Hmm I re-read what Richard wrote and it looks like we’re saying different things actually.
What I’ve been attempting to convey is that, regarding pure intent, it isn’t that ‘I’ am connected to the purity per se but rather that ‘I’ allow the purity to be experienced, and ‘I’ sort of exist side-by-side with the purity at the same time – like imagine looking at two vessels of liquid, one is water and one is coca cola. The water and the coca-cola are both simultaneously experienced even though the two are not connected. So the experience of the purity is consciously experienced side-by-side with the experience of ‘me’, in some manner.
So my using the term ‘state of being connected’ as opposed to ‘connection’ was a way to draw this distinction. But I see now that that’s not what Richard meant, that actually these two things are synonyms. Richard simply describes pure intent as a connection between “naïve intimacy”/“the near-purity of the sincerity of naïveté” and “that palpable life-force”/“that benedictive perfection and purity”/“the pristine-purity of an actual innocence”. i.e. as a connection between (a part of) ‘me’, and that actual purity.
I believe what Richard was clarifying is the following… when we talk of a connection we might think of two things, Thing-A and Thing-B, joined by a connective Thing-Connecting. e.g. if i plug my iPhone into my laptop, Thing-A is my iPhone, Thing-B my laptop, and Thing-Connecting is the cable. So it might look like the following is the case:
The “Connection”:
- Thing-A: naive intimacy
- Thing-B: benedictive perfection and purity
- Thing-Connecting: pure intent*
i.e. it may seem that 'pure intent" refers to the “Thing-Connection” above (and not to Thing-A or Thing-B), and therefore as something distinct from Thing-B.
And what Richard clarified is that this “connection” is best described in other words, as “the state of being connected”, and it is “the state of being connected” itself that is “pure intent” (i.e. the state of ‘me’ as ‘naive intimacy’ being connected to the perfection and purity).
Pure Intent = the state of the following being connected:
- Thing-A: naive intimacy
- Thing-B: benedictive perfection and purity
- Thing-Connecting: ??
Basically he is saying that pure intent is simultaneously both the palpable life-force itself and the state of ‘my’ naive intimacy being connected to that very-same palpable life-force.
In my experience I can confirm that what I experience as pure intent while not in a PCE, is indeed one-and-the-same-thing as the purity that I experience in a PCE, but they are just experienced differently.
The purpose of the (apparently idiosyncratic to me) distinction was to explain how something that isn’t actual / doesn’t exist, can be connected to something that is actual / does actually exist. And the way I explain it is that it’s not a connection in a literal sense of iPhone connected via a wire to a computer (as in three actually existing things all connected), but rather that it’s that ‘I’ allow the purity to be experienced.
It all gets a bit hazy/muddy as I think about it/try to explain in different ways 
. Surprisingly tricky to convey. But the experience itself is very clear… there’s no experiential confusion (now) of ‘me’ which doesn’t actually exist, experiencing a connection to / allowing an experience of a purity outside of ‘me’ that does actually exist, without ‘me’ being able to “get in” to that purity and dirty it, and without that purity being able to “control” or “force” or have any “power” over me or be affected by ‘me’ in any way.
I think what makes it difficult to convey is that ‘I’ literally cannot see outside of ‘myself’. Like I was trying to experience what the ‘interface’ might be between the actual sense of sight and what ‘I’ see via ‘my’ sense of sight, and it’s just impossible to get ‘behind’ ‘my’ sense of sight… and trying to do so is actually somewhat alarming as ‘I’ am basically trying to see outside of ‘my’ own (illusory) ‘existence’, which triggers a fear-response as it is a threat to end ‘me’… however when I instead follow the golden-thread pure intent then ‘my’ hold on consciousness weakens, experience begins to resemble a PCE more and more, and it becomes essentially a simple matter to allow a PCE and experience that actual sight… Basically ‘me’ trying to see behind ‘me’ while still being ‘me’ is impossible, but following pure intent and going into abeyance is “easy” .
Also with all these words, ideas, sentences, etc., everything seems to work better and make more sense when I recognise that the point and purpose of all this is to help myself and others experience that purity more and more, to allow PCEs to happen, to follow that pure intent golden-clew, in order to get all of ‘me’ on board so ‘I’ self-immolate sooner rather than later… Essentially it matters not how it’s described, as long as the people reading it understand what is being conveyed, where “understand” specifically refers to them being able to experience that very same thing in their own experience (while reading it, ideally) and see clearly that the “referent” (that which the words refer to) of the writer is the same as the “referent” of the reader, which in this case is that very purity itself.