The Spirit as Adversary of the Soul

Chapter 32

Embodiment and Visualization

Klages introduces a crucial distinction that refines our understanding of appearance: the difference between embodiment and visualization. These represent two types of estrangement from original experience, two ways that the soul relates to images.

The chapter's central thesis can be stated precisely: "The distinctive spiritual function of visualization separates itself from the distinctive corporeal function of embodiment. This does not, in essence, oppose the tactile sense to the other senses, but rather the visualizing estrangement from embodying estrangement."

This distinction allows Klages to solve a problem that has troubled psychology: How does perception differ from imagination? What distinguishes a real impression from a merely imagined one, or from a dream?

The answer involves recognizing three types of image presence:

All three involve vital reflection—all three are standing replicas derived from flowing archetypes. But they differ in their relationship to corporeality and visualization.

Understanding this distinction has profound implications for world history and philosophy. The balance between embodiment and visualization determines fundamental orientations toward reality. Western thought emphasizes embodiment—treating even ideas as thing-like existences. Eastern thought, particularly Taoism, emphasizes visualization—treating material existence itself as dream-like appearance.

Klages begins by acknowledging an unresolved problem in psychology: "Previous studies have not led to a completely definite solution to the important problem of how the impression of a phenomenon differs from mere imagination of the same phenomenon."

What distinguishes actually perceiving something from merely imagining it? Common sense suggests the difference is obvious—one is real, the other is not. But phenomenologically, both involve images present to consciousness. What makes one "real" and the other "imaginary"?

The traditional answer: "If we were to look for the difference in such spaces as the sensory space from the fantasy space, then in view of the mirror's apparent space, the explanation might be that the object of perception is tangible image presence, the imagined thing intangible image presence."

Perception involves tangibility; imagination does not. This seems to work initially.

But Klages identifies a problem: "This would apply to the mirror space, but not to the fantasy space."

Mirror images are intangible—you cannot touch a reflection. Yet we distinguish mirrors from imagination. Mirrors seem "more real" than fantasies, even though both lack tangibility.

The solution requires recognizing a third category: "Since phantasms—waking dream images—usually only gain sole dominion in sleep, we call the space of phantasms the inner space or dream space."

Dream space differs from both perception and mirror images. "The mirror image is intangible, also silent, odorless, tasteless, temperatureless, whereas in the dream, sounds, scents, tastes, temperatures can also appear, as well as tangibilities like roughness, smoothness, wetness."

This is the key observation. In dreams, you can experience touch, sound, smell, taste—the full range of sensory qualities. Yet dreams are not perceptions in the ordinary sense.

Therefore: "The dream space is bodiless image presence."

Not merely intangible but incorporeal. This is a crucial distinction. Mirror images are intangible because they lack solid substance—you cannot grasp them. But dream images are incorporeal because they involve no actual bodily process.

"If we dream of being wounded by a knife, it would still only be a phantom knife that performs a phantom cut—for the phrase 'unreal body' contradicts itself."

The dream knife has no corporeality. It is pure appearance. Yet within the dream, it can produce all the qualities associated with tangible experience—the sensation of cutting, the feeling of pain.

This reveals something important: "Because without the process of visualization no image qualities would appear at all, including the tangible ones, it can create for itself the illusion of the existence of all of them."

Visualization is the more fundamental process. Even tangible qualities require visualization to appear as images. Dreams prove this—they can produce the full range of sensory qualities, including tactile ones, without any actual bodily contact.

This "confirms by a kind of natural experiment that the perceptual space is merely a reflection of the original reality."

If dreams can produce complete sensory experiences without bodies, then ordinary perception must also involve something beyond mere physical reception—namely, vital reflection that presents flowing reality as standing image.

The summary: "The dream space is nothing but appearance presence. The impression space is also the present abode of the bodies."

Dream space involves pure appearance. Perceptual space involves appearance plus bodies.

"By distinguishing three types of image presence—the physical, the intangible, and the incorporeal—we have gained the ability to sharply distinguish the world of real space, mirror space, and dream space, without having to multiply the means of extension common to all three."

All three share the same spatial structure—the ever-present now of sensory space. They differ not in their spatial form but in their relationship to embodiment.

Having distinguished three types of image presence, Klages now addresses why we treat them hierarchically—why real space seems primary while mirror space and dream space seem derivative or illusory.

"We face the almost never heeded demand to provide essential-scientific information as to why the world of mirror appearance and especially that of the dream is thought to be dependent on the world of real space."

