GA 13 - Rudolf Steiner's "Secret Science in Outline"

[Cleric]

I don't have much time right now so I scanned the article only diagonally, but it seems to me that what Federica finds lacking is that improvisation can only be fruitful in the full sense when we constantly seek the prayerful resonance with the high ideal. I didn't see anything in this direction in the article but again, I didn't read thoroughly.

Improvisation is connected with the recent talk about the flow and also the Event. It has to do with the fact that there's always something genuinely new that incarnates in each moment, which we can't reach for based on some combination of past experiences, but instead must allow to be realized through us.

Here we once again reach deep archetypal principles. On one hand we have the Arhimanic attitude. This is the consciousness that feels secure only when every next Event is firmly grounded in past knowledge. We seek to precisely calculate our next move based on all experiences accumulated so far. On the other extreme we can place the Luciferic attitude which is pure improvisation but shallow. Here we absolutize non-deterministic freedom but at the same time we blind ourselves to the hidden constraints within which this impro flow streams.

Improvisation is only possible through Love. We need this ability to let go of the neurotic tendencies of control (even though very often this control is completely illusionary). Yet this can only be beneficial if we lovingly surrender to the Divine. Thus we still need cognitive focus on the high ideal, even if it is only felt like an aura of potential. At the same time, whatever incarnates through this flow needs to integrate as Wisdom and work back toward the spiritual world. We should remember that this Wisdom is needed not only for our Earthly ego but for the higher beings too. The phenomenal space of our experience reflects not only our intents but also those of the higher minds. Thus by our proper conduct we increase the depth and resolution of what higher beings can know. Our chaotic inner lives take away something of the depth of their consciousness too, they need to endure our mischievous evolutionary phase and patiently guide it.

One improvises when a little drunk. That's why alcohol still plays a role in social relations. A guy is too stiff to talk to a girl without having a couple of drinks. Of course, we know that this improvisation is precisely of the lower kind, where we enter a flow state but channel inferior and chaotic impulses.

So the article probably is a little bit Lu dominant, where impro and laughter are more of the shallow kind, even though they are a practical exercise for the flow and letting go of neurotic control. It is up to us to extract the valuable bits and imbue them with the Sun powers.

[Cleric]

BTW: some years ago, in the company I work we had a team building where they had hired impro performers to share some of their methods of training. There were indeed valuable practices but again - one has to see them in proper light.

One of the greatest lessons in impro is that you can't make plans entirely on your own. For example, one of the exercises was to make a poem where everyone speaks out a couple of words, then another continues the thread, and so on. The emphasis was that you can't add the words by expecting that the poem will go in your intended direction and when your turn comes again you'll be able to continue your own line. Instead, a sense of cooperation must be developed where one radiates out an idea and completely lets go. Then others may develop it and when it gets back to us we need the humility to work on something that is not entirely ours.

Of course, we can easily see how things can remain quite shallow. The poems often turn out funny because of the unexpected chaining of words but at the same time it remains shallow. The actors explained that before they have a play they only agree on the starting point. They never think of a general plot. They start from the initial scene and patch up the next scenes on the fly (the Tetris image comes to mind). This could be amusing and the way the minds of the actors flow together is something to be admired but at the same time, at such an impro performance we can't expect to see the development of a deeper contextual story. So the real impro magic would reach completely new levels when we do not simply seek to spontaneously fit Tetris pieces that make for an amusing unfoldment but do that in such a way that a deeper contextuality is revealed. In that sense, PoF and the idea of moral imagination is the guide for Divine impro.

[AshvinP]

BTW: some years ago, in the company I work we had a team building where they had hired impro performers to share some of their methods of training. There were indeed valuable practices but again - one has to see them in proper light.

One of the greatest lessons in impro is that you can't make plans entirely on your own. For example, one of the exercises was to make a poem where everyone speaks out a couple of words, then another continues the thread, and so on. The emphasis was that you can't add the words by expecting that the poem will go in your intended direction and when your turn comes again you'll be able to continue your own line. Instead, a sense of cooperation must be developed where one radiates out an idea and completely lets go. Then others may develop it and when it gets back to us we need the humility to work on something that is not entirely ours.

