The Confusion of Many Names

In earlier article we explored imagination as a constant, multisensory, embodied capacity that shapes every moment of inner experience. We saw that it is not a special or occasional function but the medium through which all thinking, memory, anticipation, and reflection take form.

But what do we call this capacity?

Depending on who you ask, you might hear any of these terms:

• Imagination

• Imagery

• Visualization

• Fantasy

• Imaginal

• Mental Simulation

• Embodied Simulation

Each term highlights a different aspect of the same underlying capacity. Each tradition has its own preferred language. And each label carries connotations that shape how we understand — and work with — inner experience.

The question this article explores:

Does it actually matter what we call it?

The answer, as we will see, is both yes and no — and understanding why can help us work more skillfully with the imaginative dimension of experience.

A Map of Terms and Their Traditions

Different fields and traditions have developed their own terms for the capacity we explored in Article 1. Each term reveals something valuable — and each has limitations.

Imagination

• Tradition: Everyday language, philosophy, some therapeutic approaches

• Emphasis: Generative, creative, broad. Captures the full range of inner experience — from daydreaming to creative invention to memory and anticipation.

• Reveals: That the capacity is not limited to any one domain. It is fundamental to being human.

• Limitation: Can sound like “mere fantasy” — something unreal or unimportant. In everyday speech, “imagination” is often contrasted with “reality,” which can make it seem less substantial than it is.

Imagery

• Tradition: Cognitive psychology, neuroscience, clinical psychology

• Emphasis: Sensory and perceptual quality. Measurable, scientific. Used in research and therapeutic techniques like Imagery Rescripting.

• Reveals: That inner experience has sensory texture. It is not abstract; it involves the same neural systems as perception.

• Limitation: Sounds like it’s only visual. The word “imagery” (from “image”) can obscure the fact that these experiences are multisensory — involving sound, touch, and bodily sensation.

Visualization

• Tradition: Sports psychology, self-help, performance

• Emphasis: Deliberate mental rehearsal. Practical, intentional, goal-oriented. Often used in performance enhancement and skill development.

• Reveals: That we can deliberately shape inner experience. Imagination is not just passive; it can be directed.

• Limitation: Misleading — suggests it is only visual. Also, it emphasizes control, which can obscure the fact that much imagination arises spontaneously.

Fantasy

• Tradition: Psychoanalytic, Jungian, everyday language

• Emphasis: Unconscious content, wish-fulfillment, symbolic material. Often associated with imagination that is not grounded in external reality.

• Reveals: That imagination connects to deeper psychological material. It is not random; it carries meaning.

• Limitation: Often dismissed as “unreal” or “escapist.” The word can trivialize what is actually a profound psychological process.

Imaginal

• Tradition: Depth psychology, archetypal psychology (Hillman)

• Emphasis: The autonomy and reality of images. Images have their own intelligence and wisdom. They are not created by the ego but arise from deeper sources.

• Reveals: That images are not just products of the mind — they have their own life and can guide us.

• Limitation: Esoteric, not widely understood. Can feel abstract or inaccessible.

Mental Simulation

• Tradition: Cognitive science, neuroscience

• Emphasis: Predictive processing, action-oriented. The brain simulates possibilities to anticipate and prepare.

• Reveals: That imagination has an evolutionary function. It is not just “play” — it is how we survive and thrive.

• Limitation: Technical, impersonal. Doesn’t capture the felt, emotional, or symbolic qualities.

Embodied Simulation

• Tradition: Grounded cognition (Barsalou, 2008)

• Emphasis: Body-based, multisensory. Imagination is not abstract; it reactivates perceptual, motor, and introspective systems.

• Reveals: That the body is central to imagination. The image is not separate from the body that experiences it.

• Limitation: Academic jargon. Not widely used outside research contexts

The Common Ground: What They All Point To

Despite their different names and emphases, all these terms describe the same underlying capacity.

1. Generation of Inner Representations

All involve the mind generating content that is not directly tied to immediate external sensory input. Whether we call it imagination, imagery, or mental simulation, we are describing the creation of inner experience.

2. Sensory, Affective, and Narrative Elements

All involve some combination of:

• Sensory qualities (visual, auditory, somatic)

• Affective tone (emotion, feeling, mood)

• Narrative structure (a story, a sequence, a scene)

3. Activation of the Body and Nervous System

All activate the body’s response systems. The nervous system does not distinguish clearly between perceiving something and imagining it (Kosslyn et al., 2001). This is why imagination carries force — it is biologically real.

