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:

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:

The Unless Option

Within my bubble of limited awareness, my policies conceptualize beliefs in the form of conditional statements, “if/when a condition is true, then do the following action…” It’s straight-forward and simple logic – the kind I use everyday. I perceive something so, I apply an action to it – even when that “action” is to do nothing. This, however, does not account for other options.

What happens when I insert “UNLESS” into my formula?

That is,

  • If/When I think a certain condition is true, then I will do a specific action… UNLESS…

The “unless” option introduces a challenge to my certainty about the original condition. Maybe it’s not true as I perceive it. This applies to every aspect of reality – from objective to subjective. Often this comes up when I realize my actions produced a result contrary to my wishes.

The First Action

In every case my first “action” is to process a thought. Thoughts are perhaps the only “things” I can perceive. For example, my companion says something nice to me. From their appearance to their words to my interpretations and judgements of the situation – all my thoughts.

There are times when thinking is the resultant action. What is the thought that prompted it? Because my thought process looks like, “If this condition (an idea/concept), then this action (a further idea/concept that may appear as physical activity)…” UNLESS…

Unless something else is at play here – which prompts me to ask myself some questions that challenge their underlying belief.

  1. “What ELSE could I be perceiving than what I’m perceiving right now?”
    (“My observation of this situation is right, unless…”)
  2. “How ELSE might I perceive this than how I’m perceiving it right now?”
    (“I’m doing the right thing, unless…”)
  3. “Why ELSE might I perceive what I’m perceiving right now?”
    (“My intention is right, unless…”)
  4. “Who ELSE am I than the one perceiving what I’m perceiving right now?”
    (“I am right, unless…”)

When I practice such thought provocation, I break up stuck thought patterns, clarify my intentions, and promote understanding of what I’m creating.

Please follow and like us:

Memory as a Messenger of the Unknown

What if, within my limited awareness bubble, memory works in time and space? A conscious agent uses memory as a vehicle to perceive a relationship between time and space. If so, I must defend time and space in order to live. The “I” that lives in time must store the data necessary to balance the unknown with the known – memory.

Now seems to be the only condition of time that allows me to be served by memory. Memory’s linear design is a means of holding time accountable to space and for me to be accountable to a future I haven’t yet realized. Time supports space that supports time. Memory supports the concept of linear time and space as imagined sequences of causes and effects.

What I can perceive I can believe is real. Therefore, my memories are real because I perceive them to be. I’ve perceived fear as real and I have referred to it for present experiential support. Fear as the main criteria of my memory now seems to dominate the experiences of the present. Once I believe fear is real, it will remain so until I question and change it.

Because the unknown represents my greatest fear, I create memories to fill-in what I don’t know. With memory, I can relate the unknowable to an imagined known, a reality I call my life. This known reality brings a counter-balance and a sense of direction to mitigate the fear of the unknown.

What Is the Message of Memory, then?

Memories are my link to linear reality, which includes time and space and who I am in them. In my limited matrix of associations, I can apply a memory to justify any current situation that exists in terms of time and space.

When it comes to fearful situations, applying a known in the form of a memory can provide a sense of reality. Thus, an imagined or recalled known can substitute a sense of peace to the unknown. It’s a paradox! And while the unknown remains unknown, at least I can feel better about it!

What if memory is a messenger of the unknown telling me about me through the known? Perhaps memory is loaded with data. I can mine that information about who I perceive I am beyond what I know. What is my memory telling the known me about the unknown me?

Rather than defend against the unknown with fear-based memory, what if I instead asked some questions?

  • What is true and untrue in this memory?
  • How is it true and untrue?
  • Why is it true and untrue?
  • Who am I as a result of believing this?
  • Who would I be if I didn’t believe this?
Please follow and like us: