A Competition between Stated and Unstated Intentions

In our previous post, we defined two types of intention. Each is a projected metaphor of belief about self that appears to satisfy an internal need to reclaim who we think we’ve lost.

  • Stated – A conscious plan to satisfy an internal need through external physical means.
  • Unstated – A need seeking satisfaction through internal non-physical means.

Unstated intentions can be exposed with “becauses…” Ex: Stated intention, “I intend to get that job!” Unstated intention, “…because I need to be okay.”

How might those intentions appear in an illusory perceptual world? In an energetic environment like our universe, consciousness perceives as a result of resistance. Perception of metaphoric projections of belief, therefore, represent resistance to self. Although perception affects appearance, appearance must mean something other than my perception of it. And so must intentions!

Maybe this accounts for why so few of my stated intentions turn out as I consciously intend them. My stated intentions all too often look more like wishes than plans. For example, “I intend to get that job.” Without a specific plan as to how I might accomplish this intention, I’m basically stating a wish, “I wish I had that job.” In this no-plan case, I’m expecting the entire universe to shuffle itself around to accommodate my wish. LOL – Not likely!

Confusion, Anyone?

Maybe I’ve developed a confusion about intention. Perhaps we can clear the confusion with some examples of each type of intention. There may be more types of intention than the two we’ve introduced in this article.

Stated intentions – as relates to external influence based on an internal perspective of self survival within an environment :

  • choice and accountability
  • form and function as human
  • body and gender
  • self awareness and mimicry
  • associations and reproduction
  • judgments, justifications, and apathy
  • benefits, threats, and defenses
  • behaviors, habits, and patterns
  • pleasure, pain, and other
  • preservation, destruction, and change
  • limitations, opportunity, and loss/gain
  • personality, cooperation, and competition
  • experience, memory, and imagination
  • education, beliefs, and perspective
  • race and cultures, and philosophies
  • life, death, and other

Unstated intentions – as relates to internal influence based on external survival – Why I:

  • react emotionally and mentally towards my environment
  • think and feel the way I do about who I am in relation to my environment
  • feel some things are important and other things aren’t
  • think and feel some people are important and others aren’t
  • feel the way I do in my relationships is everything to my survival
  • feel some things are fun, safe, connecting and others are dangerous, and etc.
  • believe my true feelings are about right and wrong
  • really do or don’t value my life
  • look, act, and do what I believe about myself
  • have habits, attractions, repulsions, and triggers that affect things and people in my environment

Representations

My perceptions are made up of symbolic representations of me and my environment. What should and shouldn’t represent me and my environment For example, I associate love with hearts, smiles, hugs, forgiveness, patience, kindness, respectful, and etc. Anything other than those symbols representing love, as I need to see it, represent something other.

My body, thoughts, and feelings respond to my judgmental symbols even when I’m consciously unaware of them. These deep-rooted biases can affect me and my environment in so many ways, like denying what’s right in front of me and attacking what I feel challenges my truths.

Intentions for my inner world and my outer world must remain intact regardless the cost. Backed by memories, my biases can defend my truths with extreme prejudice. And by acting out my indignant displays of positive and negative reinforcement, I work to protect those interpretations I impose on my intentions.

These symbols often hide from conscious awareness in a defense of blinding bias. Because of this defense, no stated intention is ever clear about its illusive unstated intention.

The Intention that Gets the Attention Wins

In the competition between stated and unstated intentions, the one that gets the most attention wins. Interestingly, this principle of attention works exactly the same when it comes to needs. That is, the need that gets the attention wins.

Might there be a direct relationship between needs and intentions? And might attention play a critical role in that dynamic?

Please follow and like us:

A Paradox of Convoluted Intention

Why doesn’t my life just work the way it’s supposed to? What am I doing wrong?!! How can I make life work for me? I wonder if I’m focusing hard enough or long enough. Maybe my focus is on what I don’t want rather than on what I want. Can my focus affect the outcome I’m hoping for in spite of my stated intentions? What if my stated intention isn’t my true intention? Would being more specific or determined help?