Of course, we can easily see how things can remain quite shallow. The poems often turn out funny because of the unexpected chaining of words but at the same time it remains shallow. The actors explained that before they have a play they only agree on the starting point. They never think of a general plot. They start from the initial scene and patch up the next scenes on the fly (the Tetris image comes to mind). This could be amusing and the way the minds of the actors flow together is something to be admired but at the same time, at such an impro performance we can't expect to see the development of a deeper contextual story. So the real impro magic would reach completely new levels when we do not simply seek to spontaneously fit Tetris pieces that make for an amusing unfoldment but do that in such a way that a deeper contextuality is revealed. In that sense, PoF and the idea of moral imagination is the guide for Divine impro.

Thanks for this clear summary of Divine improv (great term!), Cleric, as the redemption of one-sided imaginative and creative impulses that lack contextual depth. It also fits very well with the thoughts shared by Kuhlewind, lovingly surrendering our imaginative capacity to the Divine suprawill. "Not I, but the Divine improv in me..."

The exercise you shared also reminds me of the final scenes from a movie, Godzilla Minus One. Similar to movies like Apollo 13, it is about many human beings coming together and creatively coordinating with each other to accomplish the 'impossible', taming the beast we created through our atomic imagination (the lower guardian of selfish soul impulses). Of course, One individual must always be willing to make a loving sacrifice. These sorts of images can be profoundly inspirational when we absorb them in a very inward way. They reflect the endless depths and possibilities of the purified soul and imaginative human spirit in redeeming finished experiences and co-creating new worlds.


(spoiler for anyone who plans on watching the movie)

[Federica]

The capacity to improvise that we find in artistic or engineering pursuits (for ex. Apollo 13 when they had to use random materials to come up with a critical part of the module), and also in Steiner's lecturing which was itself an artform , is the very same capacitythat we need to harness in higher development, except we purify the state of improvisation such that we reach its core essence and employ the capacity toward higher ideals. (...) It's the very same capacity that you characterized as follows:

But when language continually lifts the verbal forms, they are ‘up for grabs’ for the ever emerging spiritual impulses to reincarnate in the reconfigured forms. Then language bridges the two worlds, spirit and matter.

This is what it truly means to improvise, without all the extraneous connotations drawn from Earthly life. You are often utilizing this improvisational capacity in your spiritual pursuits, except the inner experience isn't very clear yet. Eventually, you will awaken, like you did with the idea that analogies work in two directions, and say "Oh, so that's why Kuhlewind and Ashvin were comparing this activity to improvisation." Mark my words, it will happen So we don't need to debate it, or agree or disagree about it, or state our opinions about it, only clarify and orient to the underlying principle at work.

Ashvin,

Maybe it’s like you say and I will eventually awaken to the truth in your characterization of improvising - and thank you for the encouragement - but meanwhile, in the way of clarifying and orienting to the underlying principles at work, I wonder how one can state that Earthly life connotations are extraneous to true improvisational capacity, and at the same time state that, for higher development, we can harness the impro capacities of artists, engineers and lecturers.


To be clear, I won’t be offended if you don’t reply In any case, I would like to lay out the underlying principles at work in way of clarifying and orienting - the way I see it (I don’t need to say “in my opinion”, since you don’t like the expression, though please note that for example Cleric is not unused to expressing opinions here, at times even calling them “opinions”).


So - the reason why I don’t think the two are “the very same capacity” is simple. We simply need to notice that one may have developed intense capacity for higher cognition, and at the same time be unable to improvise in lecturing or debating, like Steiner was. If these were the very same capacity, this fact would make little sense. Think about Tomberg, Kürten, only to name a few who developed higher cognition extensively, and still would have been unable to seamlessly pour their purified capacity for meditative “improvisational thinking” into improvised lectures à la Steiner, for example. The point is, the improvisational capacity found in engineers, musicians, public speakers, and other performers has to do primarily with certain social and technical skills, and with personality traits. As a result, someone with limited spiritual interests and capacity may be impressively able to improvise a lecture, while an Initiate may seriously struggle with that.

