Action vs. Intention

[steve]

Just so I'm clear - I have no idea if there is intent like I'm describing outside human experience nor do I believe there is, want there to be, or mean to push the idea. I just feel it's an interesting area to explore.

 

"if you are following Wu Wei, well, you are doing to go somewhere."

 

I don't believe so IME, you're neither doing, not going anywhere.

 

As for the action/intent thing, IME 'intent' is a pre-action feeling/build/something and 'action' is just action. Without intent I don't reckon it does anything. I realise that maybe we might be trying to talk about 'longer term' intent or "plans' or "strategy vs tactics" but I'm probably not good enough at talking about it.

Wu Wei and intent are very interesting bedfellows. I look at Wu Wei is meaning more to "not go against" or "not swim against the current" more than to necessarily act without thought or without intent. We have brains and minds and I think it is in our nature to use our capacity for thought and reason. I think it is going against our nature to try to not use those capacities. So although it may absolutely be in our nature to engage in many physical activities where the thinking mind is not playing a controlling role (dance, taiji [maybe, arguable], driving, sex, ...) and there are times when the mind is simply in the way or a distraction, this does not mean, at least to me, that it is not in keeping with Wu Wei to act with intent and utilizing our full capacities as human beings when and where it is appropriate.

 

I think I have a different definition of "intent" than the way you're using it here.

 

What I'm hearing you say is "balance". The sun has a balance, of rotational energy, of gravity vs. expansion, of tidal forces and electromagnetism, etc. That is its tao. But there is no goal, plan, or any other kind of projection into the future. That's what "intent" means to me.

I guess what I'm exploring is this. We, as humans, know a quality of thinking and feeling that we label intent. It is partly intellectual but also partly other. Emotional feelings drive behavior, spiritual goals or experiences or states drive behavior, even physical sensations like hunger and thirst and sexual drive create intent. So we are aware of our intent and feel that it is fully and uniquely human. And then we make the assumption (and this is what I am questioning) that we are the only entities on earth that are motivated by intent. Perhaps there is a quality of intent that the sparrow manifests and is intimately comfortable with it. It's just not something we can access. Same with anything else - the sun, stars. We manifest intent, we are the universe, why do we then deny all other creatures and the universe itself of possessing or being motivated by intent. Just something that is way at the back, subtle, that doesn't sit right with me.

 

Hi Steve,

 

I understand what you are saying and based on what I know of your belief systen (from your posts) you are right in asking these questions.

 

You know that I am an Atheist and I do not believe in all those other consciousnesses that other people talk about.

 

But I do agree that we, and all else in the Manifest, are expressions of Tao. But let us not forget Chapter 5 of the TTC: (Henricks' translation)

 

1. Heaven and Earth are not humane;

2. They regard the thousand things as straw dogs.

3. The Sage is not humane;

4. He regards the common people as straw dogs.

 

To me this is clearly stating that there is no intent.

 

 

I know that many here disagree with me regarding this concept and I do understand the human need for there to be something more than the crude facts of reality. What we believe in these areas is strictly a personal choice (unless we are already brain-washed by others).

 

 

As I have said before, if it helps you through your life then it is good.

I would love to hear what my belief system sounds like to others if you ever feel like summarizing it in a post - sincerely, I'm not trying to be patronizing. We think we know ourselves but we never really know how others see us. To be honest, I'm not quite sure what I believe myself!

So to address your points. You manifest intelligence and consciousness so the universe is intelligent and conscious. Unless, of course, you insist on considering your self "other" than the universe. Then what are you?

 

Regarding Chapter 5 of DDJ - I don't think this has anything to do with universal consciousness or intent but rather judgement. If we judge the actions of others or the occurrences in the universe we do so from our own human conditioning with respect to concepts like right and wrong, compassionate or dispassionate, and so on. The universe does not judge like we do, that is a particularly human characteristic (and so is intent! you may argue). So if a child dies of leukemia, that is not an inhumane act of the universe. It is simply an occurrence without concern for human judgement. So as the universe acts towards humanity, DDJ suggests that the sage should consider the acts of other humans. Because what are they if not just instruments of the universe? This is equivalent to Zuang Zi's Empty Boat parable.

