So here’s a perhaps interesting train of thought…
No Consciousness
If consciousness were not in the picture, it’d be very simple. There’s only the trees, rocks, neurons, etc., that all actually exist, and nothing else - all is actual.
Pure Consciousness
With pure consciousness, it’s still equally simple. There is human body, the brain, neurons, the brain generates this actually-existing consciousness which in effect is the neurons in action. All is actual and pure.
Illusions
The only tricky part comes into play when ‘feeling-being’ comes into the picture, via ‘feeling-being consciousness’ (aka ‘regular’ consciousness).
The ‘feeling-being’ is illusory, i.e. not actual… contrasted with pure consciousness which is actual. How is it possible? How can something actual generate something that is not actual?
There’s actually nothing tricky about this, either. If you consider watching a video of a man juggling 3 balls on an iPhone screen… in actuality there is no man juggling 3 balls, there’s just LEDs blinking on and off. The man juggling the 3 balls is an illusion, i.e. not actual (there is no actual man juggling the balls). So there’s no problem in the actual generating something not-actual, it is straightforward. Everything is actual, but the activity of actual things can generate illusions that are perceived to exist but don’t actually exist. (Note it requires a human being conscious of the screen for the illusion to be generated/perceived.) There is still actually not anything that isn’t actual. Nothing that is actual “connects” to anything not-actual.
“Sentient” Illusions ???
The only tricky part, then, is when that is which is not actual/illusory is something that is sentient / has an experience of existing. How on earth can an illusion have an experience of being not-illusory ???
Consciousness Itself ???
To which I will respond… how on earth can matter give rise to consciousness in the first place ??? What, specifically, about neurons firing, results in the experience of consciousness? Nobody actually knows the mechanism by which it takes place… it is called the “hard problem of consciousness”. But evidently it occurs, nobody disputes that.
As there is no satisfactory scientific or philosophical answer to how matter can give rise to consciousness, there can certainly be no satisfactory scientific or philosophical answer to how matter can give rise to a feeling-being ‘consciousness’ that is only illusory (as this is a subset of consciousness in general).
The Realm of Experience
So then we bridge this ‘hard’ gap by moving from the realm of explaining how physical processes give rise to consciousness, over to the other side, to experience, where we are all sure that experience is happening. So we forget the question of how the consciousness arises / by which mechanism is does, and now we’re in the realm of experience - the realm of actualism.
Actual and Not-Actual
In this realm, then, we can now talk of two categories of experience - actual and not-actual. With a PCE being actual, while a feeling/emotion being not-actual.
Examining our experience carefully, we can see that there is never any “contact” or “connection” per se betwixt the two!
PCE
In a PCE – there is only actuality being experienced, actual sense inputs, I am the senses, etc.
Outside of PCE, no pure intent
Outside of PCE, setting aside pure intent for the moment — there is absolutely zero that is actual. The senses ‘I’ experience are not actual senses, ‘I’ do not perceive anything actual. By the time the senses become experienced by ‘me’, they are already part of the illusory ‘reality’ that ‘I’ simultaneously generate and inhabit. So there is no experiential connection or contact between actuality and ‘me’ via the senses – it is all ‘me’. No matter how hard ‘I’ look, never will ‘I’ see something actual.
Outside of PCE, pure intent
Now remains only the topic under discussion – pure intent. What is this “state of being connected”?
What is clear is that the experience of pure intent is of something that does not mix or interact with ‘me’ in any format. ‘I’ can experientially try to ‘feel it out’ and intuitively extend ‘my’ feeling-tentacles out ‘into’ it to try to perceive it, yet all in vain – no part of ‘me’ can reach it. Likewise I can try to reach it via ‘my’ thinking or via ‘my’ senses, with equal results.
Similarly, pure intent itself cannot reach into ‘me’. It doesn’t have any control or power over ‘me’. It cannot force me to feel this way or that. It can’t exert anything on ‘me’ at all.
