In my paper, I would like to revisit the Greimasian notion of the figurative dimension of meaning. In Greimasian semiotics, the notion of the figurative dimension and its inherent association to perception and sensation have played a significant role ever since its introduction and all the way to later interrogations into what has been called sensible meaning (Fontanille 1999; Landowski 2005, 2015; Moutat 2015). Recently, several articles have provided some much-needed reflection upon these developments (Bertetti 2017; Harkot-de-la-Taille 2020).However, despite the general interest accorded to the notion of figurativity, there has been little interest in figurations, i.e. acts and processes of figurative meaning. This is something I would like to turn to in this paper, by discussing the following questions with the help of some handy examples of actual figurations.Does the Greimasian notion of figurativity imply a specific stance in the understanding of discourse, picture, world? This depends on the way Greimasian figures stand with regard to reality. It is no secret that the Greimasian notion of figure was conceived as an alterantive to denotational realism, but what of it, beyond a general affirmation of Saussurean principles? What kind of entities are Greimasian figures supposed to be if they are supposed to account for the world taking part in meaning? I suggest pursuing an interpretation and exploration of Greimasian figurativity wherein figure implies a suspension of denotational reality and reveals a precarious imaginary which impregnates perception.