Of Imagination

A friend on Facebook ponders “if consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative?”

In a broad sense I agree. Except, if it was me, I would replace “consistency” with “routine”. Words, as treacherous as they are, permit a chameleon-esque nature to meaning and interpretation. Consistency somehow, for me, is a more about character than behaviour. Consistency and lack of imagination, therefore are not necessarily opposites, or in a cause-effect relationship.

Routine is behavioural. It is a safe-house of sorts. And, unless you are willing to cross the boundaries of routine, there is no scope for imagination. Discipline, for example, though more respectful than routine, has the same effect. If you do not cross boundaries, there is no way to explore.

Role models, unintentionally have the same effect. Seldom do you find anyone willing to explore he essence of what makes a role-model a role model. Most people choose to emulate the act of a role model in hope of achieving a similar status. In doing this, they never consider the insignificant variable that was applicable to the role model that may not be applicable to them. That one insignificant variable that had a significant effect.

Imagination is possible in a mind that is not bound by routine or role-model emulation. A bound mind always knows the path to its destination. Imagination, then, is not necessary.

Imagination is an adventure. Those that live by acquired rules and precepts need no imagination.