we are socialised and it seems likely that play is a big factor. I have heard that some children believe in fairies and witches as children. They probably get to a stage where they don't believe in these. Personally, I was never encouraged to believe in such ideas at all, but I was encouraged to play fantasy games. I used to pretend to be various rockstars, and I stopped such games when I was about 12. I didn't go on to wish to become a rockstar, which is probably a good thing because I can't sing very well. But, certainly rock music has remained at the centre of my narrative of life.
It is interesting to think about how some people go onto muddle their fantasies with real life. I have heard stories of people who seem to think that the characters in soap operas are real rather than actors. I have heard that the actors get antagonised for what they have done within the stories.
The clear example of people becoming confused where real life and fantasy can be distinct is when people become psychotic. I had a friend who thought that one particular female singer was talking to him personally in her songs. He used to write letters to her and take these to her fan club in person. I have come across people who were convinced that they were going to have romances with famous people. My psychotic friend who used to think the singer was communicating with in her songs, used to phone up his mother and tell her off if his records jumped because he thought that she was interfering with them psychically.
I wonder how much is magical or wishful thinking, but, of course, they are a bit different. With wishful thinking we may wish for certain things to be true to the point where we believe they are. Possibly, most of us can get carried away with certain fantasies, but it is probably the point at which a person gets too carried away that makes people realise that someone 'has lost the plot'. It can be quite difficult to burst someone's little bubble. In psychiatry, the way a person's 'delusions' are often challenged is by it being explained that others do not see things in the same way. When I come across people with psychotic ideas, I often wonder if some magical thinking developed during an earlier developmental stage. However, it does seem that people often have periods of stability, with episodes of delusion. However, it may be that becoming withdrawn and becoming too immersed in fantasies which leads people to the dangerous position of muddled thinking.
Yes. I exactly lived the same experience as yours when I was a kid. Everybody played a role as a child because was just fun. My case was a warrior because back in the day I used to love having fantasies in nowhere fighting against anything. But this fantasy, as many others, was fading apart passing the years by.
Nevertheless, I think it was related to me since the moment I always been someone who was force to fight against the circumstances. So I guess this is why the warrior fantasy. Interesting how our brain can help us in our path of life.
Also, it is interesting how you considered the people who cannot make a difference between reality and fantasies are psychotic. I am agree with you but it surprises me how they reflect it in art or whatever representation. I going to put an example I experienced recently related to this.
We were in a room with just a white paper and then a tutor told us to draw a house. Simple.
I drew a normal or regular flat, other a simply house with their symbolism. Nevertheless, one person of the room surprisingly drew a circular house without zero criteria in logic realism. When I saw it I thought this is true imagination
But somehow this ended up as a conflict because it results according to the experts that this person is not connected with reality when he draws circular shaped houses so probably he was psychotic...
There is a big difference between wishing and willing. It makes sense that it is in earlier and later life that most people stuck with wishes. It probably is about awareness of what is possible. I wonder if it is also about strength of ego consciousness, with willing being so much stronger than mere wishing.
~Miles Davis
Quoting Jack Cummins
"Fantasy" (in contrast to wishful/magical/group thought or delusions or psychosis) is indispensable for thinking – the greater part of which is ex post facto confabulation (e.g. Nietzsche, Lakoff, Kahneman, Metzinger). But "fantasy" can be, at its best, playing with counterfactuals (i.e. "what if?" daydreams – gedankenexperiments) or poetic/musical reverie; at its worse, though, it's just BS-of-the-gaps literal just-so stories that, in effect, fetishize – infantilize – the ego; and, more often than not, it's a mixture of both. For me, the imaginary (expressed – experienced –through fantasy) is synonymous with 'the spiritual', which might be why saints & gurus often appear to be savant fantasists who are very child-like.
