[true]

Hi Silk!
Very nice post. I could understand everything. You communicate very well.

I have linearism ingrained in me as my "first language" so to speak, but I've been methodically replacing it with spontaneous, immediate re-creation of each now from the void. I don't "believe in" cause and effect anymore, not that it doesn't exist as a description, but it's one way of perceiving or interpreting events. Not unlike how quantum physics "trumps" classical Newtonian/Cartesian physics. So as I stalk myself throughout the day, when I catch my mind thinking linearly, I remind myself that this moment has nothing whatsoever to do with any previous moment. I make efforts not to indulge in comparing and using memory so that this present may be uncontaminated and mysterious.
That said, I have no quarrels with the Buddha's word's "what we are today comes from our thoughts of yesterday, and our present thoughts build our life of tomorrow: our life is the creation of our mind." (Dhammapada)
For me, this latter is a useful tool if we want to "create reality" consciously. The other view, spontaneous emanation from the void, is useful if we want to "see".
So I can speak about linear models and views, but it's not my only model/view. Agreed - when observing humanity, that view prevails.

For me, the "ideal" awareness is non-exclusive: to be aware of all/infinity. That would be, in my view, the closest to Source. Although admittedly, this may not always be the most practical viewpoint. Again, for me, this dualism comes up, so we may need to consider it before continuing: if we want to "see", then one mode is necessary; if we want to "do", then another mode is necessary. DJ made a distinction between seers and sorcerers, saying they were completely independant - a seer can easily be a sorcerer; a sorcerer may or may not learn to see. The sorcerer wants to manipulate or alter something; the seer just sees as it is (energy as it flows in the universe).

So from there, for me, I have to ask, is awareness of universal intent a specific or particular thing, or is it non-exclusive? The word "universal" would seem to imply non-exclusivity, but "intent" seems to imply intending some "thing", though this is not definitely so. So this is why I asked if one can be disobedient to universal intent. If they can, then universal intent is not non-exclusive (all-inclusive): universal intent includes some certain acts and excludes some others. My reason doesn't allow me to accept this. The universe, infinity, spirit... cannot exclude something because all things are it (it is all things). So what could possibly exist that is against universal intent? The universe is intending everything into existence. Even the most "idiotic" acts of man must fall into this all-inclusive beingness. But this view favors the seers perspective.
If we want to favor the sorcerers' perspective, we may now divide the universe into impeccable acts and non-impeccable acts, acts which polish our link with spirit/intent and acts which soil it, a path with heart and a path which lacks heart... but I could not, in accuracy, call this "universal".

This is what a "universal intent" would mean to me, but I'm still not sure what it means to you. Since it was you who used these words first, I must allow you to define them. You used the words "the manifestation of God's awareness". To me, God is aware of all, so are we on the same page that this universal intent is all-inclusive/non-exclusive? I still get the sense from your context that it is not.

Can you clarify this before we continue?

I'll address the rest of your post in a second post, but it'll have to wait - I gotta go to work.

Thanks Silk!