post

The Pattern of Expectation

“Mediating between perspective and language is pure imagination. It is a medium of appearance and expressibility, a medium which does not exist for itself but for the purpose of making other things possible. It is a bridge between the disproportion of ‘the verb’ with which we express ourselves and ‘the look’ which is tied to perspective. Ricoeur uses the term ‘pure imagination’ because it connotes the ‘throwness’ of the thing before me, a thing which is at once given to my point of view and capable of being expressed. By means of the function of pure imagination things appear before us as intelligible and expressible, but pure imagination is not intelligible on its own. It is a Kantian term, but it unites meaning and appearance rather than the intelligible and the sensible (as Kant used it), to stress that the objectivity of the object is constituted on the object itself. One condition for the possibility of this synthesis is time, for it is via time (a series of units following one after the other) that we are able to determine quantity, connection, and other appearances. How high is the tree? take a moment to measure it. How far away is my friend? take the time to count the steps. How blue is the house? a darker shade than the one we saw this morning.

Ricoeur admits that the problem of how we differentiate between subject and object, how we know thing A is different from thing B, has only been clarified, not solved. Pure imagination is still enigmatic, and it is not itself the ‘I’ of the ‘I think’. Reflection on the term imagination, however, is helpful in understanding the puzzling nature of this function. This function is pure because it is itself without content. Without sensory data to collate into an appearance, the function is empty, without anything upon which to function. The word ‘imagination’ is fitting because it is by means of this synthesizing function that we are able to make sense of the images (or sounds, or other sensory data) that come before us” (Huskey 2009:50).

Huskey, Rebecca K.
2009 Paul Ricoeur on Hope: Expecting the Good. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.

Citation Style AAA

post

The Relationship Between Tradition and Innovation

“Imagination, once again comes to the rescue by operating in a double capacity. In so far as it secures the function of reiterating types across discontinuous episodes, imagination is on the side of tradition. But…in so far as it fulfills its equally essential function of projecting new horizons of possibility, imagination is committed to the role of semantic – and indeed ontological – innovation. As soon as one recognizes the schematizing and synthesizing power of imagination at work in narrative, the very notions of tradition and innovation become complementary. Thus Ricoeur can claim that the term tradition must be understood not as the ‘inert transmission of some already dead deposit of material but as the living transmission of an innovation always capable of being reactivated by a return to the most creative moments of poetic activity’. So interpreted, tradition can only survive, can only pass itself on from one generation to the next, by fostering innovation in its midst. The function of tradition plays a role analogous to that of narrative paradigms: they not only constitute the grammar that directs the composition of new works, but they also do not and cannot eradicate the role of poiesis which in the last analysis is what makes each work of art different, singular, unique – an ‘original production, a new existence in the linguistic kingdom’. But the reverse is equally true. If tradition cannot survive without innovation, neither can innovation survive without tradition. Once again, it is imagination which plays this reciprocal role. ‘Innovation remains a form of behaviour governed by rules’, writes Ricoeur” (Kearney 2004:56).

Kearney, Richard
2004 On Paul Ricoeur: The Owl of Minerva. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Citation Style AAA