It ought to be clear that imagination is not ancillary to some presumed zero-degree of perception of reality. Isn't this just what so many works portentiously strive to demonstrate? How else would your world be articlated but by the flexible joints of imagination. It's only that the waking world is criss-crossed by so many social validations and material imperatives so that it gains a kind of rigidity which is mistaken for self-evidence. Examine it closely and the illusion soon comes apart and all the quicker if you are able to compare notes with anybody else. All these different subject-worlds are hugely variegated. Imagination is inherently multiple, it superposes different scales and temporalities, different ontologies, different metaphysics - you glimpse some of this in dreams - and they vary from person to person both in salience and in their propensity to interfere with each other. A geography of the imagination would be useful, as a good tourist you can visit anywhere, but the places you can make into a home are surprisingly limited. It's the prohibitions, the no-go zones that are of most interest since they seem to contradict its very spirit. Are these limitations themselves only creations of the imagination? What if they are? What if they're not?