Having established that imagination is anything we derive from/add to sensual or direct experience where can we go from here?
Do you have any thoughts on the following:
Does the first imagining influence all imaginings thereafter?
Being aware that we are using our own power of imagination when investigating there are nevertheless - as in all cases where "time" and "location" dominate our experience - different causal aspects of one and same the underlying phenomenon of "reality" one may focus on that elucidate different effects:
"Dependent on intellect & ideas, intellect-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one complicates. Based on what a person complicates, the perceptions & categories of complication assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future ideas cognizable via the intellect.
But also aspect 2:
All successful human action is preceded by right knowledge.
Right knowledge is twofold:
Direct and indirect (perceptive and inferential).
Direct knowledge means here neither construction (judgement) nor illusion. Construction (or judgement) implies a distinct cognition of a mental reflex which is capable of coalescing with a verbal designation. Knowledge exempt from such (construction), when it is not affected by an illusion produced by color-blindness, rapid motion, travelling on board ship, sickness or other causes, is perceptive (right) knowledge.
MayaRefugee wrote:What are the intricacies pertaining to the material the imagination uses to imagine?
If we concede logical thinking being a manifestation of imagination then "pure" (i.e. logically valid) imagination is "pure" thought devoid of emotional distortions and "unconscious" habits. What prevails is the undistorted causal relationship between sensation and thought.
If we concede "art" being another manifestation of imagination then the term "authenticity" may be applied, describing the causal relationship between the subject's experience and the subject's expression.
MayaRefugee wrote:Being as respectful as possible, could/does a person born deaf and blind imagine?
Of course this is a matter of speculation and definition.
As to definition: Since I have applied the term "imagination" in the sense of comprising any form of conceptual construction which therefore is not restricted to mere verbal thought activity but includes non-visual
"pattern" re-cognition as well I would tend to say that even a person born deaf and blind will apply "imagination".
As to speculation: In that sense (s. above) "imagination" seems to be a natural potential (quality) "inhering" in any "sentient being".