Improvisation as a mode of human action remains widely misunderstood. Western thought often likens improvisation to a haphazard solution which is marked by its temporality and instability. The ideal human action lies in the domain of control – the one who is in control of their abilities does not have to improvise. Although we might strive for control and stability, these notions usually turn out to be idealizations of our perceived reality – the world is not secure, and in that sense, it requires of us constant improvisatory inputs. Only if we accept the instability of our surroundings can we successfully navigate the treacherous and everchanging landscapes of reality.

We can observe two important aspects of improvisation which speak against the entrenched perception of the term:
1. Improvisation comes as a result of a complex framework of preparation – In the context of music this includes both standardized musical knowledge and a broader perspective that attempts to direct consciousness at specific meta-levels of musical action.
2. Improvisation involves rules – Improvisation is an action that is bound to a specific context. In that sense, as any action, improvisation necessitates a goal.

We can conclude that improvisation is another form of controlled action – a controlled loss of control. Successful improvisation necessitates high levels of rule-adaption and the possibility of continuously providing answers to a series of unexpected contingencies. During the process of improvisation, the performer continuously shifts between flow states and reflective states, interacting both with their surroundings and their internal cognitive framework.