ATS
ark said:
Intent is useless without knowledge. Intent is not necessary when there is knowledge. You do not have to have the intent to calculate the cubic root of 5. You need knowledge, and then do it. You do not need intent to distinguish knowledge from garbage. You need knowledge. And then act upon it. When you breath, you do not need to have an intent. You need to know how to breath.
As they say: "Tell the world about your intended achievements, but first DO them."
Fifth Way said:
I think intent is a focus and focusing is a form of energy that is quintessentially needed.
My data suggest that knowledge does not go away on a soul-level.
I believe seeking to understand the relationship between knowledge, intent and action (doing) is important. As such, permit me to attempt a deeper examination of the issue. This is a complex topic and I'll try to cover as many bases as I can, while at the same time hoping that I will not resort to too much rambling. You'll have to simply forgive me if I do.
First let me address the issue of knowledge separately because it is a term used widely here and much valued.
I don't know about anyone else, but I see this word being applied unilaterally to two distinct meanings. The first meaning is that of objective knowledge, which is in essence a knowing about. The Greek word for
science comes from an ancient root meaning
to know well. Science is objective knowledge, meaning that it deals with the knowing well of objects, which are distinct entities outside our sense of self (although this does not prevent the objectively oriented person from taking even our sense of self apart and objectifying it, taking it outside of itself in the process).
In any case, there is knowledge about or of entities, and be they abstract or concrete this knowledge surrounds them with definitions in an attempt to set them apart from a greater field of informational input. So this kind of knowledge or knowing well involves the accumulation of in-formation or a conceptual structure that allows the entity in question to fit into the greater context of what we know about our reality. This is quite useful because it provides references of action in our world, provided what we know is correspondent to reality.
With objective knowledge the proof is in the doing. In other words, if the knowledge is consistent with the action based on its references then for all intensive purposes it is true or true enough, at least. If, however, the knowledge is not consistent with action, it is false and can lead to a clash with the world around us, and even to traumatic results.
This type of knowing, by and large, is based on prior knowledge/information which supports it, and that on even prior knowledge in an intricate informational structure, going back to fundamental a priori axioms founded on immediate sensorily, or at least neurologically (such as the obviousness of our existence even in a sensory deprivation tank) verifiable information, which we consider "obvious".
Already, we can see weaknesses in this method. Since any particular knowledge depends on prior knowledge it is dependent on it. So if there has been a mistake or inconsistency in any part of this tree of knowledge the whole of the tree can topple. A willingness to let the tree topple and start from scratch, however, can mitagate this weakness.
Another weakness is in the assumption that the a priori givens are infallible. One might say that we have to start from somewhere, and that questioning certain givens, such as the fact of our existence, gets us nowhere. This is true. However, sometimes our axioms can limit our knowledge potential. This occurs when the possiblitiy exists that our givens are really assumptions, even if they are assumptions of our senses.
Many people conclude that the only reality is that of the five senses. Anything else is a pseudoreality fabricated by imaginative faculties. Any evidence to the contrary is considered circumstantial by these people, and not truly objective.
Yet, many of the discussions here involve information that transcends the five senses, and is considered independent of personal imagination. Even so, we interpret it based on our experience of the material world, as we do our dreams. Even our most abstract theories can be traced back to givens from immediate experience.
I am not questioning the validity of this. How else can we know anything, except in relation to our material biology? I am only saying that potential limitations should be taken into account because jumping from this kind of informational knowing directly to doing can be risky, and results can be costly if we are wrong. In other words, if we solely rely on this knowing we may slam hard into a wall that our axiom-based knowledge could not predict in trying to act it out.
In Greece there is a saying to the effect that wrong knowledge is far worse than ignorance, because it may lead us to disastrous action with the confidence it instills. So objective knowledge is absolutely necessary, but it has its limitations. If we are determined to avoid risks then the amount of knowledge that can be proven beyond a shadow of any doubt may be too limited for us to truly break through into greater vistas of existence.
To address the unknown in a manner that objective knoweldge may not accomodate there is also another type that can balance and complement it.
This is called in Greek gnosis, and in Sanskrit jnana. In Hebrew, the word with the closest meaning is daath. This type of knowing is closer to the way lovers know each other, and unlike the knowing-about type of knowledge, it involves intimate contact with the proverbial object so it ceases to be an outsider, but is incorporated within our subjective sense of self. One mode, you might say, is akin to the accessing of sensory information and the other to organic assimilation.
Objective knowledge requires we maintain separation from the object of knowledge, and define its conceptual boundaries as the references of our knowing, while gnosis requires we dissolve those boundaries and incorporate the gnostic "object", or its representative pattern/meaning, into ourselves. Objective knowledge encircles the entity thus defining it with conceptual references, while gnosis involves a reception that transcends the formational aspects of what is addressed. Gnosis involves
revelation and is often transcendent of axiomatic givens, in other words, while objective knowledge involves
examination, and can be both rational and intuitive, but axiom dependent.
Ideally, these modes of knowledge should complement each other. In practice, they are often at odds, and adherents of one can try to dominate the other mode or even try to invalidate it. Such a tendency of domination denotes a dependency on the part of the knower on one or the other mode, rather than the knower being the pivot and balance of both these directions. Thus, the knower is like the charioteer, and these two modes are the horses he/she must keep in a mutually supportive relationship or the chariot can be derailed.
So, IMO when the C's say Knowledge protects they probably include both objective knowledge and gnosis.
Now to move on:
It has been said that as biological entities humans are cybernetic organisms. Cybernetic means "ruling", and is referring to the observation that human beings are goal-oriented. Yet, how does rulership connect with goal-striving? In my view, it does so through the triad of knowledge/intent/action.
