From: "Friedman, Howard J." <hfn-AT-sdpfr.powersoft.com>
Subject: effort/intentions.3 (OO)
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 96 14:00:00 PST



I can see you define "intentions (Karinne)" and "effort (Douglas)" very 
differently than I do. It's hard for me to imagine that either term can 
avoid a reference to self-presence. Neither am I sure of the wisdom of 
defining common terms with philosophic meanings that are contrary -in my 
opinion- to the prevailing usage.

I introduced the term "intentions" in the discussion because I felt that 
"effort" did, in fact, require self-presence. Since there is no apparent 
"intentional" status to a "spasm", I offered intentions as the missing 
elements for any attempt to class "spasm" as an "effort". Then I added my 
bemusement, given the notion that intentions - to me, at least - are 
convenient fictions. (Again, I don't doubt that intentions are real, just 
that they are actual or timely).

It's interesting that Douglas seems to agree with me that intentions are 
about self-presence, and that Karinne and I seem to agree that effort 
involves an element of self-presence. At least I can't be totally off the 
wall in claiming that both terms are associated with a subjective agency in 
common parlance (whereas "spasm" is not).

I do disagree with Karinne when she implies that receptivity has to be 
passive. (Body-in-tension does not connote passivity to me). And Karinne 
adds another big word that might be better to avoid, when she says "...for 
me- i start with a decision to move." The word "decision" conjures up the 
image of a homunculus in people's brains. It re-introduces the notion of 
subjective agency as the starting point, negating earlier claims in regard 
to non-goal oriented intentions.

howie, suresnes, france

 

     ------------------