If all three involve vital reflection—if all three are standing replicas derived from flowing archetypes—why do we privilege perception over mirrors and dreams?

"Real space itself, if it is indeed the reflection of experienced events, certainly depends on the primal space. But what compels us to make mirror space and dream space dependent on it and only to declare them as illusion spaces, where both agree with it in being reflections?"

This is a genuine puzzle. From a structural perspective, all three are reflections. Yet we treat perception as revealing reality while treating mirrors and dreams as illusions.

For mirrors, the answer is relatively straightforward: "For the dependence of mirror space on real space, the answer immediately suggests itself that we, as physical beings, can only look into it from real space, never the other way around."

We approach mirrors from within perceptual space. The mirror depends on our bodily position in real space. We cannot step into mirror space—it remains accessible only from outside.

"However, it is essential for mirror space that we see it in real space, just as it is essential for dream space that we only know about it in the sensory space."

This is the crucial point. We reflect upon dreams and mirrors from within waking perception. We never reflect upon perception from within dreams.

"Dream presence thus becomes a conscious passing in relation to the presence of our wakefulness. In sensory space, we think of the dream space, but while dreaming, we have no awareness of a second possibility of presence."

This asymmetry determines the hierarchy. When awake, we can think about dreams and recognize them as different from waking perception. But when dreaming, we have no such comparative awareness. The dream is simply present—we do not recognize it as dream.

Therefore: "We assess real space as the truly real space of impression, insofar as it is only within it that we are given the opportunity to make the other spaces the object of our judgment."

Perceptual space provides the platform for judgment. From here, we can evaluate mirrors as reflections and dreams as phantasms. But we cannot perform such evaluations from within mirror space or dream space.

An important qualification: "The switch between visionary and sensory world may occur extremely quickly, more than once per second—yet they are never within the same presence, and we never grasp, while dreaming, the difference between the dream space and the perception space."

The transitions can be rapid—perhaps during reverie or hypnagogic states. But the two modes never coexist. You are either in one or the other, never simultaneously in both with comparative awareness.

This explains the privilege of perception without reducing dreams to mere illusions. Dreams are real experiences—"Dream visions are as real for the dreamer as perceptual things are for the waking person." But they lack the reflexive capacity that allows judgment of alternative modes of presence.

Having distinguished three types of image presence and explained their hierarchical relationship, Klages now introduces the fundamental distinction: visualization versus embodiment.

"Let us now mentally juxtapose: sensory space—mirror space—dream space, and ask ourselves how the three differ in themselves."

The answer: "It inevitably suggests that the peculiarity of sensory space must lie in that very characteristic through which we can only judge the other two spaces from it."

What makes perception different? What allows it to serve as the platform for judgment?

"But if the original cause of all judgment is the perceptual thing and the pattern of the perceptual thing is the physical perceptual thing, and if the image immediacy of our judgmental reality is fundamentally corporeal, distinct from the image immediacy of our dreaming, we are led to the conclusion that intangibility cannot coincide with incorporeality."

This is subtle but crucial. Tangibility and corporeality are not identical. Mirror images are intangible but not necessarily incorporeal in the sense Klages means. Dreams can include tangible qualities yet remain incorporeal.

"After all, the undoubtedly incorporeal world of dream phantasms or the internal space also offers numerous tactile qualities."

You can dream of touching something and experience tactile sensations within the dream. The incorporeality does not prevent tactile experience.

Therefore, the distinction must lie elsewhere: "By recognizing the essentially common character of all three spaces in their presence—the vital foundation of the now and always—the distinctive spiritual function of visualization separates itself from the distinctive corporeal function of embodiment."

This is the breakthrough formulation. All three spaces share presence—all involve vital reflection producing the standing now. They differ in the balance between two processes: visualization and embodiment.

"This does not, in essence, oppose the tactile sense to the other senses, but rather the visualizing estrangement from embodying estrangement."

This is not about touch versus sight. Rather, it is about two types of alienation or estrangement from original experience.

Visualization is the process by which flowing images become standing replicas—by which temporal occurrence becomes spatial presence. This is what we have been calling vital reflection.

Embodiment is the process by which resistance is experienced—by which the soul encounters otherness through the body's interaction with corporeal things.

Both are forms of estrangement because both separate the soul from immediate immersion in flowing experience. But they are different types of estrangement.

