Will and Intent, II

Attempting a systematic approach to the matters of will and intent is proving to be tricky,  providing ample opportunity for misconstrual and confusion. “Fools go where angels fear to tread” might apply especially in my case here. But I think it may be worth the risk of failing miserably. There is no real dividing line or boundary between intent and will, just as there is no real division or boundary between Self and Ego. And yet there is. It’s a paradox.

What I will attempt, though, is a kind of map of the terrain — a suggestive series of hints and clues by which one might “feel” one’s way into discerning between the issues of intent and will or volition.

If you had an opportunity to read a ways into Ronald McIntyre and David Woodruff Smith’s essay on the “Theory of Intentionality“, as recommended in the last post, it may become somewhat clearer that what Edmund Husserl and the phenomenologists mean by “intent” or the “intentionality” of consciousness does not bear directly or immediately on what we usually call “will” or “volition,” which, at best perhaps, we might consider the most remote expression or performance of pure intent within the space-time or physical system. To speak in a metaphor (and perhaps not a very adequate one), what we call “will” or volition is somewhat akin to the resistance offered in terms of drag or friction to an extraterrestrial object as it penetrates the Earth’s atmosphere, slowing it down to a different time scale and velocity. Such might be one way of describing the relation of will to intent. Intent is the intensive constitutive activity of consciousness, which has been called in other places “the formative force” or “creative forces.” In that sense, intent is instructive and informative, in the true sense of those terms — of imparting structure or form. And in this way, intent is this same formative force that is involved when you read statements like “you create the reality you know”, even despite what you will.

One of the best sources of information on “intent” is, of course, the writings of Carlos Castaneda, and there is an anecdote mentioned by Castaneda in an early interview that he once discussed with his teacher, don Juan, from the work of the philosopher Edmund Husserl on the intentionality of consciousness and in which don Juan enthusiastically approved of Husserl’s explanation. By way of further elucidation on the operation of intent, don Juan resorted to an example which may be helpful. He mentioned that The White House would be simply another building and not the seat of political power without the operation of intent. It is intent that invests the building with power so that it becomes “The White House”. In that sense, intent is the constituting act, the making or shaping power that bestows form, purpose, meaning on an otherwise ordinary building. In a similar vein, the psychologist Carl Jung once remarked that one can indeed analyse to smithereens the mineral constituents that make up the stone that went into the construction of a building. But by such analytical methods, no one could arrive at the meaning or purpose of the building itself, which is the manifestation of intent. This is clearly something different from, although related to, what we typically mean by “will”.

In the Author’s Commentaries to the 30th anniversary edition of Castaneda’s first book The Teachings of Don Juan, this is how the author described the significance of “intent” as shaman-sorcerers understood it,

“They saw that the entire universe was a universe of intent, and intent, for them, was the equivalent of intelligence. The universe, therefore, was, for them, a universe of supreme intelligence. Their conclusion, which became part of their cognitive world, was that vibratory energy, aware of itself, was intelligent in the extreme. They saw that the mass of intent in the cosmos was responsible for all the possible mutations, all the possible variations which happened in the universe, not because of arbitrary blind circumstances, but because of the intending done by the vibratory energy, at the level of the flux of energy itself.”

It may occur to you as you read the above quote, that what is here called “intent” has been otherwise described as the “will of God” in other places and circumstances; and that what is called “will of God” is there given as something distinct from human volition or willfulness.”The ways of man are not the ways of God,” it is said, and the basis of what is called “sin” is the dissonance and lack of synchronisation or cooperation that emerges between this universal intent and the human will and volition. “Not my will be done, but thy will be done” has been the programme of all human history — an attempt to consciously align the human will with that universal intent, even when it came to be called in the Enlightenment, “Universal Reason”. For when Rene Descartes discovered his “wondrous strange method,” and Isaac Newton built his new “Frame of the World” upon the principles of motion and gravitation, European society as a whole re-ordered itself to ensure it was in harmony with the Cosmic Will or intent. Today, evolution is the new paradigm supposedly reflecting the same universal intent, and human societies are once again busily adjusting themselves to harmonise with this “intent” as they conceive of it. And for some it has even become something of a new religion and a religious imperative — Social Darwinism, for example, is a kind of successor ideology to Social Newtonianism.

