Another Look

Previously we covered the topic of “Hyper-intention” when we looked at Frankl’s vocabulary from “Man’s Search for Meaning.”

Here I revisit the term itself in order to make some potentially poignant distinctions about the origins of Hyper-intention. As stated in our previous inquiry, Hyper-intention (HI) is:

An excessive intention to will or force something to be, which in fact ensures that the thing will not be. 

Frankl references that it is common for people to experience HI in a sexual context. When they aim to will – or to force – the experience of orgasm, it becomes something out of their reach. As Frankl puts it;

The more a man tries to express his sexual potency or a woman her ability to experience orgasm, the less likely they are able to succeed. Pleasure is, and must remain, a side-effect or by-product, and is destroyed or spoiled to the degree to which it is made a goal in itself.

I will state that in a sense I agree with Frankl, and I will make a connection that he did not record in his “Man’s Search for Meaning,” and I will also disagree with Frankl in respect to the origins of HI.

A Distinction in HI

It appears as though there is a “category” of HI events that are brought about by a single kind of cause:

The desire to consciously bring about that which is under unconscious control.

The sexual examples would fit into this slightly broader category. It is obvious that orgasm is not under conscious control – while clenching one’s fist is clearly an act that can be committed deliberately. 

However, there are other processes that are controlled more directly by unconscious forces – such as sleep. We cannot “go to sleep” the same way we can extend our leg. It is a “side-effect” or a “by-product” of a specific kind of mental state – possibly of a mind at peace, focused only on comfort and relaxation.

The same can be said of “having fun.” You cannon consciously choose your emotional state the same way you can consciously blink your eyes. The emotional state of “fun” is a by-product of a certain state of mind – possibly of a mind focused on enjoyment of the value of the present moment. We cannot “command” fun to be our experience – neither can we “command” sleep.

When we HI, we are “trying” to do something that we cannot “try” to do. We can “try” to shoot a basketball into a hoop, but we cannot “try” to “have fun” in the same way. 

We want a certain state or experience (orgasm, sleep, fun, etc…) and we “try” for it. If our state of mind does not alter, however, we will be hard pressed to achieve those desired results.

There is no mystical connection between these situations (situations where we desire to consciously bring about that which is under unconscious control) and HI. I pose that they just happen to be commonly found with HI because they are relatively illusive parts of our experience, they are phenomena that seem related to our conscious processes (which they are to a degree), but in fact are not directly controlled by it.

These situations might not be the cause of most HI, but they are notable in that their origin is common and may all lead to HI – and undoubtably many instances of HI share an origin in ‘the desire to consciously bring about that which is under unconscious control.’

A Disagreement

As we have referred to previously, Frankl states that;

Pleasure is, and must remain, a side-effect or by-product, and is destroyed or spoiled to the degree to which it is made a goal in itself.

Given the previous distinction that we made about situations with unconscious origins that we try to control directly, this statement might seem almost undeniable. 

I argue that this is not the case however.

I argue that we can in fact bring about “fun” by making “fun” an end in itself, I argue that we can bring about orgasm by making “pleasure” an end in itself, and I even argue that we can bring about sleep by making “relaxation / sleep” an end in itself.

How can this be so? This bring us back to our previous inquiry into Frankl’s ideas. 

I argue that making fun into and end in itself will only eliminate fun if the original intent for fun was made out of fear that fun would not occur.

I argue that making pleasure into and end in itself will only eliminate the possibility of orgasm if the original intent for pleasure was made out of fear that orgasm would not occur.

I argue that making relaxation and sleep an end in itself will only eliminate the possibility of sleep if the original intent to sleep was made out of fear that sleep wouldn’t occur.

In this way, I argue that it is the impetus to the intent that is a determinant of whether we see a case of HI or not. 

___

If you enjoyed this post and the material on this site, consider signing up for my RSS feed or bumping this material only StumbleUpon or Digg. Thanks a lot!

One Response to “Victor Frankl’s “Hyper-Intention” Revisited”