Action vs. Intention

[Aaron]

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

Edited May 27, 2011 by Twinner

[Otis]

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?

I've mentioned recently that I've been watching a lot of historical documentaries recently, particularly on WWII, and so have been thinking about the actions of the many German people who went along with the Nazis. Their actions were socially harmonious, at least with their immediate culture. And I'm sure most of them convinced themselves that they were doing something necessary, if not righteous.

 

So in that case, the intent (do the best thing for Germany) and social agreement (I'll go along with my peers) led to horrific results (killing unarmed innocents).

 

"The Hamburg Cell" is a movie about the radicalization of the 9/11 hijackers, and again, their intent was seemingly noble (pro-Allah) and they were in concert with their immediate society (the other radicals).

 

So, in other words, intent isn't worth jack, since intent is as corruptible as any other form of self-image. Intent is just another way of fooling myself into thinking I'm doing the right thing.

 

That's why it's so important to surrender notions of "the right thing" and of self-image, because they're both traps.

 

Even "personal harmony" is a dubious goal, because a strong self-image and sense of "what's right" can create a very simple, non-nuanced view of reality, and hence a self-assured, harmonious mental interior (at least until the existential crisis arises).

 

Again, why I embrace "I don't know": because therefore I have no justification, I have no mentor, I have no tradition, to tell me what's right. If I don't know, then I have to humble myself before the immediate situation, and learn about what's going on. I have to empty myself of intent, and learn to listen, in order to make an action that is harmonious not just with my society, but also with the world in general.

[doc benway]

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

I'll start with thought and thinking. What does it mean? Thinking is the manipulation of images and symbols. All content of thought is a representation, image, abstraction, or approximation. It's very useful and very effective but it's not reality. And once we create this image of reality, we feel comfortable substituting the image for reality. Action, on the other hand, is an interaction of "me" with "my environment." It is interaction or relationship in reality

 

What's social harmony? Is it abiding by social rules for the sake of co-existing with others? Or is it recognizing the common bond we all have and choosing to consider the environment to be as important as oneself? And if this is the case, could this arise out of personal harmony? Because what is personal harmony? Again, it is the recognition of the value of being in balance with the environment because one can never have tranquility if one is out of balance with the environment. And that's precisely because we are the environment. We're just a seemingly bounded piece of it. We're what the universe is doing in the space occupied by "me" right "now."

 

Thoughts are just the recording of the happening and comparing of those recording to prior recordings and projecting the recordings into the future, all observed by the thought that declares itself as "me." So to me, actions are more important than thoughts and social harmony and personal harmony are the same thing.

 

 

 

 

Again, why I embrace "I don't know": because therefore I have no justification, I have no mentor, I have no tradition, to tell me what's right. If I don't know, then I have to humble myself before the immediate situation, and learn about what's going on. I have to empty myself of intent, and learn to listen, in order to make an action that is harmonious not just with my society, but also with the world in general.

Beginner's mind - the question is infinitely more valuable than the answer.

[Sloppy Zhang]

Well on the one hand, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

 

But then again, "it's the thought that counts."

 

Though it's a case by case basis, I tend to go with the latter.

 

And I would make a distinction about the intent of the Nazis or other extremists groups. Their "good intent" only goes so far as their own social circle, and is usually at the expense of others. So I would say their "good intentions" are rather limited. Just because someone SAYS they have good intentions, doesn't always mean they really do.

[doc benway]

Well on the one hand, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

 

But then again, "it's the thought that counts."

 

Though it's a case by case basis, I tend to go with the latter.

 

And I would make a distinction about the intent of the Nazis or other extremists groups. Their "good intent" only goes so far as their own social circle, and is usually at the expense of others. So I would say their "good intentions" are rather limited. Just because someone SAYS they have good intentions, doesn't always mean they really do.

And it's not just the extremist groups, it is the tribal nature of humanity in general. All of our tribal instincts (religion, politics, geography, and so on) have the effect of polarizing us as a whole and creating conflict. Identifying myself with a group sets up a dynamic that deepens the divide. I am a Muslim and my people need me so I will vote in such a way, and contribute to such causes. And I am a Jew and I am an American and so on...

[Sloppy Zhang]

And it's not just the extremist groups, it is the tribal nature of humanity in general. All of our tribal instincts (religion, politics, geography, and so on) have the effect of polarizing us as a whole and creating conflict.

 

Indeed it does!

 

Many an actions has been committed by a group that any individual member of the group would never have considered! It's actually rather scary to think of things like groupthink.

 

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it!" - Agent K

 

Edited May 27, 2011 by Sloppy Zhang

[Marblehead]

I just spoke to the concept of "intent" in another thread. Intent does not exist in the world of 'wu wei'. If there is intent it is not wu wei. So basically, intent has zero value.

