Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[Belacqua]

Yes, I too agree that we can give defiitions to imagenary abstract (As wel as imagenary AND abstract) things.

Thank you, we agree on that.

That said, our imagenary ideas can't push back 'Directly' into reality. 

We can't transplant Unicorns directly from our thoughts into reality. 

Granted. Just because we imagine something doesn't mean it can be real, or that we make it real.

But you're right to emphasize "directly." Obviously, if we want to make anything new first we have to imagine it. But then we have to do some sort of physical action to bring it about. Mental activity alone isn't enough.

There is a sense in which imagination might realize something, though this is a bit different from what we've been talking about. If we think about the phenomenological way in which we perceive the world, our perception of the world around us is never passive. We don't just "take it in." There is active engagement with our surroundings and we use imagination as I mentioned in my last post. So let's say we imagine something that's new for us -- maybe a quality like cuteness (in the Japanese sense). This is different from beauty or other kinds of attractiveness that we've thought of before. From the point when we first imagine that quality it will be present for us in our perceptions of the world, when previously it wasn't. 

So the new imagination remakes the world for us, very slightly. The world gains something new, for us. 

I guess most people wouldn't say we've created something real -- I suppose they'd define real as tangible. But in terms of my life-world, the phenomenological world I actually live in, something new is there. 

On an aside, I would point out two reasonably well known artists. 

H.R. Geiger and M.C. Escher.

The maths behind Escher's cretions is rather profound yet the images 'Came' to him with no education of maths. 

Geiger's creations are also intrinsically 'Unique'.

I would haverd to make the point that the subtle differences in how Human brains 'Wire' themselve during development effect how such creative processes 'Work'.

This is a fascinating question. Character is destiny, and the inexplicable way in which one artist shows up with a unique vision is a kind of gift of nature. 

It relates to what I was rambling about just before -- when a creative genius makes something new in the world, that possibility of vision is added to our total capability. People who know more art see more in the world. Monet-vision is a gift to us all. 

Prior to Kant, most people thought an artist's job was to record the world accurately. It might be either idealized or "realistic," but the beauty of the painting was supposed to be a record of the beauty of the world. When Kant told us that the mind creates the beauty of the world -- that beauty isn't a quality that's "out there" -- art changed. After that, what we admire in an artist's work is not the beauty of the thing seen but the beauty of the mind of the person seeing. Van Gogh tested it by painting old boots, and making a beautiful picture, because it was his unique mind which created the beauty. 

Sorry for the obtuse possibly ramble.  

It's been a stressful day at work and am venting ideas possibly as a way of decompressing the stress.

Not at all. It's my pleasure. I'm pleased that you're interested. 

And I know what you mean about decompressing. I find this sort of stuff nicely distracting.