Even more significantly, training the capacity to improvise in art, engineering, and speaking doesn’t make it easier to develop higher cognition. There’s scarce potential to be harnessed in those capacities per se, for the purpose of higher development, unless higher development is specifically (methodically) pursued. Yes, an artistic or technical improviser needs to be open to the new, but their training strengthens something else: it strengthens the technical part. Conversely, in meditation, there is a perfect overlap between the improvisational activity (openness to the new) and the training activity (development of capacity). And that’s key. That’s why there’s nothing special to harness for higher cognition in impro skills learned for Earthly life.

In other words: in meditation, improvisation is primarily developed within willing and thinking, so the training feeds back into sense-free thinking directly, it is concentric with it, it is available to harness, to realize the openness to the new. By contrast, in improvised lecturing, improvised artistic or technical performance, improvisation is primarily developed within feeling and the world of senses. So, unless this is made concentric with the thinking will in a separate introspective and meditative effort, each layer of activity is left to go its own way, and there is nothing special to harness.

[Cleric]

Speaking of lecturing, maybe this recent thought could connect to the impro skills.

Rudolf Steiner rejected in principle the reading of lectures from manuscripts, as is often the custom nowadays, and he therefore always had a lively contact with the people sitting in front of him. I asked him much later whether he had never suffered from what is called stage fright and which every speaker knows only too well. Rudolf Steiner answered to my surprise – because I had never noticed it in him – that it is good and necessary for the speaker to have some stage fright, because this is because one does not appear before the audience with a fixed, rigid content, but also struggles with the best possible description while speaking. He too had always experienced this state of inner tension during a lecture and urgently advised not to lose it.

[Federica]

Speaking of lecturing, maybe this recent thought could connect to the impro skills.

Rudolf Steiner rejected in principle the reading of lectures from manuscripts, as is often the custom nowadays, and he therefore always had a lively contact with the people sitting in front of him. I asked him much later whether he had never suffered from what is called stage fright and which every speaker knows only too well. Rudolf Steiner answered to my surprise – because I had never noticed it in him – that it is good and necessary for the speaker to have some stage fright, because this is because one does not appear before the audience with a fixed, rigid content, but also struggles with the best possible description while speaking. He too had always experienced this state of inner tension during a lecture and urgently advised not to lose it.

Thanks, Cleric. What I intend with "improvising a lecture" is to come up with the entire train of thoughts in real time, in front of the audience, with only the lecture topic, and perhaps a few sub-topics, predetermined ahead of time. The way I see it, simply not reading from a text is normal lecturing, based on a structured preparation of the sequence of ideas, with some key concepts and examples. Reading word for word (or memorizing a speech word for word) has little to do with lecturing.

I see that there is some gradation in improvising: if only the theme/purpose and a few core ideas are set, it's probably largely improvising. For example, you often conclude your longer posts and essays with a brief summary. If this is all the lecturer has before meeting the audience - yes, it's improvising. But the forming of the exact conceptual syntax and vocabulary as you go, that's just normal, proper lecturing. I believe Steiner was often improvising in full sense, sometimes because of lack of preparation time, but also because he often had to draw from supersensible insights elusive to memory.

So if someone, say, operates from the middle of the improvisational lecturing gradient, he could be either spiritually developed or undeveloped. The same notes I've made above would apply, I believe. The lecturer would primarily be demonstrating personality traits and social-technical skills, and not necessarily spiritual development, not even any special potential for it. One could be able to do that well quite 'unconsciously', out of self-confidence, deep expertise in the topic, narcissism, long practice of lecturing, and so on...

[AshvinP]

The capacity to improvise that we find in artistic or engineering pursuits (for ex. Apollo 13 when they had to use random materials to come up with a critical part of the module), and also in Steiner's lecturing which was itself an artform , is the very same capacitythat we need to harness in higher development, except we purify the state of improvisation such that we reach its core essence and employ the capacity toward higher ideals. (...) It's the very same capacity that you characterized as follows:

But when language continually lifts the verbal forms, they are ‘up for grabs’ for the ever emerging spiritual impulses to reincarnate in the reconfigured forms. Then language bridges the two worlds, spirit and matter.

