Essay: Spiritual Exposure Therapy

[Federica]

As we have discussed before, the gradient of purifying the soul constitution - habits and tendencies of thinking, feeling, willing - is simultaneously a treatment of sensory experience, insofar as the two greatly overlap and co-modulate one another.

Yes, you have phrased that in many ways, I get it. That's not my main question. The question is rather: all these illustrations are, after all, mental pictures meant to stimulate - in the seeking mind of the reader - some intellectual sense-making, leading to some spiritual DIY, leading to some more intellectual squaring, leading to some more DIY, and so on.

Therefore, capturing the intellect's attention, as it were, is the first arduous task, since the decision to initiate inner exploration can only be made under its rule. That's hard enough, as we know. Moreover, no matter how skillful and accurate the illustrations are - and they absolutely are - the reader gets easily lost at any juncture. And so I have been reflecting on what are some concrete hindrances to a stable and dedicated engagement in this inner exploration, especially at its beginning. One thing that has come to mind is definitely this fear of matter. Paradoxically, the scientist, the materialist interested in natural inquiries, is not so affected by this fear, because the fear is pushed all the way down to unconscious depths precisely as an effect of the scientific impulse. But, as you say, the intellect isn't necessarily oriented to materialism, thus for other personalities and temperaments - perhaps the sanguine one - it may be useful to offer an intellectual perspective that glimpses at a reconciliation with matter, to start with. Counter-intuitively, the materialist mind may not need that focus upfront, and may be better off guided by a mathematical entry point, that is, pure thinking. As I see it, there may be some more such characters to be mindful of, in order to let the concentricity of spiritual activity speak more straightforwardly to various minds and temperaments, centered at disparate hyper-coordinates in soul space.

But perhaps you have an entirely different 'treatment of sensory experience' in mind - in which case, could you elaborate on what that would look like?

No, I only dream of the attractive potential that various "treatments" may deploy
And it may not be a matter of treating sensory experience differently - though I have been pondering how an illustrated PoF could look like, for example - but rather it's a matter of showing more interest in the different souls of other thinkers - similar to what you said in the essay - but then also aiming to speak to those differences.

In this sense, it has occurred to me that there could be an illustration with a will accent, another one with a thinking accent, another with a feeling accent, and another one with a sensing/sensory/physical accent. That would speak more to the various temperaments as well. For instance, I am not sure, but I believe that typically the materialist mind may have a prevalent phlegmatic temperament, and may resonate better with a gradient that starts from pure thinking (like in the counting to ten exercise). The mystical mind, by contrast, may be more aspiring, more sanguigne, more "afraid of matter" and may need a different illustration. And so on.

So, would you be open to the idea that spiritual science could be conveyed more effectively to different souls through different accents? And what would you say is the predominant accent in this one essay you wrote?

[AshvinP]

though I have been pondering how an illustrated PoF could look like, for example -

Probably a lot like Cleric's essays

So, would you be open to the idea that spiritual science could be conveyed more effectively to different souls through different accents? And what would you say is the predominant accent in this one essay you wrote?

Yes, but I also think those different accents are already present in an attempt to embody the spirit of PoF-style phenomenology. The latter is intended to not only be an exercise in intellectual sense-making of the content about the structure and dynamics of spiritual activity, but a symbolic portal into the intimate movements of that spiritual activity, i.e. a meditative exercise, which already involves the deeper feeling and willing accents. The content itself may not speak much about "feeling" and "willing", but it stimulates the living experience of those soul forces when engaged with in good faith and persistence.

My essay is relatively short and mostly focuses on the thinking accent, although obviously the willing accent is intimately experienced for anyone who engages with the counting and vowel exercises. And I think the feeling aspect is highlighted at the end for those who try to relate spiritual exposure therapy to the Christ story and live into the mini-legend of Giacomo. A lot of that will depend on what effortful soul forces the reader brings to the content, as usual.

I am open to any new ways of conveying PoF and spiritual science, to establishing the gradient between intellectual gestures and more expansive scales of inner activity, but I feel these questions have already been asked by the Initiates and something like PoF was the answer they came up with for the 'Western' souls of our time. It's hard to even imagine any sort of viable phenomenology at our current time that functions outside that general framework, which again already intends to accent thinking-feeling-willing. But if someone wants to give it a shot and see what happens, I say go for it!