[quote=G.K. Chesterton]Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed.[/quote]
[quote=Albert Einstein]Imagination is more important than knowledge.For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution.[/quote]
[quote=Gaston Bachelard]Daydream transports the dreamer outside the immediate world to a world that bears the mark of infinity.[/quote]
[quote=Albert Camus]Beauty, no doubt, does not make revolutions. But a day will come when revolutions will have need of beauty.[/quote]
[quote=Sylvia Plath]Death must be so beautiful. To lie in the soft brown earth, with the grasses waving above one’s head, and listen to silence. To have no yesterday, and no tomorrow. To forget time, to forgive life, to be at peace.[/quote]
[quote=J.R.R. Tolkien]Fantasy is escapist, and that is its glory. If a soldier is imprisioned by the enemy, don't we consider it his duty to escape?. . .If we value the freedom of mind and soul, if we're partisans of liberty, then it's our plain duty to escape, and to take as many people with us as we can![/quote]
If we must "escape" through fantasy, then, I say, let's escape 'outward to reality' via ekstasis rather than escape 'away from reality' via solipsis.
:cool:
[quote=Albert Murray]Blues music is an aesthetic device of confrontation and improvisation, an existential device or vehicle for coping with the ever-changing fortunes of human existence, in a word, entropy, the tendency of everything to become formless. Which is also to say that such music is a device for confronting and acknowledging the harsh fact that the human situation . . . is always awesome and all too often awful . . . But on the other hand, there is the frame of acceptance of the obvious fact that life is always a struggle against destructive forces.[/quote]
Yes. Scheler even describes a scenario in which the ultimate counterfactual (that the principle of non-contradiction is false) can be proven true based on an aesthetic metaphysics:
There are even attempts to see aesthetic principles of pleasing relationships
and configurations in subjects such as logic. Certainly, as far
as mathematics is concerned, Poincaré expressly stated that the highest
measure of mathematical achievement was not logic itself, but an aesthetic
value, whereby a unity and harmony of thought and proposition
were reached. Poincaré sought to prove, against the opinion of pure
logicians, that there were an infinite number of mathematical representations
of some logical problem, all of which could be equally correct,
and that it was infinitely boring, and scientifically pointless, to go
through all, or even most, of the proofs. The achievement of a creative
mathematician lay exclusively in being able to select that sort of proof,
from among equally correct candidates, which was the most ‘elegant’,
in terms of a harmony between axioms, consequences, theoretical
principles and proofs. This selection of aesthetic, valuable and elegant
proofs constitutes, according to Poincaré, the only and ultimate way
of measuring the value of mathematical achievement. Even illogical
and contradictory propositions can, and should, conform to the same
value of maximum unity and harmony as proposed for logical ones,
according to him. Above all, the principle of the non-contradiction of
a proposition – if A = B then A = non-B cannot be true – would be
deniable [if its denial were couched in more aesthetic terms than the
actual proposition itself ].
Jack, I think you and I bruited about the concept of "elegance" a while back.
[quote=JDM][i]Callin' on the dogs
Callin' on the dogs
Oh, it's gettin' harder
Callin' on the dogs
Callin' in the dogs
Callin' all the dogs[/i]
Callin' on the gods[/quote]
or riding a beam of light ...
*
@Jack, isn't this the heart of philosophy: concept(ual) fantasy? (re: the real)
Thanks for the further details of Scheler's ideas. It does seem that the themes on the various threads overlap frequently. I am also quite interested in your new thread, but I have a book with a few chapters on Dennet, so I may have a look at that first. It is sometimes hard to find the time to write informed comments to other people's thread discussions.
Yes, I am reasoning backwards in that thread, Hypothetically, if the belief that AI is possible is not un-selfcontradictory, then our consciousness must also possibly have been created. That is, possibly being created must be a property of consciousness. So there possibly could (a fortiori) be a creator of consciousness, which is more or less consistent with a universal description of "god."
So all I said was IF Dennett does espouse hard AI (which I looked up, he does) then his whole "reasons for believing" argument at its foundation collapses because his conclusion is self-contradictory, in that it necessarily posits both the falsity and the possibility of god.
I do think that we are constantly living fantasies and many people don't stop and think about that. Life is constant myth making. When I was studying art therapy, I had person therapy with a Jungian therapy. I am usually some one who dreams a lot and remember my dreams. However, a strange thing happened. My dreams seemed to disappear and, instead, all sorts of dramas happened in my waking life. In discussion, with the therapist, we explored how it seemed as if what was emerging was symbolic manifestation in real life experiences. Perhaps, some forms of therapy focus too much on the archetypal dramas of dreams while the mythic is so evident in what happens to us in our life experiences.
