I wonder if Tom Campbell's definition of intention relates in anyway to the concept of "believing is seeing."

Tom Campbell speaks about "point consciousness" and "using intenion at a being level." When I intent something to be, is it not better to intent at the being level that it already is? That is how my intention is most effective.

When I not only believe, but truely know that something is, no matter the circumstances, I find my intention to be strongest and focused. Intending from the "being" level.

Or is intention more in line of "trying with your mind to change the outcome?" if so, does that idea also require one to believe it works for it to actually work?

Hi Luckee and welcome to Tom's MBT discussion forums.

I think Intent in MBT speak is what one really wants to happen at a level we may not even be aware of. Intent is related to our Quality of Consciousness so if one believes they want good for other consciously but really unconsciously they want good for self and if it trickles to other that's great it's just them doing as good as they can with what they have to work with (QoC). I don't think we really can know our own Intent and I am sure we cannot know an other bit of Consciousness' Intent. Intending to go to the store is an entirely different thing.
Love to you and yours,
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Hi, thank you for the warm welcome!

I'm not sure what it is you mean. Are you saying this "intent" that Tom is speaking of is unconscious and we cannot know it or become conscious of it?

Intent big "I" is probably not known to us as FWAUs yes. You're welcome (or is that redundant?). :)
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Luckee,

Tom uses intent in a special sense which I started trying to highlight by capitalizing as Intent. Tom and I have discussed this extensively and I wrote up a paper discussing this and perhaps clarifying it somewhat which Tom requested that I make available on the bulletin board. Here is the link to download a PDF version of that paper or chapter. http://www.active-mysticism.com/Intent-2_5-1_0.pdf

It may cause you a little confusion as there are some differences in terminology. For instance, I refer there to Indra's Net which is the ancient term for the Reality Wide Web with 'attached' IUOCs. We need a new reference page on the Wiki that is fully updated and integrated as to terminology that can be referred to. But noting the connections of Tom's research to the understandings of ancient mystics and metaphysicians is of some value also.

Good posts, Bette, by the way.

Ted

You can see this page on the Wiki for more information on Intent:

http://wiki.my-big-toe.com/index.php/Intent

_________________
Mike

Luckee,

Intent is a big intricate Idea, Kinda like defining how a computer works or a turbin jet engine.
The shorter and more basic (coman sense kinda easy to digest in one sitting) definition... will Create more contradicting and confusion when applying it to specific examples.


my understanding is not complete but, the different way of saying, might by usefull. >

Placing an intent is sending out data or requesting In data.
on the basis of what is viewed as Likly.
the Awarness may only be aware of the Main data that is viewed as a certian amount of liklyness. But
there is a network that branches off of that has consiquental likelyness to it. THis comes from how the Being is Organized. This may not be directly known to the Entity.
For example:
If one places intent on wanting nice hair. Their are probably imense calculations and formulas that dictate the true level of add likelyness. All the rituals and Tools each affect the Parameters in different ways coming to a grand total of liklyness added.

Like if a Tool is to imagine a majic wond waving sparkles on the hair, If some part of you has a beilf that sparkles need to be a certain amount bright. then The action of making them more bright is placing a liklyness that the Tool wont work.

SO you can see Placing an intent comes with hundreds of Intents that displaces the liklyness in all sorts of direction, based on how the Being is Organized through repetitave experince.
SO Noisy mind, amount of focus, belifs stipulaiton on tools, All come out to a final Liklyness that hit the Future Probabilty Curve as a huge system affecting tons of Liklyness branches off of the original Disired Data Requested.

Back to the Example:
If some one intends for nice hair becuase he feels its likely no one will like him with out it. That is a placed intent that may yeild the nice hair but allso manifest people not likeing him. You can see that the action of wanting nice hiar, May come from a hundred different reason placing intent in all sorts of liklyness pulls that eventually will come back at you.

Now The true intent might not be known... But itellect and ego can sure convince you that the surface intented action is good or what you need to do. And fool you on why you are doing it.