Also, I'm still not sure how you are using "fear of matter" - like fear of thinking thoroughly about sensory experience? I have been using it differently, as a fear that is present across the spectrum from materialist to mystical alike. The materialist may be enthusiastic to think about the sensory spectrum, but still fears discovering his own real-time activity within its appearances. The same thing for the mystic, which also extends deeper into the imaginative perceptual spectrum (mental pictures, visions, etc.) They all seek causes external to their own deeper soul movements to 'explain' these imaginative perceptions (or explain them away as "illusion").

[Federica]

...

I feel like I'm talkin to a wall

It's not about going outside the general framework of phenomenology, or giving more treatment to thinking forces, versus will forces, or other forces. It's about considering that - dispite what you say in the last paragraph, which is true - at the beginning everyone is submitted to the cogent limitations of their own intellect and temperament. And that can be usefully taken into account. At risk of appearing disrespectful to the reader, think of it as if the reader was a child to be educated (in a way, we are in a similar state as we approach the spiritual path). Didn't Steiner recommend different ways to help different children learn and grow?

By filling ourselves with practical wisdom such as this, we learn to solve that basic riddle of life, the other person. It is solved not by postulating abstract ideas and concepts, but by means of pictures. Instead of arbitrarily theorizing, we should seek an immediate understanding of every individual human being. We can do this, however, only by knowing what lies in the depths of the soul. Slowly and gradually, spiritual science illuminates our minds, making us receptive not only to the big picture, but also to subtle details. Spiritual science makes it possible that when two souls meet and one demands love, the other offers it. If something else is demanded, that other thing is given. Through such true, living wisdom do we create the basis for society. This is what we mean when we say we must solve a riddle every moment.

(It's not while discussing children and education that Steiner said the above)

PS: fear of matter = fear of separation

[AshvinP]

...

I feel like I'm talkin to a wall

It's not about going outside the general framework of phenomenology, or giving more treatment to thinking forces, versus will forces, or other forces. It's about considering that - dispite what you say in the last paragraph, which is true - at the beginning everyone is submitted to the cogent limitations of their own intellect and temperament. And that can be usefully taken into account. At risk of appearing disrespectful to the reader, think of it as if the reader was a child to be educated (in a way, we are in a similar state as we approach the spiritual path). Didn't Steiner recommend different ways to help different children learn and grow?

By filling ourselves with practical wisdom such as this, we learn to solve that basic riddle of life, the other person. It is solved not by postulating abstract ideas and concepts, but by means of pictures. Instead of arbitrarily theorizing, we should seek an immediate understanding of every individual human being. We can do this, however, only by knowing what lies in the depths of the soul. Slowly and gradually, spiritual science illuminates our minds, making us receptive not only to the big picture, but also to subtle details. Spiritual science makes it possible that when two souls meet and one demands love, the other offers it. If something else is demanded, that other thing is given. Through such true, living wisdom do we create the basis for society. This is what we mean when we say we must solve a riddle every moment.

(It's not while discussing children and education that Steiner said the above)

PS: fear of matter = fear of separation

Ok, Federica, perhaps this is just another example of you instinctively arguing to 'prove me wrong' about something. I say instinctively because you don't even have a clear idea of how "that can be usefully taken into account", in a way that is different from what we are already doing on this forum. You just have a general feeling that I am failing to do something important, that I (and perhaps Cleric) am not taking into proper account a living understanding of other human souls who are reading the essays, and you want to express this feeling and prove that it is justified. Anything that tries to expand the discussion beyond that narrow aim of argumentation toward something practically useful for inner development here and now, is considered, "talking to a wall".

[Federica]

...

I feel like I'm talkin to a wall

It's not about going outside the general framework of phenomenology, or giving more treatment to thinking forces, versus will forces, or other forces. It's about considering that - dispite what you say in the last paragraph, which is true - at the beginning everyone is submitted to the cogent limitations of their own intellect and temperament. And that can be usefully taken into account. At risk of appearing disrespectful to the reader, think of it as if the reader was a child to be educated (in a way, we are in a similar state as we approach the spiritual path). Didn't Steiner recommend different ways to help different children learn and grow?

By filling ourselves with practical wisdom such as this, we learn to solve that basic riddle of life, the other person. It is solved not by postulating abstract ideas and concepts, but by means of pictures. Instead of arbitrarily theorizing, we should seek an immediate understanding of every individual human being. We can do this, however, only by knowing what lies in the depths of the soul. Slowly and gradually, spiritual science illuminates our minds, making us receptive not only to the big picture, but also to subtle details. Spiritual science makes it possible that when two souls meet and one demands love, the other offers it. If something else is demanded, that other thing is given. Through such true, living wisdom do we create the basis for society. This is what we mean when we say we must solve a riddle every moment.