You should feel the sense that your belief, your philosophy, is shaping your experience of Life.
And if you do, then your belief is at least that valid.
This does not follow. Besides, you're begging the question – the creator of the consciousness creator's consciousness, etc ...
Quoting Jack Cummins
:up:
It is interesting that you speak of escaping outwards to reality. I am not convinced that the outer or inner aspects of life are more real. I think that most Western philosophy assumes that the world around us the supreme aspect. I am not saying that I reject this and my main frame of reference is that too. However, I think it is complicated and I do think that the symbolic world, or even 'spiritual' is often undervalued. The quotes you give are by people who do seem to value imagination and it is interesting to know that Einstein does because sometimes it seems that fantasy and imagination are seen as the realm of the arts.
However, going back to your idea of escaping outwards, it does seem that the arts and music are a form of going outwards, because the ideas and vision are made manifest in life. I remember having a college tutor who said that ideas do not exist if they remain in our minds rather than being expressed and shared in some form.
No, it is premised as the position of a Strong AI proponent that consciousness can be created, that's all. It is a hypothetical, applicable in the case of that position.
You propose precisely what?
You speak of the architect as a fantasist dangerous to authority and I wonder where the Freemasons lie in that picture because I understand that they began in the building trade. It makes me wonder about the whole nature of the symbolic within building design and the imagery underlying traditions, including the esoteric.
:lol: :up:
It is interesting that you can think how you began playing the warrior role and how it is connected to fighting. One aspect of my playing rockstars which has resonance is perhaps the idea of the shaman. Many of the rock singers who were part of my childhood world, such as David Bowie, seem to be living the archetypal shamanic role. I have felt the shaman archetype to be central to my life, the idea of healing oneself and others.
I do agree with you that it is potentially problematic if the experts have the ultimate word on what is real and what is not, in being able to label and diagnose what is 'psychotic'. Having worked in a psychiatric hospital, I am very familiar with that way of viewing. At the moment, I am taking a bit of time out of that area and enjoying freedom from a view which can be fairly rigid. I have some experience of running therapeutic art activities and do believe that gives more scope for a wider scope for viewing. I see it as very questionable if any 'experts' try to define a correct way of seeing.
The freemasons developed from the master stonemason/architects that made an international business of building castles and fortifications, but more especially cathedrals. "the great Architect" features in their rituals and measurement instruments in their logo. I don't know much more than that...
Yes it is! I think this happens because when we are kids we are connected to primary perceptions that impact us. Then, we choose a role to play with. Exactly, in that period of time we were not putting enough emphasis because for us was just a game. Nevertheless, when years passed by we look at it with different view. I guess it is even when one of our first characters or masks we use in life appears for the first time. Quoting Jack Cummins
Exactly, this is your role and mission and life. It is beautiful having something to be related to.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Me too. It could be even dangerous because these special persons can be ended up having negative labels.
Quoting unenlightened
If you are interested about freemasonry symbolism I recommend to you this: https://www2.uned.es/dpto-hdi/museovirtualhistoriamasoneria/19simbolismo_masonico/ojoquetodolove.htm
The link on Freemasonary symbolism looked interesting but it was not in English, so I don't know if you sent the wrong version by accident. Generally, I am interested in esoteric symbolism, including alchemy, but I am not sure whether or not it is relevant to the thread I started. I guess it does explore unique mythical narratives. However, whether I would wish to explore this is not depends on whether you or other people are interested in discussing it.
Sorry Jack. It is in spanish because it comes from a good university here in Madrid. I think it is interesting to debate about it but as you explained is not connected at all with the original thread so I accidentally made a tangent in your OP.
I am not really too bothered about tangents, but I just can't speak or read Spanish. However, I guess it is possible that there may be some Spanish speaking people who are on the forum. However, I would be a bit annoyed if they began writing in Spanish on the thread. As far as the actual discussion goes, it does depend if anyone else takes any interest in the thread. The way it seems to happen is that there are so many threads created daily and unless they catch on quickly, they often fade away. Funnily enough though, they do pop again in sometimes.