[Sloppy Zhang]

I just spoke to the concept of "intent" in another thread. Intent does not exist in the world of 'wu wei'. If there is intent it is not wu wei. So basically, intent has zero value.

 

Sounds a bit like semantics, because if you are following Wu Wei, well, you are doing to go somewhere. Chi follows Yi. Or I guess if you don't believe in chi, action follows intent

 

But it'd be rather... what's the word... "anthropomorphic"? To say that a force of nature, like, say, a hurricane, has an "intent". A hurricane follows the "wu wei" of nature. And sometimes that nature has a fixin' to wreck your house.

 

I dunno. To me it seems like you'd still have intent. But your intent would be aligned with the universe, so to speak. Would that result in a net intent of zero?

 

But I'm being rather broad with my concept of "intent" here.

Edited May 27, 2011 by Sloppy Zhang

[Marblehead]

Sounds a bit like semantics, because if you are following Wu Wei, well, you are doing to go somewhere. Chi follows Yi. Or I guess if you don't believe in chi, action follows intent

 

But it'd be rather... what's the word... "anthropomorphic"? To say that a force of nature, like, say, a hurricane, has an "intent". A hurricane follows the "wu wei" of nature. And sometimes that nature has a fixin' to wreck your house.

 

I dunno. To me it seems like you'd still have intent. But your intent would be aligned with the universe, so to speak. Would that result in a net intent of zero?

 

But I'm being rather broad with my concept of "intent" here.

 

Well. Hehehe. I have no idea how to respond. No, I do not function from the state of wu wei all the time. Hey, we all know that I am a materialist. The real world is what's happening.

 

Yes, in the evening after the fish have eaten and I turn the pond pumps back on I normally turn the computer off, go to the TV room and watch TV until I am tired enough to go to bed and sleep. There is intent prior to that action.

 

Many things I do during the day are done with intention. But then, I am not functioning in 'wu' during these times; I am functioning from the state of 'yo', the physical world.

 

But I will still suggest that if a person attains a pure state of 'wu wei' intention will not exist.

[doc benway]

I just spoke to the concept of "intent" in another thread. Intent does not exist in the world of 'wu wei'. If there is intent it is not wu wei. So basically, intent has zero value.

I get the point you are making. What about a slightly different perspective.

Is there "intent" inherent in the natural order of things?

Either in humans or at some other level?

If so, could intent be in accordance with wu wei either at the human level or other?

[Marblehead]

I get the point you are making. What about a slightly different perspective.

Is there "intent" inherent in the natural order of things?

Either in humans or at some other level?

If so, could intent be in accordance with wu wei either at the human level or other?

 

Ouch! You got deep on me there. Hehehe.

 

I feel comfortable in suggesting that there is no intent regarding Tao or Te. (That is, the Te of Tao.)

 

Is there intent in what the Sun, Earth and the Moon do? I think not.

 

Is there intent in what plants do? I doubt it. Their actions are mechanical.

 

So we are left with the animal realm. I suggest that most animals operate on pure instinct so there would be no intent there.

 

We are left with animals with intelligence. I believe that many species fall into this category but I will speak to only the human animal.

 

(We all know that I do not believe in any form of gods or universal consciousness so I cannot consider those.)

 

"The natural order of things." What a concept! Is there intent built into the natural order of things? I have to say, "Yes". Every attempt to improve our condition in life is an act based in intent.

 

However, once we have attained complete (100%) contentment with our condition in life we can, whenever we wish, attain the state of wu wei. At this time nothing needs be done. If nothing needs be done then there would naturally be no intention to do anything.

 

Personally, I have rarely spent more than an hour or two in the state of wu wei because the real world calls me to action. These actions will always be preluded by intent. No doubt about that.

 

Even when we wish to clarify our spirituality we are acting with intent.

 

But then, once we are immersed in our spirituality we will be without intent because we are simply experiencing, not doing.

 

The same with wu wei, I think. We are simply experiencing but not doing. In the state of wu wei we are still aware of what is going on around us. If a condition arises and something needs be done we will act simply because something needs be done, no intention involved, like a sunflower will turn its flower to face the sun.

[doc benway]

Ouch! You got deep on me there. Hehehe.

 

I feel comfortable in suggesting that there is no intent regarding Tao or Te. (That is, the Te of Tao.)

 

Is there intent in what the Sun, Earth and the Moon do? I think not.

 

Is there intent in what plants do? I doubt it. Their actions are mechanical.

 

So we are left with the animal realm. I suggest that most animals operate on pure instinct so there would be no intent there.

 

We are left with animals with intelligence. I believe that many species fall into this category but I will speak to only the human animal.