 

I'm totally fine with the crude facts of reality. I was very a-theistic in my thoughts for a very long time. It's just now there are some things I've experienced that challenge the nihilistic qualities that are so pervasive (unnecessarily so, IMO) in most atheistic lines of thought.

 

 

You know I don't buy into the video, Right?

 

To your questions:

 

I think that intent begins with the perception of a cause for thought.

 

Perhaps intention continues even after action begins?

 

Any movement is action. Some movements are unintentional and others are intentional.

Hmmm, I'm have trouble with "perception of a cause for thought."

If intent is not a thought, what is it?

[Otis]

I have many friends who use the word "intention" in a way that is very positive to them. They will often declare an intention, before starting a task. It is sometimes a very specific outcome that they state, but it is more often a general mood or atmosphere that they are suggesting. For example, before a meeting, an intention may be set, for all participants to listen with open minds and hearts, and to continually see the value in each other. Or something like that.

 

So in this case, the "intention" is the agreed-upon value that the group is aligning around. From what I hear, that intention is often very powerful, because it creates "buy-in" to the central ethic, and hence a more coherent and peaceful conversation.

 

On the other hand, some of the same friends also use "intention" as a Law of Attraction spell. E.g. I am setting the intention that I will get rich. That version of intention seems more like wishful thinking, although I can see how it could help to align the person after a goal.

 

After enjoying the freedom of wu wei, "intent" seems to me like a trap, a way of substituting my fantasies, for what's real.

 

But I also do some planning, and remind myself to buckle down and for example, look for a job. These are intentions, too, of course. I am trying to surrender more and more into a wu wei life, but so far, a hybrid life is the best I seem able to manage, without crashing, financially or socially. So I'm seeing the value of "intention", but I'm practicing, so that I can continue to emerge, beyond it.

[Otis]

I guess what I'm exploring is this. We, as humans, know a quality of thinking and feeling that we label intent. It is partly intellectual but also partly other. Emotional feelings drive behavior, spiritual goals or experiences or states drive behavior, even physical sensations like hunger and thirst and sexual drive create intent. So we are aware of our intent and feel that it is fully and uniquely human. And then we make the assumption (and this is what I am questioning) that we are the only entities on earth that are motivated by intent. Perhaps there is a quality of intent that the sparrow manifests and is intimately comfortable with it. It's just not something we can access. Same with anything else - the sun, stars. We manifest intent, we are the universe, why do we then deny all other creatures and the universe itself of possessing or being motivated by intent. Just something that is way at the back, subtle, that doesn't sit right with me.

Hi Steve. Thanks for your response.

 

I think we are still using the word differently, because to me: intent is a story-based projection into the future (e.g. I want to do _____). As such, intent seems like a uniquely egoic action. Nothing else tells stories about what they wish will happen.

 

Whereas, states, drives and emotions (in my view) are all pre-ego. They are just other parts of my organism, steering me. They are just doing their jobs, creating part of the path of least resistance, by aligning my organism in a certain direction, with or without the awareness of the ego. They can all be part of what allows wu wei. "My" intent actually inhibits the natural expression of my body's drives and emotions, which I think are my natural steering mechanisms.

[steve]

I have many friends who use the word "intention" in a way that is very positive to them. They will often declare an intention, before starting a task. It is sometimes a very specific outcome that they state, but it is more often a general mood or atmosphere that they are suggesting. For example, before a meeting, an intention may be set, for all participants to listen with open minds and hearts, and to continually see the value in each other. Or something like that.

 

So in this case, the "intention" is the agreed-upon value that the group is aligning around. From what I hear, that intention is often very powerful, because it creates "buy-in" to the central ethic, and hence a more coherent and peaceful conversation.

 

On the other hand, some of the same friends also use "intention" as a Law of Attraction spell. E.g. I am setting the intention that I will get rich. That version of intention seems more like wishful thinking, although I can see how it could help to align the person after a goal.

 

After enjoying the freedom of wu wei, "intent" seems to me like a trap, a way of substituting my fantasies, for what's real.

