Knowledge is facts, information and skills acquired by a person through experience and

learning. Imagination on the other hand is the faculty of processing of new ideas, images,

concepts of external objects not present to the senses; the ability of the mind to be

creative or resourceful. Imagination can be a leisure or vanity thought process, which

challenges the knower’s existing knowledge. Knowledge is definitely, it seems, a

precursor of imagination. But is imagination a precursor for knowledge? In a certain

sense, imagination is a catalyst for knowledge acquisition. To what extent is imagination

more important for the knower in knowledge acquisition in arts and natural sciences?

In Arts, Imagination is more important than knowledge. In music, one may have the

technical knowledge of an instrument or even the knowledge of music theory, but to

really ‘create’ an artwork or ‘grasp’ in entirety essence an artwork, one inevitably a sense

of fleeting imagining. Taking avant-garde fashion as a case study, Although knowledge

of stitching, hemming, colors, hues, fits, textures etc. is vital for creating a garment, the

ultimate culmination of its beauty comes with a little dose of imagination. Without that,

neither would one be able to create something extraordinary nor appreciate something

extraordinary.

Some others might tend to be of the opinion, Knowledge is a precursor to imagination

and hence more important than imagination. Imagination may be just be considered a

revamping of already existing knowledge concepts. Some say that putting a horn of a

rhino on a body of a white horse creates a unicorn, which is an act of imagination. But the

horn, as well as the white horse, already exists in reality. So, it seems imagination is

merely a juxtaposition of knowledge concepts. In that sense, without knowledge, the

imaginer would not have any concepts to imagine. He will be vibrating in a realm of non-

material empty.

If creativity is defined as creating something absolutely new then nature is the only true

fountainhead. The reason why humans can’t really imagine as ‘authentically’ as Nature

or ‘differently’ from Nature is because we are part of Nature, we are the product of nature.

How can a creation divorce itself from its creator?

Natural scientists, like Einstein, claim that Imagination is more important that knowledge.

Looking at birds is one thing, but formulating a hypothesis that birds have a certain

behavior depending season requires an imagination of some sort to even predict such a

possibility in the first place. Without such a sense of imagination, a scientist will merely

be a keen observer of life and would really not come up with any theories or probable

hypotheses. In fact, all great scientists had more of a dose of imagination than technical

prowess, which then led to experimentation and eventually invention.

Technology seems like an actualization of imagination. They have used the basic theories

of electricity, physics, computers, etc. to create many technological innovations that are

present today. How did they think of the finger sliding motion on an I-phone? It’s a

completely new and dynamic innovation. How can the geneticists create, pretty much

anything they want? They both need a solid understanding of basic knowledge concepts

but without imagination they would not be able to use this knowledge in any way. What

use is the knowledge of the genetic code if it can’t be put use to creating an imagined

state of organism? So, imagination is the catalyst, driving force for knowledge creation in

nature sciences.

On the other hand, some might say that knowledge is more important that imagination in

Natural Sciences. Without the knowledge and technical know how of tweaking that gene,

imagination of the possibilities of genetic modification is pointless. It can never be

actualized. “What value does a visionary have without the operationalist ?” In biology,

absorption and obersvation of life around us is more paramount than positing conceptual

hypotheses. It’s very material in it’s nature. A zoologist looks, understands the

behavrious pattersn of animals; A botanist look at the intricate processes of plant

architecture and functionalities. But on the other hand, Physics, althought has solid

knowledge concepts, it is more open to the conceptual and intangible. Take for example,

String theory that tries to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity. Quantum

mechanics, provides a mathematical description of much of the dual particle like and

wave like behavriour and interactions of energy and mattery. In TOK jargon, it is more of

imagination. ON the toehr hand, general relativity generalizes special relativity and

Newton’s law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a

geometric property of space and time. So, in a sense, general relativity is more material

and tangible.

Personally, I agree with Einstein. As an art student, creative imagination is single-

handedly the most important thing. Art in Latin means ‘to create’. An artist’s endeavor is

not just to revolutionize pre-existing knowledge concepts, but also to deconstruct the

limits of current knowledge. Without imagination, an artist cannot even think to begin his

de-construction and creation process. To question oneself and one’s limit of knowledge is

itself imagination, isn’t it?

Although, imagination is more important that knowledge; one thing cannot exist without

the other. They both need each other for their survival and growth. Once one imagines

something, one has already started the journey of new knowledge creation. If one has the

perseverance and intellect, one will undoubtedly, end this imaginary process in the

formation of new knowledge.

Imagination is a daily process in humans. Using emotion, reason, language and logic and

reason as the ways of knowing, the knower arrives at different knowledge concepts in

various areas of knowledge. But isn’t the ways of knowing merely a different word for

imagining? When One feels a certain emotion of crying and loneliness after one’s

friend’s death, he invents a word called ‘sadness’ which in the future will be used a

million times to convey this same state of desperation he is in now. Without an

imagination of language and lexicon creation, he would not have created his own

‘sadness’. Language, quite obviously, a ‘creating of words’ process which represent

everything around us. With words, we have given names to animals, plants, and even

intangibles like happiness and pain. Logic is the recognition of cause and effect. Many

say that in reality, every event is separate and independent of the next, in the strict sense

of its existence. But isn’t this causal relationship between two events just an act of

imagination in the knower? Reason directly follows from causality. Without the

assumption of causality to be true, reason for anything to happen because of anything else,

is illusory. E.G – If one suffers a financial loss, a logic and reason person would attribute

it’s cause as something the person did, but on the other hand, someone who is more

attuned to the ‘digital’ spectrum of events, would just say, “It’s a random co-incidence !

Bad for you !”.

Sense perception i.e. using one’s sense to gain knowledge, is also at a deeper level,

imaginary process. When one looks at a flower, in the scientific sense of seeing, the light

rays just get reflected of the flower and enters the pupil of the eye, to create the image of

the flower in front of us. So far, it is purely ‘seeing’. But then, the faculty of associating

words, creating links, labels etc, is an act of imagination. Another example is tasting of

food. The plum is not giving the knower the word ‘sweet’. It just has a lot of sugar, which

triggers the word ‘Sweet’ in the knower. The actual taste of sugar and the word sweet, in

reality, don’t seem to have a common link other than language that has interlinked them

with words. In synesthetes, they go one step further and crosslink different sense

experiences of the external environment. E.G – A soft melody might trigger a concrete

sensation of blue. A sour taste of tomato might trigger an orange color. Isn’t this

crosslinking of different sense perceptions too just a fancier version of imagination?

So, if all the ways of knowing eventually are just masks of an imaginary process, isn’t all

knowledge an imagination too? Any movement of thought, in it’s birth or execution, is

imagination born out of the vanity of the mind. Only in the rare case of complete stillness

of the mind, does thought cease to be and without the movement of thought, imagination

also ceases to be. Infact, this is the natural state of ‘no mind’ or ‘not knowing’. (How

does the knower know how to act then ? This question does not arise ? Because the

knower is least bit concerned about thinking about the action, he is merely an instrument

in the dynamic flux of action and reaction forces. So, basically, all his actions are like

subconscious habits, merely feeding off others peoples actions, his actions are merely

reactions to the circumstances of life. Ractions don’t need thought energy and hence such

a person from the outside may sem to be thinking about his axtions but in reality, is

purely feeding of his physical habits and his genetic and cultural conditioning. In the true

sense, such a person is aliving automatic computer)

Hard copy draft: 17th

August

Final upload on Managebac: 31st August