HERES how I feel about placeing an Intent through direct action::::
*THe more ego the more undesired consiquncese.
*The more ego the less controll the Direct awarness has.. reactions/urges/habits take the intent over.
(when trying to visulize head full of nice hair... horrible images of you looking bald might flash through your mind ect.)
*If the Intent has ego roots,... It is like quick sand the more Intent through direct action the more you will sink..Kinda like trying to stack a pile of marbles the higher you try to stack the more the bottom will fall out of them..
(So you finish the visulization of nice hair.... Then your ego spends the next 2 days judging if it will work and how horrible it will be if it doesn't... NOw your constanly thinking about your hair popping in your mind, noticing it on tv.. other peopple.. making you judge the value your hair gives... Constanly looking in the mirror feeling Blue, or sad.. ect... manifesting things worse)

HERES an exampel explaining why i Use liklyness in my model.
If your Fear it you Basically view it more likely. (over the true liklyness)
>Fear ghost.. some one tell you to go in that old house at night... You sure as hell will think its very likely a ghost in der.
>Fear snakes.. I an't walking through that tall grass dam snake bight my leg off.

Example:
Say some one goes Astral.. and fears Bugers. He may use intent on direct action to create Astral swords and shield becuase he views its likly they will protect them.. Sure enought when he goes Astral he runs in to bugers and his shield will just work to protect him.... nOw in a Fear loop... Will his Ego convince him its likely the Shield can onlly work so long untill your toast....
Worst off Fear ego have deeply rooted can have automatic reactions. His Direct Awarness controll will have little say. He will be Toast sphiral down woard so to speak.


Mediation to Point C and Getting having got the Ice burg under the water of fear connections off. Makes placeing an intent and using Intelect a whole new thing...Enirely almost...

_________________
All Praise to Dez Bryant "Feed tha Beast"

Sounds to me like you've got it exactly.

-Montana

is it really that complicated?

I don't see how TOEian intent is different than the secular usage of the word.

I intend to do this, I intend to do that...its the proverbial and verbial "thought that counts" regarding impacting the QoC delta

I thought in the post just above that would be specifically "focused Intent", which is TOE-speak for supplicative prayer.

I think also using Intent as a noun to describe a dimension of QoC is pedagogically confusing

I look forward to being corrected, as am confused.

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?

Yes, Randy, it is that complicated. Read Mike's link a few posts above to the Wiki page that has been created discussing this, based upon Tom's past postings and discussions. It includes a link to the write up with a long discussion I made of the concepts, with Tom's help and discussions, and that he had me long back post on the BB. It is a difficult concept to understand and to get across to another person. There is no word in English or any other language that really conveys the concept and no alternate we see to other than intent. I have made the practice of using a capital I to distinguish it from the ordinary use of the standard word, intent. It refers to a property of an IUOC that is available to you as your IUOC self, but not a direct part of our PMR experience.

Ted

Just some thoughts I was having as I was reading the replies.

Have you guys ever considered it to be possible that the whole absence of faith from within is creating all these complications and need for tools and worshipping of them(idolatry)? The inability to believe what you choose to believe, the disbelieve in being able to believe what you can believe creates the ilusion to be stuck in layers upon layers of believe systems. Just pluck the major core believes of that specific structure and its gone.

When I keep it real simple I can just allow my self to see, to any degree I choose to allow my self to see, what it is I need to see(remote viewing). In one of the excersizes, location with those grey mountain with carved stone head statues, I simply saw grey and stone. This is how far I chose to believe I could absorb the information, so it just happened. The information was already within me, without any need for tools or complicated ideas. It takes no practice to start believing from within and not without.
If I whine that I cannot "seem" to allow my self to see more, because I choose to believe that something is blocking me, like lack of information for example, then that does not mean that I am ready to see more! Only if you can choose to believe that something already IS at the BEING LEVEl then it shall be. Remove the whole layer upon layer believer stuctures that is distracting people from the unchanging Truth of the Infinite and replacing that Infinite with finite things and idolatry's as changing objects of temporary worhship. God, God's, Godfather, Godmother, God person, the 5th dimension, the 6th dimension, the 7th dimension, whatever you want, etc. The foundation in such a worshipping and valueing changing truths as unchanging truths is seperation and not unity.