This is what it truly means to improvise, without all the extraneous connotations drawn from Earthly life. You are often utilizing this improvisational capacity in your spiritual pursuits, except the inner experience isn't very clear yet. Eventually, you will awaken, like you did with the idea that analogies work in two directions, and say "Oh, so that's why Kuhlewind and Ashvin were comparing this activity to improvisation." Mark my words, it will happen So we don't need to debate it, or agree or disagree about it, or state our opinions about it, only clarify and orient to the underlying principle at work.

Ashvin,

Maybe it’s like you say and I will eventually awaken to the truth in your characterization of improvising - and thank you for the encouragement - but meanwhile, in the way of clarifying and orienting to the underlying principles at work, I wonder how one can state that Earthly life connotations are extraneous to true improvisational capacity, and at the same time state that, for higher development, we can harness the impro capacities of artists, engineers and lecturers.


To be clear, I won’t be offended if you don’t reply In any case, I would like to lay out the underlying principles at work in way of clarifying and orienting - the way I see it (I don’t need to say “in my opinion”, since you don’t like the expression, though please note that for example Cleric is not unused to expressing opinions here, at times even calling them “opinions”).

We can imagine the Spirit dips down into the soul life and stimulates the ability to transition from calculating based only on finished forms of experience to also keeping the forms fluid in their round and curvy shapes as we remain receptive to the newly incarnating ideas from the domain of potential. With the basic intellectual and imaginative development that most people can attain in modern times with a bit of academic and artistic effort, we are already at this stage. We can move between the subconscious and superconscious to some extent, finding new ways of expressing ideas in the sensory flow. (of course, this capacity is greatly hampered by modern complacency and indolence). As the Spirit dips down, though, it becomes entangled with whatever disorderly soul configurations are already there. For simplicity, we can think of these as the 7 deadly sins. These are the 'extraneous Earthly connotations' that become associated with the pure thinking capacity and then modulate how we bring the capacity to expression in our various pursuits.

We can bring this experience into great focus through concentrated meditation. At first, we should feel how it is relatively easy to silence sensations, feelings, and thoughts and concentrate into the pure flow of cognitive becoming. But alas, within a matter of seconds, the disorderly soul currents begin gnawing and gnashing at this pure concentrated flow, tearing it to shreds. We should imagine that, dormant within this superconscious flow, are all skills and capacities of humanity - artistic, scientific, social, or otherwise. Anything that can be learned through experience is already there. Higher cognitive development is about purifying the experience of this superconscious flow that is already present. Put another way, it is about holding off the disorderly soul currents from mixing in - the microcosmic Fall - so we can maintain concentration in the flow. Then we begin to harness the creative inflow of ideas and insights as living feedback for how to purify the soul life, creating a positive feedback that allows us to gradually remain more and more present within the superconscious flow in free pursuit of our loving ideals. Then the extraneously Earthly connotations begin to naturally fall away when we see outer expressions of this superconscious flow - we can see through the outer forms to their inner core, "extract the valuable bits and imbue them with the Sun powers" as Cleric put it.

So - the reason why I don’t think the two are “the very same capacity” is simple. We simply need to notice that one may have developed intense capacity for higher cognition, and at the same time be unable to improvise in lecturing or debating, like Steiner was. If these were the very same capacity, this fact would make little sense. Think about Tomberg, Kürten, only to name a few who developed higher cognition extensively, and still would have been unable to seamlessly pour their purified capacity for meditative “improvisational thinking” into improvised lectures à la Steiner, for example. The point is, the improvisational capacity found in engineers, musicians, public speakers, and other performers has to do primarily with certain social and technical skills, and with personality traits. As a result, someone with limited spiritual interests and capacity may be impressively able to improvise a lecture, while an Initiate may seriously struggle with that.

Even more significantly, training the capacity to improvise in art, engineering, and speaking doesn’t make it easier to develop higher cognition. There’s scarce potential to be harnessed in those capacities per se, for the purpose of higher development, unless higher development is specifically (methodically) pursued. Yes, an artistic or technical improviser needs to be open to the new, but their training strengthens something else: it strengthens the technical part. Conversely, in meditation, there is a perfect overlap between the improvisational activity (openness to the new) and the training activity (development of capacity). And that’s key. That’s why there’s nothing special to harness for higher cognition in impro skills learned for Earthly life.

