dave_a_mbs
Super Member
   
Offline

Afterlife Knowledge Member
Posts: 1655
central california
Gender:
|
Hi Matthew- I'm afraid I wandered a bit in trying to make my point, but I get the idea that we're coming closer together in concept. Apologies for being tedious. I'm trying to develop a composite of many accounts of origination, plus my own experiences, from which to return to your basic question.
We can ask the same basic question about intention and results from either side, the material side or the spiritual side. The material side tends to get us stuck in the problem of creating spiritual values out of matter. The spiritual side leaves us with the problem of creating material experiences from a spiritual perspective. While the former cannot be solved, because of the nature of matter, the latter has a relatively clear path to a solution, because any path to the experience is adequate.
This is where the definition of intent enters. I suggest that there is a single point of origination, physical cosmologists call it a primal singularity, psychic cosmologists call it the immanence of God, Edgar Cayce called it the "Force", Plato called it the Good, for me it's a statistical tendency toward additivity in Riemannian space (a math analogy for St Thomas Aquinas' term, "Uncaused Cause"), and for you it's your personal take on the idea.
Intention, if it occurs, is present in this point, and extended thereafter. The scenario then unfolds that the present instant is this primal point, somehow developed, so that in material terms, we are, at this very instant, still experiencing the Big Bang - and we are its ripples. Or in spiritual terms, we are the emergent spectrum of ways in which the primal existential point manifests itself. This is something that we can examine more or less directly.
From the initial point there is a projection. In fact there are lots of projections. These directly express intention. The existential transition is from an initial "I AM", to a secondary, "I AM in this manner". Each such projection can be conceptualized as an orthonormal basis in n-space, of which its self-definition is "I am not the same as any of those other projections", and to all the others its nature is "That isn't me". This Hindu would say that each is an individual person, yet each is only a manifestation of the One True Self, the Mind of Brahman.
This gives a pretty good model of the neonatal mind as it is born into the company of its fellows. Each is a projection of God, hooked on at the Higher-Self end, and dangling out into a world of common experiences at the other end. The common experiences are then selected randomly, until the most probable experiential scenario is found, a logical space in which relationships can occur, and within which experiences can have common values. This logic is the projected physical world, together with its triangles, its logical consistencies, and in particular, with a tuning by selection of experiential (meaning "physical") constants that allow not only the three alpha process to make carbon, but also can produce fluorine and some other oddball compositions of the logical probabilities and contingencies that we call quantum states. This gives us a material-seeming world of material-seeming experiences. Again, the driving force is innate "intention".
Now, let's connect a specific outcome state to intention. This is a matter of choice of direction as we move through the space of potential experiences. There are three moments to the Platonic dialectic, thesis, antithesis and synthesis. "I would like to manifest that in my life," is thesis. So long as we are in that mode, we are at processual cause. This is also the initial experience of the afterlife according to the "Bardo Thodol", the "I AM in this manner".
The next moment of dialectic is reactive, the Bardo traveller faces the potentially malificent response of the world to prior actions. Or, in a sense, the universe looks around and says, "Well, there you are, and that's how you are." That's the delay interval you experience. So long as you involve with responding, you readjust reality, to some degree restabilizing matters so that they can occur according to the direction you chose.
The third moment of the dialectic is presentation of the result. The Bardo traveller faces both potentially beneficent and malificent responses of others. Your experience is that you made up your mind to include some experience, "I AM in this manner", and then you lived through various events involved in the transition, and finally arrived at the location in logical space where the intended event occurs.
The point I feel important in this, after all the lengthy stuff, is that intention is innate, not elective, and that we are always at cause in life. The reason that this is not evident is that we simply don't stay on task. Like the man who wanted to cross a small vallet and got sidetracked into swimming, eating and playing until night fell and he was lost in a wilderness, we get sidetracked, and fail to realize that we are the manifestation of the total creative impulse.
While this rendition is imperfect, notice that it explains how placebos can work, how prayer can actually change reality and cure, and how you can, by simple choice of direction and consistency in self-direction, bring to manifest those events you have been experimenting with in your own life.
There is a purpose to all this rhetoric, other than making a lot of noise. I'm interested in harnessing "intention", whether by prayer, love, projection etc, to see about making some changes in the world. The target I'd propose is that world leaders will progressively realize that a win-win strategy is superior to a win-lose competitive one. Thoughts?
dave
You set your mind on
|