 

But I also do some planning, and remind myself to buckle down and for example, look for a job. These are intentions, too, of course. I am trying to surrender more and more into a wu wei life, but so far, a hybrid life is the best I seem able to manage, without crashing, financially or socially. So I'm seeing the value of "intention", but I'm practicing, so that I can continue to emerge, beyond it.

With those uses of intent, one can see how it can be related to attachment and, ultimately, frustration or disappointment.

 

Hi Steve. Thanks for your response.

 

I think we are still using the word differently, because to me: intent is a story-based projection into the future (e.g. I want to do _____). As such, intent seems like a uniquely egoic action. Nothing else tells stories about what they wish will happen.

 

Whereas, states, drives and emotions (in my view) are all pre-ego. They are just other parts of my organism, steering me. They are just doing their jobs, creating part of the path of least resistance, by aligning my organism in a certain direction, with or without the awareness of the ego. They can all be part of what allows wu wei. "My" intent actually inhibits the natural expression of my body's drives and emotions, which I think are my natural steering mechanisms.

True, we are looking at intent a bit differently. So I guess your "intent" is more one of a specific plan associated with a goal that is all put together by the thinking mind. I think that is probably the proper use of the word. I guess I'm just jazzing around, not making much sense. I'm in one of those moods.

[Marblehead]

Wu Wei and intent are very interesting bedfellows. I look at Wu Wei is meaning more to "not go against" or "not swim against the current" more than to necessarily act without thought or without intent. We have brains and minds and I think it is in our nature to use our capacity for thought and reason. I think it is going against our nature to try to not use those capacities. So although it may absolutely be in our nature to engage in many physical activities where the thinking mind is not playing a controlling role (dance, taiji [maybe, arguable], driving, sex, ...) and there are times when the mind is simply in the way or a distraction, this does not mean, at least to me, that it is not in keeping with Wu Wei to act with intent and utilizing our full capacities as human beings when and where it is appropriate.

 

Just wanted to point out that you speak to some important concepts here. Too much to speak to so I will just say that I am fairly well in agreement with what you have said.

 

I would love to hear what my belief system sounds like to others if you ever feel like summarizing it in a post - sincerely, I'm not trying to be patronizing. We think we know ourselves but we never really know how others see us. To be honest, I'm not quite sure what I believe myself!

 

Hehehe. No, I'm not going to fall into that trap. But I will say this - it appears that you are wanting to define a unifying principle of the universe that is all inclusive - universal. In my mind, there are no principles, only processes.

 

So to address your points. You manifest intelligence and consciousness so the universe is intelligent and conscious. Unless, of course, you insist on considering your self "other" than the universe. Then what are you?

 

See? Hehehe. We are manifestations of Tao. Yes, we are Tao. But we are individual humans - individual expressions of Tao. I am not you and you are not me but we both are of Tao. Same mother, different father.

 

Regarding Chapter 5 of DDJ - I don't think this has anything to do with universal consciousness or intent but rather judgement. If we judge the actions of others or the occurrences in the universe we do so from our own human conditioning with respect to concepts like right and wrong, compassionate or dispassionate, and so on. The universe does not judge like we do, that is a particularly human characteristic (and so is intent! you may argue). So if a child dies of leukemia, that is not an inhumane act of the universe. It is simply an occurrence without concern for human judgement. So as the universe acts towards humanity, DDJ suggests that the sage should consider the acts of other humans. Because what are they if not just instruments of the universe? This is equivalent to Zuang Zi's Empty Boat parable.

 

I don't agree with what I bolded. The Sage ignores other humans unless there is something he can do to help. He leaves the people to their own devices just as the universe does.

 

The Empty Boat is a good parable. I hope to discuss it some time in the future.

 

I'm totally fine with the crude facts of reality. I was very a-theistic in my thoughts for a very long time. It's just now there are some things I've experienced that challenge the nihilistic qualities that are so pervasive (unnecessarily so, IMO) in most atheistic lines of thought.

 

See again? Hehehe. Atheism is not Nihilism. Yes, some Atheists are also nihilistic but so are some religious people.

 

Hmmm, I'm have trouble with "perception of a cause for thought."