These kinds of questions and statements come from an unclear understanding of self in a bubble of limited awareness.

When my intentions repeatedly fail in disappointing outcomes, could I be unaware of what I’m intending? More importantly, why?

Perhaps there is more than one way to intend something. If so, Much can be explained for my sense of failure.

Paradox of Intentions

Let’s define two types of intention. Each is a projected metaphor of belief about self that appears to satisfy an internal need to reclaim who I think I’ve lost.

  1. Stated – A conscious plan to satisfy an internal need through external means.
  2. Unstated – A need seeking satisfaction.

Stated intentions can be exposed with “becauses…” Ex: stated intention, “I intend to get that job!” Unstated intention, “…because I need to be okay.”

This duality of intentions sets up a paradox of perception. I think I’m intending one thing while the result clearly demonstrates another intention is at work. Due to my lack of conscious self-awareness, many competing intentions convoluted probabilities of outcomes. So convoluted are my intentions that I cannot discern cause from effect – even when I THINK I can!

My Convoluted Intention

By denying my intention when I don’t like the outcome admits a belief in my powerlessness. Because I feel vulnerable, I get defensive. Defensiveness, in turn, affects my perception of outcomes, favoring those that confirm my belief! This confirmation adds to my sense of powerlessness and vulnerability – ramping up my defense as a result. This process results in a positive feedback loop in which any initial positive intention gets lost in ever-deepening denial.

For example, my friend says to me, “You hurt me when you…” Feeling vulnerable, I respond with denial, “That was not my intention to hurt you…” My denial confirms her blame and adds my defense to her hurt. All of which adds to my sense of rightness concerning my need to defend. I’ve increased the probability for a heated argument in which hurts grow while compassion and understanding play a decreasing role.

Taking accountability and admitting I was unaware of my intention, confirms my part in the outcome. It also lessens the sense of need for defense, opening my heart and mind to compassion and understanding. Thus, I retain my power and set up a situation in which I can adjust my stated intention to produce a different outcome.

For example, someone says something like, “You hurt my feelings.” This is feedback for me – when I hear it with my heart rather than with my ego. I check my defenses, take accountability for my creation, and accept my intention that resulted in this feedback. “I was unaware that I intended to hurt you. However, now that I am aware of my intention, what do you need?” This opens an internal dialog in which I may ask myself, “What do I need?”

After release of defensiveness, accountability connects stated and unstated, external and internal. Thus resolving the paradox.

Please follow and like us:

The Appearance of Love in Countering Wholeness

Why would countering wholeness appear as love? How would countering wholeness appear as love? What the hell am I talking about?!!

Within my bubble of limited awareness, I must limit my understanding of wholeness to, “The state of forming a complete and harmonious whole.” Sounds to me a lot like separateness in which I compare this wholeness to that wholeness. Maybe I can’t help perceiving wholeness in terms of separation.

Beyond limited awareness, wholeness may be incomprehensible. Even to define wholeness, I must limit its infinite nature to a “something” that is finite enough that I can contain it in a definition. Thus, confirming I was right to limit perception of wholeness to my limited awareness of it.

An Unbridgeable Gap?

In limited awareness, I can only perceive infinite love and infinite wholeness in terms of limited – finite! – awareness. To perceive infinity, I must extend my limited awareness into unlimited awareness – an impossibility in limited – finite – awareness. Even to consider something as infinite, I must first define that infinite “something” in finite terms so I can compare it against “something” else I consider infinite. Thus, I limit wholeness and reinforce my finite perception of infinity! This conundrum may represent an unbridgeable awareness gap.

Editor’s note: wholeness INCLUDES all separate “somethings” just as infinity INCLUDES all finite “somethings.” Although wholeness is infinite, I experience it as finite. So, I’ve created a method to bridge the unbridgeable gap. Conditional love!

