In the sciences that apply qualitative methods, the imagination is not merely a producer of poetic ornaments, but a mental tool that can be schooled and applied when analyzing qualitative data. As a legacy of Husserlian phenomenology, we have the procedure of the imaginative variation as an investigative step in the phenomenological method. In Goethean phenomenology, as well as in the philosophy of Merleau-Ponty, the imagination is intimately entwined with perception. The exact sensory imagination, as Goethe calls it, “is actually a refinement of the natural process of perception, which is always already infused with memory and the imaginative projection of future possibilities” (Robbins, 2005, p. 120). The following essay traces the conceptual region that the schooled imagination occupies in Husserlian phenomenology and Goethean science, and the kind of refinement of perception that it can provide. It also suggests a more elemental imaginary in Merleau-Ponty’s sense, which is the animating force of the imagination.
BroadheadL.-A.HowardS. (2021). Confronting the contradictions between Western and Indigenous science: a critical perspective on Two-Eyed Seeing. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 17(1), 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/1177180121996326
2.
CaseyE. S. (1977). Imagination and phenomenological method. In EllistonF.McCormickP. (Eds.), Husserl: Expositions and appraisals (pp. 70–82). University of Notre Dame Press.
3.
ClaesgesU. (1964). Edmund Husserls Theorie der Raumkonstitution (Vol. 19). Martinus Nijhoff.
4.
GadamerH. G. (1996). Truth and method (WeinsheimerJ.MarshallD. G., Trans.). Continuum.
5.
GoetheJ. W. v. (1982). Schriften zur Biologie. Langen Mueller Verlag.
6.
GoetheJ. W. v. (2009). The metamorphosis of plants (MillerG. L., Trans.). MIT Press Cambridge.
HusserlE. (1970). The crisis of the European sciences and transcendental phenomenology (CarrD., Trans.). Northwestern University Press.
9.
HusserlE. (Ed.). (1997). Psychological and transcendental phenomenology and the confrontation with Heidegger (1927–1931) (Vol. 6). Springer Science & Business Media.
10.
HusserlE. (2012). Ideas pertaining to a pure phenomenology and to a phenomenological philosophy: First book: General introduction to a pure phenomenology (Vol. 2). Springer Science & Business Media.
KearneyR. (1998). Poetics of imagining. Fordham University Press.
13.
LöwithK. (1964). From Hegel to Nietzsche: the revolution in nineteenth century thought. Columbia University Press.
14.
MaatschJ. (Ed.). (2014). Morphologie und Moderne. Goethes ‚anschauliches Denken‘ in den Geistes- und Kulturwissenschaften seit 1800. De Gruyter.
15.
MazisG. A. (1988). La Chair et l’lmaginaire: The Developing Role of the Imagination in Merleau-Ponty’s Philosophy. Philosophy Today, 32(1), 30–42.
16.
Merleau-PontyM. (1962). Phenomenology of perception (SmithC., Trans.). Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
17.
Merleau-PontyM. (1964). The primacy of perception. Northwestern University Press.
18.
Merleau-PontyM. (1968). The visible and the invisible (LingisA., Trans.). Northwestern University Press.
19.
Merleau-PontyM. (1982/83). Phenomenology and psychoanalysis: preface to Hesnard’sL’oevre de Freud. Review of Existential Psychology and Psychiatry, XVIII(1–3), 67–72.
20.
Merleau-PontyM. (1983). The structure of behavior (FisherA. L., Trans.). Duquesne University Press.
21.
MoranD. (2012). Husserl’s crisis of the European sciences and transcendental phenomenology: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.
22.
NaessA. (2005). Reflections on gestalt ontology. Trumpeter, 21(1).
23.
RicoeurP. (2016). Imagination in discourse and in action. In RobinsonG.RundellJ. F. (Eds.), Rethinking imagination (pp. 118–135). Routledge.
24.
RobbinsB. (2006a). The delicate empiricism of goethe: Phenomenology as a rigorous science of nature. Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology, 6(suppl. 1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/20797222.2006.11433928
25.
RobbinsB. (2006b). An empirical, phenomenological study: Being joyful. In FischerC. T. (Ed.), Qualitative research methods for psychologists (pp. 173–211). Elsevier.
26.
RobbinsB. D. (2005). New organs of perception: Goethean science as a cultural therapeutics. Janus Head, 8(1), 113–126.
27.
SimmsE. M. (2011). Egocentric language and the upheaval of speech. Chiasmi International, 12, 287–309.
28.
SimmsE. M. (2014). Goethe und die Phänomenologie: Weltanschauung, Methode und Naturphilosophie. In MaatschJ. (Ed.), Morphologie und Moderne. Goethes ‚anschauliches Denken‘ in den Geistes- und Kulturwissenschaften seit 1800. (pp. 177–194). De Gruyter.
29.
SimmsE. M. (2018). Merleau-Ponty, the spatial turn, and spatial justice. Acta Structuralia, 2, 171–189.
30.
SowaR. (2008). Essences and eidetic laws in Edmund Husserl’s descriptive eidetics. The New Yearbook for Phenomenology and Phenomenological Philosophy, 7, 77–108.
31.
UexküllJ. v. (2010). A foray into the worlds of animals and humans: With a theory of meaning (von UexküllM., Trans.; O’NeilJ. D., Ed.). University of Minnesota Press.
32.
WertzF. J. (2010). The method of eidetic analysis for psychology. In CloonanT. F.ThiboutotC. (Eds.), The redirection of psychology: Essays in honor of Amedeo P. Giorgi (Vol. 1, pp. 281–300). Les Collectifs du Cirp.
33.
ZanerR. M. (1973a). Examples and possibles: A criticism of Husserl’s theory of free-phantasy variation. Research in Phenomenology, 3, 29–43.