If intent is not a thought, what is it?

 

Ah! Back on thread topic. Hehehe.

 

Our five senses stimulate thought. (Yes, our unconscious also stimulates thought but we won't discuss that here.)

 

I was speaking of wu wei when I stated that phrase. Perception meaning the mental recognition of stimulii from any of the senses. This causes thought. If what we perceive requires action on our part we spring into action. But that does not mean we do it haphazardly. We form an intent, we plan our action, then we take action. This is done after considering the situation as well as possible from our observation. The only intent is to take action on what needs action taken on it. No other considerations, most times not even the consideration for our own safety.

 

So yes, intent is a thought. But the thought was not stimulated by intention - it was stimulated as a result of perception. Now, this is true only from the condition of wu wei. When we are in the state of 'yo' the process is somewhat different because they are normally based on "me" in some form or another.

[Marblehead]

I have many friends who use the word "intention" in a way that is very positive to them. They will often declare an intention, before starting a task. ...

 

Damn!!! Another excellent post from Otis!

[Marblehead]

With those uses of intent, one can see how it can be related to attachment and, ultimately, frustration or disappointment.

 

 

Yes, that will happen if our intents exceed our capabilities and capacities. (Again, the ego thing.)

[steve]

Hehehe. No, I'm not going to fall into that trap. But I will say this - it appears that you are wanting to define a unifying principle of the universe that is all inclusive - universal. In my mind, there are no principles, only processes.

Hmmm, I'm not sure that I'm wanting to define a unifying principle. I agree 100% with you on process. I think I'm more with Otis on "I don't know" and yet in trying to be open and receptive, I do feel things and I think that's what's coming out.

 

See? Hehehe. We are manifestations of Tao. Yes, we are Tao. But we are individual humans - individual expressions of Tao. I am not you and you are not me but we both are of Tao. Same mother, different father.

Think of Biology for a moment. It is impossible to define an individual living organism without including it's environment. Take away the air they breath, the food they eat, the water, sunshine,... and what do you have? So the illusion of an individual human relates to the thought process (that pesky thought the claims it is "me") and the sensory organs which limit our antennae to just perceiving a limited amount of information from a limited perspective. Take the "individual" organism out of its environment and it is dead. So what truly exists is organismenvironment. If you extend that thinking to an ecological system, there is no such thing as an individual.

 

I don't agree with what I bolded. The Sage ignores other humans unless there is something he can do to help. He leaves the people to their own devices just as the universe does.

 

The Empty Boat is a good parable. I hope to discuss it some time in the future.

"The universe does not judge like we do, that is a particularly human characteristic (and so is intent! you may argue). So if a child dies of leukemia, that is not an inhumane act of the universe. It is simply an occurrence without concern for human judgement. So as the universe acts towards humanity, DDJ suggests that the sage should consider the acts of other humans. Because what are they if not just instruments of the universe?"

Please take another look. I'm saying the the sage should treat other humans just as the universe treats humanity. I think you misunderstood me and we're in agreement here.

 

 

 

Our five senses stimulate thought. (Yes, our unconscious also stimulates thought but we won't discuss that here.)

 

I was speaking of wu wei when I stated that phrase. Perception meaning the mental recognition of stimulii from any of the senses. This causes thought. If what we perceive requires action on our part we spring into action. But that does not mean we do it haphazardly. We form an intent, we plan our action, then we take action. This is done after considering the situation as well as possible from our observation. The only intent is to take action on what needs action taken on it. No other considerations, most times not even the consideration for our own safety.

 

So yes, intent is a thought. But the thought was not stimulated by intention - it was stimulated as a result of perception. Now, this is true only from the condition of wu wei. When we are in the state of 'yo' the process is somewhat different because they are normally based on "me" in some form or another.

Excellent - thanks for expanding that. Good points. The only kicker is the experimental finding that the action occurs before the awareness of intention. So what is intention really? Could it just be our recording of the event. Those sensory perceptions you describe lead to the action and that pesky thought that claims to be "me" jumps in to take credit and act as if "me" was necessary for the response to occur.

