/fringe/ - Fringe

The Imaginal Realm: Origins of the Concept

Lois: The term “imaginal realm” is a bit unclear, so as a first step, it may be valuable to understand what the concept imaginal realm means as described by the man who coined the phrase—Henry Corbin, the French scholar and mystic known primarily for his interpretation of Islamic thought.6 In his study of Sufi and Persian texts, he discovered that in these literatures there was believed to be a realm that existed above our ordinary three-dimensional consciousness. While some aspects of the imagination are clearly contrived, these texts suggested that there is also a place in our imaginations where things are “real,” in the sense that they are not being “imagined” by someone but are images that have some kind of integrity or existence on their own. Thus, the imagination appears to have two aspects: one is intentionally fabricated; the other presents itself to us intact. Corbin used the term mundus imaginalis (imaginary realm) to differentiate between the “imaginary”(i.e., something equated with the unreal or with fantasy) and the “imaginal” (i.e., a world that is ontologically as real as the things we see or touch or know intellectually). Something imaginary is “made up” and comes from us, whereas the imaginal comes to us from another realm. It’s the difference, for example, between conjuring an image of a man with a blue nose and green hair (imaginary) and having a dream image of a man with a blue nose and green hair (from the imaginal realm).

In Corbin’s view—and that of archetypal psychology—the images that come from the mundus imaginalis are a reality in some dimension other than the sensible and intellectual dimensions that we are most familiar with and that we have been taught to value and respect. This is difficult for those grounded in a rationalist perspective to accept, but science—as you point out in this paper—is beginning to provide a construct for our understanding the validity of these other realms of being. These other realms can be experienced in various ways—for example, through dreams, or when we are touched by a sense of spirit in prayer or meditation, and when we feel ourselves moved by some strong image in the culture, such as an image from a film, book, or television news. When an image does present itself to us, we may be awed, surprised, puzzled, confused, or emotionally moved. Generally, it stirs something in us. It awakens us to a feeling or an emotion. If we can just be with these images, they will work on us in ways that are often inexplicable and mysterious.

In the view of archetypal psychology, the opportunity in the work is to engage with these images—not to interpret them, but to restore a sense of soul by immersing oneself in the images. By just “being” with the image, we allow ourselves to be touched in the emotional sense of the word. In many ways, soul has been banished from our lives by busyness, by a worldview that favors the sensible and rational over the nonverbal. Yet, when we open to the imaginal, what comes is like water for the thirsting traveler in the desert. It moistens, softens and lubricates us, giving us a sense of depth and enriching our lives immeasurably. Without it, we become arid; things feel superficial, a sense of meaning in life eludes us.