I think we are just a few Spanish citizens here in the forum. Me and @Miguel Hernández. But do not worry because we always speak in English in this forum because it is the rules and we have to respect it. Also, English is the universal language where we can share our thoughts. Sometimes I share some links form the universities of my country because I think it could be interesting doesn't matter at all if they are in spanish.
As you perfectly explained, if the discussion is still viewed depends a lot of how the people of this forum is interested in it so it is understandable why we have to make it the most attractive possible.
Thanks, you are quite right. I think that there has been some interesting discussion with you and the few others who have replied. Generally, I was probably not expecting the direction of the thread to become go in the direction of esoteric symbolism. My threads often seem to go that way and it is probably because I have a leaning towards the esoteric. But, really I wished to open up a wider philosophy the imagination an fantasy The whole way in which sexual fantasies and dark fantasy is interesting. One area of possible discussion would be the way in which fantasies of hatred develop and manifest in life.
It is interesting this debate/discussion. We, as males, develop a lot of sexual fantasies when we are teenagers. I don't know if it is somehow innate to our nature but we do and then this why we search porn in internet. I think this is not necessarily a bad issue at all since the moment just satisfy our primary sexual stimulus. But we have to be agree that can develop negative circumstances if those sexual fantasies end up becoming a regular condition. Probably can create bad habits as being abusive/sexual offender or use prostitution to satisfy our fantasies.
I think that the internet just becomes an available outlet for finding all information, whether it is porn or factual. But what I think is happening is that many people use the internet for finding relationships too. I think that the internet doesn't just provide our fabric of fantasy but our whole discourse with the real world. In many ways, it is a way of retreating into a private universe.
However, I am not saying I see the internet as all bad because I am so pleased to have found this site. Prior to finding it, I did not have much chance for philosophical discussion. However, when I was working in mental health care, when I was on duty I was aware that the patients used to come to me for deeper discussions about life. I was aware that some staff thought that was a waste of time. I got comments implying that I should be helping the patients tidy their rooms instead or doing meal preparation. Most people I know regard philosophy and related fields as being of no importance. I remember a work colleague visiting me in my home and suggesting that I throw away most of my books. She didn't even think that I should bother taking them to charity shops. So, based on my experience of the interests of most people I know, this site has given me some form of expression. I am able to live out the fantasy of pretending to be a philosopher.
I am agree with your point that fortunately we have websites like this forum in internet but it is like a treasure because these kind of pages are not famous at all. I think internet is an interesting place where we can share a lot of thoughts like telepathically. So, we are forced to admit that making an invention like this one is good for humanity.
Nevertheless, as we are talking about, can be also a dangerous place due to the people. Some of them just uses for bad habits or even hurts others. For example, cyberbullying, as a modern concept of literally harassment through internet. These bullies can even make others feel so much pain that end up having suicidal thoughts.
As you perfectly said:
This is the pretty part of all internet. I was literally finding something like this forum during months. I am glad to be here and debating with you and the other members.
So I guess the important fact here is being clever enough to find the best websites.
Yes, this site is a treasure and it gives an unofficial platform for philosophy. However, I imagine that there some people on the site who are published writers. But when I speak of pretending to be a philosopher, I am also question, with a certain amount of humour what does it mean to be a 'real' philosopher? I come from a perspective of thinking that social reality is constructed. This goes back to a classic sociology text, ' The Social Construction of Reality', by Berger and Luckman,(1996), which depicts the whole way in which social life is constructed, and personal identity, and, we inhabit 'symbolic universes.'
So, we could say that we are all social actors. The internet gives opportunity for people to create identities different from the ones they live in daily life. The majority of people do use the same names they live by. Also, most people don't include their photo. I am taking a certain risk because I am not anonymous and my photo is included and, there are a few others who do so too.
While this site is not famous, it is on the internet for the public to view. So, in a way, what we write is on the borderline between the unpublished and the published. I find that borderline to be fun. It makes it an experiment in which what is read, or not read at all if the thread fades and get lost. Perhaps the lost, hidden threads go into the collective domain of hidden knowledge, or esoterica.