Consequently, it is possible for what we call “will” or volition to act contrary (or perversely) to the workings of intent, and that this conflict sets up an inner division of the psyche that has come to be expressed in shorthand form as a conflict between Self and Ego, or Soul and Ego since, for the most part, the workings of intent are largely unconscious, but are experienced as “fate”. And here is where Joseph Campbell’s notion that the personal life of every human being is guided by a ruling myth (or ruling “idea”) becomes intelligible as the ruling intent which shapes the historical circumstances of their personal and collective lives, which structures the largely invisible context or invisible environment in which their perception and experience of objects and events takes on meaning. For Campbell, to become conscious of one’s ruling myth is a great spiritual accomplishment, for it is this largely unconscious ruling myth that provides the psychic pattern, model or paradigm for the construction of personal and collective experience. In that sense, “you create the reality you know”.

It is in this regard that we might recall Harold Waldwin Percival’s observation in his book Thinking and Destiny that consciousness functions in two modalities: consciousness as, and consciousness of, and this is very similar to the theory of intentionality as found in the philosophy of Edmund Husserl. Consciousness as can be described as the intentional mode of conscious functioning, and this is largely unconscious. For otherwise, it would be consciousness functioning in the second modality, consciousness of its own functioning. This mode — consciousness of — can be correspondingly described as the attentional mode of consciousness functioning, or what Buddhists call the “mindful” modality. The two modalities of consciousness as and consciousness of, or the intentional and the attentional, function together in the sense of hidden context and overt text, or latent circumstance and manifest event, or invisible environment and visible object. Or, equally, in Seth’s terms, they function much like the relationship that exists between what he calls Framework 2 of the “inner ego” and Framework 1 of the “outer ego”. And these may be said to relate to each other as intent , in this special sense, relates to will or volition.

The integral consciousness can be said, then, to be one in which the ruling intent of one’s life and the personal will are in harmonious alignment, and not in contradiction. What has hitherto been called “sin” is the condition in which the personal will acts in contradiction with the ruling intent, in which case you have that situation which Gebser described as “the inner division of modern man who thinks only in dualisms”. That is to say, as a disunity and therefore, in a disintegrate condition.

Advertisements

20 responses to “Will and Intent, II”

  1. Scott Preston says :

    I had “intended”, so to speak, to mention something about Nietzsche in this post, but forgot to do that, so I will append it as a comment.

    One of the things that is admirable about Nietzsche (and some things in Nietzsche are not so admirable) is his decision to act as if he had chosen his difficult life and everything that happened to him as if he had willed it so. He did so, perhaps, to avoid succumbing to the temptation of ignoble self-pity, but if you accept Seth’s constantly repeated dictum that “you create the reality you know”, then Nietzsche’s decision to accept his life as a great challenge, and as something he chose and willed to experience and undergo, is quite realistic, and not merely a philosophical artifice.

    That, like Castaneda’s don Juan, is an expression of Nietzsche’s “warrior spirit” — not to evaluate life in terms of blessing or curse, but to take everything as a challenge, both his good fortune and his bad fortune, as if he had willed these freely. He took ownership of his own life and full responsibility for the events of his life. In that way, Nietzsche strove to align his will with what we have been calling his life’s “ruling intent”.

    • Scott Preston says :

      Again, by the way and while on the topic of Nietzsche, I might add a couple of observations of passing interest, perhaps.

      I do think Nietzsche’s “eternal recurrence of same” is a philosophical artifice and I can see why Nietzsche might have been attracted to this very ancient notion (for it is the meaning of the ouroboros). If you aren’t familiar with Nietzsche’s eternal recurrence, his view was that since time was endless, while space is finite, things must recur forever and again in the exact same way, without deviation, so that even every atom in the body of the man called “Friedrich Nietzsche” would eventually recombine in another future Nietzsche, and moreover, he would live his life in exactly the same way — forever.