I got a very clear glimpse of this observing Richard & Vineeto in the airport when I was leaving from my first visit. I wrote about it on the old Yahoo! group – essentially I observed that all the vibes and psychic currents that were swirling around in the very air ‘I’ was witnessing, simply passed through Richard & Vineeto as if they weren’t there at all. Not only did they have no effect on it whatsoever, and it had no effect on them – but they simply were incapable of even perceiving it!
Back to one’s own experience of pure intent… it turns out the only way pure intent can be experienced is by this apparently “new” sense, never used before yet apparently it has always been there – what Richard called an “existential” sense. Via this existential sense, which is not ‘me’ sensing it out, pure intent becomes experienceable. Although one can colloquially say that I as a feeling-being am experiencing pure intent, if one is more technical/precise about it, it’s rather that ‘I’ as a feeling-being allow the experiencing of it to occur – and ‘I’ can see that it is something entirely outside of ‘me’, not of ‘me’ or ‘my’ doings, that ‘I’ can never become or touch, and that can never touch ‘me’.
If I keep this existential sensing firmly in mind and allow a PCE to happen, then it becomes evident that the existential sensing has been what-I-am all-along, namely the actual flesh and blood body being conscious.
i.e.:
RICHARD: In other words, the living experience, the moment-to-moment experiential ‘tapping-into’ or ‘locking-onto’ the pristine purity of an actual innocence – which the flesh-and-blood body known generically as [Respondent] (albeit forever invisible to feeling-being ‘[Respondent’s nickname]’ and all ‘his’ feeling-being interlocutors) is already living anyway – is to be ‘tapping-into’ or ‘locking-onto’ that palpable life-force, that actually occurring stream of benevolence and benignity, already personified as flesh-and-blood bodies only (i.e., sans identities in toto/ their entire affective faculties) in actuality.
Mailing List 'D' Respondent No. 17
So pure intent is, perhaps, a way that the already actually-existing actual consciousness of this flesh and blood body called Claudiu, makes itself available to the otherwise-impenetrable feeling-being consciousness of the feeling-being called ‘Claudiu’ being conscious of ‘Claudiu’ being conscious, so that feeling-being ‘Claudiu’ can use it as a beacon to eventually find ‘his’ way to self-immolate once and for all… all the while without ‘Claudiu’ himself “touching” it, per se.
“Connection” ???
Why then is it called a connection? A connection between what and what?
Here [I think it] comes in handy, to think of pure intent more as the “state of being connected” rather than the connection, per se. i.e. it’s not that there is a ‘me’ that connects to the purity, and this connection is called pure intent – it’s rather that what is experienced as a feeling-being as a “state of being connected” is in-and-of-itself pure intent, which is equivalent to/the same as the palpable life-force that pure intent actually is.
While experiencing pure intent, it makes sense experientially to call it a connection, as in to colloquially say “I am connected to the purity”… because the purity is being experienced, it is as if ‘I’ am connected to that purity. But this has grammatical implications, as if there is some sort of thing, physical or otherwise, touching ‘me’ and touching the purity at the same time, as in forming an actual connection. But rather it’s more that the purity becomes available to ‘me’, and this “condition of the purity being available to be experienced (via that existential sensing that is not ‘me’)” is what “pure intent” refers to.
However that is quite a mouthful so perhaps we can just leave it as “establish a connection to that purity” 
.
That is, until those conditions allow for/ produce a lifeless, unconscious slab of meat. Those conditions and causes infinite construct me and give me shape, they form every fold and wrinkle, they shape my thoughts and personality, they assemble every fiber, they move me left and right, up and down. That is, before they destruct and disassemble me; before they deform and destroy me, and then use what remains of me to construct something else entirely. Thank you, whatever you are, for putting me together for a moment in time, so that I can know what you are and what you do. Thank you for allowing me to appreciate and marvel at your work. Thank you for letting me see. It is good.