4. Spontaneous or Deliberate

All can arise spontaneously (as in worry, sudden memories, daydreaming) or be generated deliberately (as in visualization, active imagination, imagery rescripting).

5. Embodied Simulation

All are forms of what Barsalou (2008) calls “embodied simulation” — the brain reactivates perceptual, motor, and introspective systems to create meaningful simulations. The body is not a passive receiver; it participates in the formation of inner experience.

Key insight: Beneath all the terminology lies the same phenomenon. The labels we use are tools — and the phenomenon is more important than the label.

Historical Development: How We Came to Have So Many Names

Understanding how different traditions arrived at their terms helps us understand why we have so many names for the same capacity.

From Analytical Psychology: Active Imagination

Carl Jung (1961) described Active Imagination as a way of entering into a dialogue with images arising from the unconscious. Rather than dismissing them as fantasy, he regarded them as symbolic expressions of psychological processes that had not yet become conscious.

Key contributions:

• Images have their own intelligence and autonomy

• The image is not created by the ego; it arises from deeper sources

• Engaging with images transforms psychological material

• The symbolic dimension is central

Term used: Imagination (or Active Imagination). The word emphasizes the generative, creative, and symbolic qualities.

From Cognitive Science: Mental Imagery

From the 1970s onward, researchers like Kosslyn and Shepard studied mental imagery scientifically. They discovered that imagery uses the same neural pathways as perception. This research established that imagination is not “just in the head” — it has a biological basis.

Key contributions:

• Imagery can be studied objectively

• Visual imagery involves the visual cortex

• The same brain areas are active during perception and imagination (Kosslyn et al., 2001)

Term used: Imagery. The word emphasizes the sensory and perceptual qualities, making it suitable for scientific study.

From Embodied Cognition: Embodied Simulation

Barsalou (2008) developed the theory of grounded cognition — the idea that cognition is grounded in the body’s sensory and motor systems. Imagination is understood as embodied simulation.

Key contributions:

• The body is central to imagination

• Imagery is not abstract; it reactivates bodily states

• Perception, memory, and imagination share the same neural systems

Term used: Embodied Simulation. The word emphasizes the body-based, multisensory nature of imagination.

From Somatic Traditions: Felt Sense and Somatic Experiencing

Gendlin’s Focusing (1981) introduced the concept of “felt sense” — the bodily felt experience that carries meaning. Levine’s Somatic Experiencing (1997) works with bodily sensations to release trauma.

Key contributions:

• The body is a source of wisdom

• Somatic tracking reveals the state of the organism

• When the body settles, inner experience changes

Term used: Felt Sense, Somatic Experiencing. These terms emphasize the bodily, felt dimension.

From Clinical Psychology: Imagery Rescripting

Arntz (2012) developed Imagery Rescripting — a technique where clients revisit distressing memories and “rescript” the outcome through imagery. This reduces the emotional charge of traumatic memories.

Key contributions:

• Imagination can be used therapeutically

• Changing the inner experience changes the emotional memory

• Working with imagery works directly with emotional memory networks

Term used: Imagery. The word emphasizes the clinical, therapeutic application.

Does It Matter What We Call It? — The Answer

This is the central question of this article, and the answer is both yes and no. Let us explore why.

Yes, It Matters — Here’s Why

• Each term highlights a different aspect of the capacity. “Imagery” emphasizes sensory quality; “imagination” emphasizes creativity and generativity; “fantasy” emphasizes unconscious content and wish-fulfillment; “visualization” emphasizes deliberate rehearsal and intention. By using different terms, we can highlight different dimensions of what is actually the same phenomenon.

• Therapeutic techniques are tied to terminology. Imagery Rescripting uses the term “imagery”; Active Imagination uses the term “imagination.” Each tradition has developed its own language, and that language is embedded in the techniques themselves. Using the wrong term in a given context can create confusion or misalignment.

• Some terms carry useful connotations. “Embodied” reminds us of the body’s role in inner experience. “Imaginal” reminds us of the autonomy and reality of images. These connotations are not arbitrary; they carry important insights that can deepen our understanding and practice.

• Precision helps in research and practice. We need to know what we are studying and what we are working with. In research, clear terminology allows for replicable studies and cumulative knowledge. In practice, clear terminology allows for effective communication between practitioners and clients.

