672. With this cause represented in our analyses of life, these analyses become perfect, that is to say, they form a one hundred per cent complete whole. And with this cause made visible in the analysis of the living being, we have arrived at a cause that differs from all other causes in as much as it cannot be broken down or identified as constituting effects of a new cause, in other words we have arrived at a "something" that is the regulator of movement. We cannot deny that such a regulator exists, since, as already mentioned, all movements prove to be links in a logical or purposeful creation. This logic constitutes something that is superior to the movements. But since we experience as a fact from our own lives that logic cannot exist as an independent characteristic, but manifests only as an ability of a "something" within us that experiences the movements and in turn wishes to intervene in them, this experiencing, wishing or desiring "something" comes before the logic. But as this "something" experiences the movement and in turn expresses these experiences in the form of a logical intervention in the movements, the fact emerges that this "something" is the ultimate and most profound cause of everything connected with the living being's appearance, existence or manifestation.
      The reader can easily prove that this is indeed the case by observing his own reading of these lines. Is it not precisely by observing his reading of these lines that it becomes a fact that it is just such a superior "something" in him that wishes to read these lines? Is it not equally a fact that the reading itself is in turn the same as the creation of movement, at least within his thinking? And is it not also a fact that "he" himself regulates this movement? "He" decides how long the reading will last. And neither can one deny the fact that, by initiating the reading, "he" will experience that the reading creates impressions in "his" consciousness, that is to say a new movement. "He" creates movement and experiences movement. These impressions can create sympathy or antipathy in "his" consciousness and thus contribute to "his" future juggling with, or releasing of, movement.
      But who is this "he" that wishes to read and in so doing receives impressions and in turn makes use of them in his future exercising of will, either in the direction of sympathy or antipathy? The entire manifestation takes place through a combination of organs, that is to say tools. But can these tools be identical to the "something" that reads or experiences? Can a tool be independent? Can an axe fell a tree by itself? Is there something in the visible part of the reader that does not constitute a tool? Are not the brain, the nerves, the blood, musculature, glands, lungs, heart, liver and so on identical to organs, each one therefore constituting a tool? But if the visible part of the being constitutes tools, none of these visible phenomena can really constitute this "he" or this "something" that uses the tools and that thereby experiences the content of what is read.
      If, in spite of this, one asserts that these tools collectively constitute this "he" and that one has thereby found the solution to the whole, this would be the same as asserting that the axe can fell the tree by itself. It is no more the eyes that see than it is the axe that fells the tree. The eyes, just like the brain, are tools with which "something" can read and understand. This "something" is certainly in itself nothing without these tools of the consciousness, but these tools would be just as helpless and impossible without this "something". Is this not what we witness when we observe a corpse? It has all its tools, its eyes, its brain and so on, intact. Why, then does it appear as a corpse? Is it not precisely because it is no longer used by the "something" that previously experienced through all the organs of the organism?
      It is of course obvious that this "something" is invisible. If it were not, it must have been created or brought about, and this is precisely what it absolutely cannot be. For if it had been created it would have to be identical to effects, which are in turn movements. And we would then be succumbing to the absurdity of acknowledging our own self or I as being identical to this movement or these effects. In other words, the conclusion to be drawn from this must be that we would acknowledge ourselves as dead phenomena, an acknowledgment that would in turn be the same as an indirect proclamation that we did not exist at all. And we would then be on precisely the same wavelength as the present-day materialistically minded researcher who denies the existence of the uncreated, and therefore eternal, self or I. He therefore finds himself in the extremely strange situation of making something a living fact by denying its existence. The denial reveals an exercising of will, exercising of will in turn reveals a point of view, a point of view reveals thinking, and it cannot be denied that thinking is life's own highest proof of its existence. The louder the denier shouts his denial, the more he affirms his identity as a "living being" or the sovereignty of his I as the eternally existing "primary cause" of life. It is naturally a matter of course that he to an equally great extent proves the identity of his eternal I by shouting out a confirmation of the problem. But that is not very strange. Whether it is a confirmation or a denial that the living being is manifesting is in this case quite unimportant. Both phenomena are equally strong proofs of the exercising of will, of points of view and of thinking, and they thereby both emerge as unshakable characteristics of the eternal "something" or I in the beings in question.