Intention in the Informative Field

Now that we agreed to the name, and known physical properties the next question could be: how is the informative field affected?

There are many theories out there about the power of creating your own reality by focusing your intention and detaching from the results. How can we make sense of this affirmation in our universe?

I believe it's a quantum probabilistic interaction that explains this possibility. What I often don't hear when this kind of theories are presented is why, why does the combination of intention and detachment work? (assuming according to our own little experiments that is does).

The power of intention (can't find the Sanskrit name for it right now) is a force that can modify the informative field. Who's intention though? The universe's intentions? my own intentions? my neighbor's intentions? the intentions of someone in the exact opposite side of the planet? an ant's intentions? It seems like all of those are legitimate intentions and I'm not sure there's a hierarchy to them but a probabilistic outcome from the intention of all related intenders to the affected objects of the field. The only hierarchy that intentions might expose is maybe the the focus of the intention (tempted to say the purity of the intention, but that might have another meaning not intended :).

The detachment part is simple to understand in probabilistic terms as well, if my intentions are very attached they set up increasing constraints to the reality that would fulfill them as there would be a need for major consensus in the universe for things to happen. So when the intentions are detached, they're free to find their way around in harmony with other intentions.

For what we discussed before universe's primary intentions might be to expand its knowledge and complexity, to survive? to fulfill the intentions of its parts?

This viewpoint kind of opposes two other theories in modern metaphysical philosophy:
1. the theory that all there is is a universe (god) intention and we need to tune it to it.
2. the theory that one individual intention has all the power to change the world.

They could all be true in certain circumstances, such as when individual intentions are in sync with universe's intentions or when one individual intentions are so strong that they can change other's intentions and become fulfilled. But it's always about probabilistic outcome winning in the quantum level in the end ...

A Metaphysical Timeline

I was thinking about the evolution of our awareness on these subjects from distinguishing spirituality from religion, to finding a scientific basis to these metaphysical understandings.

Although, certain people and cultures have made plenty of discoveries to these ends over the millenia, in our culture, our Western culture, I would say we've only made these critical transitions during our generation, since the early 60's.

Beginning with people like Alan Watts, who brought Eastern philosophies to Western audiences in the early 60's - encouraging an entirely new generation of adults to a way of thought that was otherwise outside of our Western experience. Prior to that introduction, Western philosophies were fairly tied exclusively into the Judeo-Christian religiosity of metaphysics. Watts opened our eyes to alternatives - both widespread and valid - outside of our own awareness. I think it was pretty ground-breaking, and it hit an audience being opened to further cultural shifts - namely music, free love and psycho-active drugs.

So the timeline now includes consciousness-expanding adepts a'la Timothy Leary; Aldous Huxley; the Beatles; the Grateful Dead; Carlos Castaneda; and a host of other cultural icons who brought their audiences to the brink of metaphysical discoveries.

After the drugs wore off, their affects lingering, I think the 80's and 90's brought New Age spirituality to the cultural forefront. All of a sudden, the God vs. the Devil conflicts of the prior age (culminating in critical mass in the 70's with all the films like The Exorcist; Omen; Race With The Devil; Legacy; etc.) were finally being rejected for the alternatives brought to the public like Ram Dass; the Tao Te Ching; and nearly ending in the late 90's with the predictions of such New Spiritual offerings as The Celestine Prophesy and others.

Only since the late 90's and early 2000's have we seen this melding of science and metaphysics in the current wave of offerings, per Deepak Chopra; Wayne Dyer; What The Bleep; etc.

We've counter-culturally evolved away from Deity driven philosophy to the current lineup of science-based metaphysics and spirituality - thanks especially to quantum theory.

Of course there are still plenty of fear-filled holdouts assailing us with their Deity-driven philosophies, but the New Age has evolved into something new - this Quantum-Metaphysical Age.

And finally we've got scientists discussing these areas left otherwise to the hippy holdouts. It's critical mass again, and refreshing.

Is reality in reality only thoughts?

I heard many times from different sources the affirmation that everything that there is are thoughts. Old philosophic ideologies such as Buddhists say the mind is all there is. Many alternative new age authors have stated the same, such as Deepak Chopra saying that the only difference between our thoughts and the universe as thoughts is that our thoughts are usually linguistically articulated. Others, Skooby for instance, have their personal experiences and thoughts on what it is all about and arrived to the same conclusion. I personally have considered this many times and I still have more questions than answers in this regard.

For instance, what is the source of all thoughts? who is the thinker behind the thoughts? (very zen question ;) what's the relationship between the thoughts and the physical brain? If we don't need a brain to think thoughts what is the brain for? If we do need a brain to think thoughts, nothing existed before brains evolved? (contradiction right there ...)

I can bring more questions, but hope to get some answers to these before.