What is a Unicorn and
Why Does it Matter?
The Ontological Status
of Imagined Realities
What is a Unicorn and
Why Does it Matter?
What is a unicorn? I raise the question because there are so many objects of experience that are like unicorns—potentialities in their own right, yet lacking agency apart from human interpretation in local contexts. They are not mere fantasies, nor are they autonomous agents; rather, they exist in a liminal space, shaped by cultural memory, emotional investment, and symbolic projection. Objects such as national identities, brand logos, archetypal figures, fictional characters, remembered events, imagined futures, and even collective dreams. These entities, like unicorns, do not act on their own, but they move us, orient us, bind us, or unsettle us. They are felt realities, emerging not in isolation but in the complex web of human meaning-making.
On this page, I offer a suggestion: that unicorns—and other objects of the imagination—are neither pure potentials (eternal objects) nor actualities (actual entities), but rather, what Alfred North Whitehead calls "intermediate universals." These are not logical constructs but felt propositions, with identities of their own, that function in human life as lures for feeling. They exist in the imaginative space between what is and what could be, shaping experience by inviting particular emotional responses and patterns of meaning. In this I am building upon the work Anthony J. Steinbeck in "Whitehead's "Theory" of Propositions."
On this page, I offer a suggestion: that unicorns—and other objects of the imagination—are neither pure potentials (eternal objects) nor actualities (actual entities), but rather, what Alfred North Whitehead calls "intermediate universals." These are not logical constructs but felt propositions, with identities of their own, that function in human life as lures for feeling. They exist in the imaginative space between what is and what could be, shaping experience by inviting particular emotional responses and patterns of meaning. In this I am building upon the work Anthony J. Steinbeck in "Whitehead's "Theory" of Propositions."
Intermediate Universals
Nevertheless, Whitehead is quite candid about the distinctive features of propositions. In "The Metaphysical Scheme of March 1927," Whitehead clarifies a proposition as an "intermediate universal" (MS 320). Of course, with the explication of propositions as intermediate universals, we can recognize Whitehead’ s insistence on describing propositions from the perspective of eternal objects, and to this extent his description remains incomplete. Put differently, the expression "intermediate universal" signals an approach to propositions from the "top down" and not from the "bottom up," that is, from the perspective of actual entities or actual occasions invested with indeterminacy.1 Nonetheless, such a qualification marks a pointed move towards a distinction between propositions and eternal objects.
A proposition differs from an eternal object insofar as the latter refers to actuality with abstract generality, and the former refers to actuality with incomplete abstraction from determinate actual entities. Whereas eternal objects abstract from all determinate actualities, even God, and are merely referent to any actual entity devoid of selection, propositions circumscribe actual entities and lose their absolute generality in the fusion of eternal objects with a set of actual entities. In a proposition the eternal object is restricted to ‘lust these" actual occasions. The proposition is the potentiality of the eternal object, as determinant of definiteness, in some determinate mode of restricted reference to a circumscribed set of actual occasions (PR 257/393, 261/398-9).
For Whitehead, then, a proposition is truly "intermediate," not merely with respect to eternal objects, but also with regard to actual entities. A proposition is not a pure essence; though it does not give information as to how it actually functions in particular instances (like an eternal object) it does gesture towards how it could function in concrete occasions. A proposition is not a particular; it transcends brute fact, just enough to grant it an air of "impartiality" (MS 320-1; PR 197/299-300). Compared to eternal objects a proposition shares in the concrete particularity of actual occasions, and compared to actual occasions, it participates in the abstract generality of eternal objects. In other words, a proposition is doubly intermediate by virtue of what Whitehead calls a "double elimination." On the one hand, the objectified sheer matter-of-factness of actual entities is lifted, leaving a sufficient quality of concrete givenness to allow the latter to function now as "indicators." On the other hand, the eternal object suffers the removal of its absolute generality of its reference to any actuality.
