Intention

  • Chris Thompson On November 29, 2013 at 9:01 AM

    In dictionary.com, Intention is defined thus:   “in·ten·tion [in-ten-shuhn] noun 1. an act or instance of determining mentally upon some action or result . . . ”

    Philosophically, we are using intention to provide the physical interface betweennothing, and something. By this, I am writing that mentally there is nothing and then there arises something. This is my observation of the inception of manifestation.

    There is an enormous assumption at the beginning of the definition of intention that the volition of this manifestation of something is caused by the individual.

    I am now considering whether this is true, or rather how true this is. As I have routinely written, it is my conjecture that our language describing physical phenomena may not be laid out quite rightly.

    • Chris Thompson On November 29, 2013 at 9:22 AM

      Yesterday during a review of the definition of the word intention, I demonstrated my intention to myself by picking up my own hand. By raising it and lowering it using different scenarios, I demonstrated that either raised or lowered “if and only if” I used the interface of intention. What is this intention I wondered. We are conditioned to believe that it arises from our immortal spirit. Yet I am noticing that this “if and only if” function is quite common in logic and other machinery.

  • Chris Thompson On November 29, 2013 at 9:17 AM

    There exists the assumption that personal responsibility and will to be adamantly welded. I am considering “How true is this?”

    I assume that if my opinions were important or if anyone cared what I think then I would receive a few flaming responses for this sacrilege. However, because I consider that no one cares what I think then this unholy comment may go unnoticed! I may be allowed to consider this issue of will in peace.

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Intention

  1. This is the Key question in our world right now. And based on the mythology of a co-created universe, here is what I have come up with.

    1. If a co-created universe exists where you and I are both mocking up my coffee cup this morning complete with almond milk, cinnamon, and maple syrup, then perhaps the coffee cup is outside our spiritual will because of our decision to share a universe.

    Our intention aligns with quantum effects that occur because when you and I co-create, we negotiate a randomness that we have no control over. This is kind of like a game of D&D. You and I could go fight orcs in our imaginations and agree to follow whatever the dice and game master declare.

    Or …

    2. We are purely and totally created by the universe. In this case, the UNIVERSE serves as the will-bearer and we are its results. And somehow, we both share the dream of a free will – a dream we share in C0-CREATION from our interactions. And IF inside this shared dream we have, we can manifest the imagined thing called free will that our non-being selves want, well WHAT IS THAT?

    It is free will.

    3. ((SAME AS #2)) but we cannot manifest the imagined thing we want. What is that?

    It is determinism.

    The only place where I can create a mythos that doesn’t fail and can exist outside of physical tests (which will always prove a free-will self as a dream) is in the arena of Absolute Geometry and ONLY after I seriously taint the great work of Euclid with batshit pseudoscience.

    Ah … the ONE THING L. Ron copied so well from Crowley (and I suspect Pythagoras), the notion of a viewpoint of dimension. It is and is not.

    OH LOOK, I JUST SAID MY SAME STUPID THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Kind of like how a child clings to his lucky charm while he faces impending doom.

    • KG: OH LOOK, I JUST SAID MY SAME STUPID THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Kind of like how a child clings to his lucky charm while he faces impending doom.

      CT: haha, this is the tautology that I rant and preach. There is for me a clue in this.

    • You have laid this out very succinctly and I must agree with your post.

      So you have laid out very well this paradox of “will vs. determinism.” And so that correct analysis is banging up against one tenet of my own personal religious belief being that “Paradoxes Always Contain False Major Premises.”

      Therefore I choose to believe that in this life and so far, what we seem able to lay out is not laid out correctly. And I ask myself, “Why is this?” Just now, the vector I am choosing to ponder is not so much the basic mechanic of intention, but my failure to view more than I do. My intuition leads me to believe that both Kurt Godel and Werner Heisenberg give clues in their “uncertainty” and “incompleteness” theorems.

    • KG: Our intention aligns with quantum effects that occur because when you and I co-create, we negotiate a randomness that we have no control over.

      CT: This is a very good observation which brings up the maths that you bring up later in your post.

      I currently believe that our intention is not something which radiates from an “i.” The “I” or ego seems to me a conglomeration (scientifically speaking! haha) of loop-back and possibly self-diagnostic testing circuitry having to do with nothing more than our bodies. And I believe we error in leaping to large conjectures about the significance of these processes. I acquiesce there might truly might be a great mind of sorts at the root of what is, but I no longer believe in that mind as being like our minds except in the most metaphorical sense.

