Actions vs. Intentions (Part II)

The position I took in the last article was one that was very critical of words. I stressed that actions and events are a more honest indicator of someone’s beliefs, intentions, or character, because at least they exist. However, I would like to clarify now that actions in themselves are not honest. A handshake or a kiss can be just as much of a lie as someone saying “trust me” or “I love you.” The key distinction, I propose, lies in the intention behind the action or word. For the sake of simplicity, I will stick to talking about actions, but the same holds true for words. First I’ll define the terms, then I’ll provide examples.

1. essential actions – these are actions you don’t have control over. Most of your life is composed of these actions. They are best described as instincts and reactions.

2. non-essential actions – these are the actions that we do have control over. They are actions we choose to engage in. Even our routines such as brushing our teeth, eating, or fulfilling obligations contain choices. When done out of compulsion and without much thought they are still actions we choose to partake in and can be held in the court of law.

3. intentional actions – These are actions we pay total attention to. They are deliberate and done with intimate attention and focus. These are the things we make a conscious effort of choosing to do. Oddly enough, if done correctly, these actions may resemble “essential actions.” The distinction, however, is that fact that these actions are done on a much higher level of awareness whereas the “normal” “essential actions” don’t even register in one’s mind.

Of course, one could argue that even the non-essential actions are also done consciously, but the distinction I want to make between the two is that the non-essential type of action is a routine, a duty, and done without intimacy, feeling, or attention. The non-essential actions can, of course, slip into intentional actions from time to time such as an intense focus on an exceptionally savory meal. But the point I want to make is that most of the time our actions, even when doing things we intentionally engage in, often aren’t the subject of our focus and therefore lose meaning.

The distinction I’m making is between the non-essential actions we take and the intentional actions we take. To many people, this line is blurred. What I’m saying is this line is clear and people need to think about on which side do their actions lie?

Examples:

1. Prayer – this is a perfect example because prayer actually spans all three actions. To some people, praying is even more an essential action than walking or going to the bathroom. To others, it is more sporadic and “do it when I feel like it” activity. While for others it is a full experience that causes weeping, singing, ecstasy, and the will to kill.

2. Love – also an action that spans all three. Like the love between family, or between couples who no longer celebrate their love, it is often taken as granted, as automatic. Then there is love that is non-essential, played out it tired routines and cliches. And then there is love that is done with feeling, eliciting the same reactions that I listed in prayer.

When you choose to pray, is there a reason? Are you focusing on the words you are saying? Do you mean every single word? When you love someone, are you doing the action just to remain stable in the relationship or to illicit a response from your partner? Or do you do it because you think it’s what you’re supposed to do? Or do you do it because you can’t help yourself due to a burning desire and an insatiable urge? If it is love that is driving you like a motor, unable to stop you even if there is an obstacle, then it is an action done with intention. If you pray because of a sincere desire to talk to God, to feel Him, and to strengthen your understand of Him, then your prayer was done with intention.

The reason why I think this distinction is important because it answers much of the hypocrisy that is seen in religion, relationships, politics, and whatever else is seen as hypocritical. As long as we do everything with awareness, with knowledge of our intentions in our actions, then we can confidently be ourselves. We won’t be hypocritical, we won’t be fake, and we will be satisfied with ourselves. In today’s world where there are so many claims of fraud, superficiality, and hypocrisy, I think looking at the intention behind the action is an indispensable perspective that should become one of our essential actions.

I’m not saying everything should be done with intensity, nor am I saying everything should be done with an intention. Sometimes a meal and even a conversation is better if I’m not paying any attention to it. But certain acts should be done with intention. Otherwise they risk losing their sanctity.

All I’m saying is that the truth of all words and of all actions is strictly determined by the intention behind it. The intention is what’s true. The intention is what’s real. The intention determines the words you speak and the actions you do.


Afterword.
Since the picture accompanying this article may seem confusing, I thought I should provide a quick note to explain. The girl on the right is holding a gun to the girl on the left, which is an action that is assumed to result in death. However, her intention is to seduce her, and not kill her. Therefore, her intention, not her action, determines what is true.

Words vs Actions (Part I)

I had a falling out with words recently. We got into a big argument where I told him I couldn’t trust him anymore but he told me it didn’t matter because I was dependent upon him and would never leave him. I knew he was right, so I just went into my room and cried for a week. We’re on better terms now as we have renegotiated our relationship based on minimalism. I will only play with him as I see fit and he will do his best to regain my trust. I think it’ll work out just fine, but after he told me the secrets about all his brothers and sisters and his extended family, I don’t think I’ll ever be friends with anyone else’s words.

You see, unless a word is used to specifically and accurately describe something that exists, it is a lie, or at least untrue. Because it doesn’t exist. All words, thoughts, and ideas are not real because they do not exist. If they do not exist, how can they be true?

Since this immediately throws up some red flags I will give you a few examples. Love, for instance, is abstract, right? If someone says they love you then you have to just believe them and trust them right? To a certain extent yes. But if there is nothing to show for that love, meaning there is no action to supplicate the statement, then I would question the extent of that persons love. If someone truly loves someone else, their actions show it and there is evidence to back it up. In that case, it agrees with my hypothesis that saying “I love you” to someone is only describing what is already evident by real events. Words are supplicating actions.