      Now, I can see why he did that, even though it is rooted in an error about the meaning of “eternity”. Having resolved to accept ownership of his life and responsibility for all of it, and for everything that he did or was done to him too, he pushed the envelope. “I must live this same life, exactly the same way, over and over again forever”. Given his life, it must have been a terrifying and even burdensome thought, but one that would strengthen his spirit, for as he put it “what does not kill me makes me stronger”, and that notion of the eternal recurrence — an endless, inescapable fatalism — was perhaps his way towards self-overcoming and especially his tendency towards self-pity which he disliked in himself. The error is, of course, that “eternity” does not mean forever and ever — endless time. It means timelessness. It means, as Jean Gebser put it, “the ever-present origin” — that from which everything arises into temporality and which, in time, returns into the timeless. And this is even the Aristotelian notion of the relation between potens and actus or potentiality and actuality (the realised or existent).

      Nietzsche’s eternal recurrence, although rooted in a distorted understanding of eternity (or so it seems to me) is also a challenge both to Christianity and Buddhism, for which a once-and-for-all-ness possibility exists to escape being bound forever like the Greek Ixion to the wheel of time and space — which is the promise and prospect of “emancipation” or “liberation”. Nietzsche’s eternal recurrence is not only a very pagan notion, but probably deliberately conceived by the self-styled “anti-Christ” (actually, “anti-Christian”) as a contradiction to Christianity. Ironically, the great theoretician of master and slave psychology and morality ended up making himself a slave to time by this notion. Another instance of “ironic reversal”.

      And that brings me to another issue with Nietzsche — his conception of the “will to power” as the fundamental operative principle in the cosmos and in life. It’s almost true — almost brilliantly true — but only if one understands by this “will to power” the operation and activity of universal intent, as discussed above, and not as “will” in the sense we commonly understand it. Nietzsche may, in fact, have understood this. But many of his most ardent admirers have probably perverted it into a kind of social darwinist or even racist doctrine of a war of all against all.

  2. tony says :

    Funny that. When I read your first comment this morning, it made me wonder to what point anyone would will a life which would include seriously considering the terror-inspiring notion of eternal recurrence, and then you wrote the second comment. I’ve always thought this is what in fact drove the man insane. How could it not? Surely it would be the natural reaction of anyone from a judeo-christian cultural background who suddenly questioned the truth of linear time and seriously considered the possibility of eternal recurrence, without, as you say, realising that the answer in fact lies ouside time.
    A very interesting post, I hope you continue on the theme of will and intent.

    • Scott Preston says :

      There’s a peculiar passage that opens Ecce Homo, in Nietzsche’s 44th year, in which Nietzsche recounts his philosophical accomplishments of the previous year. And it ends with the sentence, “How should I not be grateful to my whole life — And so I tell myself my life.”

      That last statement — “And so I tell myself my life” — is very peculiar, and given what we know of Nietzsche’s views on truth and lie, it leads one to think that some of his views belong to auto-suggestion or psycho-somatic auto-suggestion. Given his debilitating, chronic illness and even loneliness, Nietzsche needed a positive philosophy of assent to offset the real and morbid circumstances of his life. He knows and confesses that he is “a decadent”, but also asserts that he desires to be the opposite of that. One must, therefore, assume that some of his views were devices conceived as instruments to overcome his limits — exercises or auto-suggestive aids to self-overcoming.

  3. LittleBigMan says :

    The “Theory of Intentionality” is beating my brains out, and I’m just thru with only 8 pages of it. In the meantime, what a tremendous essay!

    Two things did more to clarify the issue of “relation of will to intent” for me than anything. One, as usual, was your outstanding analysis and explanation of the issue; especially the phrase you used often: “universal intent”. Second, it was the metaphor of a building used by Carl Jung.

