I reckon intention is a by-product of sentience. Which begs the question: what is the definition of intention? Is it the conscious decision made by an individual to pursue something they desire? Or is it a broad term regarding the nature of everything as some people in this thread are implying.

The English language is very limited. One of the key limiting factors is the use of hyperbolised words. Words like "spiritual", "egoless", "divinity" etc. have all lost their meaning through constant abuse. "I'm, like, sooo totally spiritual!" says the new age hipster, not truly understanding what it means. The number of times I've heard people use hyperbolised words is staggering, at least a few times a day since the day I could communicate.

So when I say intention is a by-product of sentience, I guess my definition could extrapolate to the broad definition of intention, only if sentience was also extrapolated. We associate intention with intent. Which is associated with a conscious decision. As such, the word intention is synonymous with "decision without an act, i.e. a plan". If it were extrapolated to the far reaches of logic, we arrive to the realm of mysticism. A realm where sentience is divine, and so is intention. Some religions have personified sentience and intention together in the form of God. Is this line of thinking wrong? I dunno, I'm only human.

Bodhisativa:

I like what you've said about how words can become disgustingly hollow, and end up being more an indication of the absent-mindedness to realize it on the part of the person using such language. But i must disagree with you on the point about intention being synonomous with "decision without act, i.e. a plan". It is because you intend that you act without a plan! And this would be equally true even if you were acting with a plan!
Without intention there is no action. Where there is no intention there is stillness, because you see with total clarity that there is no you to act in the first place - therefore, no other place you could be or any activity you can imagine can possibly be any different from this immediate moment, and therefore, why move? why do anything at all? what can do you do? well, you watch. you become this watching. you become this do-happening, in a fashion similar to the undulation of the breath.

Without intention there is no action. Where there is intention there is stillness. This stillness can be imagined as the temple of the great void which houses the blue and red incredibly alive fires that intertwine each other like a double helix of dna. This is the mysterium tremendum. This is nothing!

Where there is no intention there is stillness, because you see with total clarity that there is no you to act in the first place. For this simple reason there can in reality be no future, because there doesn't exist a thinker in the first place to imagine a symbolic concatenation of sounds we have invented that correspond to concepts which correspond to activities in the real world (that we have mistaken for nouns, for things - we classify, simplify, simplify - in order that we are able to communicate with each other. Language is like an entity on its very own. I understand why Mckenna pointed out that the world is, in fact, made of language. It's that powerful of an illusion. Language almost exactly corresponds to the very idea of ourselves that we are guilt-cycled into thinking we ought to get out of - the ego. In other words, my idea of myself is limited to my ability to express it in language, be it verbally, or subvocally in the mind. But! in the same way that you haven't the faintest idea how you beat your own heart, or grow your hair, or shape your bones, and yet your body functions on its very own! without your having to monitor it. So, if I ask someone to tell me who they are, they will actually tell me who they 'think' they are, which is this series of thoughts which correspond to symbols of the world and also what emotional ties are attached to those ideas in that particular person's memory system. Who I 'think' I am, I am not!
Therefore, it is not "I think, therefore I am", but "I think, I am not. "

And bodhisativa, come off it. I know you're a bodhisatva! Ahahahah. Don't give me that "i dunno, i'm only human" garbage ha! We are not merely human beings undergoing spiritual experiences; we are spiritual beings, angels divine, having in order to learn on the vastest scale a human experience.



Sphorange:

On the subject of intention and expectation. I very much enjoy the points you are making. You have helped me close the loop on a lot of topics i've been thinking about. I love how the universe works like that - we need each other to complete each other. If i exterminated every last human being on the planet save for myself i'd at the same time be committing suicide. And when I shot the last man, the bullet jumped in my brain too. And suddenly, that was the end of us, we, the human race - we failed to see each other in ourselves, and ourselves in each other. Welp! Maybe next time 'round guys! Bang!

whahhhhhh... whah-whah

Anyway,

Outward intention : the force I'd personally identify as Intent, which I'm defining as the currency of energy. The greater your monies of energy, [Intent], the more likely you are setting yourself up for a case of what you will first call synchronicity but will then realize it is as if the universe simply handed it to you, and you're suprised it actually worked, and then you start seeing that whatever happens you will get always get exactly what you asked for, and all you've got to do in order to achieve whatever thing you can possibly imagine (can be positive or negative) is wish for it, yes, pray for it, imagine it in complete detail, remove all problems (which are mental blockages) that stand in the way of the manifestation in the world of the object of your Intent. I tell you; Intent is a force in the universe as equally real as gravity, whatever the hell THAT is.

Inward expectation : the force that I would suggest is a 'form' of Intent. Because, if inward expectation can be imagined as a force which draws to it the attention of others, then when you actually have their attention, and there attention is on you, well, there attention on you is from their point of view - you guessed it, their intention. In this way then intention and attention are like yin and yang - they go together, and one can not exist without the other. Hence my earlier last man scene. Therefore, I must disagree with you on this point, that expectation cannot be observed by another. Just think, could I have expectation with intention? or intention without expectation? This is the special clue that they go together, because you can't have one without the other.