Since separateness supports me as an individual, I experience wholeness in the form of relationships – me vs you. The more like me you appear, the more I believe we are whole together. Wholeness, then, becomes a matter of agreement.

Love as agreement appears as confirmation of wholeness in which individuality counters wholeness. That’s why I perceive everything in terms of relationships with me as the central point of reference.

I want experience! Therefore, I must believe that my counter to wholeness supports that. Why? Because I defend my actions and beliefs as my acknowledgment of love. I feel love when I defend a divided reality – “I (an individual) love YOU (the appearance of someone ELSE who agrees with me).” Love becomes a symbol of proof of wholeness when it actually proves need. I need agreement (that love confirms).

Because I define everything in terms of this vs that, I cannot begin to comprehend infinite. Therefore, perhaps I’m incapable of comprehending infinite love. So, I assign “love” as a symbol that represents, and so defends, my finite reality. Countering wholeness!

Love Countering Wholeness

Because I perceive love as “outside me,” those counters that support love as less-than-whole support me as less-than-whole – and appear as NOT ME. You plus me appears to add up to love and wholeness. Yet, because of my firm defense of separation, all my concepts of love instead counter any concept of such wholeness. Faulty equation!

That means I must constantly test for wholeness in my relationships – testing that always comes up short. Thus, defending my concept of wholeness as an unachievable goal.

Suppose I wanted to expand my awareness beyond the limitation that perceives love as a reward for countering wholeness. How might I get to that awareness?

I could ask myself questions that counter my intentions. Since intention can be associated with need and need fulfillment, start with some basic needs you can’t live without. For example, “If I don’t get this need satisfied, I’ll die.”

The Challenge!

Let’s explore some awareness-expanding questions that might challenge limited awareness.

What Questions: What…

  • happened?
  • is my intention in this experience?
  • other intention might I have than the one I’m aware of?
  • is the need I’m trying to fulfill in my intention(s)?
  • other need(s) might this intention suggest?
  • must one believe in order to need that?
  • else might one believe in order to need that?
  • is love in relation to this/that intention?

How Questions: How…

  • did this intention cause this result?
  • else might this intention cause this result?
  • might I think differently about this intention?
  • else might I consider a different intention?
  • does this result demonstrate an intention of which I’m unaware (an unintended consequence due to unaware intention)?
  • does this experience demonstrate my concept of love?

Why Questions: Why…

  • this intention rather than another?
  • do I need this need or this intention?
  • is this so important to me?
  • do I trust my perception of this?
  • must I be right about this?
  • did love appear like it did in this experience?
  • am I defending this perception of less-than-wholeness as love?
  • Extra points for answering the above WHY questions without using the word “because.”

Who Questions: Who am I…

  • beyond my countered wholeness?
  • who projected and responded to this concept of being in this experience?
  • now that I’m enlightened by these questions?
Please follow and like us:

A Fight for Love

In First-Second Degree of Illumination bubble awareness, I believe I have to fight for everything that supports my need to survive. I label whatever I feel works in my favor as love.

I fight against whatever threatens what I believe I’m right about. Nothing’s more worthwhile or noble than that, in my opinion. Thus, love equates to defending for what’s right and against what’s wrong.

What’s the payoff?

What’s the payoff for equating all this conflict and pain is about love? Why all the fighting and competition? Maybe to sustain my storyline?

While in bubble awareness, I cannot view my story from a perspective outside the bubble. Only imagine it – which imaginings would arise from within the bubble! This is how bubble awareness supports and defends itself – and keeps me in it!

Within my bubble awareness, I attend to those things that grab that awareness – especially those that might threaten my bubble, my life, my story. Attention tends to add intensity value to my story with use.

Compelled to Fight

To fight the good fight, I must invest all my attention into creating and maintaining defense. That means developing strategies intended to battle for and win the greatest of causes. One of those strategies is to feel right, proper and justified, a reward for all who intentionally do good.

