I will take a shot at it .
So there is the purity of the actual world, that actually exists.
In a PCE or when actually free, I am that purity. In these ways of being conscious, “I” refers to the flesh and blood body being apperceptively conscious. One of the ways the term “pure intent” is used is to refer to this purity in and of itself.
In regular feeling-being consciousness, it is possible to experience this purity. The nature of the experience is different, but it is the same thing being perceived – the purity itself. In this way of being conscious, “I” refers to ‘me’ the ‘feeling-being’ that doesn’t actually exist – but ‘me’ experiencing ‘myself’ essentially co-exists with the experiencing of the purity.
This situation in and of itself - the state of ‘me’ “co-existing” with the experience of the purity - is also called “pure intent”.
So “pure intent” can refer both to the purity in and of itself, and to the experience of the purity while ‘being’ a feeling-being.
Ok I was able to say all without using the word “connection” . Now to get to this word …
The word “connection” introduces an ambiguity because “connection” implies three things: a Thing-A, a Thing-B that is different from the Thing-A, and the Connection-Thing which connects the two. e.g. if you connect yourself to your dog with a leash, then you are Thing-A, the dog is Thing-B, and the leash is the Connection-Thing .
If we are talking about just the purity itself, as in a PCE, there is no “connection” at all - I simply am the purity already.
If we are talking about the co-existence situation … … what, really, is the “connection”? Because I would say that:
- The Thing-A is the purity in and of itself.
- The Thing-B is the purity that is being experienced “co-existing” with ‘me’ as the feeling-being.
- And the Connection-Thing is… … again, the purity in and of itself .
So it is a bit tautological, it’s like the purity is “connected” to itself via the purity, which is just another way to say that it is the purity that is being experienced.
Now when Richard wrote:
RICHARD: In this context, then, as the term ‘pure intent’ refers to an intimate connection betwixt the near-purity of the sincerity of naiveté and the pristine-purity of that actual innocence which is inherent to living life as a flesh-and-blood body only (i.e., sans identity in toto/ the entire affective faculty) […]
What we can say of this connection is that it’s something other than the one I described above. I might say it’s being used metaphorically. At the very best I could say:
- The Thing-A is the experience of the purity / the purity itself.
- The Thing-B is the ‘naive-me’
- The (!!!) ‘Connection-Thing’ is essentially ‘me’ allowing that purity to be experienced.
But note well the warning – now we aren’t talking about an actually-existing thing anymore, but rather a metaphorical thing, or perhaps an action - ‘me’ allowing something to happen.
So I could say that it is that ‘I’ discover that when ‘I’ am being sincere and/or sincerely naive and/or naivete itself, ‘I’ have this ability to allow this actually-existing purity to become apparent (with greater or lesser degrees), and ‘me’ actively doing this allowing is what brings about the experience of the purity … … and the “connection” in this sense is nothing other than ‘me’ realizing ‘I’ can allow it, and doing that very allowing it to bring about that purity.
Ok not sure if that helps… … curious what you all think.
The way I perceive it in my mind is that pure intent is this actually-existing pure beam of eternal light (eternally existing, infinite in either direction). And ‘me’ as feeling-being am on the outskirts of the beam of light, getting closer to it but never able to touch it… but ‘I’ can essentially ‘hitch my ride’ to the beam of light (without touching it ) and ride it away off to ‘me’ disappearing.
Cheers,
Claudiu