    • KG: It is free will.

      CT: There may be free will but to me this freedom is finite in the sense of an either-or “double-throw” switch. This way or that way. The choices are finite and are they actually free? We may not be ready to ask that but I prefer to conjecture that question is not correct.

    • KG: The only place where I can create a mythos that doesn’t fail and can exist outside of physical tests (which will always prove a free-will self as a dream)

      CT: This is another example of where it seems that my thinking breaks down. Complete sets of things can be and seem to be self defining and if they define themselves as failure-proofed then they are. Another paradox. So I choose to believe that failure and not-failure are also flawed concepts as a world view. We are tricked into thinking that when our logic matches with language then there is a soundness to our logic, however, this is a false major premise. For example many definitions of truth are useful in small bites only and not when applied to a larger world view.

      • Very insightful. I need to ponder this for a good bit and stretch my brain out.

        By “failure proof” I mean beyond the testability of Science. Much like how Flying Pink Unicorns cannot be proven to NOT exist. In a sense, I seek the most realistic mythology that flies like the Pink Unicorn and somehow puts me at the center of the universe next to everyone else being at the center of the universe.

        If I’m going to cling to a lucky charm, what is the best mythological lucky charm I can cling to?

        And then, more importantly, learning to live without clinging to it and instead putting it right next to Mary Poppins.

        • KG: If I’m going to cling to a lucky charm, what is the best mythological lucky charm I can cling to?

          CT: I’m fond of Vishnu who sleeps on the primeval ocean, and whose dreams result in my own incarnation, and in whose mouth resides the entire physical universe. Jus’ sayin’. If we look deeply, any of the mythos can provide a satisfying metaphor. Only when we do not embrace fully do mythos seem pale and without color. I am also fond of science but embrace the acutely narrow vector of its growing ability to view but enjoy the rich firmness of its physicality.

        • KG: By “failure proof” I mean beyond the testability of Science. Much like how Flying Pink Unicorns cannot be proven to NOT exist.

          CT: Yes, thank you for making that clear. I love science and admit to its narrow vector.

  2. Dear Chris, personal responsibility and the will of persons are welded to the laws described by Kurt Friedrich Gödel: the reality is recursive and thus inconsistent and incomplete. Please check his theistic religious views . Intention is hard to proof, as so many philosophical realities are, but these are there to be had if enough probabilistic attemps are realized to create a condensed statistical reality. imo

    • Hi Rafael SN, I have for a couple years been meaning to get around to discussing Godel’s 14 points of ontological proof for God’s existence but upon reading it revealed the man to be not a giant in all thinking but a mere mortal as are you and I and subject to his own assumptions, it seems it takes more than a human lifetime to figure out all the things we would like to figure out. Following are Godel’s 14 points if anyone would like to know about or discuss them from: “Ontological Proof”. COLLECTED WORKS: UNPUBLISHED ESSAYS & LECTURES, Volume III. pp. 403–404. Oxford University Press:

      Gödel left in his papers a fourteen-point outline of his philosophical beliefs, that are dated around 1960. They show his deep belief in the rational structure of the world. Here are his 14 points:

      The world is rational. Human reason can, in principle, be developed more highly (through certain techniques). There are systematic methods for the solution of all problems (also art, etc.). There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higher kind. The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived. There is incomparably more knowable a priori than is currently known. The development of human thought since the Renaissance is thoroughly intelligible (durchaus einsichtige). Reason in mankind will be developed in every direction. Formal rights comprise a real science. Materialism is false. The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not by composition. Concepts have an objective existence. There is a scientific (exact) philosophy and theology, which deals with concepts of the highest abstractness; and this is also most highly fruitful for science. Religions are, for the most part, bad– but religion is not.

      Based on this far-reaching rational belief, he thought he can proof the existence of God, in a modified (and logically consistent) version of Anselm’s ontological proof. I admit that his argument needs a lot of explanation. Gödel was a theist, not a pantheist, and he also rejected Einsteins idea of an impersonal God. He saw himself in the tradition of Leibniz, not Spinoza. It seems that Gödel worked on the “ontological proof” for a long time, and finally he handed it over to a friend in 1970. It was published in 1987.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s