Nature of intention, relation and perception
Knowledge cannot be acquired without proper etiquettes, manners and respect.
Our ultimate (rather penultimate) goal is realisation. Realisation in formal terms comprises of two ideas - self realisation and GOD realization. For now we concentrate on self realization. There are many reasons for this -
Quran: Thus do We explain the Signs in detail for those who reflect. [10:24]
Hadith: “Be mindful of Allah, and you’ll find Him before you.” and “He who knows himself, knows his Lord”. [Tirmidhi, and others]
When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the servants of the living Father. - Jesus Christ (AS), from the Gospel of Thomas (log.3)
Self realization is also the utlimate goal of many world religions including buddhism and hinduism. In fact yoga means “to unite (with self)”.
To proceed we need to establish a framework for this discussion. Hence, in this discourse, we will begin first by defining the nature of intention and its existence as a thought. Thought is to intention what event is to an action/reaction.
An intention is a goal set by an individual, however small or mere it may be. An intention is a thought. There exists a difference between intention and motive. But we prefer to restrict our discussion to intention as these are what drive events. A motive may sometimes drive an intention but that is a topic better studied under morality and behavioural sciences. Refer to Immanuel Kant’s work on morality.
Having established study of intention as a science, we again return to the fundamentals of science-> “Question”. If intention were to itself be a reaction, what’s the action? Instead of pursuing the answers to above question, I would direct my understanding to the parameters that influence intention. This is because for every intention there is another intention stimulating it.
The Domino effect
Every event is dependent on a preceding event. That’s a universal law. For example, my writing is dependent on having a means to do so. Likewise, every intention is also dependent on a preceding intention, since, every event is bound to an intention. This I call the domino effect, and must not be underestimated. Anything outside the bounds of this universal law is what we consider as supernatural/ mystical/ metaphysical, etc..
This law also explains how we humans are related as a society and how our destinies are bound. Sometimes even the smallest decisions we take can change our lives and maybe can even probably change the course of history knowingly or unknowingly. Hence, it doesn’t make sense investigating the purpose of intention, as that will again take us back to the big bang and eternity :). It’s one big cycle.
NOTE: Please be aware that from here on we may use the terms intention and thought synonymously. Indeed an intention is but a subset of thoughts.
Parameters influencing human thought
Can be broadly classified into two categories: Nature/ environment. Thought itself.
Both the above parameters have their share of probability. Although this is more evident with nature than with thought (or it is at least thought to be that way). Thoughts are gifted with probability due to free will. Probability again needs lots of discussion, and I hope to cover it later on.
By nature, we mean to include everything that is not self-controlled, or that which is involuntary. This would include luck and destiny. This needs further explanation and shall be discussed later at an appropriate stage.
Both these parameters have been dealt with by intellectuals for ages- point 1 has been studied as traditional ‘science’ and point 2 as ‘psychology’. However, we believe that both these subjects have been dealt with rather superficially. The inability to analytically and scientifically define a thought, its existence, its origin, its physiology, its association with the brain, the human thought process, etc. only proves this.
Our approach differs in a way that we investigate the human perception and its means of understanding, instead of merely studying science and psychology (behaviour) separately as mutually exclusive entities. Nature isn’t controlled by anyone. And neither is free will controlled by any one. I mean one human can’t control anothers’ thoughts. But looking closely, one would see that no one completely controls his thoughts either. It’s all a mirage, a misconception rather. That said, free will does exist, although it only adds minorly to the probability.
So, if one could control nature (and circumstances so to say), he could quite possibly manipulate human thought. This we don’t plan to prove presently.
As we have stated, we wouldn’t do justice to our approach without examining human perception. One should acknowledge that the two parameters influencing thought namely nature and thought itself are both dependent on senses, as both parameters can only influence thought via a medium of senses.
Comprises of 5 senses as we all know. They’re the connection between a human and his world. Needless to say, this is a hot topic amongst modern philosophers. Why? It’s quite simple, if you can prove that the senses aren’t as true as they appear, then the world wouldn’t exist at all. Fancy thought though. Modern philosophers have tried all they could to prove this. That the senses are actually working together, to make us feel that we can see something and touch/smell/taste/hear it, while it actually doesn’t exist. The idea was first introduced by none other than the father of modern philosophy- Rene Descartes-Cogito ergo sum (English: “I think, therefore I am”).
Most of our discussion assumes that these means are truthful, that our senses are truthful and all that exists does indeed exist. Descartes has done us great favour by having proved this via his great experiments. Hence, it is not required of us to prove it here.
However, we will assert few philosophical ideas using an experiment, that will follow soon.