Klages formulates the relationship: "Now, if being estranged is, as we believe we have proven, essentially the flip side of connection, then we can express the statement: the perceptual connection of the soul with the occurring images transforms through estrangement into the perception of the ever-present space, but only the experience of resistance of the embodied soul—or more briefly, the body-soul—gives us corporeality in relation to the perceptual image."

Let me unpack this complex sentence:

First, estrangement is the flip side of connection. The soul connected with images flows with them. The soul estranged from images perceives them as standing replicas.

Second, visualization is what transforms flowing connection into standing perception. Through vital reflection, the perceptual connection becomes perception of ever-present space.

Third, embodiment adds something beyond visualization. Only through the body-soul's experience of resistance do we encounter corporeality.

The structure: visualization produces standing images. Embodiment adds corporeal resistance to those images. Perception involves both. Dreams involve only visualization without embodiment. Mirrors are intermediate—visual images without full corporeal engagement.

Klages now consolidates his analysis into five principles.

First Principle: "Corporeality always presupposes a perceptual image, no matter how meager it may be, as purely corporeal life processes are inconceivable. However, there are life processes in which the corporeal component—the sensation of resistance—predominates by far. Because this occurs most in touch, the sense of touch is predominantly a sensing sense."

Embodiment requires visualization as its foundation. You cannot experience corporeal resistance without some perceptual image, however minimal. But different experiences have different balances. Touch emphasizes embodiment—the sensation of resistance dominates. Vision emphasizes visualization—the standing image dominates.

Second Principle: "Although we have hitherto only been able to deduce the purely mental process of viewing, it could occur on its own but under no circumstances in connection with consciousness activity. In order to enable reflection's emergence, the uninterrupted process of viewing must be structured in the manner of rhythmic wave motion or pendulum motion."

Pure viewing—flowing with images—cannot support consciousness. Consciousness requires the wave structure with pauses where vital reflection occurs.

"So we have the equation: vital reflection = presentification = perception process, and in the perception process we have the mediating third between purely mental viewing and predominantly physical sensation."

Vital reflection is presentification—making present. The perception process mediates between mental viewing (flowing with images) and physical sensation (embodied resistance). It is the standing platform where both can occur together.

Third Principle: "The body awakens in the sensation experience. If only resistance differences are perceived, the awakening of the body requires the alertness of the soul."

The body becomes conscious through sensation. But this requires the soul's alertness—its capacity for vital reflection. Without visualization providing standing images, embodiment cannot produce perceptual awareness.

Fourth Principle: "We imagine the entire world of appearances because we imagine the perceptual space and thus all conceivable perceptual images. There is no possible quality that could not appear as well in a dream as in the waking state."

This is the universality of visualization. All sensory qualities—including tactile ones—can appear in dreams without any actual bodily process. This proves that visualization is the fundamental capacity underlying all appearance, including embodied appearance.

Fifth Principle: "Finally, we touch upon perhaps our most important result: the reality character of experiential contents must not be confused with their character of corporeality. Truly experienced is the present perceptual image and this alone, whereas a visually impaired sensitivity to mere resistance differences would be unable to perceive reality. The reality judgment is not based on the sensation process but the existential judgment. Dream visions are as real for the dreamer as perceptual things are for the waking person."

This is the culminating insight. Reality is not the same as corporeality. The standing presence of vital reflection—the perceptual image—is what constitutes reality. Mere resistance without visualization would not provide reality experience. And dreams are fully real within their own mode of presence.

The reality judgment is not based on embodiment but on visualization. What makes something real is not that we can touch it but that it appears as present through vital reflection.

Having established the distinction between visualization and embodiment, Klages now applies it to world history.

"Here a preview of the cognitive gain which follows from the above for the deepest differences in world view of historical humanity."

The balance between visualization and embodiment determines fundamental philosophical orientations.

"In the tactile experience, the sensory process predominates; in the visual experience the process of realization. Systems like the Platonic theory of ideas reflect the overall Greek thinking on the predominance of appearances."

Greek philosophy emphasizes visualization—the realm of forms, ideas, visible essences. Yet there is a peculiarity:

"Yet this is the peculiarity of the Western mind in general: even when preferring shapes and 'forms' over bodies and materials, it treats its object by analogy to things. It believes to find existences—there existing substances and material elements, here existing 'ideas,' schemata, patterns, finally validity units, rules, laws existing with the most attenuated vitality."

Western thought treats even immaterial ideas as thing-like. Forms exist, ideas exist, laws exist—all conceived on the model of corporeal substance.

Why? Because spirit in the West has allied with the body: "The non-spatial, temporal power named Spirit, endeavoring to kill the bipolar life unit through splitting, has 'allied' with the physical pole for the purpose of expelling the soul and desouling the body."

Spirit allies with body against soul. This produces a world of thing-like existences—material or ideal, but always conceived as substantial entities.

But there is another possibility: "But could the Spirit not also ally with the soul to make the body wither and the soul disembodied? And shouldn't there be interpretations of reality on such a path that attribute the character of deceptive appearance to being itself?"

Spirit could ally with soul against body. This produces a world where corporeality itself is treated as illusion or appearance.

"With the affirmative answer, we reach the fundamental opposition of every kind of Platonism to Chinese Taoism and the fork where the life attitude and way of thinking of Asia diverge from that of the West."

Western Platonism: spirit allies with body, treats ideas as thing-like existences.

Eastern Taoism: spirit allies with soul, treats corporeal existence as appearance.

"According to a frequently recurring phrase in Buddha's speeches, the whole life is a 'shadow,' a 'dream,' a 'soap bubble.' Poets may speak of such extensive incorporeality of the world, but not Western thinkers up to Romanticism."

Buddhism explicitly denies ultimate reality to corporeal existence. The West cannot comprehend this—Western thought treats even the most abstract entities as possessing existence analogous to bodies.

Klages provides a brief but significant analysis of Taoism as the clearest example of visualization without embodiment.

"Pure evidence of Asiaticism is only offered to us by Chinese Tao. Here we find, with a reverence for the phenomena of the universe which could hardly be thought more beautiful, a degree of disbelief in the world of resistance which Westerners can at most ponder but no longer experience."

Taoism combines reverence for phenomena with denial of corporeal reality. The appearances are honored, but their bodily substance is not granted ultimate significance.

"The Indian sage wants 'salvation,' possibly wants 'nothingness,' but the true Taoist wants nothing at all. We already err when we say he has this or that 'goal,' as he does not know goals in our sense of the word."

The Taoist ideal is not achievement but non-achievement. "He is, so to speak, on the path to complete non-desire, non-action, complete inactivity (wu-wei), even to complete immateriality (wu-hsing)."

This is the alliance of spirit with soul against body. The goal is disembodiment—not destroying the body but treating it as insubstantial appearance.

"Even there, the fatal power of the spirit is at work, but not for the sake of the disembodiment of the body, but of the disembodiment of the soul."

This is Klages' correction. The spirit does not merely disembody the body—it disembodies the soul, separating soul from its corporeal ground.

"Compared to European spirituality, East Asian spirituality is less life-threatening because it eventually dries up, turning flowers into straw flowers, but does not spread like a consuming fire."

Western spirituality destroys actively—consuming fire. Eastern spirituality destroys passively—desiccation, withering. Both are expressions of spirit's hostility to life, but with different strategies.

The concluding principle: "According to the experiential components of observation and feeling, the mental alienation process of actualization, or the physical alienation process of embodiment can prevail to the greatest extent among peoples and races."

Different cultures emphasize different balances between visualization and embodiment. This produces fundamentally different orientations toward reality.

Klages has distinguished two fundamental processes by which the soul relates to images: visualization and embodiment. Both are forms of estrangement from original flowing experience, but they operate differently.

Visualization transforms flowing images into standing presence through vital reflection. This is the fundamental process that makes all appearance possible—perception, mirror images, and dreams alike.

Embodiment adds corporeal resistance to visualized images through the body-soul's encounter with other bodies. This distinguishes ordinary perception from dreams and mirrors.

Three types of image presence result:

The crucial insight: reality is not the same as corporeality. Dreams are fully real as experiences even though incorporeal. Reality is constituted by the standing presence of vital reflection, not by tangibility or substance.

This distinction illuminates world-historical differences. Western thought emphasizes embodiment even in its idealism—treating ideas as thing-like existences. Eastern thought, particularly Taoism, emphasizes visualization—treating corporeal existence itself as dream-like appearance.

Both represent spirit's war against life, but through different alliances. Western spirit allies with body against soul, producing a world of substantial entities. Eastern spirit allies with soul against body, producing a world of insubstantial appearances.

The tragedy remains: whether through corporealizing visualization or visualizing corporeality, spirit estranges the soul from immediate participation in flowing life.