 

(We all know that I do not believe in any form of gods or universal consciousness so I cannot consider those.)

 

"The natural order of things." What a concept! Is there intent built into the natural order of things? I have to say, "Yes". Every attempt to improve our condition in life is an act based in intent.

 

However, once we have attained complete (100%) contentment with our condition in life we can, whenever we wish, attain the state of wu wei. At this time nothing needs be done. If nothing needs be done then there would naturally be no intention to do anything.

 

Personally, I have rarely spent more than an hour or two in the state of wu wei because the real world calls me to action. These actions will always be preluded by intent. No doubt about that.

 

Even when we wish to clarify our spirituality we are acting with intent.

 

But then, once we are immersed in our spirituality we will be without intent because we are simply experiencing, not doing.

 

The same with wu wei, I think. We are simply experiencing but not doing. In the state of wu wei we are still aware of what is going on around us. If a condition arises and something needs be done we will act simply because something needs be done, no intention involved, like a sunflower will turn its flower to face the sun.

I appreciate your thorough response and I would like to take this a step further.

 

It's interesting, as people we are struggling with this idea of intent and make the assumption that lower animals, plants, mountains, streams, the sun, and so on do not have intent. We assume that the universe does not possess or manifest intent but it certainly does, at least through us!

 

Could it be that it is the sun's intent to shine? The eagle's intent to fly? And that is exactly why they do what they do? Or rather the intent inherent in Dao that is expressed through these things. I guess what I'm wondering goes along these lines. Humans manifest intent and are, in turn, manifestations of Dao. Could everything be a manifestation of intent at a level that is so sophisticated, so foreign, that it is not available to us?

 

I know I'm just f-ing around with words and ideas but sometimes I feel like we blind ourselves to the obvious. We have intent - clearly. We are nothing more or less than the universe doing what it does right here, right now, in the space "we" are occupying. We are not "other than" the universe, we are just restricted in terms of our ability to directly experience beyond the boundary of our skin and vision (mostly). So how can we then pretend that the universe has no intent. And if we have or are a manifestation of intent, why not the sun?

 

[Birch]

"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.

[Otis]

And I would make a distinction about the intent of the Nazis or other extremists groups. Their "good intent" only goes so far as their own social circle, and is usually at the expense of others. So I would say their "good intentions" are rather limited. Just because someone SAYS they have good intentions, doesn't always mean they really do.

Agreed. Of course, the question that raises for me is: did they believe that their intentions were good? And if so, then what is it that I believe that I'm doing for the sake of good, but which I'm really just justifying to myself?

[Otis]

I just spoke to the concept of "intent" in another thread. Intent does not exist in the world of 'wu wei'. If there is intent it is not wu wei. So basically, intent has zero value.

This matches my experience. My most pure experience of wu wei is during solo dance, in which my body does its own dance, and I add as little intent to it, as possible. If I do add the least intent (e.g. push it a little), it almost always throws me out of the flow.

 

Best yet, is when I not only add no intent, but am also totally non-self-conscious about how I'm doing, and not even telling a story about what I'm doing. No why, how, what, or even who. I am merely experiencing, but with no projection into the future, or storytelling about the past. I never know what it is that has happened during this experience; there's no story-like memory. I just know that the experience was glorious.

[Otis]

I appreciate your thorough response and I would like to take this a step further.

 

It's interesting, as people we are struggling with this idea of intent and make the assumption that lower animals, plants, mountains, streams, the sun, and so on do not have intent. We assume that the universe does not possess or manifest intent but it certainly does, at least through us!

 

Could it be that it is the sun's intent to shine? The eagle's intent to fly? And that is exactly why they do what they do? Or rather the intent inherent in Dao that is expressed through these things. I guess what I'm wondering goes along these lines. Humans manifest intent and are, in turn, manifestations of Dao. Could everything be a manifestation of intent at a level that is so sophisticated, so foreign, that it is not available to us?

 

I know I'm just f-ing around with words and ideas but sometimes I feel like we blind ourselves to the obvious. We have intent - clearly. We are nothing more or less than the universe doing what it does right here, right now, in the space "we" are occupying. We are not "other than" the universe, we are just restricted in terms of our ability to directly experience beyond the boundary of our skin and vision (mostly). So how can we then pretend that the universe has no intent. And if we have or are a manifestation of intent, why not the sun?

 

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.

[Marblehead]

I appreciate your thorough response and I would like to take this a step further.

 

It's interesting, as people we are struggling with this idea of intent and make the assumption that lower animals, plants, mountains, streams, the sun, and so on do not have intent. We assume that the universe does not possess or manifest intent but it certainly does, at least through us!