    It seems to me that ‘intent’ is the overall ‘push’ or ‘direction’ or ‘purpose’ of things within their universal context. In other words, I am understanding that “universal intent” does not attempt or is not present to micromanage the things that go on in the universe. But nothing that objectifies at the scale of ‘will’ has the power to change or go against the “universal intent.” Another metaphor that I constructed in my mind to help me understand the “relation of will to intent” better was to liken the “universal intent” to the fate of a pair of ships and their crew that are heading toward the same direction. At any given moment, there is little to no one-to-one correspondence (i.e. will) between the actions and positions of the crew on both ships within space-time. As far as ‘intent’ is concerned, the only things that matter, it seems to me, are that the crew on both ships are active and on duty and that the ships are heading toward their common destination. Now, the ‘intent’ or the “universal intent” for both ships is the same: to go from port A to port B, and perhaps even for the crew to experience the journey overseas.

    The metaphor of The White House was also helpful to my understanding. ‘Intent’ seems to be purely impesonal, but ‘will’ seems to be a hybrid of both the personal and the impesonal.

    I still haven’t finished Robert Monroe’s fascinating book “Journeys Out of the Body”. But he speaks of a world he calls “Locale II” which, perhaps, may be considered as the birthpalce of the universal intent. I will give some excerpts below as description of Locale II and some of its contents.

    On page 73, he begins chapter 5 entitled “Infinity, Eternity” with this sentence: “The best introduction to Locale II is to suggest a room with a sign over the door saying, “Please Check All Physical Concepts Here.””

    On page 73, he continues: “Locale II is a non-material environment with laws of motion and matter only remotely related to the physical world. It is an immensity whose bounds are unknown (to this experimenter), and has depth and dimension incomprehensible to the finite, conscious mind. In this vastness lie all of the aspects we attribute to heaven and hell”.

    On page 74 he states: “the fundamentals are altered in Locale II. Time, by the standards of the physical world, is non-existent. There is a sequence of events, a past and a future, but no cyclical separation.”

    On page 74 he states: “Mere thought is the force that supplies any need or desire, and what you think is the matrix of your action, situation, and position in this greater reality.”

    On page 75 he states: “Locale II is the natural environment of the Second Body. The principles involved in its action, composition, perception, and control all correspond to those in Locale II”.

    On page 77 he writes: “In Locale II, reality is composed of deepest desires and most frantic fears. Thought is action, and no hiding layers of consitioning or inhibition shield the inner you from others, where honesty is the best policy because there can be nothing less”.

    I interpreted “deepest desires” as ‘personal intent’. I’m not sure if I’m right in making this connection. I believe there is also a connection between the next excerpt and the phenomenon of ‘intent’.

    “In these worlds where thoughts are not only things, but are everything, including you, your posion or perfection is of your own making. If you are a remorseless killer, you may end up in that part of Locale II where all are of the same design. This truly would be hell for such people, for there would be no innocent, defenseless victims.

    “Your destination in the heaven or hell of Locale II seems to be grounded completely within the framework of your — deepest constant — (and perhaps non-conscious) motivations, emotions, and personality drives. The most consistent and strongest of these act as your “homing” device when you enter this realm.

    “The least stray desire at the wrong tim, or deep-seated emotion I wasn’t aware of, diverts my trip in that “like” direction” (p. 121).

    I thought the contents of this last set of excerpt from page 121 provide strong support for the value of some elements of the teachings of Zoroaster (good thoughts, good deeds, good speech) and those within all Abrahamic religions that encourage penance.

    On page

    • Scott Preston says :

      But nothing that objectifies at the scale of ‘will’ has the power to change or go against the “universal intent.”

      That’s correct. Recall how Goethe has Mephistopheles, for example, describes himself to Faust: “part of that power that would ever evil do, but always does the good”. In this case, the personal will is to do evil, but that will is overruled. Obversely, the will to do good is often overruled as well. As Pascal once put it, too, “Those who would play the angel, play the beast” or, likewise Nietzsche: “When one goes to fight monsters, one had best take care not to become the monster oneself.” In fact, I have here a book recently purchased that deals with that sort of thing called “Between the Monster and the Saint”, and this “Between” is what Buddhism calls “the Middle Way”, and is probably what North American native people call “the Good Red Road”.

      Of course, you recognise Locale II — that’s pretty much Seth’s Framework 2.