No, It Doesn’t Matter — Here’s Why

• Underneath the different labels, the same mechanisms are at work. Whether we call it imagination, imagery, or mental simulation, we are describing the generation of felt inner representations using the brain’s simulation systems. The phenomenon is more fundamental than any single term can capture.

• Too much focus on labels can obscure the experience itself. We can become lost in terminology rather than attending to what is actually happening in the moment. When we argue about what to call something, we can lose touch with the experience itself.

• The capacity is more important than what we call it. What matters is how we relate to inner experience — how we engage with it, understand it, and work with it. The label is a tool, not the thing itself.

• Different people resonate with different terms. Some prefer the scientific precision of “imagery”; others prefer the more open and accessible “imagination.” Forcing one term on someone who does not find it meaningful can create unnecessary barriers.

The Balanced View

Yes, it matters — in the sense that each term reveals something valuable about the capacity, and using the right term in the right context can deepen understanding and practice.

No, it doesn’t matter — in the sense that beneath all the terminology is the same fundamental capacity, and getting caught in labels can prevent us from attending to experience itself.

The key insight: The goal is not to pick one “correct” term but to understand what each term reveals and to use language that serves the context, the person, and the purpose.

What Makes a Method “Imaginative”?

Before we move to the question of change, it is worth clarifying what makes a method genuinely imaginative. This builds on what we have discussed here — the different terms and traditions — and leads naturally into the question of transformation.

A Method Is Genuinely Imaginative When It Engages All Three Dimensions

As we explored in Article 1, inner experience has three simultaneous dimensions: biological, somatic, and symbolic. A method is genuinely imaginative when it works with inner experience in a way that honors all three dimensions.

The Biological Dimension:

• The method recognizes that inner experience has a neural basis

• It works with the brain’s simulation systems

• It acknowledges that the nervous system responds to inner experience as if it were real

• It does not treat inner experience as “just in the head” but as a biological event

The Somatic Dimension:

• The method attends to the body

• It tracks breath, tension, and heart rate

• It recognizes that the felt sense carries information

• It acknowledges that the body is not a passive receiver but an active participant in the formation of inner experience

The Symbolic Dimension:

• The method explores meaning

• It attends to what the experience expresses, not just what it depicts

• It allows the symbolic dimension to unfold

• It recognizes that inner experiences carry deeper meanings and metaphors for the individual’s life narrative

Common Factors Across Effective Imaginative Methods

Effective imaginative methods share several common factors, regardless of their specific techniques or traditions.

• Present-moment engagement — The experience is engaged as it arises now, not as a fixed memory from the past. This allows the experience to be alive and responsive rather than frozen.

• Autonomy of the experience — The inner experience is allowed its own intelligence and direction. It is not forced or controlled but engaged with curiosity and openness. This respects the wisdom of the unconscious and the body.

• Somatic tracking — The body is attended to while the experience is present. This means noticing breath, tension, heart rate, and other bodily signals that carry information about the state of the organism.

• Symbolic resonance — The meaning is explored, not just the surface content. This means attending to what the experience expresses symbolically, not just what it depicts literally.

• Nervous system awareness — The autonomic context is acknowledged. Safety is recognized as a prerequisite for genuine exploration and change. When the nervous system is in a threat state, inner experience becomes rigid and repetitive. When it is in a safety state, it becomes flexible and exploratory.

• Non-forcing — Change happens through staying with the experience, not through controlling or suppressing it. This is the paradox of imaginative work: change happens when we stop trying to force it.

• Integration of all three dimensions — Biological, somatic, and symbolic are all engaged simultaneously. The method does not privilege one dimension over the others but works with them as an integrated whole.

Examples of Methods That Meet These Criteria

Several established therapeutic and contemplative methods meet these criteria and can be considered genuinely imaginative.

• Imagery Rescripting (Arntz) — This clinical method works with distressing memories through imagery, rescripting the outcome to meet unmet needs of the past. It engages all three dimensions: biological (memory reconsolidation), somatic (the body’s response to the memory), and symbolic (the meaning of the rescripted outcome).

• Active Imagination (Jung) — This depth psychological method dialogues with images arising from the unconscious. It engages all three dimensions: biological (the neural basis of imagery), somatic (the felt sense of the image), and symbolic (the meaning and message of the image).