(It's not while discussing children and education that Steiner said the above)

PS: fear of matter = fear of separation

Ok, Federica, perhaps this is just another example of you instinctively arguing to 'prove me wrong' about something. I say instinctively because you don't even have a clear idea of how "that can be usefully taken into account", in a way that is different from what we are already doing on this forum. You just have a general feeling that I am failing to do something important, that I (and perhaps Cleric) am not taking into proper account a living understanding of other human souls who are reading the essays, and you want to express this feeling and prove that it is justified. Anything that tries to expand the discussion beyond that narrow aim of argumentation toward something practically useful for inner development here and now, is considered, "talking to a wall".

I was hoping this could be a fruitful collaborative idea, but since you are convinced that my primary goal is to prove you wrong, obviously it can never work. Anything I would add would only be met with more sarcasm. I didn't say you are failing to do something important, it's quite the opposite, I said that the given illustrations are powerful and skillfull. It's true, I don't have a precise idea, yet. I only have some thoughts, at this point. When I tried to suggest them they didn't register:

Don’t you think a more artistic mind, more in tune with larger ideas, could find a more intuitive path starting from the nature of thinking and memory, as described in PoF (hysteresis) and from there, connecting with spiritual movement, form, and precipitation in matter and its perception?

Never mind. I will try to imagine by myself illustrations for the more sanguine (mystical) and less phlegmatic (materialist) mind, and for the other temperaments as well, when I will be able to.

[AshvinP]

I feel like I'm talkin to a wall

It's not about going outside the general framework of phenomenology, or giving more treatment to thinking forces, versus will forces, or other forces. It's about considering that - dispite what you say in the last paragraph, which is true - at the beginning everyone is submitted to the cogent limitations of their own intellect and temperament. And that can be usefully taken into account. At risk of appearing disrespectful to the reader, think of it as if the reader was a child to be educated (in a way, we are in a similar state as we approach the spiritual path). Didn't Steiner recommend different ways to help different children learn and grow?



(It's not while discussing children and education that Steiner said the above)

PS: fear of matter = fear of separation

Ok, Federica, perhaps this is just another example of you instinctively arguing to 'prove me wrong' about something. I say instinctively because you don't even have a clear idea of how "that can be usefully taken into account", in a way that is different from what we are already doing on this forum. You just have a general feeling that I am failing to do something important, that I (and perhaps Cleric) am not taking into proper account a living understanding of other human souls who are reading the essays, and you want to express this feeling and prove that it is justified. Anything that tries to expand the discussion beyond that narrow aim of argumentation toward something practically useful for inner development here and now, is considered, "talking to a wall".

I was hoping this could be a fruitful collaborative idea, but since you are convinced that my primary goal is to prove you wrong, obviously it can never work. Anything I would add would only be met with more sarcasm. I didn't say you are failing to do something important, it's quite the opposite, I said that the given illustrations are powerful and skillfull. It's true, I don't have a precise idea, yet. I only have some thoughts, at this point. When I tried to suggest them they didn't register:

Don’t you think a more artistic mind, more in tune with larger ideas, could find a more intuitive path starting from the nature of thinking and memory, as described in PoF (hysteresis) and from there, connecting with spiritual movement, form, and precipitation in matter and its perception?

Never mind. I will try to imagine by myself illustrations for the more sanguine (mystical) and less phlegmatic (materialist) mind, and for the other temperaments as well, when I will be able to.

Ok but the problem as usual is, anything that I write which suggests you may be thinking about this in a somewhat problematic way, is automatically written off as irrelevant or already understood (and therefore repetitive). How can there possibly be a fruitful discussion in that way? So perhaps the bold is better and I look forward to your illustrations.

Here are just some general points that may be helpful to work with.

- The modern path to intuitive thinking needs to go through the exceptional state and 'pure thinking'. It needs to be a participatory experience and, for practically everyone regardless of temperament, this is only achievable through the experience of one's intimate thinking movements and the near instantly manifesting mental pictures.