Similarly, if the government of a country claims it is democratic, it should be determined whether or not the signs of democracy exist, specifically a rule by the people. President Bush has repeatedly claimed that Venezuela and Iran, for instance, are not democratic because the leaders oppose the United States. However, the leaders in both countries won by wide margins in elections which would seem to pass the test for a democratic country. It seems that Bush’s definition of democracy has more to do with unquestioned allegiance to the US rather than its true meaning. Furthermore, the Bush administration’s repeated and insistent claim that anyone who opposes the war is unpatriotic demonstrates the elements of a tyranny, not a democracy.

I’m sure you’ve seen one of those emails which talk about “what he says and what he really means” like “Can I call you sometime? = I'd eventually like to have sex with you.” I’m not sure if you are familiar with the concept of double think coined by Orwell but it’s basically holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting them. According to Orwell it is: “to tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies.” This is why words are inherintly untrustworthy. This is why it is necessary to take the “guilty until proven innocent” approach rather than the other way around.

I know this is a harsh judgment to make and I know I’m being unusually critical, but I challenge you to pay attention for one day to see what people actually talk about and you’ll see there is some merit to my words. Words can be an incredible vehicle and tool. I had grown to admire them for their utility in expressing ideas formed in our mind which are forged from our souls. But lately, I have been really paying attention to what people talk about most of the time and it is usually projections, opinions, theories, proclamations and predictions. These are useless! I don’t know about the psychological benefits of such empty talk, maybe it boosts their self-esteem, but I can’t help but to think it would be infinitely better if they didn’t say anything and just did whatever it is they keep talking about. Don’t tell me what books you’re going to read, tell me what books you’ve read. Don’t tell me what you’re going to do with your life, tell me what you’ve done so far. Don’t tell me how you’re going to do something, tell me what you’re doing right now to accomplish it. After all, what shows love more: saying I love you? Or a kiss?

One Year Anniversary

I know I said I wasn’t going to write on here for a while. But how could I resist? The Modernist Café turns one year old this week and that means its time to celebrate! Bring out the shot glasses and the rubbers!

Let me just say I can’t believe I’ve continued operating this site for a year now. I’m usually quite bad with responsibilities and obligations but I think I’ve done a fairly good job producing articles consistently. I didn’t write anything in January and February of 2005, but hey, nobody’s perfect.

However, what’s more interesting is how my writing has evolved, particularly my subject material. I definitely focused more on political and societal issues in the beginning whereas I’m focusing more on individual and spiritual matters now. The beginning was characterized by specific events while the recent writing has been abstract and philosophical.

The reason why I’m pointing this out is because I think it’s relevant to the issues we’ve been talking about lately about history, identity and alternate realities. Just because I’ve changed focus, it doesn’t mean that the earlier stuff can just be forgotten. It can be tucked away neatly into memory, yes. But completely forgotten and disregarded? Impossible. Because it’s the moments like these, during milestones, that the whole story comes into the proper perspective. I may tell somebody “come check out The Modernist Café where philosophical and theological issues are discussed” because that’s what is overwhelmingly being written about now. But let’s say someone asked me to stand up in front of a classroom and give a lecture about The Modernist Café (a very weird concept), I would need to start with the beginning and show the progression. Because that’s the whole story of The Modernist Café. Anything less would be incomplete and inaccurate.

However, this is not to say that when I introduce people to this site I tell them to read it from start to finish. It’s not necessary because the earlier stuff doesn’t affect what I write now. It might be relevant to look at to see what my prior positions and beliefs were, and might even be helpful in understanding my current positions, but ultimately they have no other influence in what I write. We, as people, are like The Modernist Café.

In my very first post I claimed that I would use this blog specifically to write about politics. Do I still do that? Obviously not. Will I write a political article in the future? Perhaps. The point is that the topic doesn’t really matter. The topics and the focus of our lives are always changing. It’s the essence that matters and to that extent I believe I have kept my word. In the first post I claim that “blogging can be useful if it’s informative and has some other value beyond simply learning about the blogger.” This was the only principle I attempted to keep constant, (which can only be determined by looking at past blogs and is another reason why remembering the past is important – to determine trends and patterns). And to that extent I think I’ve remained faithful.

You see, that’s why I named it The Modernist CAFÉ to begin with. It’s not called the Modernist Pulpit. Or the Modernists Bullhorn. I chose Café because I wanted this to be a forum. Even if I talk about myself a little bit here and there, my point has always been to throw a piece of meat out there and have the dogs rip it apart (you can pick what kind of dog you want to be). If I give my insight, that’s because I’m the author and I have something to say about it. But I never ever believe that I am authoritative. That I am the only one with the answer. I give my opinion because I like to, not because I want to convert you. We all have a brain that interprets information and forms perceptions, and I’m fascinated by different responses. I want people to think, more than anything else. And I want to hear that opinion.

With that said, let me ask all of you who come to this site to do me the favor of providing your opinion. Even if it’s just a line or two. Some of you do, and very consistently, and it is for those people that this site is dedicated to. But believe it or not, I know I have other readers who come here consistently and I know who you are and you never write any comments. Why is that? All of you are wise. All of you have unique information, expereinces, and perceptions that make your opinions valuable to me. You don’t need to be a scholar on any of the issues I write about to give your opinion. So if you read something that you find interesting and have anything to say about it at all, do me and everyone else a favor and share it.

So you can start right now by leaving a comment answering these questions:
1. How long have you been coming to The Modernist Café?
2. What article do you like the most?
3. What picture do you like the most?
4. What topics/issues would you like to see discussed in the future?
5. If you could be a dog, what kind of dog would you be?
6. Is there a God?
7. Do you love me?
8. Describe yourself in two words.

Cheers!