      • LittleBigMan says :

        Well, Goethe’s Faust, I gather from your posts, is another gem I have yet to read 🙂

        Thank you for the citation “Between the Monster and the Saint.”

        Yes, yes, absolutely, I was excited to see that Monroe’s description of Locale II jibes with Seth’s Framework 2. Monroe is correct by saying that “fear” is the greatest barrier in entering Locale II. At least that’s true about me.

        • Scott Preston says :

          “Fear” being the greatest barrier to entering Locale II, you can understand then why fear is the first enemy of the man of knowledge in don Juan’s terms, the barrier to entering what was called “the magical universe”.

  4. Scott Preston says :

    (Reposted from a private email from srosesmith, particularly pertinent to the discussion of intent and will)

    My introduction to Jean Gebser was in reading Lama Govinda’s CREATIVE MEDITATION AND MULTI-DIMENSIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS about 30 years ago. Here is the passage of Der unsichtbare Ursprung (rendered in the footnote as THE INVISIBLE ORIGIN — followed by the information that it “unfortunately has not been published in English translation”) :

    “To speak of a renunciation of free will is not only unnecessary but wrong. We do not live without the freedom of decision, because our whole life consists primarily in our remaining faithful to the decisions which we have once made in the invisible and in full freedom. What is felt as renunciation represents itself merely as a transposition from the visible into the invisible. As a decision arrived at in the past it became valid for our present life; and that constellation in which this happened is at the same time our innermost core which rests in our deepest being and is thus our constant companion.”

    And here is Rumi : “So that we can have what we want/You give failure and frustration.”

    • LittleBigMan says :

      The similarity between the meaning conveyed in these two excerpts is remarkable:

      “As a decision arrived at in the past it became valid for our present life; and that constellation in which this happened is at the same time our innermost core which rests in our deepest being and is thus our constant companion.” (Lama Govinda)

      “Your destination in the heaven or hell of Locale II seems to be grounded completely within the framework of your — deepest constant — (and perhaps non-conscious) motivations, emotions, and personality drives.” (Robert Monroe)

      I have added Lama Govinda’s work to my list. Thank you. The quote from Rumi is profound. It seems interesting and revealing that both Lama Govinda and Rumi place the source of intent in the core of our being.

      Lama Govinda: “the decisions which we have once made in the invisible”

      Rumi: ” So that we can have what we want”

  5. LittleBigMan says :

    That’s quite true. “Fear”, according to don Juan, is the first enemy of the man of knowledge, and then “Clarity”, “Power”, and “Old Age.” I did remember don Juan’s statement shortly after I posted my comment about Monroe. I found muuch of Monroe’s comments/experiences quite reminiscent of either Seth or the teachings of don Juan. Monroe also suggests the point of “single thought” or “no thought” as necessary for disassociating the Second Body from the physical body. don Juan warned Castaneda about dangers of visiting other worlds, and this certainly comes through in Monroe’s accounts of his Out of Body Journey’s, as well. At one point, Monroe mentions a group of “fish” that inhabit a layer between the physical world and the vast infinity of Locale II. These “fish” would come and pull and bite on his Second Body, and gradually he learned that the only way to pass through the “fish” was not to panic and stay calm and composed and show very little to no fidgety movement. He had other brutal fights with creatures of Locale II that he talked about. In one case, he was losing the fight, and he struggled until he reached over his physical body, and then when chance presented itself, he dove in to his physical where he knew he was safe from all the creatures of Locale II. Very fascinating stuff.

  6. LittleBigMan says :

    I’m finding “Theory of Intentionality” quite rich. I definitely need to read it a few more times after I’m done reading it once, but I can see now why don Juan would be excited to hear about Husserl’s work from Castaneda.

    “How are our mental states and experiences related to our bodies — to or sensory organs and to the neurophysiological processes in our brain?”

    This question is extremely interesting to me. In fact, ever since a new dawn began for me by reading Seth Speaks and his maxim of “You create the reality you know”, I have been most interested in reverse engineering life experiences in order to explore the intentions of my consciousness.

    “Accordingly, Husserl says, “an object — ‘whether it is actual or not’ — is ‘constituted'” in any experience with the appropriate intentional or noematic structure (Ideas, & 135)”.