- We don't want to play too much into people's already etched feelings and tendencies, other than the fact that practically everyone thinks with intellectual gestures (encoded in the inner voice) and has some basic familiarity with modern fields of inquiry - philosophy, science, history, art, etc. In a certain sense, the aim is for people to experience themselves overcoming their default assumptions, beliefs, and temperamental disposition, at least temporarily, so they get glimpses of their spirit weaving independently of the psycho-physical constitution.

- This should all be done from the outset. There are plenty of 'Anthroposophists', for example, who have approached PoF or spiritual science with their default tendencies and dispositions, and who have therefore written off the latter completely or gotten stuck in an entirely abstract and misleading understanding of what it is about.

[Federica]

meditation concentration and other exercises lead the soul to withdraw for a time from its union with the sensory organs and to become immersed in itself. Its activity is turned inward. In the first stages of such self immersion the soul's interactivity differs but little from its ordinary inclinations. In its inner labors, it must use the thoughts, feelings, and sensations that belong to ordinary life. As the soul becomes accustomed to being somewhat blind and deaf to the material environment and to living within itself, it gains capacity for inner accomplishments.

[AshvinP]

meditation concentration and other exercises lead the soul to withdraw for a time from its union with the sensory organs and to become immersed in itself. Its activity is turned inward. In the first stages of such self immersion the soul's interactivity differs but little from its ordinary inclinations. In its inner labors, it must use the thoughts, feelings, and sensations that belong to ordinary life. As the soul becomes accustomed to being somewhat blind and deaf to the material environment and to living within itself, it gains capacity for inner accomplishments.

Of course... when we read through a phenomenology, as well, we are self-evidently relying on thoughts, feelings, and sensations from ordinary life. But the latter have taken on an entirely different (inverted) function than what we are accustomed to in the experiential flow of ordinary life. We are no longer indulging our associative stream of sensations, feelings, and thoughts. We aren't seeking to pay attention to and understand experience only insofar as it already overlaps with our etched temperamental pathways, as we normally do. Rather we are using those ordinary pathways as anchor points, as leverage, for our inner activity to traverse entirely new pathways of inner experience that we normally avoid and hardly suspect to exist. As Steiner indicates, that gradually accustoms us to start swimming with our inner activity more independently of the psycho-physical constitution. This is the whole principle of phenomenology that starts with ordinary intellectual gestures and gradually moves "step by step" into imaginative concentration without explicit sensory-intellectual support.

Anyway, this discussion about alternative approaches can only be abstract speculation until we see some concrete examples of the temperamentally customized illustrations serving as entry points into phenomenology of spiritual activity.

[Federica]

some more words in the way of abstract speculations:

...the spiritual environment of the occult student is important in this regard, and that depending on his orientation to this spiritual environment diverse methods have been instituted for treading the path of knowledge.

https://rsarchive.org/Books/GA012/Engli ... 2_c02.html

[Federica]

The only reason I'm not adding a video on his esthetic surgeries at this point is that I suspect you would contrive a way to put that in alignment with the Christ impulse too

I'm not sure why you are so against presenting things in their wider context when it comes to these topics, rather isolating words and phrases from that context as much as possible. If someone else was doing the same thing with Steiner's work, using isolated phrases as a means of labeling him with sexism, racism, antisemitism, anti Christian, etc., I doubt you would hesitate to speak up and ask for wider context.

Could it be that withholding this context makes it easier to support your already established opinion about him? I think you are anticipating that if the video with the wider context was presented, the latter would make your implication that JP isn't aligned with the Christ impulse much weaker.

First, we should notice the Christ impulse is not about formulating universal moral maxims that we can conveniently apply in all circumstances, which then spares us the effort of thinking deeply through those circumstances. That is the legalistic or fundamentalist (atavistic legalism) approach, which was necessary as a crutch for spiritual life, but should gradually be phased out since the 1st century and especially in our time, since Christ is incarnating in the etheric and the law can been written on our hearts through higher cognition. That is, we can seek deep understanding of the inner karmic threads of destiny, incarnating the appropriate moral intuitions, on a case by case basis.

Yes, this was already noticed and agreed, this is basic PoF.

I think your very asking of the original question and the expectation it could be answered, without any additional context for JP's remarks or your own reasoning about the question of assisted suicide/death, means it was not noticed in this context.

Of course, we will inevitably fall short of perfect moral intuition in many circumstances, and many times we will need to make decisions as best we can based on the insight we have reached. The modern Christ impulse is reflected, not in the content of the judgments we reach, but in the very process of reaching those judgments by intuitively thinking through the phenomenal circumstances as thoroughly and as best we can, aimed toward the ideal of Truth. As SM puts it, "Instead of the ends justifying the means, the means also justify (and change) the ends, because the means are recursively linked with the ends; they are mutually self-generative."