• Somatic Experiencing (Levine) — This trauma-informed method uses somatic tracking to work with the body during inner experience. It engages all three dimensions: biological (nervous system regulation), somatic (the felt sense), and symbolic (the meaning that emerges as the body settles).

• Focusing (Gendlin) — This method attends to the felt sense and allows it to shift. It engages all three dimensions: biological (the neural basis of felt sense), somatic (the bodily experience itself), and symbolic (the meaning that emerges as the felt sense shifts).

• Guided Imagery and Visualization — When done well, these methods engage all three dimensions. They work with the brain’s simulation systems (biological), attend to the body’s responses (somatic), and explore the meaning of the images that arise (symbolic).

Key insight: A method is genuinely imaginative when it engages the three dimensions — biological, somatic, symbolic — and allows the inner experience to reorganize itself, rather than imposing a new experience from the outside. The transformation comes from within, not from external control.

Toward an Integrated Vocabulary

Rather than choosing one term and rejecting all others, we can hold multiple terms with flexibility and awareness. Different contexts call for different language, and different people resonate with different terms. The goal is not to pick one “correct” term but to understand what each term reveals and to use language that serves the context, the person, and the purpose.

When to Use Which Term

• In scientific research — Terms like imagery, mental simulation, or embodied simulation are most appropriate. These terms offer precision, measurability, and alignment with accepted terminology in the field. They allow researchers to communicate clearly and build on existing knowledge.

• In clinical and therapeutic contexts — Imagery or imaginal are often the best choices. These terms reflect the autonomy and depth of inner experience, acknowledging that what arises in the mind is not just a product of conscious control but has its own reality and significance. Imagery Rescripting and Active Imagination are examples of clinical approaches that use these terms.

• In self-help and performance contexts — Visualization is a practical and accessible term. It emphasizes intentionality and agency — the capacity to deliberately shape inner experience for a specific purpose, whether that is improving athletic performance, preparing for a presentation, or building confidence.

• In creative and artistic contexts — Imagination is the most natural term. It captures the generative, expansive, and creative qualities that are central to artistic work. When we speak of the imagination of a writer, painter, or musician, we are speaking of the capacity to bring something new into being.

• In depth and spiritual work — Imaginal is often the preferred term. It emphasizes the reality and wisdom of inner experience, treating images not as products of the mind but as presences that have their own intelligence and can guide us.

• In everyday conversation — Imagination is the most widely understood and accessible term. It requires no specialized knowledge and carries no academic or clinical connotations. It is the term that most people naturally use to describe their inner world.

The Value of a Flexible Vocabulary

• Different contexts need different language

• Different people resonate with different terms

• A rich vocabulary allows for precision and nuance

• Understanding multiple terms deepens our understanding of the capacity

There is great value in being able to move between these terms with awareness. A flexible vocabulary allows for precision and nuance, enabling us to speak about inner experience in ways that are appropriate to the context. It also deepens our understanding of the capacity itself — each term sheds light on a different aspect, and together they create a richer picture than any single term could provide.

At the same time, it is important to remember that terms are maps, not the territory. They are tools that serve us when they clarify and deepen our understanding. They hinder us when they become rigid or when we mistake the label for the experience itself. Different people resonate with different terms, and forcing one term on someone who does not find it meaningful can create unnecessary barriers.

Key insight: The goal is not to pick one “correct” term but to be able to move between them with awareness of what each reveals and what each obscures. The phenomenon is more important than the label.

Conclusion: Beyond the Label

What matters is not what we call this capacity but how we relate to it. The capacity itself — the generation of felt inner experiences — is what carries potential for understanding, regulation, and change.

The labels we use are tools. They serve us when they clarify and deepen our understanding. They hinder us when they become rigid or when we mistake the label for the experience itself.

Key insight:

Terms are not the territory. They are maps — and maps are useful only when we remember they are not the terrain itself.

References:

• Arntz, A. (2012). Imagery rescripting as a therapeutic technique. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 3(2), 189-208.

• Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617-645.

• Gendlin, E. T. (1981). Focusing. Bantam Books.

• Hillman, J. (1975). Re-Visioning Psychology. Harper & Row.

• Jung, C. G. (1961). Memories, Dreams, Reflections. Vintage Books.

• Kosslyn, S. M., Ganis, G., & Thompson, W. L. (2001). Neural foundations of imagery. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2(9), 635-642.

• Levine, P. A. (1997). Waking the Tiger: Healing Trauma. North Atlantic Books.