I think I see where you are going with that, but 'acting to do something' still involves intent. I think what you are trying to say is that manipulation requires a specific type of intent in order to exist. I had to think of an example for this to make sense to me.
If I am sitting on the sidewalk, minding my own business, I have intent to sit and mind my own business, but I do not have intent to sway someone else's thoughts or otherwise get them to pay any attention to me. If someone looks over at me as they are driving by and thinks, "Wow, that's a great idea; maybe I'll have a picnic this weekend," then I have swayed them, but without intent. In this case I would say that I was not acting manipulatively.
However, if I specifically sat down with the idea in my mind that I would like others to see me and maybe they will think about having a picnic this weekend, then my intention is both to sit, but also to sway others. In this case, I am being manipulative.
I think manipulation requires the specific intent to sway in some form or fashion in order to exist regardless of other intentions. Unless you were to ask me or I otherwise announced it, you wouldn't know my intentions, and therefore you wouldn't know if I was being manipulative in my actions or not. You might could say I'm being manipulative, but you wouldn't know for sure if I am intending to do so.
Does that make sense? This is a fun little philosophical discussion.
I think I see where you are going with that, but 'acting to do something' still involves intent. I think what you are trying to say is that manipulation requires a specific type of intent in order to exist.
No, you've entirely missed it.
Manipulation has three modes. Intent to change: an abstract concept or thought Act of change: a physical action Influence of the change: how the action is interpreted by the environment.
None of these are dependent upon another. The formula should have a simple linear progression: Intent > Action > Influence
Seems like it'd be easy. But it's really an acquired skill.
We've already discussed that the brain sometimes fibs and makes up a rationalization for an action after the fact. So you can have an action with no intent (or no discernible intent at the time of action). But your action will still influence the environment. At which point you may very well make up a plausible reason for your action.
Taoism accepts that all actions influence the environment. It aims to create that linear progression. That you first formulate an intent, create an action and it then has the desired influence on the environment.
I could expound on this more but the muscle relaxers are kicking in and it's getting a bit hard to type, let alone think in any coherent fashion.
Okay, now that makes much more sense, especially what we've discussed about rationalization occurring after the action. Yes, holding an action until the mind settles on that being a good decision is a learned skill - this is what I need to practice on.
You've actually hit on my reason for posting this question in the first place.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trickykitty
As much as I hate English, I love discussing semantics.
Date: 2011-08-30 08:55 pm (UTC)If I am sitting on the sidewalk, minding my own business, I have intent to sit and mind my own business, but I do not have intent to sway someone else's thoughts or otherwise get them to pay any attention to me. If someone looks over at me as they are driving by and thinks, "Wow, that's a great idea; maybe I'll have a picnic this weekend," then I have swayed them, but without intent. In this case I would say that I was not acting manipulatively.
However, if I specifically sat down with the idea in my mind that I would like others to see me and maybe they will think about having a picnic this weekend, then my intention is both to sit, but also to sway others. In this case, I am being manipulative.
I think manipulation requires the specific intent to sway in some form or fashion in order to exist regardless of other intentions. Unless you were to ask me or I otherwise announced it, you wouldn't know my intentions, and therefore you wouldn't know if I was being manipulative in my actions or not. You might could say I'm being manipulative, but you wouldn't know for sure if I am intending to do so.
Does that make sense? This is a fun little philosophical discussion.
Re: As much as I hate English, I love discussing semantics.
Date: 2011-08-31 01:37 am (UTC)No, you've entirely missed it.
Manipulation has three modes.
Intent to change: an abstract concept or thought
Act of change: a physical action
Influence of the change: how the action is interpreted by the environment.
None of these are dependent upon another.
The formula should have a simple linear progression: Intent > Action > Influence
Seems like it'd be easy. But it's really an acquired skill.
We've already discussed that the brain sometimes fibs and makes up a rationalization for an action after the fact.
So you can have an action with no intent (or no discernible intent at the time of action). But your action will still influence the environment. At which point you may very well make up a plausible reason for your action.
Taoism accepts that all actions influence the environment. It aims to create that linear progression. That you first formulate an intent, create an action and it then has the desired influence on the environment.
I could expound on this more but the muscle relaxers are kicking in and it's getting a bit hard to type, let alone think in any coherent fashion.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-08-31 02:31 am (UTC)You've actually hit on my reason for posting this question in the first place.