effort/ intention

trying to sort through the discussion between douglas and howard re 
intentionality, effort etc....in particular these paragraphs:


> howard wrote:
>
> Intentionality is a convenient fiction, the same as the subject. It has a 
> reality, but it is never actual or timely. It is always after the fact (or 
> the event).
>  
> 
> Douglas wrote:
> ______________
> "... when you start doing something, and you stick to it, there might be an 
> objective involved but this objective has almost nothing to do with the 
> actual effort you put into achieving that goal. To such an extent that you 
> can say that the activity was the production of effort, and not the loss of 
> energy in trying to reach a goal.


it seems that the distinctions being made between intentionality and 
effort have to do with time- how do these functions (intentionality and 
effort) travel over time, how do they temporally relate to an action or 
event.  i hear howard speaking of intentionality as outside of the time 
frame of an event ("it is always after the fact"); i hear douglas 
speaking of effort as only within the time of an event, not a moment but 
the continual present of an activity, so a present that travels, if you 
will (sorry but i only really find time in space-talk, i'm just that kind).

say you all were to agree with each other's temporal placement of those 
concepts, there is a potential system set up here between intentionality 
and effort.  if effort is the activity separate of the goal, the 
intentionality has to do with the activity towards that goal.  if as 
howard states, intentionality is always "after the fact", then a meeting 
of your two words allows for "goal" to be determined after the effort: 
where has the effort gotten us- now we state our intentionality.
(um...fumbling a bit but bear with me)

i'm not so sure if i can go along with this idea of intentionality being 
a fiction that exists after the fact.  especially within the context of 
effort precluding it. (which i realize is a mix-and-match of two 
different people's words...).  is intention a discrete thing? or is it a 
directive, a starting direction?  i would characterize intetnion more in 
terms of an impetus than of a goal, which leaves me lost as to how 
intention could be an after-the-fact-fiction.  if intention doesn't exist 
before hand, then what is the starting moment of an event or an action? 
does intention have to be clearly spelled out in goal-form to function?    
perhaps intention and goal are being confused for each other...

i would find intention, as i said, somewhere in the realm of impetus...the 
kind of intention that interests me is an open one.  a goal, which is 
reached through labour seems to me to be an entirely different thing than 
an intention which commences an activity of effort, a traveling present.

i'm looking at the self-evaluation from a participant in a dance class i 
taught last semester, and i find something relevent...jane, the student, 
talks about a change in her attitude towards performing over the course 
of the semester.  First, she says, she approached her solo in the context 
of "performing" it- a specific newness of the performing context which is 
totally different from class dancing- a display.  in short performance 
included at first a set of goals: do this this way, do this that way, show 
this, show that. jane then starts to talk about this shift away from that 
goal-oriented performing state into a place more open: she allows herself 
to take the choreography as an open form: a set of directives.  the work 
of performing is to take these directives and travel with them in the 
particular time of the performance (or rehearsal or class etc.)  The work 
(effort) has as its starting point a set of intentions (the 
choreography).  however these intentions travel to different places each 
time she goes through the material.  the choreography is not a finite form 
that she simply has to do correctly.  the choreography is an open 
architecture through which she can pay meticulous attention to the present.

it is this sense of intention that interests me.  intention as the 
beginning of travel.  so i would never name my intention fiction, whereas 
i might concede that title for "goal."  intention for me is  place from 
which to radiate out...

not sure if i'm quite interpreting douglas' and howard's words in 
accordance with their intended meanings...but this is how they traveled 
in my direction.

-karinne keithley

     ------------------