When someone believes in the reality they witness it reminds me of this: A person believing in what he is seeing in the mirror and yet not in himself.
You control the mirror, because you can choose what you will see, by believing in your ability to be who you are, no matter what the mirror does in any given moment. You recognize the fact that the mirror is simply a construct to serve you in reflecting back to you who you are in any given moment. You are the source of the reflection and reality. Believing the reflection to be the source of itself sounds illogical as soon as you think about it. Everything you have accepted as your truth, is not the unchanging truth. When you accept nothing as the unchanging truth, you never find unity and peace either. No matter the density of another reality, its not less or more real then your current one. The unchanging truth is the ONE INFINITE ALL that is. Call it Allah, call it Ohm, call it Elloh, call it Tao, but don't call it God. For God is many and that name is not pure. It is possible to alter the word "God" in many ways(God's, God of, etc). God brings up many images and sets up many conditions upon the one infinite all that is, limitting it to a degree that it becomes less then your average reality reflection. This is not a way to come closer to your truth.

Does the whole concept of 'intention' have to be so difficult? If you start to believe in the tools you're using, there isn't much point in having given you the tool in the first place, was there? The tool was given to you, for you to disbelieve in all tools and start believing in the unchanging truth, infinite, all that is, that you shall never come to fully know, yet it never cease to exist, always one step ahead of your journey no matter how many dimensions you've added to your awareness. You are created in that image, expect no less should you desire not to, by letting go of tools. Call it "surrender" if you will. Do you become the slave of the infinite as you let go of your tools? No! Just like you can't imagine people who would denie the sun, hiding in a cave all day, coming out at night spreading stories about how people of the day have become slaves of the sun. lol, its simply absurbed. Just like you don't fight nature to survive. You serve nature and, paradoxically, you transcend nature and thrive. Nature is not the unchanging Truth either. Worshipping nature is not diffrent from worshipping human beings or any reflection of any reality for that matter.

I cannot correlate all of your hand waving and rhetoric with what has been discussed in this thread. Could you be a little shorter and more succinct? Are you saying that you do not agree with Tom's modeling and description of the term that he uses, the meaning he give to the special use he makes of Intent? Or are you talking about something else?

Ted

I am reading around, started with the 100 usages of intent in the TOE, and now wading into Tom's forum words

it appears that intent can be subject to the following modifiers...if may be

focused
conscious
directed
applied
purposeful
clear
right
free will driven
original
initial

and in his last words here on this, he refers to "fundamental" intent, which I think is big I Intent

the word motivation comes up a lot regarding intent, and how intent reflects the quality of your being, but I am unclear regarding the difference between quality and Intent - perhaps Intent is quality + purpose/goal

quality->Intent (your general MO?)->purpose->goal->intent (regarding specific action)->action->result->(emotional) pudding tasting->intellectual analysis at PMR level->QoC tick up or tick down at NPMR or fundamental level

here are some 2009 Tom words that seem apropos, parsing out daddy Intent, son intent, and dufus cousin, intellectual intention


"OM: working to eliminate fear, ego and all that is less than 'high quality behaviors' would be considered changing your being? Stop drinking, gambling, Stop beating your wife, Stop being jealous of your friends.

Tom: No.

Behavior is not the key.

Behavior may be the result of an intellect producing an image.

Behavior is a PMR thing.

Intent is the key.

Big picture Intent is, by definition, an expression of the core - the real fundamental You -- from the being level. Little picture "intention" or motivation may come from the intellect - an act rather than an actuality.

OM: All of which must be coming from your intent at the core level of ur being right? and Not just making an intellectual decision to stop these things and then falling off the wagon every month, to change? To evolve, to grow up? Maybe its a combination of the two?

Tom: Yes, now you have it.

If the core intent is good, the behavior follows naturally.

Good intent implies good behavior, while good behavior does not necessarily imply good intent." -Tom

quotation ends
==
Its not entirely clear to me how we are supposed to engage free will in this process and become a "better player"

maybe its a question of paying more attention to the emotional feedback on your behavior, and using intellect to connect the dots

the physicist is focused the macro system, but the economist thinking at the micro level wants to know, what are the levers I can pull - macro exogenous variables, that we cannot engage our free will upon, are an academic distraction

its like worrying about the fed when you are carrying a balance on your credit card

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?

