n discussing the arising of Good and Evil from the Secondary Principles of the Arising of Meaning and the true Nature of Absolute Free Will, it was observed that in the development of the One, the existence of Absolute Free Will by its inherent nature automatically means that its antithesis, Control of another being's free will, must be permitted to operate. The One cannot, by self limitation, directly choose to eliminate the control of free will, considered as Evil, from Ultimate Reality without violating the existence of Absolute Free Will as fundamental to the Nature of Ultimate Reality. It was also noted that there are in fact vast and elaborate social structures of individuated intelligences, beings, that are native inhabitants of dimensions of Ultimate Reality other than our own which appear non-physical to us. It was observed that these social structures include rule sets, including rule sets established by the One, that place limitations on anti social acts with enforcement mechanisms in place that include many similarities to social structures to be found in our own, human, dimension of reality where a virtual physical reality is simulated. So why don't these rule sets violate the very same self-limitations on the One that prevent, as stated, interfering with the nature of Absolute Free Will? The limitation that means that Good and Evil must be permitted to exist simultaneously.


xamination shows that the difference lies in what precisely is being permitted and how what is being ruled against is controlled. Intent and initiation of action based on that intent are being permitted. What is being ruled as not permitted and for which institutions for detection of violations and for enforcement of those rules exist, is the completion of the action. What is being permitted is first, intent. Absolute Free Will would clearly be interfered with if the mere intent to perform some action could be prevented. "Thought Police" are not allowed. Where would the line be drawn between transient thoughts and a more serious intent that might lead to action? What is next permitted is that this intent may be translated into an initial action; intent is thus “invoked” as Intent. A being may attempt to perform an act which is contrary to an established rule set. The act can be attempted. And again, Absolute Free Will has not been interfered with. It is the initiation of action that in fact defines the existence of intent, that invokes Intent, that effectively states "I really intend to do this deed", as opposed to remaining just a fleeting internal thought. The true intent behind an action can be disguised or hidden or unknown, but the initiation of action makes that intent a real thing/ thought/ idea as opposed to something transient and without real meaning: it invokes the Intent. A true intent when fixed by the initiation of action, even if concealment is attempted, including self deception, makes itself internally a part of the intelligent being initiating the action and leaves real internal results and changes behind. If the intent is evil, then the change resulting is a degradation. If the intent is good, even if the intended action fail to occur or go astray, the change resulting is a positive, a lowering of entropy. Controlling the actions of a being at an earlier point than the initiation of action constitutes interference with the true Nature of Absolute Free Will. Such "prior restraint" of action would turn Absolute Free Will into a fiction. The initiation of action does not necessarily mean completing the final and possibly irreversible action. It would include active planning and preparation. So as an extreme example, waiting for the "trigger" to be pulled is not necessary. Permitting the actual killing of someone is not necessary to preserve Absolute Free Will! Searching out the patterns of the intended victims normal activities (stalking), planning the method of attack, obtaining a "weapon" and "ammunition" all constitute the initiation of action in the absolute sense. Not necessarily however in the sense of meeting proof requirements that must be observed by local "police authority".



o we have determined and clarified yet another secondary principle in the Primacy of Intent over Action but with the Initiation of Action necessary to the "fixing" or "invoking" of Intent. Intent becomes the basis for the establishment of an action as either Good or Evil. Intent is what must be preserved as totally free in order to maintain Absolute Free Will yet the initiation of action cannot be inhibited as it is the "triggering event" which "fixes" a thought or idea, which could be only a random, transient phenomena, into an accomplished, invoked Intent, producing real internal effects upon the being that is establishing this instance of intent. It is what occurs after the initiation of action that can be stopped by a rule set established by the One, by a social policy or "law" established by a society or countered by a contravening action by another being or group of beings without these reactions becoming a negative/ evil act in themselves. And it is intent which must be preserved without restraint in order to maintain Absolute Free Will. Likewise, the initiation of Action must be permitted in order to "fix" an instance of (invoke) intent and thus maintain Absolute Free Will. Compare this with your intuitive reactions to occurrences in our reality as to whether they seem fair or not and I believe you will find that this principle and its detail constituents establishes what is usually perceived as fair. For instance, compare this to the frontier justice as depicted in motion pictures or primitive justice that you may have observed. If a challenge to a gun fight is issued, then an initial action has been taken by the challenger. If the gunfight proceeds and the challenged one is permitted to first initiate the drawing of a weapon and is subsequently shot by the challenger, this would be considered as fair because the challenged one has also initiated action and thereby agreed to the fight and is seen to have fairly lost. If the challenged one does not initiate action by drawing his weapon, he is considered to be equivalent to an innocent bystander and the challenger has committed a murder and is perceived as unfair. This is also why "sting" operations are never perceived as truly fair. The clear intent to commit an anti-social act has been obscured by the taint of prior actions of authority. Who really perpetrated the evil?

nother aspect of Intent that should be noted here is that it can be purposefully used. For the normal incarnated human being, intent is not a fully conscious thing. Motives are chronically mixed and unclear if not unconscious. By making a firm and conscious choice and clear mental statement of an intent to do something and then performing an initial action, even if only symbolic or in the form of a ritual, Intent can be invoked. The invoking of Intent makes a subtle but real change in your being, visible or not. This is the true basis of the traditional statement that a journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. If that one step is deliberately taken to initiate action and invoke Intent, then a real thing has happened which facilitates the journey in real ways. It does not necessarily mean the literal first step with your foot. This is discussed by Carlos Castaneda, Ph. D. describing teachings of his mentor, Don Juan Matus. It was also described by other members of that shamanic tradition describing occurrences that involved "turning the wheel" of fate or similar description. It has been discussed by many authors describing methods to become adept at metaphysical learning and paranormal abilities of various types from lucid dreaming to out of body experiences. A clearly stated intent to accomplish a goal and an actual initiation of action invokes Intent and facilitates accomplishment of the stated goal.