[Marblehead]

Hmmm, I'm not sure that I'm wanting to define a unifying principle. I agree 100% with you on process. I think I'm more with Otis on "I don't know" and yet in trying to be open and receptive, I do feel things and I think that's what's coming out.

 

Just my observation. I have no idea how valid it is. (I'm with Otis too, "I don't know.")

 

Think of Biology for a moment. It is impossible to define an individual living organism without including it's environment. Take away the air they breath, the food they eat, the water, sunshine,... and what do you have? So the illusion of an individual human relates to the thought process (that pesky thought the claims it is "me") and the sensory organs which limit our antennae to just perceiving a limited amount of information from a limited perspective. Take the "individual" organism out of its environment and it is dead. So what truly exists is organismenvironment. If you extend that thinking to an ecological system, there is no such thing as an individual.

 

Okay, yes, totally agree - our environment is part of what we are. That is why it is impossible for me to put my finger on "I".

 

And even our observations (the recognition thereof) are going to be influenced by the culture of which we live in.

 

Yes, the playing field changes when we speak of an ecological system as opposed to an individual manifestation. Speaking to this concept could get very sticky and I think it is beyond the scope of this thread.

 

"The universe does not judge like we do, that is a particularly human characteristic (and so is intent! you may argue). So if a child dies of leukemia, that is not an inhumane act of the universe. It is simply an occurrence without concern for human judgement. So as the universe acts towards humanity, DDJ suggests that the sage should consider the acts of other humans. Because what are they if not just instruments of the universe?"

Please take another look. I'm saying the the sage should treat other humans just as the universe treats humanity. I think you misunderstood me and we're in agreement here.

 

Wouldn't be the first time I misunderstood something someone had said. Hehehe.

 

My mind just reaclled the Chuang Tzu story of the Sage who sit by the river while an invading army took control of his country. There was nothing he could do so he just sat by the river enjoying life. When the invading army was repulsed he was still sitting by the river. He took no action, he had no intent other than sitting by the river because he knew thare was nothing he could do to change anything.

 

Excellent - thanks for expanding that. Good points. The only kicker is the experimental finding that the action occurs before the awareness of intention. So what is intention really? Could it just be our recording of the event. Those sensory perceptions you describe lead to the action and that pesky thought that claims to be "me" jumps in to take credit and act as if "me" was necessary for the response to occur.

 

Thanks. Where you are wanting to go is beyond my capacity.

 

But no, the Sage takes no credit for what he has done. But too, he accepts no blame either. He simply did what needed to be done. The flowed with the universe - his actions, if there were actions were nothing but a natural flow of the processes of the universe.

[ChiDragon]

When we talk about intention within the definition of the Tao Te Ching, we must consider the definition of Wu Wei. The term "Wu Wei" is a patented term by LaoTze so to speak. If one taken literally, the translation is "do nothing" or "no action". However, philosophically with respect to the Tao Te Ching, by LaoTze's definition of Wu Wei: Let Nature take its course. It simply implies that do not take action interfering with Nature. Another word, if one took action against Nature, one has an intention to interrupt the course of Nature. Hence, one violates the concept of Wu Wei.

 

What is the course of Nature...??? Nature do not have a mind of its own. Whatever it does was considered natural. For example, when lightning strikes, it does randomly with no intention to hit a particular spot. During a flood, the water will run over anything in its path to reach the lowest point. Indeed, Nature has no intention to run over what or where but it just does naturally.

 

As far as the Tao Te Ching was concern, even though with an intention for a good cause but interfering the course of Nature. Thus it was considered not Wu Wei.

[steve]

Just my observation. I have no idea how valid it is. (I'm with Otis too, "I don't know.")

So I asked you to tell me what you think my beliefs are, from your perspective. You begrudgingly answered and I proceeded to tell you that you are wrong.

 

What an ass I am!

You should have stuck to your guns I guess.

My apologies.

[Otis]

My apologies.

Sweet! I love being in conversation with some of my favorite Bums! Thanks, y'all, for being so cool!