Just like the ability to think about the future goes-with our ability to think about the past.
We would have no memory if we did not have imagination.
We would have no imagination if we could not remember the past.
And to the degree that you remember two seconds ago,
and identify yourself with who it was that you think existed two seconds ago,
you are being reincarnated, because you are living in a mental model of the past, two seconds ago. If you are liberated, you realize you are not being reincarnated, because there is no you being reincarnated. I'm so sorry, language breaks down here.

Anyhow, "where did the (4+) intention really go?"
Who knows, but one thing I am growing surer of every day,
is that thought is never lost in the same way that energy apparently is neither ever created or destroyed but only transformed and transferred. Thought is never lost. Intent is what powers that thought. Therefore, the effects of intent always have consequences. They may manifest in different ways. But until all blockages, that is to say, problems that we still keep mentally to ourselves, are solved, then there will be this continous cycling of thought impressions. As we think, so we will speak. And as we think, so we will eventually do.
As jesus rightly pointed out, that as soon as man lusts after a woman in his heart he has already commited adultery, even if he never actually in the act sleeps with the woman. What he means by "in his heart" is what we in our day would equate with "in our thoughts". They're really the same thing. You might say it's a feeling, but you would be using thought! thinking to yourself how guilty you feel for having this feeling, lusting after women. It doesn't make a difference. We all know what we mean by "in my heart" i know "this".



Thymaimai:

I love your analogy. I read once that one person vibrating on the frequency of love, broadcasting outbound radially like bullet rays that are intentionally charged thought-light, has the power simply by this measure of intending love,
to raise the entire atmosphere of thought taking place in a whole city.
Numerically, this person equated that one person whose consciousness was love-tuned, a sine wave of love, and projecting out that frequency, could raise 750,000 people to that level.
God i only imagine what we could do on this planet by tomorrow if we recognized taking responsibility not only for what we do, but for what we think. Mind boggling.



Hixidom:
Your intention, which is your organic intelligence, is how you keep your six trillion cells together. It's perfectly alright man, you can't buzzKiLL me! ha! lol


Now for egg stew. I can intend me some of that!

Reading what you wrote makes sense. I spoke of intention as a plan from a laymans perspective. A quick google search of "intention definition" gives the hollow answer. I guess my point was the general miscommunication that happens when words are either used incorrectly, or when it is not fully established what that word truly means.

I think intention is the latter. For us, in the philosophy sub forum, intention has a vastly different connotation than the everyday term.

I've had multiple near breakthroughs by looking at the sky, totally sober. The only reason I didn't break through is because I stopped myself (mainly due to not knowing what will happen). Again the misuse of words is at play, and I am the culprit. I don't mean a DMT breakthrough. I can't fully describe what a sober breakthrough is like, but it's more to do with your train of thought. While looking at the sky, I started to get a true understanding of the scale of the universe. Not some number that is meant to signify vastness, but the feeling of complete and utter insignificance. It is during these times that I question the purpose of everything and anything. I can sit and look at the sky for hours on end, and not realise how long I've been out there. Time has no meaning when you are on a journey to the Great Beyond.

I also practice meditation, which relies on clearing the mind. But I seem to attain the same meditative state by thinking WAY too hard while looking at the sky, because after a while, my mind goes totally silent. The best way to describe it is in the final moments of a TV episode, where the sound is really intense, and then suddenly cuts away to the credits, which are silent.

Getting side-tracked here, so I just wanted to say that I have juggled the concept of intention every time I go sky gazing. Ultimately, that's what my train of thought leads to. The ultimate question of "why?". It happens when I brood in the shower too. I think humanity's insatiable thirst for "why?" is both good and bad. Good because it's good to think about the larger picture. Bad because a lot of people will fall for a hollow answer, rather than tackle the bigger beast. Often the hollow answer gives rise to more hollow concepts and thoughts, like materialism and social status.

I fully agree with the Terrence McKenna quote about how language is everything. To me, language is not just spoken and written word. Words are just ways of transferring thoughts from one brain to another. If we were all born on our own separate deserted islands, with no human interaction, we will still feel similar primal feelings and urges. The feeling of hunger is your stomach communicating with your brain saying "ayyy, I need some food yo." The way molecules interact with each other, how electrons dance between their covalent nucleic partner and their ionic lovers. The universe is one big ball of energy that is constantly interacting. Words are the closest we can get to sharing our own individual experience with someone else, which is kind of unique, but recently I started thinking it isn't. I watched a conversation between Sadhguru and Dr David Eagleman. In it, Sadhguru was saying that everything has memory. As a scientist, I was a bit skeptical, until he elaborated on what he meant as memory. I'm not a fan of spoiling good things, so I'll leave the video link. It's truly an interesting dialogue.