The problem for one concentrated in objective knowledge is that intent can only be observed in that manner through its results, which involve action or doing. At the same time, intent does not necessitate action or knowledge, knowledge does not necessitate intent or action, and action does not necessitate the other two. For self-rulership to be goal-striving all three must come into play in the proper sequence, which can be disrupted for one reason or another at any point.
One can view the relationship between knowledge, intent and action like a bowman shooting an arrow. The bowman needs to aim (knowledge), he needs to pull back the bowstring (intent), and he needs to let the arrow fly (action) so the purpose of the bow and arrow to be realized. If ANY of these aspects is removed from the total process the bowman is not fulfilling his purpose.
Without knowledge we are moving blind, without intent we lack the energy or tension to move, and without action the two former are moot. Intent, as I understand it, is not complaining and it is not wishful thinking. Intent with respect to action is similar to the relationship between potential and kinetic energy. Knowledge determines if that energy flows through constructive channels (is compatible with the goal), or is wasted.
Another reason knowledge is essential in both the gnostic and objective sense is that its purpose is to minimize the friction that can occur in doing anything, and maximize the effectiveness of the energy of our intent to transform into the energy of action. Minimizing friction does not imply avoidance because both objective and gnostic knowledge reveal what the path must be to realize the desired goal. The point is to minimize friction that is incongruent to our goal, for such friction is a waste of energy. In simpler terms, knowledge helps us avoid brick walls and dead ends that result in unecessary suffering, which would undermine our progress instead of enhancing it.
We are, after all, not masochists jumping headlong into every struggle. We are discerning cybernetic organisms that struggle when we must, learning when it is right to move forward, when to stop and even when to retreat when necessary, and learning how to inititiate those movements, and focus our will in the most productive directions.
Another problem is that every brick wall we do hit, and every dead end to our immediate path, results in some kind of trauma that works against the power of our intent, and hence our very willingness to act. And if we simply ignore that resistance we can end up repeating the trauma causing even more damage to ourselves. The possibility of failure thus becomes an imprint that is very real for most of us.
Anyone who has failed once, or even observed the failures of others or just heard about them has to face this very real resistance within themselves, which works against the transition from intent to action as sure as a restricting hand holds the bowman's arm back. Sometimes these trauma imprints seems to even defy the circumstances of our current lives and reveal themselves as originating from other existences. Even so they are no less impacting in their influence.
We see this resistance in the masses today, in their reluctance to act. We see it in the response to the obvious facts regarding 9/11. Many people refuse to admit to those facts because then they would be forced to action to be in accordance with their moral principles, which may result in them paying a high price for acting. By refusing to see, they can avoid facing their reluctance to intend action, and hence avoid facing their fear and moral fragility head on.
We see this fear of consequences also in scientists publishing polemics against each other, stubbornly sticking to their guns instead of mutually examining their data and even considering a third option. These scientists are stubborn because they think in terms of winners and losers and in terms of dire consequences for being a loser. This attitude permeates modern society at all levels, in fact.
Thus objective knowledge must be tested, and gnostic knowledge must be tested as well although the test there involves how that gnosis changes us from within, and is congruent with self-knowledge. And the final test of knowledge is its power to fuel intent so it can fuel constructive action. With respect to our bowman analogy, when the bowman is sure the target is in site he puts his all in pulling back the bow and does not hesitate to shoot.
At the same time aiming and knowing are one thing, but shooting is quite another and skill therein is an art, also involving a lot of practise. In the same manner channeling knowledge to fuel intent that will in turn fuel constructive action is also an art and requires the confrontation within of all the resistances against the smooth flow of our creative energies. Because even if we know we are on the right track, the organically embeded memories of past failures and mistakes can still hold sway, and can lock energy meant for action into irrational indecision.
In other words, trauma becomes tension holding its patterned energy at the organic level, and not necessarily the mental one. When the trauma memory is activated the patterns are released as fear and/or rage until the self becomes an open conduit of energy that is devoid of that pattern. We are then left with the energy to fuel action, hence connecting intent with doing.
Regarding the question if knowledge goes away, I think we need once again to consider the differences between knowledge and gnosis. In terms of objective knowledge we also need to consider the very aspect that holds it. This can atrophy and we can forget. And there are degrees of forgetting from forms that can be rectified through triggering recall to the complete and irretrievable loss of information evident in some forms of organic trauma.
Soul knowledge, however, involves gnosis, and not in-formation about entities/objects. Gnosis changes the knower, and even if the soul is distorted, the change may be also distorted, but never wiped. Has anyone had a profound life-altering revelation? Such a revelation is life-altering because it is self-altering. It is not an engrammic memory pattern on the soul, but becomes part of what the soul or inner self IS. It is possible for the soul to be covered up, distorted, darkened or what have you, but deleting gnosis is like deleting the soul itself.
And before we consider that souls in fact CAN be deleted (which is possible in a creation where anything can happen), we need to also consider that such an event involves alot because it entails turning something into its absolute contradiction, and there would necessarily be a very long sequence of choices leading to such a thing. It would in fact be tantamout to the reverse of creating something out of nothing.
Such a soul would have to have an intimate relationship with entropy built into it, and aside from the theoretical possibility, the likelyhood would be that it is not a coherent presence but an accumulation of disparate energies that mimic coherence of being.
I believe, furthermore, that we can all be tortured to the extent of massive soul distortion and soul denial and extreme fragmentation of self, but first we must fall into a complex sequence of events leading up to that ultimate trauma, and never veer off from that sequence. Even in these days of persistent denial this is not so easy, because we are dealing with something that does not succumb easily to entropy. Else, the very impatient psychopaths would have had their way already after eons of trying their damndest to do so.
)
