I totally agree with the last paragraph. "We The People" DO need to get involved and so many more are now after all that was brought to our attention (love him or hate him), thanks to Trump. Discussions that were never allowed to happen, happened and got the whole country in an uproar. Evidently "free speech" was dangerous as he has been kicked off of the main social media platforms so that we would stop having the discussions about how large corporate interests have been running our country. Regarding Afghanistan.... I don't think that "We The People" ever wanted that war. The people who kept us there for so long DID have a clear intention and that has been to "make as much money as possible from war". This is what happens when the most of the people who get elected to government get there from large donations from large corporations. This is where Andrew Yang got it right! Make corporate donations to political campaigns illegal and only THEN will you have a government by and for the actual people instead of the corporations. BTW, those are the SAME corporations that also OWN the mainstream media and the social media platforms that are NOT allowing free speech... ever wonder why?
I certainly agree that when we are talking about intentions -- individually and collectively -- -- we are often not at all honest about what our intentions actually are. One hundred percent. Sticking with the example here, imagine if in 2002 we said, we've accomplished our military intention and now -- as you suggest -- we are just going to create as much wealth as possible for certain industries and companies and individuals. It would at least be a refreshing jolt of honesty and transparency. Then we could say, wait, hold on, not sure we should do that and our conversations would be about INTENTION -- what we are wanting to accomplish. Politically speaking, arguments and debates about WHAT we want are/will be far more productive than arguments and debates about things that matter far, far less. And arguments and debates about what we want, what our intentions are, will happen much more frequently when they happen much more frequently in our own individual lives.
Hahah! Yes! The question is "who's intentions" are being served compared to who's intentions should be being served. ... The good news, is that the "contrast" is something we are here to learn from. If those who were writing our Constitution back in the day, could see how the "deep state" (non-voting participants and the extremely wealthy that control them) could switch the narrative from "by and for the people" (the original intention) to "we know best for you" (the current intention) they probably would have crafted that piece of work differently. For now, it will be interesting to SEE how this major contrast that we are all going through will resolve itself.
I appreciate your “simple” and clear examples of intentionality and how this consciousness plays out in all facets of life. Thanks.
I totally agree with the last paragraph. "We The People" DO need to get involved and so many more are now after all that was brought to our attention (love him or hate him), thanks to Trump. Discussions that were never allowed to happen, happened and got the whole country in an uproar. Evidently "free speech" was dangerous as he has been kicked off of the main social media platforms so that we would stop having the discussions about how large corporate interests have been running our country. Regarding Afghanistan.... I don't think that "We The People" ever wanted that war. The people who kept us there for so long DID have a clear intention and that has been to "make as much money as possible from war". This is what happens when the most of the people who get elected to government get there from large donations from large corporations. This is where Andrew Yang got it right! Make corporate donations to political campaigns illegal and only THEN will you have a government by and for the actual people instead of the corporations. BTW, those are the SAME corporations that also OWN the mainstream media and the social media platforms that are NOT allowing free speech... ever wonder why?
I certainly agree that when we are talking about intentions -- individually and collectively -- -- we are often not at all honest about what our intentions actually are. One hundred percent. Sticking with the example here, imagine if in 2002 we said, we've accomplished our military intention and now -- as you suggest -- we are just going to create as much wealth as possible for certain industries and companies and individuals. It would at least be a refreshing jolt of honesty and transparency. Then we could say, wait, hold on, not sure we should do that and our conversations would be about INTENTION -- what we are wanting to accomplish. Politically speaking, arguments and debates about WHAT we want are/will be far more productive than arguments and debates about things that matter far, far less. And arguments and debates about what we want, what our intentions are, will happen much more frequently when they happen much more frequently in our own individual lives.
Hahah! Yes! The question is "who's intentions" are being served compared to who's intentions should be being served. ... The good news, is that the "contrast" is something we are here to learn from. If those who were writing our Constitution back in the day, could see how the "deep state" (non-voting participants and the extremely wealthy that control them) could switch the narrative from "by and for the people" (the original intention) to "we know best for you" (the current intention) they probably would have crafted that piece of work differently. For now, it will be interesting to SEE how this major contrast that we are all going through will resolve itself.