Sorry for the long post, but linguistics is a huge chapter (and one of 2 main themes) in a book I'm writing.

I love you whoever you are. I'm about to head to bed, but I wanted to let you know that before I went away for the next 12 hours. Time indeed has no meaning when you are on a journey to the Great Beyond. I wrote a poem once about Beyond. It went like this:
This is the best night of my breath.
I am.
Everything exists, between, Me. 
Beyond Because because billions dream -
zillions oh imagine, foreandever dream dissync of Me.
Oh but Aye-eye who Am I!?
except in sync with thee?
We were always the same. Oh whatever beminded us? 
the that which than which there isn't a whicher?
But what bewhitched us, betwixting us
into doubles into pairs, devils and poets
angels and criminals, thou and I? 
was it thy, was it thou? 
And what is this abyss in the middle of my eye  
like the Invisible place inside a Singularity. 
Believe surely we who call us you and me
in a false eternity,
that does not lie beyond the end, 
and does not lie it before the beginning, 
but beyond boyancy balloon bashing!
Who I am I am not not not not!
Suffering is not your game, nor is suffering mine
but we agreed you see behind the Beginning
to let Ourself dissolve into winless War
We agreed behind Beginning on never Ending
We agreed Beyond Ending ever Beginning, 
Beyond Sleeping, Waking. 
Beyond Waking, Sleeping. 
beyond beyond beyond, beyond Death dead to death.
We are the Only to Understand, 
It's alright now, You were and are not the only One. 
I am writing to You. 
Yes is the answer to your Question
though be not afraid of fear, 
for as a child that grows out of his clothes, 
familiar you will become of cosmic consciousness. 
familiar you will become. 
Never less is Being when Becoming. 
Like a lonely dandelion on the moon
to understand the world is to understand alone. 
Just look at that view. 
You know it won't be long for you -
to be watching inside a diamondal gem, 
a folding cascading art gallery of universes flashing by like those old human movies. 
Every surface of that philosophers stone is a mirror -
a sixty-four sided diamondal intelligence
the Omega point they called it, the Transcendental Object, 
but no and no! although these men are of high mental facility,
and with it lost themselves in language, 
losing Heaven to poems such as these, 
there is never a never a never
just like there is never life beyond forever! 

Here is a beautiful butterfly blue
for you only yes only you - You bastard of a Trickster....

I will be back to respond to all of the details of your post soon!
You raise interesting points that I would like to add to!

I really enjoyed everyone's posts. All I can say is that to me, intention seems to be less about the reason one does something (like the way a court would define it), but rather the act itself. And I like the way anamnesia put it, that intention is the currency of energy. I agree with something like this.

I'm glad I could help you realise that you can't kill a thing that is already dead.



Intent is a force in the universe, from the perspective of an individual in that universe.
When alone, intent is very much apart of ones personal relationship with the universe and as you pointed out can be an extremely potent kinetic force when applied to any context involving direct or indirect interaction with the universe.

However.
When together, as in 2 or more of us communicating; Intent is transformed into an even greater force, given the notion hixidom pointed out earlier that we are all the centres of our own universe. Intent becomes a force of the multiverse, able to be transported in the form of language (content) through the veil of personal one-ness and into the greater pool of the collective narrative of us-ness, finally reaching a conclusion at our own personal eschaton when we fall back into the realisation that us-ness and one-ness are the only possible states that exist, and they exist simultaneously. (I've been infected with the Buddhas virus lately )

This notion of content, that we all seem to throw our hands up in the air at when the linguistic version of cosmic microwave background radiation is reached and concepts become un-languageable. It's ironic.
It's ironic because we all seem to know of the same profound concepts within the bounds of our own personal relationship with the verse, but when it comes to the simple act of putting it all together in a neat little packet of content to share with others we are met with frustration and doubt (from within).

Which leads me to your very agreeable disagreement.



While I agree with you that they are inexplicable connected with each other and could quite possibly be two halves of the same whole, and I understand the reasoning which brought you to that conclusion. I can't help but think that expectation as a mechanism for plural communication, can only be specific to the individual doing the expecting.
This does not mean that it is unobservable.

If individual A shares content with individual B, with the intent of let's say; causing harm. Their expectation of the interaction (if they are feeling confident) is that they will cause harm to the other via the content.

Individual B is able to receive the content, and ascertain the intent based on the nature of it, coupled with their own expectation of what might happen going in to the interaction. But individual B cannot be privy to the entire expectation of individual A, only that which is communicated via the intent of the content. Which, in this example can be a considerable fraction of the expectation. But that can differ wildly, it's all in the context.

At this point in the day, I had an elaborate example written out to describe the previous paragraph involving a banana. But....I deleted it.
It served no purpose beyond mental masturbation (which I've already done enough of, chaffing is bad).
Old Buddha is at it again.

believe that anamesia, I'd say just connecting with others through energy spreads the news. And I'd say eventually everyone will know