- Anthony J. Steinbeck, "Whitehead's "Theory" of Propositions"
Real in a Different Way
Entities that live in our imaginations are not unreal. They are simply real in a different way—not as objects of external sense perception, but as objects felt within the imagination, either privately or collectively. Some are fleeting, individual constructs; others, like the unicorn, are collective "lures for feeling" that endure and evolve through centuries, acquiring new emotional tones and symbolic resonances over time.
It is tempting in modern, empiricist cultures to relegate such beings to the category of the “unreal,” as if what we cannot see or measure must be dismissed as mere fantasy. But this is a conceptual error. In Whiteheadian metaphysics, these beings are best understood as propositions (lures for feeling)—entities that may not possess actuality but nonetheless have ontological status. They are real potentials, shaping how we experience the world, ourselves, and one another. They belong to what Whitehead called the realm of possibility, which is as fundamental to reality as the realm of the actual.
Such entities may also exist both in imagination and in actual existence, as with angels, ,ancestral spirits, for that matter, unicorns. Here 'actuality' means that they have agency and feeling of their own, independent of being perceived and imagined. But their reality as imagined objects transcends whatever actuality they may or may not possess. Their power lies not in their physical confirmation but in their capacity to evoke subjective forms—wonder, awe, resistance, purity, belonging, hope.
Importantly, these entities can evolve over time. The unicorn has moved from sacred beast to symbol of Christ, from Enlightenment curiosity to pop-culture icon, from fantasy animal to emblem of queerness and difference. Yet it remains a proposition—an emotionally charged idea that lives within and helps shape culture.
And unicorns are not alone. Consider the many types of evolving image-entities share this ontological status:
These are not mere illusions. They are felt realities, imaginative structures of meaning that influence everything from consumer choice to moral conviction, from ritual practice to revolutionary fervor. They are constitutive elements of lived experience. In this light, to be imagined is not to be insignificant. It is to participate in the unfolding of reality itself.
Unicorns, then, are one example among many. But they are a particularly rich one—offering an imaginative thread through which we can see how felt potentialities are often more enduring, and more formative, than the empirically verified. They are gentle reminders that the world we inhabit is made not only of facts but of meanings, and that many of those meanings are carried by beings we have never seen, but often deeply felt.
It is tempting in modern, empiricist cultures to relegate such beings to the category of the “unreal,” as if what we cannot see or measure must be dismissed as mere fantasy. But this is a conceptual error. In Whiteheadian metaphysics, these beings are best understood as propositions (lures for feeling)—entities that may not possess actuality but nonetheless have ontological status. They are real potentials, shaping how we experience the world, ourselves, and one another. They belong to what Whitehead called the realm of possibility, which is as fundamental to reality as the realm of the actual.
Such entities may also exist both in imagination and in actual existence, as with angels, ,ancestral spirits, for that matter, unicorns. Here 'actuality' means that they have agency and feeling of their own, independent of being perceived and imagined. But their reality as imagined objects transcends whatever actuality they may or may not possess. Their power lies not in their physical confirmation but in their capacity to evoke subjective forms—wonder, awe, resistance, purity, belonging, hope.
Importantly, these entities can evolve over time. The unicorn has moved from sacred beast to symbol of Christ, from Enlightenment curiosity to pop-culture icon, from fantasy animal to emblem of queerness and difference. Yet it remains a proposition—an emotionally charged idea that lives within and helps shape culture.
And unicorns are not alone. Consider the many types of evolving image-entities share this ontological status:
- Our pasts: The images we hold of our individual and collective pasts, shaped as much by narrative and emotion as by fact.
- Icons of power: The icons of religion and politics—saints, revolutionaries, messiahs, tyrants—who become more than themselves through layers of interpretation and idealization.
- Branded objects: The material objects abstracted into brands, which exist not only as products but as emotionally resonant identities sold and consumed.
- Imagined selves: The selves we imagine ourselves to be—aspirational, regretful, performative, remembered, and future-tense versions of ourselves that influence our actual behavior.
These are not mere illusions. They are felt realities, imaginative structures of meaning that influence everything from consumer choice to moral conviction, from ritual practice to revolutionary fervor. They are constitutive elements of lived experience. In this light, to be imagined is not to be insignificant. It is to participate in the unfolding of reality itself.
Unicorns, then, are one example among many. But they are a particularly rich one—offering an imaginative thread through which we can see how felt potentialities are often more enduring, and more formative, than the empirically verified. They are gentle reminders that the world we inhabit is made not only of facts but of meanings, and that many of those meanings are carried by beings we have never seen, but often deeply felt.
About Unicorns
1. Unicorns Have Ancient Roots
The earliest depictions of unicorn-like creatures appear on seals from the Indus Valley Civilization (c. 2500 BCE). These images likely symbolized something sacred or powerful, though their exact meaning is lost to us. Later, Greek writers described one-horned beasts said to live in India, probably inspired by travelers’ tales of rhinoceroses, oryxes, or wild asses. Though biologically improbable, unicorns have lived for over four millennia in the human imagination as symbols of wonder, strangeness, and distant possibility.
2. They Were Once Considered Actual
In both classical and medieval times, unicorns were regarded not just as legends but as creatures that might exist in unknown corners of the world. Their horns were believed to detect and neutralize poison, and “unicorn horns”—often narwhal tusks—were displayed in royal courts as protective relics. Early naturalists, including Pliny the Elder, recorded them in earnest, blending observation, hearsay, and hope. Unicorns occupied a curious borderland between science and story, fact and faith.
3. They Became Christian Symbols
In the Middle Ages, unicorns were enfolded into Christian allegory. According to bestiaries, unicorns could only be tamed by virgins—a tale interpreted as an image of the Incarnation, with the unicorn representing Christ and the virgin symbolizing Mary. In art and poetry, the unicorn came to represent purity, sacrifice, and the mystery of divine love. It was fierce yet gentle, untamable yet drawn to innocence—a perfect embodiment of sacred paradox.
4. They Are Evolving Lures for Feeling and Possibility
In Whitehead’s process philosophy, unicorns are not dismissed as unreal. Instead, they are understood as propositions—conceptual patterns or lures for feeling that influence experience and stir emotion. Unicorns evoke subjective forms such as awe, longing, defiance, or purity. Though not actual entities, they have what Whitehead calls an intermediate ontological status—neither pure abstraction nor concrete actuality. They embody what certain actualities could be and offer emotionally charged possibilities for thought, action, and imagination. For a technical understanding of propositions as intermediate realities, see Anthony J. Steinbeck's "Whitehead's Theory of Propositions."
5. Their Meanings Are Always Situated in Particular Worlds
These propositions are not floating abstractions; they are always situated in specific imaginative and cultural contexts—what Whitehead calls their locus. A unicorn means something different to a medieval monk, a Renaissance courtier, a Romantic poet, or a queer teenager. Each imaginative act, each moment of interpretation, becomes a new instance of the proposition—a new world of felt meaning. The unicorn lives in and through these lived contexts, as a lens through which people shape and reshape emotional and symbolic life.
6. They Transform Across Time Without Losing Ontological Function
Unicorns also evolve through time. From Indus icon to Christian symbol, from Enlightenment curiosity to queer pop-cultural emblem, they shift in significance as cultures change. Their images accumulate new emotional tones and symbolic meanings. And yet, through all this transformation, they retain their ontological function: to open emotional and imaginative possibilities, to serve as lures for becoming, and to remind us that meaning is not fixed but emergent. Their story is never over; their relevance is constantly renewed.
7. They Keep the Future Open
In an age dominated by scientistic reductionism—where only the measurable is granted full reality—unicorns resist closure. They reintroduce enchantment, imagination, and the possibility of other ways of being. To dismiss them as “not real” is to misunderstand what reality includes. For Whitehead, the universe is not a closed system of things, but an unfolding process of experience, creativity, and novelty. In this cosmos, unicorns—like poetry, music, and love—play a vital role. They are symbols of an unfinished world and reminders that the future is still open.