I think it's mostly unhelpful to try and orient to these inner realities by speculating on what various individualities are capable of or not capable of. But, continuing with this line of reasoning at a broad level, I disagree that the highest initiates would be incapable of improvising lectures, artistic, or technical pursuits, IF they were instructed by the higher worlds that was necessary to accomplish their Divine-ordained tasks. These initiates only become so because they have developed a holistic configuration of all temperaments and personality traits, all human qualities and capacities (which is more than just the sum of its parts). They can inwardly relate to an expansive array of soul constellations because they have united with their perspectives in Love. But generally, these remain form-free and employed for higher organs of perception and the communication of revelations to various communities. Steiner's task seemed unique in that his form-free capacities were also specialized into more specific Earthly skills and precise channels of philosophical-scientific content. It's not that others couldn't have potentially done this, but it simply wasn't their task.

Conversely, cultivating the capacity to improvise in art, engineering, etc. is not by itself sufficient for higher cognitive development, but provides a huge inner advantage when setting out on the inner path of development. If we haven't already learned to be more comfortable in the form-free flow of spiritual activity, then we will need to become so. We should realize how all of these things overlap to a great extent. We can say that every quality, skill, and capacity that humanity has developed for the last few thousand years (or even much longer, for ex. standing upright, speaking, and thinking) has been preparation for higher cognitive development - it laid the foundation of capacities and soul forces that are instrumental for higher cognition. Humanity has instinctively been working its way to the latter through religion, art, science, philosophy, etc. Higher cognition is simply becoming conscious of how we have been attaining all these advancements, how the superconscious forces (Divine beings) have been structuring the inflow of new qualities, capacities, and insights all along the way. Becoming conscious of that superconscious flow (first by purifying the gnawing soul currents), which includes all personality qualities and social skills and everything of that nature, is also perfecting its further manifestation in the sensory domain. 

In other words: in meditation, improvisation is primarily developed within willing and thinking, so the training feeds back into sense-free thinking directly, it is concentric with it, it is available to harness, to realize the openness to the new. By contrast, in improvised lecturing, improvised artistic or technical performance, improvisation is primarily developed within feeling and the world of senses. So, unless this is made concentric with the thinking will in a separate introspective and meditative effort, each layer of activity is left to go its own way, and there is nothing special to harness.

Yes, the above seems a fine way of characterizing everything that has been discussed so far about purifying the experience of our improvisational capacity through active and imaginative meditation, study, and moral deeds. All the soul forces of the human individual should be made concentric, the whole contextual depth should become more and more involved in every act of perception, thinking, feeling, and bodily will. We can draw on many diverse forms and events as living feedback on how to consciously surrender to our superconscious nature.

[Federica]

...
Then we begin to harness the creative inflow of ideas and insights as living feedback for how to purify the soul life, creating a positive feedback that allows us to gradually remain more and more present within the superconscious flow in free pursuit of our loving ideals. Then the extraneously Earthly connotations begin to naturally fall away when we see outer expressions of this superconscious flow - we can see through the outer forms to their inner core, "extract the valuable bits and imbue them with the Sun powers" as Cleric put it.

In this way, yes, I follow. Nothing starts with harnessing Earthly improvisation. Only after development in sense-free thinking is pursued as you describe, one may extracts the valuable bits.

I think it's mostly unhelpful to try and orient to these inner realities by speculating on what various individualities are capable of or not capable of. But, continuing with this line of reasoning at a broad level, I disagree that the highest initiates would be incapable of improvising lectures, artistic, or technical pursuits, IF they were instructed by the higher worlds that was necessary to accomplish their Divine-ordained tasks.

Hey there's no speculation. The names of individuals are illustrations, not that I depend on them to make the point. I agree that an Inititate could improvise a lecture IF instructed by the higher worlds. That's why I said that an Initiate MAY struggle with improvising in the Earthly sphere.

