11-06-2013, 07:41 PM
When I initially read the opening post in its original form, I thought "hmm, I agree, but there is something unclear, I need to sit down and sketch this out visually for myself", and so I did. Then, a graph was born. As Tanner deduced, and in my opinion, this graphic that was born from Adonai's musings is an mental tool which serves to understand actions according to the intent, in relation to unity/disunity with others as well as with the self. It is one (arguably effective) way to understand intent, and I believe it strives to be as objective as possible, within the confines of this very subjective reality 
Every action is fuelled by an intent, a desire, and so it would be erroneous to suggest using this graph in order to classify actions and people without taking a closer look at their core. After contemplating this method, I would also recommend against attempting to place whole civilizations or professions into this graph, as it would require a level of generalisation so grand it would certainly not be representative of its parts. Take for instance the example of a murderer; one could be tempted to look at the result, the action alone, and classify it in the lower left quadrant. This classification would only be truthful if said killer disliked others and was at war with himself, and if he considered the practice of killing defined him as an individual. Although there are such people, the classification, being a generalization, does not consider an individual who might have killed to save another's life, their own life, killed accidentally, or any other reason for that matter.
Drawing this graph and contemplating it for a bit personally helped me better visualize relations between action, intent, unity and the dynamic nature of the universe. It's a tool for intellectual gymnastics. It's as good as any other tool of the kind, I suppose, so long one can make sense of it
Every action is fuelled by an intent, a desire, and so it would be erroneous to suggest using this graph in order to classify actions and people without taking a closer look at their core. After contemplating this method, I would also recommend against attempting to place whole civilizations or professions into this graph, as it would require a level of generalisation so grand it would certainly not be representative of its parts. Take for instance the example of a murderer; one could be tempted to look at the result, the action alone, and classify it in the lower left quadrant. This classification would only be truthful if said killer disliked others and was at war with himself, and if he considered the practice of killing defined him as an individual. Although there are such people, the classification, being a generalization, does not consider an individual who might have killed to save another's life, their own life, killed accidentally, or any other reason for that matter.
Drawing this graph and contemplating it for a bit personally helped me better visualize relations between action, intent, unity and the dynamic nature of the universe. It's a tool for intellectual gymnastics. It's as good as any other tool of the kind, I suppose, so long one can make sense of it