Of course, the internet is a site where people can be bullied or harassed. On this particular site, there are probably cliques and there are dramas, like when people get banned. I do believe that the site has an unconscious. Here, I am drawing a parallel with the psychodynamic understanding of organisations. This goes back to the work of Menzies, who looked at the way anxiety abounds or is contained in organisations.
I also know that it is recognised in art psychotherapy that when people are working separately in art therapy groups, but not watching each other, that when work is viewed by the group afterwards, often common themes seem to emerge. When I read various current threads, I sometimes notice similar themes and ideas appearing, as if they have arisen organically from the unconscious of the collective psyche of the forum members. There are probably deep layers of fantasy as well, or to use the psychoanalytic spelling of it, as phantasy.
This is one of the questions we always asked ourselves at least once. I think is free interpretation what to consider being a real philosopher. Nevertheless, I want to share with you a brief story about philosophy and its study.
When I was studying law in college one of our colleagues was previously a philosophy student. I asked him how was his experience because I am so interested about study philosophy in university. He answered with a very clever question: Philosophy is not to be studied but to be lived.
I think it depends how we live our lives and want to develop our knowledge. These are the true thinkers. Since the moment where we are here debating about fantasies or whatever happens in our minds make us being philosophers or at least thinkers because we are somehow interested on it.
Quoting Jack Cummins
We totally are. Remember the words person comes from the word mask in Greek. We wear different masks along the way because we tend to be different persons depending who are we talking or debating with. I think it is not an issue if you do not post your photo here or whatever because we are avatars and here we are free to express ourselves. I want to be honest with you, I feel sometimes more free/opened here debating in the forum than in real life. But this not necessarily have to be bad.
I won't get into the discussion of being a real philosopher on this thread because I just couldn't resist the temptation to create a thread on it.
However, I agree that life involves putting on masks. Like you, I feel much more free to express my thoughts on this site than in real life. In group situations I am extremely quiet and find that I allow others to dominate over me. I find that power dynamics are far less on this forum and it makes me feel far more free to take risks. I sometimes have dreams of reading and writing on threads and wake up checking my phone. Perhaps that my life is a bit impoverished, but I do hope that the experiences of interaction on this site will help my confidence for activities in life. I don't want to just lead a virtual life.
It definitely will! I have the same confidence as yours. Debating here in these interesting topics can help us to develop skills in social interactions and try to be an interesting person to others. Also, I think is important to point out the chill atmosphere that exists here. I like it. Other forums could be so toxic between the members...
Quoting Jack Cummins
Do not worry! We are here to speak and share our ideas :100:
Quoting javi2541997
Art teachers say young children are much more fun to teach because they haven't lost their ability to either imagine, or express what they imagine. Teenagers and adults tend to be less expressive when they attempt art. I wouldn't know, myself, because I've never been good at "art" (drawing, carving... I''m better when it comes to words).
There are a few different kinds of fantasy: sexual fantasy; spatial fantasy (architecture); anger fantasy (also called 'vindictive perseverating'); literary fantasy (Tolkien); all fiction; etc. I'm not sure musical composers or choreographers are fantasizing as much as 'thinking'. Similarly, I'm not sure Picasso was 'fantasizing' as much as thinking as he executed his paintings. (Are realist artists fantasizing or representing?). People who write film scripts aren't fantasizing either -- they are applying technical knowledge to a text--which is not to slight a job well done!
At 75 I fantasize less than I did when I was 50 or 30 and the fantasies are different. I'd say I 'reflect' more now than I did in the past. For the last several years I've been doing a lot of intensive historical and sociological reading which I've found very satisfying. I read science fiction, quite often. There is less sexual fantasy now, and very little 'angry perseveration" like their used to be. Why? I don't know. I'm just grateful there is less of it.
