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:

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:

Limitation by Design

Do I limit my experience – on purpose?

In my bubble of limited awareness, although I believe I live with trillions of other beings, I alone live within my thoughts. Everything and everyone I experience in this dimension of limitation are literally and figuratively phantasms of my imagination. To me “they” are simply concepts in competition with other concepts. My perception of a walrus, for example, is a concept that competes with my concepts of everything else. I’ve limited my perception of this because it is not everything else.

Everywhere and whenever I notice, I’m faced with solid evidence of limited experience in the form of paradox. That is, nothing is as it appears – ever! Everything appears as a paradox of  unreasonable reasons, illogical logic, timeless timeliness, and perceptions of lack in wholeness.

Adaptation = Limitation!

One explanation for this paradox comes from the theory of evolution. I perceive as I do as a result of millions of generations of adaptation to changing environment. Thanks to Mr. Newton, I now know that evolution follows the law of conservation of energy. Thus, it has keenly honed my senses to perceive me in relation to a limited number of needs-related aspects of my present environment. Rather than to compare me to ALL that is not me, I compare me with only that part of not me that I consider matters to me.

I don’t perceive EVERYTHING – even within the limited space of my own body. Just what I NEED to perceive in order to survive long enough to pass my genes along to the next generation. Those senses, skills, and education I don’t need or don’t use often enough fade away. That’s evolution through adaptation.

Attention = Limitation!

In this way, my mind considers every thing, person, or place as a concept.  To manage the perpetual competition among these concepts, and to avoid overwhelm, I limit the number I’ll attend to at any one time. That’s intentional limitation!

Evolution, then, is the result of a paradox in which one must limit their sensual and conceptual life experience in order to fully live.

Purpose = Limitation!

Perhaps the purpose of my life is not the achievement of wholeness – a paradox in that one cannot achieve what one already is. Rather, maybe my life’s purpose is to notice the enjoyment I get from the paradox of limitation by design.

Please follow and like us:

How Questioning My Manifestation Process May Lead to Enlightenment

Within my bubble of limited awareness, my manifestation process works like a computer input-output (I/O) system. As in a computer, the outcome of a process can provide feedback that modifies the input to the next cycle.

Seems like a fairly straight-forward and simple process – change the input, change the outcome, repeat. Each cycle of the manifestation process provides input to another. Conservation of energy!

Each manifestation cycle starts with an intention that provides input to the process, the outcome of which illustrates and often amplifies the intent. The amplified illustration of intent offers feedback that is much easier to measure than was the input intention that started the process. In simple terms:

Intention in -> amplification process -> amplified illustration of intention out => feedback => intention in to next cycle…

Garbage In, Garbage Out (GIGO)

Much of the time, my quiet inner intentions are “hidden” behind much louder outcomes that grab my attention later. That means I feel that I’m aware of my intentions later along my timeline than when I set them. Right now, for example, I’m dealing with the manifest illustration of an intention I may have set into process minutes, hours, or days ago – maybe longer.

And then there is the data issue:

Spend enough time in deep enough conversation with artificial-intelligence experts, and at some point, they will all offer up the same axiom: garbage in, garbage out. It’s possible to sidestep sampling bias and ensure that systems are being trained on a wealth of balanced data, but if that data comes weighted with our society’s prejudices and discriminations, the algorithm isn’t exactly better off. AI is evolving much more rapidly than the data it has to work with, so it’s destined not just to reflect and replicate biases but also to prolong and reinforce them. An algorithm, after all, is just a set of instructions.

Of course, there’s another solution, elegant in its simplicity and fundamentally fair: get better data. (Groen, 2018)

What happens when the algorithm trains on poor data? The algorithm simply processes and amplifies whatever data I feed it. When my intention is unclear (garbage in), as it might be when emotionally charged, for example, the machinery of the program will supply my senses with feedback that looks unclear (garbage out) – amplified!

Questioning Manifestation

To manage feedback, I apply awareness-inducing challenge questions. To the degree I’m aware of these questions, I become aware of my true intentions – and maybe myself in the process.

First, let’s take charge of the process by owning it: “My intention led to the outcome I perceive.” Then, let’s reverse the manifestation process to discover our hidden agenda:

  • “What” questions turn observation of outcome into feedback – “What do I feel, hear, and see?” (the manifestation/illustration of intention)
  • “How” questions turn feedback into expressions of intention – “How does this [observation] illustrate my intention?”
  • “Why” questions expose and define intentions – “Why does my intention feel, sound, and appear as I feel, hear, and see it?”
  • “Who” questions challenge the identity of the source of intentions – “Who am I who perceives this as I do?”

What might happen were I to extend this questioning process to EVERY manifestation? Even those that appear to me to be owned by someone else? After all, aren’t my “observations” of others actually MY perception of their process? Am I not the one doing the perceiving and interpreting in my world? When someone I care about is having a difficult time, is it not me who perceives them having a difficult time? I may agree with others that my friend is having difficulty, and yet, is it not me who perceives others in agreement?

Beyond Manifestation

At some point, I may apply the above questions to EVERYTHING I perceive. Until then, questioning that which appears as mine alone will provide a window into the hidden world of my ego and maybe light the passageway into full enlightenment.

Sources:

  • The Walrus Online, How We Made AI As Racist and Sexist As HumansBy Danielle Groen, Illustration by Cristian Fowlie, Updated 8:56, May. 17, 2018 | Published 10:19, May. 16, 2018.
  • Noble, Safiya Umoja. Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. NYU Press. Paperback book available on Amazon.com.
Please follow and like us:

The Something Out of Nothing Paradox

In my bubble of limited awareness, the First Law of Thermodynamics states that you can’t create something out of nothing. Yet, it would seem that that is exactly what is happening at the non-physical level of thought. Perception can do what appears to be impossible at the physical level. How?

Perhaps one way for a conscious agent to coexist between realities – e.g., thought and physicality – is through imagination. Does fear, as an absence of rational thought, exist outside of imagination? No! Imagination is the only place fear can exist as an influence by and to a conscious agent. This influence can disrupt an agent’s attention on the familiar and lock it onto the unfamiliar. When this happens, the agent can feel out of their comfort zone. The time they spend feeling afraid is the time it takes to regain rational self-directed focus.

Imagination can translate perception into fact and vice versa by means of paradoxical thought. Imagination uses this paradox in order to create a sense of balance. Balance is achieved when the paradox feels satisfied, e. g., when perception of physical reality satisfies non-physical thought. In this way, mutual satisfaction between realities appears to resolve the paradox. Thereby making something out of nothing.

Comparing Imaginary Values

Wholeness represents completeness, no needs to fill. In order to achieve wholeness, my goal, I must compensate for my lack of it. Through imagination I can assign internal values to external things. In this way, I believe I can compensate for the value I feel I lack. Thus, something out of nothing.

This is the essence of perspective. An imaginary point of reference from which I measure my beliefs in terms of imaginary values. This is how I relate external values to internal worth. The measure of an objective thing’s value is in my investment in its ability to represent my subjective perspective. Again, something out of nothing.

Because I believe I can achieve my goal of wholeness in this way, I’m committed to defending all my investments in this reality. My level of defense is based on my subjective sense of loss and gain in terms of objective value. Since loss and gain are constructs of imagination, values translate measurements into labels – good, bad, right, wrong, and better, worse. A paradox of nothing into something.

An ability to imagine loss or gain may well have the ability to live in two realities simultaneously. Turning nothing into something and something into nothing may be why thought can seemingly compensate and survive psychologically. In this way, my mind perceives a need filled – nothing perceived as something. Thus, the paradox.

Please follow and like us: