From the aspect of theatre artists, the impulse wills certain actions and unwills other actions. That is the choice that the impulse allows and is discovered upon its discovery. The theatre artist merely accepts the discovery. When discussing the impulse of the stage that theatre artists discover in their craft of creation, I leave out the general definition of the term. It is necessary in the discussions that follow to give it a specific definition that is found and only relevant among the stage.


‘Follow the impulse’ is a misnomer of terms.


The impulse is the movable provocation within the Character of Image. Its wild nature is pinpointed in specific action. The acceptance of its specificity and wildness provokes its deep origins in the soul encountered within a crisis that abides throughout the Character of Image expressed among the dynamic of line, bound by the frame of space created from its place.

Hidden within the depths, so far from being grasped it is almost separated from the body, the impulse requires acceptance and necessitates a collapse. It is a simultaneous collapse of actor of Character of Image—full of fear, full of secret, full of wonder. Humility is the heart of it. The crisis is the offering for the collapse which is the provocation of acceptance that allows the collapse into the paradox of the soul of the theatre itself reckons with the collapse driven forth into the impulse among the Character of Image expunging movement upon unmovement upon the moveable, dynamic of line collapsing into a hoped for catharsis within the upheaval of its place, unhinging the space.

Because of the fear, because of the secret, because of the wonder, because of their inherent unknowness and the inherent sensitivity that distances itself from the unknown, instinct often overrules the impulse. The instinct is natural—quick, easy, known; the impulse is preternatural—spiritual, miraculous, distinct. Relying on instinct falsifies the impulse. Allowing the collapse reveals an aspect of the truth inherently paradoxical: the impulse must negate the instinct until impulse and instinct are one.

Acceptably collapsed, given allowance into action, the impulse acts upon many parts, shifts and meanders, is constant, growing, overwhelming or frightening the Character of Image away from or towards the pathos of catharsis offered to the audience who, if accepted, no matter the outcome, will experience the relief of the impulse and even the catharsis itself, even if the Character of Image is unhinged from that feeling and may not expressly feel it.

For the Character of Image, the impulse is singular. They are not many—only one. Every action is grounded by the singular impulse unconfined by the vacuum of a particular action, instead colluding a particular action instilled through the many actions moved unmovable or unmovably moved that are chosen (it is a choice no matter its necessitation) along that same impulse. Each moment is a moment creating will-be-moment interlinked with was-moment that is borne along the abiding impulse that scatters the paradox of the soul onto the stage. All from an acceptance of collapse of humility.

How can the impulse be sustained in such a weak moment of acceptance? If the crisis is the offering either accepted or denied, what does the Character of Image offer and can that offering be accepted or denied? If it can, who or what denies or accepts it? Are the actor and Character of Image one? Is the impulse a living being? Is the collapse a fall? If yes, how does the Character of Image fall? If not, how does the Character of Image collapse and how does it fall? Does the fallen collapse discover the impulse, or is it discovered after the collapse of the fallen? How does one discover the discovery?

The impulse is driven into the Character of Image so those contours may shade and bend its place among the space of the stage.