Conversely, cultivating the capacity to improvise in art, engineering, etc. is not by itself sufficient for higher cognitive development, but provides a huge inner advantage when setting out on the inner path of development. If we haven't already learned to be more comfortable in the form-free flow of spiritual activity, then we will need to become so. We should realize how all of these things overlap to a great extent. We can say that every quality, skill, and capacity that humanity has developed for the last few thousand years (or even much longer, for ex. standing upright, speaking, and thinking) has been preparation for higher cognitive development - it laid the foundation of capacities and soul forces that are instrumental for higher cognition. Humanity has instinctively been working its way to the latter through religion, art, science, philosophy, etc. Higher cognition is simply becoming conscious of how we have been attaining all these advancements, how the superconscious forces (Divine beings) have been structuring the inflow of new qualities, capacities, and insights all along the way. Becoming conscious of that superconscious flow (first by purifying the gnawing soul currents), which includes all personality qualities and social skills and everything of that nature, is also perfecting its further manifestation in the sensory domain. 

I don't see the huge advantage granted by improvisation in the Earthly sphere specifically. As said, I think one can improvise out of combinations of skills and sins. I undertand the general principle of awakening to the Earthly skills that have progressively opened the way to higher cognition, but I don't see why impro skills in particular, over other Earthly skills, would grant a huge advantage. A carpenter and a kite surfer could leverage their Earthly skills for spiritual ends just as well.

[AshvinP]

...
Then we begin to harness the creative inflow of ideas and insights as living feedback for how to purify the soul life, creating a positive feedback that allows us to gradually remain more and more present within the superconscious flow in free pursuit of our loving ideals. Then the extraneously Earthly connotations begin to naturally fall away when we see outer expressions of this superconscious flow - we can see through the outer forms to their inner core, "extract the valuable bits and imbue them with the Sun powers" as Cleric put it.

In this way, yes, I follow. Nothing starts with harnessing Earthly improvisation. Only after development in sense-free thinking is pursued as you describe, one may extracts the valuable bits.

And we are the ones who have started pursuing sense-free thinking, so we can extract the valuable bits here and now on this forum

I think it's mostly unhelpful to try and orient to these inner realities by speculating on what various individualities are capable of or not capable of. But, continuing with this line of reasoning at a broad level, I disagree that the highest initiates would be incapable of improvising lectures, artistic, or technical pursuits, IF they were instructed by the higher worlds that was necessary to accomplish their Divine-ordained tasks.

Hey there's no speculation. The names of individuals are illustrations, not that I depend on them to make the point. I agree that an Inititate could improvise a lecture IF instructed by the higher worlds. That's why I said that an Initiate MAY struggle with improvising in the Earthly sphere.

I meant that if they choose not to do improvisational lecturing, for example, or improvisational art and so forth, it's simply because it doesn't fit into their particular mission, not because they lack the capacity to do so. Hence developing higher cognition necessarily develops the improvisational capacity, but of course, one must then start practicing/applying the capacity in a particular domain to concretize and refine it. Many higher individualities may simply choose not to do that for their particular karmic mission.

Conversely, cultivating the capacity to improvise in art, engineering, etc. is not by itself sufficient for higher cognitive development, but provides a huge inner advantage when setting out on the inner path of development. If we haven't already learned to be more comfortable in the form-free flow of spiritual activity, then we will need to become so. We should realize how all of these things overlap to a great extent. We can say that every quality, skill, and capacity that humanity has developed for the last few thousand years (or even much longer, for ex. standing upright, speaking, and thinking) has been preparation for higher cognitive development - it laid the foundation of capacities and soul forces that are instrumental for higher cognition. Humanity has instinctively been working its way to the latter through religion, art, science, philosophy, etc. Higher cognition is simply becoming conscious of how we have been attaining all these advancements, how the superconscious forces (Divine beings) have been structuring the inflow of new qualities, capacities, and insights all along the way. Becoming conscious of that superconscious flow (first by purifying the gnawing soul currents), which includes all personality qualities and social skills and everything of that nature, is also perfecting its further manifestation in the sensory domain. 

I don't see the huge advantage granted by improvisation in the Earthly sphere specifically. As said, I think one can improvise out of combinations of skills and sins. I undertand the general principle of awakening to the Earthly skills that have progressively opened the way to higher cognition, but I don't see why impro skills in particular, over other Earthly skills, would grant a huge advantage. A carpenter and a kite surfer could leverage their Earthly skills for spiritual ends just as well.