[Marblehead]

When we talk about intention within the definition of the Tao Te Ching, we must consider the definition of Wu Wei. The term "Wu Wei" is a patented term by LaoTze so to speak. If one taken literally, the translation is "do nothing" or "no action". However, philosophically with respect to the Tao Te Ching, by LaoTze's definition of Wu Wei: Let Nature take its course. It simply implies that do not take action interfering with Nature. Another word, if one took action against Nature, one has an intention to interrupt the course of Nature. Hence, one violates the concept of Wu Wei.

 

What is the course of Nature...??? Nature do not have a mind of its own. Whatever it does was considered natural. For example, when lightning strikes, it does randomly with no intention to hit a particular spot. During a flood, the water will run over anything in its path to reach the lowest point. Indeed, Nature has no intention to run over what or where but it just does naturally.

 

As far as the Tao Te Ching was concern, even though with an intention for a good cause but interfering the course of Nature. Thus it was considered not Wu Wei.

 

Indeed. Wu wei does not directly mean "Do nothing". It means do nothing that is not a natural flow within the conditions. Open the dam and allow the waters to flow.

 

(Thanks for joining us here.)

[Marblehead]

So I asked you to tell me what you think my beliefs are, from your perspective. You begrudgingly answered and I proceeded to tell you that you are wrong.

 

What an ass I am!

You should have stuck to your guns I guess.

My apologies.

 

Hehehe. Belly laughs. It doesn't bother me when someone disagrees with me.

 

You know, a very long time ago my first college course was English Comprehension.

 

We were assigned a passage to read and the next class we were expected to explain what we got from the reading. I was called on and I stated my understanding. The instructor said, "No, you are wrong."

 

How the heck could I be wrong? It is simply not possible. Sure, I got something different than the instructor did from the reading. Big deal. But still today I think I was right in stating what I got from the reading.

 

Anyhow, thanks for allowing me to state an observation I have of you. Hehehe.

 

PS I will always have someone around here to talk about universal consciousness with.

[Aaron]

Hello Folks,

 

I agree with you Chidragon in regards to your interpretation of Wu Wei. I think I'm talking about something different though. My question stems from the idea that many people have that intentions matter more when one takes an action, than the result of the action. For me I can understand how one can feel that way, certainly, but in the grand scheme, as others have pointed out, there may be more to this than meets the eye. The thing that comes to mind is evolution.

 

For all intents (pun intended) and purposes, we could conceive of evolution as an intended process, one that happens with a definite agenda in mind. This notion that it occurs as a random process seems the most logical, but what if that isn't so, what if, as Steve F. pointed at (perhaps as a devils advocate) there is a greater consciousness that is acting.

 

If we take this into account, and if it is true, then how does that effect our own decisions and intentions? If evolution is the natural process and our original nature is to work within that natural process, than why do we act contrary to it? Why do we so often do things that not only harm nature, but ourselves as well? Is it in fact this idea that intentions are more important than the actions that causes us to deviate? Perhaps the fact of the matter is that there is an actual calculable effect that this notion has on us and the world as a whole, an effect that happens on a global scale? What if our failure to understand our place in this scheme, to realize that intentions matter little, but instead the action is most important, is resulting in a global catastrophe that may end up being the end of us as a people?

 

Just some thoughts. After all, it seems if there is an actual intended way for things to occur, that going against that would result in some severe consequences. If this is true then I definitely believe actions are more important than intentions.

 

Aaron

Edited May 29, 2011 by Twinner

[devoid]

Hi Everybody,

 

Aaron: Great topic!

Everybody: Great posts!

 

Here's a bit more food for thought - three things for treasure:

 

You are what you eat

IMO when intention and actions align you have strong integrity

 

The intent vs. action mind

In some of the old Xingyiquan Songs it is said that the Yi (the wisdom/ego/intent-mind) is the General / Leader and the Xin (the subconscious/emotional mind) is the Army / Follower.

 

On Wu Wei, action and inaction

Thus, to add to the Wu Wei discussion: Out of the Wu Wei springs a spark: an idea, if you like, which can then become the basis for intent, and which may eventually be followed by action or inaction (note: inaction to intent has nothing to do with Wu Wei! )

 

Edit: Typo

Edited May 29, 2011 by devoid

[Marblehead]

 

On Wu Wei, action and inaction

Thus, to add to the Wu Wei discussion: Out of the Wu Wei springs a spark: an idea, if you like, which can then become the basis for intent, and which may eventually be followed by action or inaction (note: inaction to intent has nothing to do with Wu Wei! )

 

Edit: Typo

 

Hi Devoid,

 

Nice. (I shall make no judgement but "nice" and will make no comment.)