It does seem that many people do seem to express their imagination differently to the way they do as children. I have run art groups for adults and have found that so many people are afraid of drawing and painting as adults. It does seem that children enjoy drawing and unless they follow some kind of art course, they tend to be afraid to experiment. From what I have seen, this seems to be partly connected with fear of lack of ability but I do think that it is connected with a change in the use of imagination. It does seem that many people seem to be accustomed to drawing pictures and writing stories as children and abandon this around the time of adolescence. I wonder how much of this is related to development and how much is related to education.
Your question as to whether Picasso or many other artists visualised their works first is interesting. From my own experience of making art and some friends who create art it can vary. The idea may be visualised first or may be created spontaneously. I know that William Blake had visions but I think that it is rare. Of course, the whole process of creativity can resemble the shamanic quest, with some journeying into alternate states of consciousness, but this does not mean that all people who create in the arts do this. It is likely that most fiction writing which involves creation of characters involves a certain amount of fantasising. I have come across the idea of fictional characters described as aspects of the self. And, fantasy writing does involve the creation of imaginary worlds, so that does seem to involve conjuring up fantasised otherworldly. And, of course the people who appreciate the arts probably do so for the way in which they are able to be moved into fantasised creations.
are designed to waken sleeping gods"[/i]
~Jim Harrison
It's a good quote, but I have never heard of Jim Harrison? Is he a singer or poet?
I think that archetypes are central to our lives. I did a one term of a course on mythology. I think that it is a whole field of study in its own right. My English teacher was the first person who got me interested in it. I find books such as James Frazer's 'The Golden Bough' and Robert Graves, 'The White Goddess' as very interesting, but possibly more on a cultural level. But, I won't recommend too many more books for you to read. Sometimes, there are so many interesting books to read that I spend so much time reading. But, obviously this seems to be part of my mythic journey and probably yours too.
We are not addressing the reality of living on a finite planet. We are running out of resources and our way of life is not sustainable, but we can be abundantly happy if we focus on knowledge and our relationship. I worry that society is not supporting you as you should be supported, so just keep it mind what you are doing with reading and sharing, and starting conversations is one of the most important things that can be done right now.
What an interesting thing to say! I never gave that thought but it is certainly worthy of thought.
Can you verbalize more about that thought?
(Btw, I've yet to experience VR with the improvisational fidelity and depth of feeling of any fantasy, so they're not comparable as far I'm concerned. Like I've been arguing about with one of my nephews for over a decade now: video "RPGs" are like jack-off porn in comparison to the immersive sex of tabletop RPGs (at least, back in my day), or like playing "Guitar Hero" compared to playing guitar).
NB: "Experience machine" = lobotomy plus a continuous 24/7 morphine drip ...
What bothers me is how fantasizing seems to prefigure virtual reality as it exists today. VR is getting more and more realistic every month it seems. Since it's quite obvious that people prefer their fantasies to real life, it's likely that VR will, at some point, give R (reality) a good run for its money.
Or VR will be "R (reality)" for VL (virtual lives).
I'm a bit confused about the whole idea of VR/fantasy. Correct me if I'm wrong but VR has to be realistic for it to be taken seriously by people. However, what exactly about VR/fantasy should be realistic? To answer this question we need to understand that fantasy/VR has two aspects that need to be taken into consideration:
1. The fantasy/VR world, the objects and the characters contained therein.
2. The narrative or story that has one as the main protagonist in the fantasy/VR world.
My suspicion is that when people talk of realistic fantasy/VR they're mainly interested in 1 above, specifically how closely the fantasy/VR world, the objects and characters contained therein mimic reality. In other words, people are only interested in things like whether or not, for instance, touching, peeling, chewing, tasting, swallowing a virtual orange is the same as actually doing these things to a real orange.
However, the desire for realism doesn't extend to 2 above i.e. people won't mind the story of their life being a fantasy or a big fat lie. As long as the fantasy/VR world is identical to the real deal, living an invented life isn't an issue at all.
It appears that this distinction - the fantasy/VR world, complete with objects and characters vs the life story of the person in the fantasy/VR world - is of great significance if only because it reveals how people will voluntarily live as fictional characters so long as the fictional world is indistunguishable from reality. Reminds me of Cypher from the Matrix movies. Cypher when he betrays Neo to Agent Smith asks in return for the tip off that he (Cypher) be plugged back into The Matrix, made rich and famous, "like an actor" The takeaway being, people don't mind living a life that's made up so long as our sensory apparatus (sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste) can't tell the difference between the fantasy/VR world and the real world.