All other qualities and capacities being equal, if one approaches higher development with the improv skill and another without it, the former will be in a better position to leverage that for higher development.

[AshvinP]

...
Then we begin to harness the creative inflow of ideas and insights as living feedback for how to purify the soul life, creating a positive feedback that allows us to gradually remain more and more present within the superconscious flow in free pursuit of our loving ideals. Then the extraneously Earthly connotations begin to naturally fall away when we see outer expressions of this superconscious flow - we can see through the outer forms to their inner core, "extract the valuable bits and imbue them with the Sun powers" as Cleric put it.

In this way, yes, I follow. Nothing starts with harnessing Earthly improvisation. Only after development in sense-free thinking is pursued as you describe, one may extracts the valuable bits.

It occurred to me Cleric provided a nice way to somewhat quickly approach the inner improvisational experience and also its relation to what we later call habits or technical skills:

To make this clearer we can try to imagine a certain pattern of nudges that we choose on the fly, say, left, left, right. We perform these nudges without trying to imagine the receding effects, we only imagine the nudges, as if we nudge a steering wheel. Then we put the nudges aside for a moment, for example we may count to five, and then try to repeat them.

Here we have something that on first look seems completely trivial but which is very fruitful if we give it the needed attention. When we try to repeat the pattern we should try to feel what gives us the possibility to do so? In the first pass we chose the pattern without any constraints. Whether that choice was truly free doesn’t matter. There are certainly invisible constraints to our imagination so our choice is probably biased but normally we’re not aware of these constraints. In the second pass, however, we wilfully try to imagine something that is not random but fits in certain constraints. When we perform the first pass it is as if something of our act diffuses and continues to reverberate in our conscious context. Then when we try the second pass we seek the movements that resonate with the invisible reverberations. If we do the wrong pattern we feel “that’s not what I did”. How do we know? Because the knowing of what we did in the first pass still hovers in our conscious context and allows us to feel whether the pattern we perform in the second pass resonates or dissonates with it.

When we look at things with such intimacy we can see that there’s something phenomenologically real for which our visualization is a symbolic expression. We may not visually see our thoughts receding but it is obviously true that every thought is infused in our conscious context and can be sought when we try to align new movements with it.

In blue, we experience spiritual activity that doesn't know what it's going to do/think next but freely improvises. Then this spiritual activity recedes into conscious and subconscious memory and becomes something akin to a habitual constraint (although not yet so encrusted as most things we refer to as habits). If our patterns of nudges were practically useful for some Earthly task, then it could even become a technical skill after some practice. In red, we have spiritual activity that is constrained, that merely tries to replicate/remember based on the receded context of fully finished experiences. It is much more scripted spiritual activity that anticipates its next thinking-nudges. The more we experiment with such inner movements, the more these otherwise abstract differentiations between 'superconscious' and 'subconscious', and similar ones, will be elucidated.

So, as trivial as this may seem, it is really the essential inner difference between what is being called 'improvisational thinking' and non-improvisational, instinctive, habitual thinking (which eventually can also impress into emotional and physical habits). We clearly need a harmonious balance between the two. We can't simply keep nudging our steering wheel in form-free flow without any reference to the receded context or else we'll drive off the road into a ditch. Yet if we only focus on replicating receded thinking-nudges, we'll only move in a straight line and never visit new experiential terrain. In our time, the receded context is well-established - we have very set patterns within the mental, emotional, and physical spaces. So naturally we should focus more and more on cultivating the form-free capacity on the blue end of the spectrum, by which we can bring life and purity into the rigidified patterns.

But as we discussed, this isn't simply by continually improvising new thinking-nudges out of our personal and arbitrary will - it involves devoting and uniting our inner activity to a much higher Will that is the original source of all improvisational capacities. The higher Will draws our imaginative activity along trans-objective contextual relations that flash as insights and increasingly make sense of our current perceptual state. Then we become more conscious of the whole superconscious-subconscious depth flow, how these domains relate to one another, and can creatively participate in harmonizing the layers of our intuitive being.