Another reward for furthering the cause is an increase in sense of superiority. Helping others attain what they need and are unaware of can feel fulfilling. Such feelings allow me to justify my sense of separateness as I stand alone for rightness. When I’m in my element of being right, proper,and justified, I’m a hero! If only others could appreciate that. After all, it’s just common sense to praise all who believe as I do and feel loathing or pity for those who don’t.

Compelled by Love

Love compels me to fight for it. Because I know what’s right and wrong, everyone else should too. I feel frustrated and alone when I must carry out my duty of defending right from wrong – all by myself!

My defensive strategies have become routine. I convince others to join my fight of right-thinking through enticements, and I shame or threaten them with harm. The last type of convincer, the threat of harm, I save for when I’m feeling desperate! It’s my or else card, which I play as a last resort. It can feel a bit embarrassing when I have to shut my mouth, curb my behavior, and leave feeling unloved. I imagine negative thoughts of on-lookers as they stare silently back at me.

When a strategy fails, my imagination goes to work convincing me… again… why love, as I perceive it, needs defending. I sometime resort  to self-deception, which can feel petty, yet, at least I feel justified for trying!

Those who disagree with my truth are the losers. In this environment, I experience a level of self-vindication that satisfies my need for self-validation. I love the deep affirmation of love I feel each time I do what is right, proper, and justified.

Please follow and like us:

Reconsidering the Law of Compensation

What if beyond my limited awareness bubble, the Law of Compensation is not a law? What if it’s an illusion, a perceptual result of defense of separation that I experience as lack?

By applying a mental filter, I can see this law in action in what I observe. That is, when I see someone achieve a goal, I can apply this “law” and assume that person helped enough others achieve their goals. So, applying it to my own life, I get busy helping other people achieve their goals so I can achieve mine.

It’s a simple business transaction: I give value, I get value. Value for value. Fairness. And, as we all know, the universe is nothing if not fair.

It’s always unfair to the one who feels dissatisfied. (anon)

Assuming the law is true, all I have to do is help some people get what they want, then sit back and wait for the universe to “pay up.” Since it’s the law, I should expect payment. When my expectations are not met, I have to wonder why. Maybe I didn’t help enough people or the right people. Or…

Maybe the Law of Compensation is not really a law after all.

What if there is another way to understand this than as a natural law, like gravity, that must be obeyed? What if my expectation of fairness is more a want than a law? What if there was never a hole to fill or loss to compensate for? Might it just be an illusion that confirms my belief in justice?

Compensation For What?

In order for the law of compensation to have any meaning, one must accept the concept of lack as a fundamental truth. That is, one must work to achieve what they lack. One must compensate for a deficit.

What happens when I no longer perceive lack? When I thoroughly and completely accept the concept of wholeness?

According to the Law of Compensation, where there is loss, there must be compensation. From a wholeness perspective, there is no loss. So, in order to preserve the “law” as a law, I must invent a loss or deficit for which I must compensate. To balance loss there must be gain to equal out the exchange. Thankfully, I have a good imagination!

Perhaps I invented the Law of Compensation in order to feel certain things – like a sense of personal:

  • growth – to compensate for diminishing sense of individualism
  • justice – to compensate for a sense of loss of rightness when wronged
  • fairness – to compensate for a sense of disadvantage in a competitive world
  • balance – to compensate for my feelings of imbalance

All these defend my position within First and Second Degrees of Illumination. And defend me against enlightenment beyond that. While I hold out the Law of Compensation as truth, I will remain limited in:

  • awareness of what may lie beyond fairness, justice, and defense.
  • gratitude for what is – as my focus is always on lack that needs compensating for.
  • awakening to the unlimited Self – as I’ve limited Self to perceiving life as a transaction.
  • connection to everything in my external reality.

I wonder how my life might look when my perspective is no longer one of lack needing compensation. Perhaps when I no longer perceive myself as a deficit to the universe, I will no longer have to obey the Law of Compensation.

Please follow and like us: