I am thinking about the Matrix and imagination and imaginary worlds and why imagination is said to be desired in workspaces to solve problems but then discouraged if it imagines anything that is outside the current paradigm.
It is important to note that "think outside the box" already creates the space and the binary of inside or outside the box.
What is the thing "inside the box"?
Boxes are actually playthings - they can be all the things - they can be the possibility of things.
Why are you asking to define things by box positionally as belonging or not belonging?
Box is being seen as the "container of things" not as the material FOR things.
When we play WITH the box what we are doing is rejecting the paradigm that automatically benefits the person/entity giving us "imagination instructions"
I am thinking of the man who can read the matrix and see the patterns and knows because he took "the right pill" the moral one of truth - but there is a cost to being outside the box and knowing and seeing all the patterns and he is the one that eventually betrays the group - to take the "wrong" pill and be in a world where he can't see outside and inside simultaneously anymore.
The strain of seeing the matrix and not having quite enough power to fix both inside and outside the box is real. Then the box is a game, there are rules, you solve games. "Play" is engagement.
But what if you look at the matrix and it is YOUR box- then inside and outside are irrelevant
My box is a world, my box is a lion, my box is a refrigerator that produces small gods I will sell to starving clergy that need them.
It is a plane or a tank or a table or a snowflake.
I won't take a pill or choose to think inside or outside I will take the box. I will open the box so it can be inside and outside simultaneously. My box is a shaman, it is in its own world and ours at once.
That is just play. It may not help solve the game problem set by the "imagination overseer".
All of the imaginary play in this case is transformative and it might also be transient replacement. The language of play is informed in the request to think outside the box - but it is appropriated language.
What does a business solution look like if I "play with the box" instead of think outside it?
What is the power exchange made by linguistically distracting me from playing with the box?
Would the man who just wanted a steak dinner have betrayed any of our "heroes" if he looked at the matrix and thought about it as a box he could play with instead of be in or out of?