I feel affection for the idea, the result of need occasioned in my realised circumstances, to set up some shelves on the wall to accommodate an overspill of books. When, at the time of the idea, I look at the space on the wall for the shelves, I pre-figure the detailed process of setting up the shelves; once grasped, is retained in my mind in an instant form of comprehension.
When I determine to work the plan, it is to the accomplishing of it from the instant affective idea form of its enactment retained in my mind as a now realisation. The affection to act, as a wish, transfers to the will to act; further, to the acting. The transfer from the affection to act to the will to act is the difference between a suggestion and a personal decision. The suggestion is one by virtue of realisation of circumstances, typically, open to anyone. But the decision to act is a personal one, which transfers the typical suggestion to act to the personal will to act. I may have the will to act, yet lack the acting ability due to realisation of inhibiting factors; only when I act is the will to act fulfilled. However, when I act, my action is part of the identified contextual circumstances, and is an expression of it.
In the will to act, I retain the instant affective idea form of the enactment of the process, subsuming the detailed action of the process, as a now realisation, that will determine all ideas of that to do, as contextually right to do, thus as rightness realisation, from start to completion, in whatever time it takes as the measurable duration of that process in idea form units of time.
Once I start, all my subsequent rightness realised actions lead to the completion, bar its abandonment, of the process. The subject will to act is determined in its form and dependent on circumstances to avail to action, to the extent that the availing circumstances, identified in affection of rightness realisation, fulfill the will to act in the action. Availing circumstances extend from what is immediately apparent to those supporting these circumstances, and so on; ultimately, any action is enacted in the universal sum of contextual circumstances; but in respect of contextual rightness of action the expression of rightness realisation that is of the affection of the creative principle for manifestation.
Given that I go through all the necessary right actions to complete the determined process, their contextual viability fulfilling the will for the enactment, and my own disposition sustained in the will to complete the action - the setting out to the shop, the buying of the materials, including encountering the various unexpected things or setbacks that might occur - finally, the last adjustment is made to the erected shelves. I can stand back viewing them, and say of the task, ‘It is finished.’ In which instant, I identify the comprehension of the end, but as a contextual rightness realisation, that had guided all my actions as a now realisation in concept. The time period from the initial act to the completion of the process is measured in idea form units of hours and fractions thereof.
Generally, intended subject actions are held in now realisation as ideas in affection of being enacted. In the transfer from affection to personal will to act, and then commencing to act, it proves the contextual circumstances to be integral to the action process, so much so the outcome is a contextual act, of what is normally assumed to be a personal act; the subject will is manifested, but the context realises the act. Subject enactment is a ‘fulfillment act’ of all the contextual circumstances as a rightness realisation. This coincides with all events being contextual rightness realisation, and explains the sublime integrity of contextual action in existence.
Given the creative principle is in affection of manifestation of rightness, or ‘what is’, every enactment, of life-form subject or otherwise, is the outcome of all the circumstances that make it the fulfilling act, contextually manifesting rightness or ‘what is’.
In the immediate occasion of a disaster, for example, all manner of attribution as to its cause is sought in easy identification of the causes or perpetrators. What is overlooked is that for the disaster to occur there is a sum of contributory contextual factors such as realise it as contextual rightness of action, indeed, that explains its occurrence; not least the moral circumstances of the society affected, or by extension the world society, though this connection might never occur to anyone, and the disaster waived as a purely random occurrence.
It is the creative principle that manifests all events as a fulfillment act of contextual rightness, defining ‘what is’; ultimately, to the manifestation of ‘Who God is’ as the divine Rightness.