    This reminded me of the meeting don Juan arranged between Castaneda and the ageless Nagual. The Nagual would reveal a secret to anyone possessing Nagual energy in exchange for some of the Nagual’s energy. This way the Nagual had been able to live for, apparently, an unknown thousands of years. I remember after Castaneda and the ageless man met in a church, where other people were also present and seemed to bepraying, Castaneda gave some of his energy to the ageless man and then they departed. After returning to don Juan, he told Castaneda that the church and even the other people in it had not been real at all, but they were only a construct of the ageless Nagual’s ‘intent.’ Of course, Castaneda could not believe this because he had touched the walls and seen the details in the architecture of the church and could not believe that all that existed only in the man’s ‘intent’ without material substance.

    “But the sensory content in the perception is not what prescribes the object that the perception is ‘of’ or ‘about’. The Sinn given by the act’s noesis prescribes the object.”

    This is fascinating, because it seems to me that the remark basically says that ‘intent’ creates ‘intent’. Because if a nail that I perceive and sense has “noesis”, then ‘intent’ exists within the nail and if the nail has intent it also has consciousness; which is to say the same thing that Seth said.

    “Thus, the subject of a perception has a sense of the object as something distinct from and independent of the act, having a certain nature in itself — as something that “transcends” that particular act of perception and what its sensory content supports.”

    Beautiful. Somewhere in that excerpt there exists Husserl’s insight into the work of programmers of the future who would use object-oriented programming to run machines 🙂

    A little bit of sleep and back to the article for me again…but I’m afraid one day, when I’m 165 :), I might have to read Husserl’s “Ideas”.

    • Scott Preston says :

      This question is extremely interesting to me. In fact, ever since a new dawn began for me by reading Seth Speaks and his maxim of “You create the reality you know”, I have been most interested in reverse engineering life experiences in order to explore the intentions of my consciousness.

      The “intentions of your consciousness” is, of course, what some call your purpose or “task” in this life, or the tapestry — the warp and woof — of a life. This “intent” is what shapes the course of your life, even if one is not fully aware of this, and accounts certain events as “accidents” or coincidence or what not. In pagan times, this was represented in the form of the Three Fates — Clotho, Lachesis, Atropos, collectively called the Moirai (the Norns in German or the Parcae in Latin. Again, we encounter the number of magic which is threefold).

      Generally, such accidents, events, coincidences belong to your personal “Grand Narrative”, as it were, which could, of course, be shared with others. As a Buddhist master once put it, “chance is ignorance”.

      This is fascinating, because it seems to me that the remark basically says that ‘intent’ creates ‘intent’. Because if a nail that I perceive and sense has “noesis”, then ‘intent’ exists within the nail and if the nail has intent it also has consciousness; which is to say the same thing that Seth said.

      In a way, yes. A good example is represented in how some “processual” languages lack what we call “nouns” — ie representations of a person, place, or thing, as the old school definition goes. However, take a noun like “tree”. In some languages, you don’t say “tree”, you say “tree-ing”. This comes close to your “nail” analogy — the meaning of the action of intent or the act of intending. The “tree” is not a thing, in our terms, but an eventing or a kind of acting out — a kind of self-realising. Intent is the propellant, as it were.

      • Scott Preston says :

        In pagan times, this was represented in the form of the Three Fates — Clotho, Lachesis, Atropos, collectively called the Moirai (the Norns in German or the Parcae in Latin. Again, we encounter the number of magic which is threefold).

        By the way… it’s an interesting question to ponder over whether Freud’s tripartite structure of the psyche in terms of Id, Ego, and Superego isn’t, in effect, a mental-rational re-valuation or translation into rationalistic terms of the mythical Moirai.

        • LittleBigMan says :

          “This “intent” is what shapes the course of your life.”

          Precisely. Which is why despite all the ‘will’ that someone might spend in one direction, his/her life may end up in some other place. I once took my car into a shop for a change of all of its tires. It may have been back in 2003 or 2004. The young man who put my request into a computer from behind the counter looked pretty tired in his overalls. He had grease all over his overalls and hands and even some on his face. Suddenly, he looked at me from behind the counter and out of the blue said “I’ve got a bachelor’s degree in science and look what I’m doing.”