What gives?
I think it's deeper than that: if the experiential fidelity of VR is indistinguishable from R, then isn't it reasonable for one to prefer the – in principle – "programmable & replayable" experience (VR)? And wouldn't this preference also belong to "the truth of" one's life story?
The way I see it, every person is part of two narratives - one, faer real life and two, faer fantasy life. The only reason that people are drawn to their fantasy lives - why fantasizing is so common and satisfying too - is the alternate life story which is more appealing than their real lives. It can't be that people's liking for fantasy is because of how well it decieves our senses because it definitely does not; we know that fantasy ain't real, that's why it's called fantasy, right?
Then that means the direction VR is taking - improvement in graphics and sound - is wrong . The idea isn't to make the world, the objects, the characters as real, sensorily, as possible. Rather we need to offer people good, meaningful, alternative storylines to their real, mundane existence. Once the narrative makes an impression, the high-end simulated world will be what it should be - the cherry on top.
What I mean is people don't mind living the life of a fictional character so long as the fictional world and the real world can't be differentiated. This means, in terms of VR, people desire realistic VR but there's some flexibility when it comes to the realness of the life they have in VR.
Quoting 180 Proof
In other words, fantasy "life" is about control – having far greater control over one's experiences than non-fantasy living. In so far as the human brain-CNS can't discern VR from R, the experiences are persistently the same. It's not merely about "better graphics & sound".
You're right on that score but my concern is about, I realize now, a paradox in fantasy-VR. Allow me to explain. The holy grail of VR is to make it identical to R (reality). Otherwise, we won't accept it - there'll always be something unrealistic in the simulation to spoil it for us.
Contrast the above demand for realism in VR with the fact that we don't mind a virtual life that's different from our real life. This is, if you really look at it, a desire/wish for what is, essentially, an unreal life.
Thus, we have us unwilling to accept VR that's unrealistic but, simultaneously, willing to accept a virtual life that's unreal. Paradoxical, no? :chin:
Yes. What's up with that?
:up: :ok:
Suppose John fantasizes about being the great fictional detective Sherlock Holmes. He is then offered a VR in which he can be Sherlock Holmes. If John is anything like the rest of us he will insist that the VR be realistic but the catch is Sherlock Holmes ain't real.
It doesn't add up.
Inconsistency? You want the world to be real but, at the same time, don't mind living a life that's unreal.
Quoting 180 Proof
:up: Thanks
I agree with all you've said.
In my personal experience, I often fantasize that I matter, and I fantasize that my opinions matter, and I fantasize that someone will ask me the same question they asked some knob in an interview, and I fantasize how I would have answered the same question. I fantasize the multitudes are present to revel in my witty response. In this process, I argue and debate with myself on the answer I would best provide, working on it, refining it, winnowing it down to the nut.
While this rarely does any good in the real world (because nobody gives a shit what I think, least of all the teaming masses who are most in need of my genius), it still helps me formulate my thoughts in a way that I better understand them. And that, to me, is important.
On rare occasion, I find that if I can keep my mouth shut long enough, opportunity will present itself and I can insert something recognizable as somewhat, if barely, contributory and worthwhile. I take those little wins, and the fantasy process starts anew; usually with how I could have better done it.
Yes, I think that I fantasise that I matter too, especially that I matter to the people who are significant to me. It makes life so more pleasant. I even sometimes have fantasy conversations, and these often are like rehearsals for the conversations which I have at some stage in real life.
The worst thing seems to me when the bubble is burst on pleasant fantasy, by harsh truths. In many ways I find that the inner world of imagination is as important as the facts of everyday existence, and the two seem interconnected. Also, even when life around oneself is collapsing it is possible to enjoy fantasy, within daydreams or through the transformational nature of entertainment and the arts. And, yes, I find that if I can keep my mouth shut, rather than blurring out all my inner mess, I can usually find some way of expressing myself in some worthwhile context.