Illusions
How, then, does a felt potentiality become an illusion? It occurs when the proposition—originally a lure for feeling—is mistaken for a mirror of actuality. That is, when the imagined form is felt as directly representing a concrete fact, rather than inviting a new way of seeing or feeling. The illusion arises either because the actuality it appears to reflect does not exist, or because the felt form distorts that actuality in a way that misleads rather than illuminates.
In such cases, what began as a creative possibility hardens into a false belief. The imaginative becomes deceptive not because it is imaginative, but because it claims a referential authority it does not actually possess. This is the danger of propaganda, idolization, and dogma: the transformation of lures into lies. The remedy is not to reject imagination, but to remain attentive to the difference between evocative possibility and asserted fact—between what stirs the heart and what claims to anchor the world.
In such cases, what began as a creative possibility hardens into a false belief. The imaginative becomes deceptive not because it is imaginative, but because it claims a referential authority it does not actually possess. This is the danger of propaganda, idolization, and dogma: the transformation of lures into lies. The remedy is not to reject imagination, but to remain attentive to the difference between evocative possibility and asserted fact—between what stirs the heart and what claims to anchor the world.
Lessons Learned from
Taking Unicorns Seriously
- Imagination is Ontologically Significant
Taking unicorns seriously reminds us that what we imagine shapes how we feel, relate, and act. Imaginative constructs are not secondary to reality—they participate in it, helping to form the emotional architecture of experience. - Not All Realities Are Actualities
Unicorns teach us that something can be real without being actual. They exist not in the realm of concrete fact, but in the realm of potentiality and cultural meaning—what Whitehead calls “intermediate universals.” - Feeling Precedes Fact in Human Experience
Unicorns do not present us with data but with feeling-tones—purity, mystery, beauty, marginality, longing. They show how propositions, images, and myths function as lures for emotional response before they ever serve as statements of fact. - Meaning Is Always Contextual
The meaning of a unicorn depends on where and when it appears: in a medieval monastery, a Pride parade, a child’s drawing, or a corporate logo. Taking unicorns seriously highlights the locus-dependent nature of symbolic experience. - Imagined Entities Can Evolve
Unicorns remind us that symbolic objects are not fixed; they adapt and grow with culture. Their ability to shift meaning over time is not a weakness but a sign of their vitality. - The Line Between Fantasy and Faith Is Porous
Unicorns belong to the same imaginative field that gives rise to gods, ancestors, angels, demons, and saints. Taking them seriously challenges strict binaries between the real and the unreal, the sacred and the fictional. - Myth Is a Mode of Truth
The unicorn is a mythic being, but its myth carries emotional and existential truth. It reveals something about the human longing for beauty, innocence, wildness, and transcendence—even in a disenchanted world.
The Unicorn: A Scholarly Introduction
Melvyn Bragg and his guests discuss the unicorn. In the 5th century BC a Greek historian, Ctesias, described a strange one-horned beast which he believed to live in a remote area of India. Later classical scholars, including Aristotle and Pliny, added to his account of this animal which they called the monoceros, a vicious ass-like creature with a single horn in the middle of its forehead.For centuries the monoceros or unicorn was widely accepted to be a real - if rarely seen - beast. It appears in the Bible, and in the Middle Ages became a powerful Christian symbol. It continued to be represented in art and literature throughout the Renaissance, when 'unicorn horn' became one of the most valuable commodities on earth, thanks to its supposed properties as an antidote to poison. As late as the seventeenth century, scientists believed they had found conclusive proof of the existence of unicorns. It was some time before the animal was shown to be a myth; four hundred years on, the unicorn retains much of its fascination and symbolic power.With: Juliette WoodAssociate Lecturer in Folklore at Cardiff University; Lauren Kassell, Lecturer in the History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Cambridgel David Ekserdjian, Professor of the History of Art and Film at the University of Leicester.Producer: Thomas Morris.