[strawdog65]

One idea that I see pop up now and again is the idea that one's thoughts are more important than their actions. Many people seem to take this as a given. For instance, someone didn't intend to hurt another person, so that should be held into account. I think that's true, but on another level it's very easy to fall into this idea that what's really important are our intentions. In my opinion it's as easy as misinterpreting the words are and our. They may sound similar, but they have distinctly different meanings, just as intentions and actions have different meanings.

 

On this forum and in the context of spirituality the difference between the two can take on an even deeper level of distinction. It calls into question the difference between practice and philosophy.

 

Take for example one who chooses to join a monastery. Obviously if they do not practice the philosophy held holy by that monastery they will not last long. This isn't so for the layman, they are allowed a degree of leniency in that regard. As long as they hold the tenants of their religion to be holy, for the most part they are allowed to do what they want, within limit.

 

I think this is part of the reason why many civilizations came to the conclusion that nothing should be held holy, that by defining what is holy, we are essentially restricting our actions. We are defining actions as being more important than intentions. We are saying that the holy man is the man who acts holy, while the man who is not is clearly unholy. This is in essence placing more of a value on a man's actions than their actual state of conscience.

 

With that said, I think the question that becomes most important and the one I wont answer right now, is this, which is actually more important the action or the intention? Is it more important how a man thinks or how a man behaves, not simply from a sociological perspective, but from a psychological perspective as well? And even on a deeper level, should we aspire to social harmony or personal harmony?

 

Anyways, I thought it might be an interesting discussion.

 

Aaron

 

Hello Aaron!

Hope you have been well.

 

Action Vs. Intention gets at the very root of our existence.

They necessarily are linked, and to me, are inseparable in

regards to the essence of who we are, both physically in our day

to day waking, and mentally in regards to who we see ourselves to be.

 

People will debate this on either side, if one is more important

than the other, but it's a fool's errand to believe that they can

be separated and exist one without the influence of the other,

not only on our mental lives, but our lives within this world.

 

Peace!

[Marblehead]

 

For all intents (pun intended) and purposes, we could conceive of evolution as an intended process, one that happens with a definite agenda in mind. This notion that it occurs as a random process seems the most logical, but what if that isn't so, what if, as Steve F. pointed at (perhaps as a devils advocate) there is a greater consciousness that is acting.

 

If we take this into account, and if it is true, then how does that effect our own decisions and intentions? If evolution is the natural process and our original nature is to work within that natural process, than why do we act contrary to it? Why do we so often do things that not only harm nature, but ourselves as well? Is it in fact this idea that intentions are more important than the actions that causes us to deviate? Perhaps the fact of the matter is that there is an actual calculable effect that this notion has on us and the world as a whole, an effect that happens on a global scale? What if our failure to understand our place in this scheme, to realize that intentions matter little, but instead the action is most important, is resulting in a global catastrophe that may end up being the end of us as a people?

 

Aaron

 

Hi Aaron,

 

Jeeezze! My first read of this above makes it sound like you support both sides of the arguement of whether intent or action is of the most import.

 

What does evolution have to do with this? A lot, I think, but I also think that its importance in the discussion would be very difficult, if not impossible, to pin down.

 

And see? I am not the only one who had that observation of Steve. Hehehe.

 

From a very basic instinct point of view, it is a species' "goal" in life to survive and reproduce - survival of the species. For all plants and most animals this is the most important "purpose" of their life.

 

It is the intelligent animals, those capable of thought and intent, that add elements to these instincts that sometimes become more important than the basic instincts.

 

Intelligence allows for thought and thought allows for intent.

 

Okay. From what I just said I have to agree that intent is the most important element in the life of intelligent animals. For all other life forms I would still hold to the understanding that action is the most important element because there is no intent present.