Ok, but obviously this point needs to find some form of counterbalance, lest all and everything becomes justified "as-best-one-can" trial and error. So, the questions that await clarification here are: how the reasoning that government should not legislate on assisted death, but family should decide, constitutes "intuitive thinking through the phenomenal circumstances", and what "as best one can" means (I believe, in the perspective of your own essay it should mean very little).

You didn't present any of JP's reasoning or its context, so it's hard to evaluate that bold question further.

"As best one can" means based on the sum total of our moral intuitions in relation to any given set of phenomenal circumstances, when a concrete judgment or decision cannot be indefinitely delayed.

The other question that needs clarification is why someone concluding that assisted suicide could be ethically permissible in certain circumstances, with the family's consent, is automatically against the Christ impulse? That was the question I was mainly addressing in my previous post.

I see JP consistently trying to do exactly that in every area of inquiry he approaches, which doesn't mean he will reach perfect judgments, indeed none of us will, but it means we remain fluid, open, and seeking the high ideal with imaginative thinking, viewing any given existential question from as many angles as possible. It means we strive to remain humbly aware of our imperfections and the possibility of reaching flawed judgments based on our incomplete context. With that living awareness we can at least give ourselves a chance to make what remains immature and imperfect within our soul, gradually more perfect over time. It's interesting to watch JP's interviews/lectures and notice how he often pauses and closes his eyes while speaking, as if doing short meditations between words to more closely attune to the intuitions he is seeking.

"exactly"... what? "as best one can" is very arbitrary and very little exact. It could be for example, that, as a celebrity, or as someone with a very elevated self-image, one can't really accept to say "I don't know", even though one may feel that answer would be the as-best-I-can answer. In this sense, prefacing his answer with a personal story of a personal illness is a very manipulative way to prepare the audience for applauding him (this technique leverages well known psychological levers), just as his political exploitation of the question, like "government should not take away our freedom like that" also seems quite manipulative to me. And so I, once again, feel that your judgment about the answer being "intuitive" and heartfelt is a very indulgent judgment, that pleases your strong sympathy for JP.

It sounds like you are saying that presenting a wider context for our reasoning, like JP apparently did (you haven't shared the video, so I don't know), is "manipulative". This simply makes no sense unless you are approaching with an antipathy and a motivation to find JP as manipulative. Without that motivation coloring our perception of the thoughts, one could easily find a personal story about illness as honest, intimate, and illustrative. And one could easily find the idea that government should not be coercively involved in such decisions as entirely aligned with PoF ethical individualism. It's the same motivation that made you so sure JP was reducing meaning to the output of LLMs, when he clearly wasn't. Cleric also conveyed this "contrived" alignment with the Christ impulse.

For him meaning is the ground of reality (and not in a sense of a 'substance'). As he says, reality is made not of matter but of what matters. Thoughts, words, are embodiments of the spirit. They exhibit the secret order of the Logos. So is the whole World... In this sense, JP is as far as one can go in the cognitive experience of the Logos (higher ideal orders of reality) while still remaining entirely within the intellectual gestures. With such a grasp on his stance, it is difficult for me to imagine that he seeks meaning/ideas as somehow contained in the LLM statistics or even in human-written text.

It's not that any of this is difficult to discern in JP's talks, only you don't give yourself a chance to discern it. Such motivations lead you to selectively ignore anything that cuts against the narrative and only latch onto those isolated parts of a video that make you feel that something is fishy, something needs to be 'called out' as anti-spiritual. If you aren't approaching with such a motivation, then it shouldn't be difficult to directly address JP's substantive reasoning, within its whole context, without imposing your personal feelings of "manipulation" onto the ideas expressed. Otherwise, you don't need to spend time on JP, and you also don't need to spend time trying to convince the rest of us that the Christ-Logos impulse that is obviously driving his thinking, isn't actually there.

Specifically the question of assisted suicide is a very interesting one from a spiritual scientific perspective, I can already sense there are many factors involved, although I would need to think it through more carefully. Of course, if our friend simply gets tired of life's struggles and asks us to help him/her end it, that is a straightforward "no" since we are contributing to the abrupt interruption of karmic destiny and that will create a very disoriented experience between death and rebirth. The interesting questions always emerge at the extreme boundary cases, like a family member who has lapsed into a deep coma and the living body is only artificially sustained by life support. Are we simply chaining their souls to the Earthly spectrum in this way for selfish reasons? I don't know.