 

Could it be that it is the sun's intent to shine? The eagle's intent to fly? And that is exactly why they do what they do? Or rather the intent inherent in Dao that is expressed through these things. I guess what I'm wondering goes along these lines. Humans manifest intent and are, in turn, manifestations of Dao. Could everything be a manifestation of intent at a level that is so sophisticated, so foreign, that it is not available to us?

 

I know I'm just f-ing around with words and ideas but sometimes I feel like we blind ourselves to the obvious. We have intent - clearly. We are nothing more or less than the universe doing what it does right here, right now, in the space "we" are occupying. We are not "other than" the universe, we are just restricted in terms of our ability to directly experience beyond the boundary of our skin and vision (mostly). So how can we then pretend that the universe has no intent. And if we have or are a manifestation of intent, why not the sun?

 

 

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.

[Marblehead]

"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.

 

I think you did well with that post. Don't hold back, Okay?

[Marblehead]

This matches my experience. My most pure experience of wu wei is during solo dance, in which my body does its own dance, and I add as little intent to it, as possible. If I do add the least intent (e.g. push it a little), it almost always throws me out of the flow.

 

Best yet, is when I not only add no intent, but am also totally non-self-conscious about how I'm doing, and not even telling a story about what I'm doing. No why, how, what, or even who. I am merely experiencing, but with no projection into the future, or storytelling about the past. I never know what it is that has happened during this experience; there's no story-like memory. I just know that the experience was glorious.

 

Beautiful example for this discussion! You are doing but you are not acting. You are not dancing for any specific purpose, your dance is nothing less than an expression of Tao.

[C T]

Where does intent begin? Where does it end, and action begin? Are actions real to begin with, at the beginning?

 

Something to watch and mull over...

[Marblehead]

Where does intent begin? Where does it end, and action begin? Are actions real to begin with, at the beginning?

 

Something to watch and mull over...

 

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.

[Aaron]

Where does intent begin? Where does it end, and action begin? Are actions real to begin with, at the beginning?

 

Something to watch and mull over...

 

Why do we have to start the real/not-real, self/not-self argument? Aren't there enough threads to talk about that already, do we really need to sidetrack another for whatever reason?

 

Aaron

Edited May 28, 2011 by Twinner

[Aaron]

I wanted to clarify that when I was talking about intent, it was more along the lines of what Steve was talking about, not just the thought that leads to action, but rather the intention of the action. So I'm not asking whether or not it is better to act or think about acting, but rather if the intention of an action is more important than the actual outcome.

 

Aaron

[C T]

Why do we have to start the real/not-real, self/not-self argument? Aren't there enough threads to talk about that already, do we really need to sidetrack another for whatever reason?

 

Aaron

What seems to be your problem, Aaron? You are so fogged up by your aversions that you allow yourself to get worked up so easily. Why? Patience running out? Not everyone has to see things the way you do. I did not see the clip as one that tried to push any notions of whatever you think its agenda is. It proposes to investigate whether it can be determined where an action actually begins, besides other relevant ideas. If the mind was more open, there is some connection in there that directly relates to this discussion, but you are so blinded by your own pre-formed judgements that you cannot even see the obvious. Too bad mate. And for your info, i am not the only one who is beginning to tire of your lopsided views. So please burger off, and hog the playground all to yourself... if that makes you happy. Tantrums, tantrums.... unbelievable.

Edited May 28, 2011 by CowTao

[Aaron]

What seems to be your problem, Aaron? You are so fogged up by your aversions that you allow yourself to get worked up so easily. Why? Patience running out? Not everyone has to see things the way you do. I did not see the clip as one that tried to push any notions of whatever you think its agenda is. It proposes to investigate whether it can be determined where an action actually begins, besides other relevant ideas. If the mind was more open, there is some connection in there that directly relates to this discussion, but you are so blinded by your own pre-formed judgements that you cannot even see the obvious. Too bad mate. And for your info, i am not the only one who is beginning to tire of your lopsided views. So bugger off, and 'own' the playground for all i care... if that makes you happy. Tantrums, tantrums.... unfekkin believable.

 

Hello Cowtao,

 

That's fine if you're tired, hopefully you'll get the idea at some point that not everyone needs to agree with you, nor does every thread need to return to the topic of dualism and non-dualism. The purpose of this thread isn't that at all, but to examine the idea of which is more important, action or intent, not whether or not actions are real. Do I really need to point out all the threads where self/no-self, real/no-real have been pushed forward with relatively little to no tolerance for those who view things differently or the original topic of those posts? If so I can go through and cite examples. If you presenting this little bit of esoteric wisdom sent up flags, perhaps there was a well founded reason.

 

Aaron

Edited May 28, 2011 by Twinner