Whenever a person lives intentionally, actions that are undertaken today are premised on goals, objectives, and aspirations that, as yet, might not be apparent to others. Naturally, it is implicit that intentional living is premised on goals, objectives, and aspirations that are noble in their character.
Suppose a person lives intentionally with respect to one single overarching aspiration. Suppose this aspiration is so grand, it cannot be attained to prior to arrival at dusk of life, that is, prior to the age of 65.
While the aspiration is not attained to until the age of 65, given all actions are directed towards attainment of the aspiration, all actions have exactly the same sort of ‘quality’. It is safe to say then, that whereas there is experience of change of time between say, ages 30 and 65, regardless, with actions having exactly the same quality over that span of time, the ‘quality of time’ remains exactly the same, for all of time is branded by actions that have exactly the same aspiration.
In presence of intentional living, time has meaning only in context of aspirations, and actions that are directed towards attainment of aspirations. Time then, does not have it’s own distinct reality.
Suppose a person does not believe in intentional living. In presence of this assumption, all of life is regarded as confluence of chance and probability. The aggregate probability, q of a chance event that chooses person y is characterized by two elements. The probability, q(t) that, in the current time, t, in presence of a total of P candidates, person y is chosen; and the probability, q(t+1) that if person y is not chosen at time t, he or she is chosen at time t+1. Given some people are chosen at time t, q(t+1) is not independent of q(t). Simultaneously, given conditions in society can worsen between times t and t+1, q(t+1) is not, in entirety, a function of q(t).
It is straightforward to see, in presence of ‘unintentioned’ living, that time takes on it’s own distinct reality. It further is evident that time can be abused by those who already are rich, and powerful. By spending their monies or influence towards arrival at a decrease to q(t), and decrease to q(t+1), the rich and powerful induce a world within which fewer and fewer people have opportunity for experiencing good outcomes.
We infer then, that in presence of unintentioned living, whims and caprices of the rich and powerful come into play, and time is transformed into a cruel master who plays cruel games on hopes of society. In this respect, note that hope is not contradictory to unintentioned living, for hope need not embark on any actions for validation of it’s existence. This is rationale for the adage, “If wishes were horses, all men would be kings.”
Consider, for instance, the current proposal that College Education be free. While Free College Education enables attendance at College free of charge, it simultaneously is guaranteed to induce decreases to each of q(t) and q(t+1), for in the incentivizing of everyone to go to College, it simultaneously induces attenuation of quality of jobs available to those who graduate from College. In presence of status or lottery based allocations of the best jobs, there is arrival at a society within which the proletariat constantly are clawing at one another, this because they seek to position themselves for job lotteries operated by the rich and powerful.
We arrive then at an Upper Middle Class who owe their existence to the rich and powerful, who then do not have any incentive to look out for those who fall through lottery cracks created by the same rich and powerful.
In presence of unintentioned living, the rich and the powerful have opportunity for transforming time into a cruel master, a master who treats hopes as lotteries.
We arrive then at an important insight, which is, the easiest path to domiciling of a society’s welfare in hands of the rich and powerful is for everyone else to embark on unintentioned living.
But does intentional living have power for prevention of the rich and powerful from seizing control of hopes of society?
Clearly not. Simultaneously, however, in absence of intentional living from the proletariat, there does not exist any push back to actions of the rich and powerful that are designed for protection of their own selfish interests. So then, while intentional living cannot, in of itself prevent the rich and powerful from succeeding at manipulating hopes of society, it is the only push back that has any feasibility of mitigation of selfish actions of the rich and powerful.
If the proletariat will not, themselves, design worthwhile aspirations for which they strive, worthwhile aspirations that are not, themselves, manipulations of the rich and powerful, that are not rooted in mob mentality of vindictiveness and revenge, but rather, focus on welfare of society, all of society’s hopes reside in whims and caprices of the rich and powerful.
In this respect, it is on record that, with focus on vindictiveness and revenge, subsequent to the French Revolution, governance of French affairs became concentrated in a smaller proportion of the rich and powerful. A lesson that, for the proletariat, a focus on vindictiveness and revenge is self defeating.
Whenever Philosophers assert that the world has become cruel, this because nature seems to toy with man’s hopes, they implicitly assert that man now lives by time, as opposed to by intention, for intentional living is only antidote for life that is ruled over by time.
Guess a commitment to unintentioned living on part of the proletariat really is all that is necessary for society to operate on whims and caprices of the rich and powerful.