Great, that's appreciated, and I would like to sooner or later continue this exploration.

Ok, I look forward to your thoughts on how this issue can be approached from a spiritual scientific perspective, which I am sure we all agree is aligned with the Christ impulse since it is aimed toward unveiling the inner Truth of our ever-evolving existence. 

It’s your choice to continually attempt the exegesis of my posts and speculate what twisted motives may lie behind my words. I am not against looking at things in their wider context (perhaps you misinterpreted the joke about esthetic procedures and physical appearance) and I don’t have any “established opinion” about JP. My opinion is only based on the recent discussions and videos you shared, here and in the chat gpt thread. I didn't know him before, other than as a name.


Let’s be concrete. This is the video that perplexed me. Up to the reader to decide if the response is manipulative - that is, conceived with the primary intention to provoke some desired reaction in the audience, in this case sympathy and approval - or not. And if you have some larger context on the question of assisted death, please share.


Now about the question of universal maxims versus "case by case" moral intuition. That in our epoch one should strive to act in alignment with moral intuition, and not as a machine obeying a set of commandments, doesn’t mean that there are no principles applicable and it’s only a case by case examination starting from a blank slate every time life puts us in the position to activate our will in the world. As Steiner says, we should strive to see “a certain value in all moral principles and always ask whether in the given case this or that principle is the more important”. So, principles and ideas - not mechanical or procedural rules - are still to be recognized, so that the case by case application realizes a synthesis of all intersecting possibilities, rather than a microdosing of ideas, that is a striving directed to first and foremost attenuating all definite guiding consideration, to find the offsetting weight to each micro-bit of spiritual activity. In this sense, moral intuition is about letting the principle, or idea, steer the flow through us, for what it is independent of us, beyond the particular case within which we are impelled to call it forth under the stimulation of the particular case or life event. (just to be sure, I am not forgetting the riverbed while saying that)

So the need for a case by case consideration, where the wider context is thoroughly considered, doesn’t mean that the mental pictures we make in relation to the specific vicissitudes of the case in question and its context should determine the course of action. Also, the larger context shouldn’t become a means to ‘statistically’ blur the emerging principles in a soup of phenomenal indeterminacy - what I have called microdosing of ideas. The larger context is only helpful as an indirect support to call up to consciousness the larger constellation of interfering ideas. In this sense, the specific case is simply the karmic opener, the karmic opportunity, for the idea, or principle, to find transformation, or inception, in the local flow of becoming, through the medium of our individual will, and within the ideal context evoked by the phenomenal “larger context”. Therefore, I don’t think it’s wrong to ask how the deed of interfering with the death of a human being may or may not express the Christ impulse without a specific case at hand, provided that one is ready to call forth the various ideas that intersect in the exploration, even in the absence of a specific case and its larger context.

The highest conceivable moral principle, however, is one that from the start contains no such reference to particular experiences, but springs from the source of pure intuition and only later seeks any reference to percepts, that is, to life.
…
But there is a still higher way which does not start from one and the same particular moral aim in each case, but sees a certain value in all moral principles and always asks whether in the given case this or that principle is the more important.
…
The action is therefore neither a stereotyped one which merely follows certain rules, nor is it one which we automatically perform in response to an external impulse, but it is an action determined purely and simply by its own ideal content.

The highest level of individual life is that of conceptual thinking without regard to any definite perceptual content. We determine the content of a concept through pure intuition from out of the ideal sphere. Such a concept contains, at first, no reference to any definite percepts. If we enter upon an act of will under the influence of a concept which refers to a percept, that is, under the influence of a mental picture, then it is this percept which determines our action indirectly by way of the conceptual thinking. But if we act under the influence of intuitions, the driving force of our action is pure thinking.

It is clear that such an impulse can no longer be counted in the strictest sense as belonging to the characterological disposition. For what is here effective as the driving force is no longer something merely individual in me, but the ideal and hence universal content of my intuition. As soon as I see the justification for taking this content as the basis and starting point of an action, I enter upon the act of will irrespective of whether I have had the concept beforehand or whether it only enters my consciousness immediately before the action, that is, irrespective of whether it was already present as a disposition in me or not.