 

However, I will also still hold to my understanding that, regardless of religion, philosophy of life, or any other factors, a person who is capable of attaining the state of 'wu wei', regardless of what this state is called, can function very efficiently in life without intent. (Their "goal" in life would simply be to live their life to its fullest potential and that is all. All actions would be only means for attaining this "goal".)

[Marblehead]

Hi Strawdog,

 

I agree with what you said but don't tell anyone, Okay? Hehehe.

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

'Intention' IS action, before 'mind' gets involved..

 

Be well..

[steve]

For all intents (pun intended) and purposes, we could conceive of evolution as an intended process, one that happens with a definite agenda in mind. This notion that it occurs as a random process seems the most logical, but what if that isn't so, what if, as Steve F. pointed at (perhaps as a devils advocate) there is a greater consciousness that is acting.

 

Just to clarify, I don't mean necessarily to imply the presence of any "higher consciousness." We each manifest consciousness. Every living thing manifests consciousness (we just don't understand it because we can't think their thoughts or feel their feelings). We feel utterly alien to each other for this reason so imagine how alien the consciousness of a tree or river(?) is. So I don't mean to imply there is a particular greater consciousness that has a specific plan or intent (ala New or Old Testament or Q'ran). I don't know what is going on but I do know that "I" and all the rest of you "I"s out there manifest consciousness. And I think all components of the universe do. So there is great consciousness acting in our world. And most of it is completely un-knowable to us. And "I don't know" the extent of it all butI think it's folly to deny that consciousness and intent is at play in all things.

[Aaron]

Just to clarify, I don't mean necessarily to imply the presence of any "higher consciousness." We each manifest consciousness. Every living thing manifests consciousness (we just don't understand it because we can't think their thoughts or feel their feelings). We feel utterly alien to each other for this reason so imagine how alien the consciousness of a tree or river(?) is. So I don't mean to imply there is a particular greater consciousness that has a specific plan or intent (ala New or Old Testament or Q'ran). I don't know what is going on but I do know that "I" and all the rest of you "I"s out there manifest consciousness. And I think all components of the universe do. So there is great consciousness acting in our world. And most of it is completely un-knowable to us. And "I don't know" the extent of it all butI think it's folly to deny that consciousness and intent is at play in all things.

 

Hello Steve,

 

I think it was a comment you made about the sun that caused me to lean in this direction. I normally don't follow the whole, "higher intelligence" thing either, but the idea of evolution popped in my mind because of another thread and I started to wonder, what if there was more to it.

 

Aaron

Edited May 29, 2011 by Twinner

[steve]

Hello Steve,

 

I think it was a comment you made about the sun that caused me to lean in this direction. I normally don't follow the whole, "higher intelligence" thing either, but the idea of evolution popped in my mind because of another thread and I started to wonder, what if there was more to it.

 

Aaron

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I manifest consciousness, as do all other people (more or less...) and animals. For some reason most of us can't fathom the possibility that there may be some manifestation of consciousness in other entities such as the sun, moon, earth, plants, a mountain, a river, etc... I'm not saying there is but why not? Just so alien that you and I can't really relate. These very same people often have no problem postulating some imaginary immortals, gods, space aliens, spirits, ghosts, and so on. At the same time, I'm quick to point out that any "intention" we project to "inanimate" objects (as we assume them to be) may well be just that - our own projections. I don't know, but I'm open to possibilities. Some of this comes from intimate conversations with a close friend and healer who is a shaman. And I'll freely acknowledge that despite using lots of words, I don't always do a very good job of communicating!

[ChiDragon]

1. Heaven and Earth are not humane;

2. They regard the thousand things as straw dogs.

3. The Sage is not humane;

4. He regards the common people as straw dogs.

 

To me this is clearly stating that there is no intent.

 

1. Heaven and Earth has no mercy;

2. They regard all things as straw dogs.

3. The Sage has no mercy;

4. He regards the common people as straw dogs.

 

 

I believe that the intent here was being impartial. Heaven and Earth are being impartial to all things. When Nature strikes, it will destroy anything in its path. The sage(referred as a wise ruler) is impartial to his people so justice can be done.