Corbin (1903–1978) was, among other things, a French philosopher. Corbin is especially known for restoring the significance of “the imaginal realm” (or mundus imaginalis), a domain that mediates between the sensible world and the purely spiritual, and which is crucial in mystical and visionary experiences.
As interested in design, representation, and symbolism, the idea of the imaginal realm is a provocative lens: how might objects or spaces act not only as “forms” but as mediators of meaning, between visible and invisible, between spiritual and material?
The suggestion is that Corbin’s framework allows us to think about designed artefacts (objects, interfaces, spaces) not merely as functional or aesthetic entities, but as mediators in a symbolic and ontological sense.
Corbin distinguishes imaginal imagination (a mode of perception and cognition that accesses symbolic truth) from mere fantasy or subjective invention. In his account, imaginal forms are not arbitrary; they are real, but they belong to a different ontological register than physical matter. They mediate between the sensible (things we touch, see, measure) and the intelligible (pure concepts, divine ideas).
Translating this into design discourse:
A designed object or space could be seen not only as a material form, but also as a threshold where visible shape participates in invisible meaning.
A user interface or an architectural space, for instance, might carry symbolic weight beyond usability or structural efficiency—inviting a kind of imaginal participation. Think of stained-glass windows in cathedrals: they filter light in ways that are physically functional but also open a “visionary” register, mediating the sacred.
In modern design practice, this perspective could destabilise the narrow focus on functionalism or user-centered instrumentalism. Instead, design could be understood as shaping conditions for imaginal experience—where symbols, metaphors, and visionary modes of thought are activated.
So when asked:
“how might objects or spaces act not only as forms but as mediators of meaning, between visible and invisible, between spiritual and material?”
It is precisely meaning: can designed things function like Corbin’s imaginal intermediaries? Rather than being inert, they participate in a dialectic of presence and absence, symbol and reality, matter and spirit.
This is provocative because it reopens design to ontological and phenomenological depth, rather than confining it to psychology, ergonomics, or economics. It places design in conversation with theology, mysticism, and symbolic imagination—fields that usually remain at the margins of design research.