That's a great rap, Turq. I was aware of Intention Itself, but had not found its more than obvious name. But I have often told the poets I work with that the impulse to write a poem is necessarily deep. That's if they're really intending to write a poem rather than writing a piece of crap whose real intention it is to say, "Look how sensitive I am," or recently, "Look how gutsy I am" etc. I don't work with writers like that.
So thanks again for the term "Intention Itself." Worthy improvement on Kant's Das Ding Ansich" I'd suggest an editorial change for: "To lower as many others as possible to my plane of awareness" to read instead "To lower as many others as possible to a plane of awareness lower than mine." --- TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela > Mailander > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Good one, Turq, that about encapsulates what I've > > thought often about her comments: Out of touch > with > > intention itself. > > Intent is not really *dealt with* in the TM > dogma. It's very possible to miss its value. > In some of the other traditions I studied, > we were taught specifically to cut through > the fog of someone's word and suss out their > *intent* in saying them. She never had that > training; she probably doesn't even believe > that such a sussing is possible. > > On this forum, a focus on intent would involve > reading someone's post and then thinking, "What > did this person hope to *accomplish* by posting > this?" > > If the answer to that question is, "To uplift > others to a more noble or interesting plane > of awareness," then you are dealing with one > sort of being. If the answer to that question > is, "To lower as many others as possible to > my plane of awareness," then you're dealing > with another sort of being. > > Interestingly, that is the factor that is kill- > ing Hillary in the polls and helping Obama. > The people can feel each of their *intents*, > and are reacting accordingly. > > > --- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > > > <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela > > > Mailander > > > > <mailander111@> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > > And even when she's right, > > > > > she's missing your intention. > > > > > > > > Here I not only agree but offer you a > high-five > > > > for "seeing." I think the root cause is that > she > > > > is so out of touch with intention *itself*, > esp- > > > > ecially her own. > > > > > > But note that (a) Barry didn't read my post, and > (b) > > > he's no more able than Angela to explain how I > > > "missed" his intention. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends > http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com > > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