          “In some languages, you don’t say “tree”, you say “treeing””.

          It seems to me that explains ‘intentionality’ in a nutshell. And that’s an illuminating example of how the use or structure of a language can be used as a windown into our perception or level of awareness.

          “The “tree” is not a thing, in our terms, but an eventing or a kind of acting out”.

          Exactly. I can appreciate the meaning in that statement after now finishing about 20 pages of “Theory of Intentionality”. This also casts light on something don Juan said to Castaneda, which I didn’t quite understand until now. I will try to paraphrase what he said.

          He said “A tree means something different to you than to a crow”.

          I have always enjoyed watching animals and creatures carefully. But with that statement, I began watching crows even more carefully in order to make sense out of what don Juan said to Castaneda. I noticed that crows use a tree for nesting/shelter, shade, landing/resting tower, perhaps a food source, etc. These are, more or less, what humans also use trees for, depending on the civilization and the situation. So, I wondered, what did don Juan mean by saying that a tree means is different to a crow than to Castaneda?

          It seems to me the answer is in the way we (e.g. Castaneda) ‘intend’ a tree (or act out a tree) than the way a crow ‘intends’ or acts out a tree.

          Another understanding that I gather from my first read of “Theory of Intentionality” is that consciousness can only ‘intend’ consciousness. Which is why even ‘death’ is conscious and has consciousness as an ‘intending’ phenomenon.

          By the way, I am certain Robert Monroe ‘intended’ his physical body differently than someone who has never had OOBE.

  7. amothman33 says :

    Ibn Arabi makes distinguish between four types of existence, the mental immaterial existence, the physical material existence, the linguistic existence ,in its sound mode existence and written mode existence.Language is the connecter.Universal intent can not be separated from the human intent.In the the universe the will and the intent are identical, in the human realm they are separated and that is why he is warrior, the war of subjecting the will to the intent.Husserl took the notion of intent from his teacher Brentano and Brentano picked the term from its use in the medieval philosophy and Mohammad took the idea from the source, he said intent is the basic qualfier of any act and any act is colored by the intent of its actor.Intent is not a human mental construct but a divine construct built in everything in the universe.The acron is intended to be an oak tree, the cattepillar a butterfly and a corn never turn into orange.the fallacy of the supremcy of the human mind and the perversion of the separation of the creator from his creation.By the way i googled the difference between intent and will and google gave me more than thirty million post talking about the difference among them your post.My question how can i save myself from drowning in this ocean of words, that is why a system of knowledge dawning is a must when you take all the horizon of information into consideration, that is why i feel certain an honest quest opens the door of the personal soul to its source. after all we are the breath of the source.

    • Scott Preston says :

      That’s a very good description of intent.

      “Language is the connector” between the four types of existence recalls Rosenstock-Huessy’s fourfold model of grammar — his “grammatical method”, which I wrote of earlier. It also recalls Blake’s four Zoas, although the four Zoas are, in their disintegrate state, the same as the four nafs or animal spirits. “Zoa” means animal or beast, as it is connected to the English word “Zoo”. Albion in Blake, who is integral man, is the archetype of the “King” who awakens from his sleep in this fragmented or disintegrate state of the warring Zoas.

      Yes. Have to look into ibn Arabi. Can you recommend a good book (English version) by Ibn Arabi? I’ve read his Sufis of Andalusia, but don’t know which work would be a good introduction to his teaching.

  8. amothman33 says :

    I think the articles published by the muhyiddin ibn arabi society established by oxford university more than three decades ago is a good place to start, thank you.

  9. amothman33 says :

    forgot to mention the four of Ibn Arabi recalls the four of Hessrel , the ideal, the real ,the noesis and the noemata

  10. LittleBigMan says :

    Husserl might as well have called his theory, the “Never Ending Russian Doll Theory of Intentionality” 🙂 The mystery deepens with the “Horizon of Experience”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

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

%d bloggers like this: