Before tryin to flesh out in toto, the suggested problems as posed, initially I may take a stab at it.
In terms of motive and goal setting. Where the question posed as to, how the starting point, the presumed beginning-territoriality, and others- begin to be starting question, based on very literal terms, where there are not yet demonstratively figurative implications of questions dealing with finding differences. The motive question dominates the one dealing with goal orientation, whereupon the contexts within which those questions can be guessed at with more probability. It is premature, and the thought process is not necessarily, or primarily premature, because, traces of it subsist through, not with standing of temporality. When those secondary goals have started to filter through into the original motives, meaning, consciousness of connections between motive and goals start to emerge, then differences between them arise.
That, specifically between Capitalism and Communism is a good example. Before the emerging difference arose between them, before the economic forces , as the played effective markers upon the changing class differentiation, there was only determinism through subjugation and repression.
The contextual relativity between Being and Existence was never understood. Socio economic forces developed the concept, out of the one dimensionality of s primary apprehension of a force of repressed will, not available to a much later acquired consumer capitalistic democracy.
If you reduce such questions to an either/or of primary identification of the former, and try a contemporaneous differentiation based on that level of consciousness, the only cognitively possible analysis will be fused with emotionalism and intuitionism of predicting outcome and goal.
As the integration of these separated elements start to fuse, more and more developments need to be explained in terms of more symbolic content, as they too fuse with other more or less symbolic elements.
They do reach a point where, confusion on all levels starts to reign supreme, and thing are needed to start breaking down , or reduced to more understood elements.
AI then is probative in terms of finding meaning between the two poles of primary and secondary processes, and the only way IT can do it is to establish linkages with and within both: Hence the problem of differentiating meaningfully between the three:God, Natural and IA. The sources are the same, on that original level there is no doubt, but that the time, they were separated, seemed as if their origin was dissimilar.
Capitalism and Socialism also had the same source, and thus their goal was unknown except in very existential terms. The goal of evolution was not known since creationism required no goal setting, except in terms of the mind of God.
Now that God seems to be dead, we have to, or AI has to fill in thousands of years of this lack, with contentious and hotly debated reasons for existence. Now we can differentiate motives from goals, Being from existence, but the terms of such difference are yet to be defined.
Intentionality is as close to a new version of god’s plan as conceivable, it seems to me.