“The highest art…sets down its creations and trusts in their magic, without fear of not being understood.” - Herman Hesse

 "Our intentions tend to be much more real to us than our actions and this can lead to a great deal of misunderstanding with other people, to whom our actions tend to be much more real than our intentions" - E. F. Schumacher (1911-1977). A Guide for the Perplexed, 8, 1977

The US of the word 'real' in this quote both clarifies and obscures the meaning of the quote. It clarifies in that it is a word in the sentence without which the sentence would make less sense, but obscures as we begin to think about the meaning of the word in the sentence. Does real here mean present, or noticeable? Is my intention like a point of view, a glass at which I may gaze upon my action, and thus understand my action through that lens? Is my intention simply more present and noticeable to me, so that I understand my intentions along with my actions when I consider some event caused by me? That is, when my intentions are more real to me than my actions, are they more powerful, or more easily noticed? 

Let us try and understand this quote from another angle, going backwards instead of forward. Actions are always very real. Indeed, that is what an action is, something which exists in reality, an existent gem in the world. An action is a type of gem which is always visible - when we look at someone, gaze into their eyes and notice what they look at and how, read or hear about their deeds, or witness how they stand and how well they work, their rudeness and politeness or their tears and screams, we often need to guess at the intentions behind their actions. We do not have to guess at their actions, at least not most of the time. We know what they did, and what they are doing, and can make a guess at what they will do, how much we can trust them in one endeavor or another. However, this trust is like the rising of the Sun of Hume - we can only see it happen now, and do not know that it will happen later. Actions are also like Kant's phenomena - we know what the action appears to be, but only guess at what lies behind the action. 

I wrote earlier about the idea that our intentions are real to us because we can see them, but not real to others because they only see our actions and need to guess at our intentions, the reasons we acted and towards the success of which we hoped to succeed and accomplish more. However, this method only explains how intentions and actions could both be real to us, could both matter to us and be seen and trusted by us. Our quote today, however, says that intentions are often more real to us than our actions, not merely equally as real as them. What this suggests to me is either the idea of an intention, or knowledge of an intention, acting like a gem which colors our actions when we self-reflect upon them, or it suggests that an intention is somehow more important to us than an action, when the intention is clearly understood. The question is - if our intentions are more real to us than our actions, is this because they are 'our intentions', or because they are 'intentions'? 

We are deeply touched by the efforts of a child to cook us breakfast or to draw us a picture, even when the resulting quality of the effort leaves much to be desired. When a stranger on the street greets us, we are suspicious of them, until we know their intentions. The bar tout on the street, the gigantic sale sign in the window, or the smile in the cops voice, these are all things we can look at and think of them as friendly, or we can look at them and think of them as unfriendly. Well-meaning or I'll-intentioned towards us. It is true that actions often speak louder than words, but actions and words do have one very important thing in common - they can lie. Like with words, the more you pile on the harder it gets to lie or hide, but single actions and single words often don't really say much. Rather, they hint, they suggest. Thus, if you know the action someone takes or the word they speak, then before you come to judgment, you had best learn more and more, to be able to make an educated guess. Knowledge of actions doesn't tell you about a man - it tells you about what he does, but not why he does it. 

On the other hand, if you know a persons' intentions, then you understand them, and their relation to you, right down to the base. You don't know whether they will succeed in an attempt to act, but you know what they wanted to happen, and so even if they fail, even if they do you harm, that is somehow more understandable. There are two major relations of intention that someone can have in an action which involves us. They are direct relations, where they intend to help or harm us, and indirect relations, where they intend to do something else which has naught to do with us at all, but they affect us anyway. The first situation is much simpler to understand than the second. We may commensurate more with our fate when that fate comes about in spite of trying, so that in the first case we can say that he meant well, that he was kind and brave and he tried, and that is really the best we can ask of anyone. They might just as well have been us, for we sometimes fail too, and so we are able to accept good and bad intentions directed towards us with equal and opposite feelings. We can laugh at the villain who assisted us in the end, and weep at the hero who brought about our downfall. 

The second case is harder and more complicated. Imagine if you will have two scenarios where we are  in a car accident, struck by another driver on the road. In one scenario, the person driving the other car is hurrying home, slamming the gas pedal and taking turns too fast because he is angry and tired due to a tough day at work, and he's just working out the stress.. In the second scenario, the person is slamming the gas and hurrying home because they have received word that something dreadful has happened and they need to get home right now. When the driver runs into me, I am first angry and frightened, trying not to die and wondering who this maniac is who took that corner way too fast. Then I stop and get out of the car, going to see who it is that ran into me. I observe their actions, and learn more about them - are they angry or worried, safe or injured, screaming or crying, drunk or sober. I learn more about them, the situation I find myself in, and the type of person I am dealing with. I take a guess at their intentions, their reasons for being here and now, and my opinion of them changes along with my view of their intention. If the intentions were directed towards me I  can quickly grasp the situation, their anger or worry towards me. When they are angry or worried over something else though, themselves or another person, then I don't always know what to think, how they will act, whether I myself should be angry and blaming them for the wreck, or pitying them for the accident. I can say that in both cases there was something stupid going on, that under all cases they should have driven more carefully, but I feel that there may be something more here.  

Imagine telling the story ten years from now, how different you might feel about the event looking back upon it, telling an old story to your kids about this accident you were in once. Will you warn them to be careful driving because there are crazy self-absorbed people driving out there, or will you tell them to be careful because you never know what other concerns drivers on the road might have besides following the rules of the road. There is a subtle difference between the two scenarios - both give warning, but one view attacks and accuses people, well the other view emphasizes and cares for people. Neither view changes most of your actions on the road, and you are going to be careful and watch out for reckless drivers under both warnings, but perhaps some actions might change. You might let someone pass you by or not, or you may, instead of growing angry during your next accident, react first with worry instead of blame, or vise-versa. Your intentions change your actions ins subtle ways, but they change your point of view most of all. 

Perhaps what this quote most suggests to us is that we should try and understand the intentions of others more readily than we do. There are some wise and experienced people who can tell who you are at a first glance, who can see through your actions to your intentions, but I fear that most of us are not very good at that. Most of us play the game of judging risk by actions, and loving or hating other people by the intention we think they have. I don't know that I have any great advice for understanding other people better, and becoming a more receptive and effective listener, or any great advice for communicating our intentions to others and becoming a more effective active speaker, but I'll say this - If you truly wish to communicate with someone and not just speak and act with them, then it is better to speak and be proven a fool than to be silent and thought a mysterious genius, but only if you are actually a fool, and an honest fool.