Intent is what gets changed, very gradually, in our interactions and results in the improvement of our QoC and reduction of entropy. The linkage to free will is that the purpose of right interactions is to optimize the free will of all IUOCs. If you read and understood the model of Consciousness Space, etc. in the Wiki, you would see that as Tom describes, free will is what occurs when you have a meta reality as a Virtual Reality. You have IUOCs able to interact through sending messages back and forth over the RWW which they can interpret any damn way they wish or can. There is the free will. The LCS is a lock step automaton. Each state follows the next set by the rule set for interaction of reality cell to reality cell. While there is ultimately nothing existing according to Tom's model (and mine) that does not exist within the LCS, which is our Ultimate Reality, the creation of meta realities (VRs) in a sense steps outside of the base reality of the LCS. Within that meta reality, free will exists in that any IUOC can choose to send out a message to essentially any other IUOC meaning anything it thinks that it means. The intended recipient IUOC can choose to accept it or not and interpret the data however it wishes. Free will in a very fundamental way that does not exist within the LCS as its field of lock stepping reality cells.

This is the free will that allowed AUO to become conscious, to invent consciousness. All of us as IUOCs interact through most of a cycle, vastly many reality cell/LCS states, including just one PMR VR state and function collectively as AUO or later, as AUM. This is why Tom describes free will as necessary to consciousness. Without free will in the sense described, AUO could not have become/invented consciousness. This is why free will is necessary to consciousness. This same kind of free will is what AUO gifted us with as individual IUOCs in creating the first NPMR and all of those that followed. It is the same free will that allowed us to experience consciousness as a further gift from AUO. Then AUO developed into AUM as it created more and more NPMRs and eventually invented PMRs where the action is more intense and the effect on our development faster accordingly. Free will is the absolute necessity to the existence and development of consciousness.

Now how our Intent exists within our minds as IUOCs is an open question. Tom just states that there is something which he calls intent, for total lack of a better word for it, which describes our reaction to and basis for interaction with all of the other IUOCs out there and to AUM. There are no psychologists as we know them here in PMR studying IUOCs directly in their 'native habitats' nor are there any 'neurologists' as studying how a cellular automaton can function as a mind as that is what we are as IUOCs, parts, subsets of the bigger cellular automaton of the LCS. Psychologists are here and now trying to figure out IUOCs as filtered and constrained by the PMR rule set to function as our minds. In NPMR, our more native and continuous habitat, we have no sensory organs or nervous systems. We have only the RWW and its data streams and our selves to interact with these data streams. The Big Computer in its many instantiations with attached VRRE function (in the case of PMRs) provide the data stream that we find simulated here in our PMR neurology. This is not simulated as unnecessary in NPMR. But somewhere within our IUOCs, each of us possesses some variation of what Tom calls our Intent for lack of a better word. It is the basis for our interaction. It the basis upon which we make our choices.

Does this clarify what our Intent is and why it becomes difficult to describe? We have only words, metaphors here in PMR and no contact with the detailed functioning of our IUOC as a cellular automaton. Our neurology and psychology have no clear relationship to what the model says automates or energizes us. We have no contact with our real existence within the LCS in the sense of being able to observe the cycling of the cells of the automaton. We have only the messages coming in over the RWW to interpret and then choose, based upon our Intent, what message to send back out over the RWW.

Ted

to boil it down, it appears that QoC, which is sort of a thing, has an active dimension, which is its general "Intent", and this active Intent is a reflection of its QoC stock

This active Intent animates an IUOC as well as an FWAU to form PMR goals with specific intents, feeding the

intent->decision->action->results->feedback loop

But Tom is big on saying this is not from the mental level. Maybe he means this is not from the level of logic, but is rather from the level that empathy comes from...so its a conscious thing, not something out of sight at the level of the IUOC

so how this plays out...lets say there is a situation where we feel empathy, which conflicts with logical self interest, in a scenario

our free will interacts to choose between the two, quite consciously, and we build our quality by increasingly listening to the voice of empathy

the mental level has two dimensions, one is the assessment of superficial self interest

but on another level, the mental level may be tracking feedback, and saying, we need to pay more attention to empathy, to avoid negative feedback, and to harvest positive feedback

the size of our Intent informs the volume of the voice of empathy - free will and forming intent in each situation, is our response to that apparently exogenous voice - Intent is outside our freewill - intent is within our freewill

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?