“I am going to (x) now.”

Our language is fraught with obscure imaginal directives that, beneath our awareness, act manipulatively… even when there’s no ‘manipulator’ except the associations that are implied by the metaphor embedded in the ‘traditional’ usage.

An action is not a place. I do not actually travel to my enactions of directives I have imagined in the near future.

In this case ‘going to’ is used to form a declaration of intent, or to communicate a transition in activity, attention, action, and so on. But the figurative projections affect us, because we are subconsciously aware of their implications.

At the same »time (it’s not time that’s the same, it’s measuring from another angle, purpose or perspective), there is also the implication in English that temporality is a »road.

So there is an association, which, via a separate and generally concealed metaphor ‘I go’ from one activity to another, and it’s travel ‘because’ it will occur in the near future, but not now.

These frames are also confusing to an aspect of our interiority that implicitly knows they are false. Every child realizes this, but gets trained out of it by conventions.

All of this is actually schizogenic, it creates a predilection, within us, to ‘split’.

Even though the form of the falsehood is ‘casual’, this creates a slippery slope that crucial aspects of our minds and hearts are sensitively aware of.

These aspects are vastly more intelligent than the those that speak or even write. For them such speech can be experienced as a violation.

Their ‘quiet voices’ are rarely attended (and nearly never speak with words, except, perhaps, in an »emergency).

Their imperatives are concerned with liberation, justice (as in healing and restoration of true relation) and the ongoing fulfillment of developmental momenta. Stating untrue things, even casually, obviously (to their felt senses) leads to »doing untrue things.

And more speaking them, as well.