733.The Composition of a Goal
One of the most basic issues in Life, Universe, and Everything can be described as the concept of 'goal'.
In a sense, it could be called the most basic issue of all, and it is certainly central to any contemplation on any subject whatsoever.
Many books haven been written on how to achieve it. Some of the methods work sometimes, sometimes not, and very often will result in the opposite.
Nearly all of these theories them fail to differentiate the composition of a 'goal' in the first place, ultimately running in circles and engaging in self-defeating or pseudo-working strategies.
The composition of a goal is so self-evident that one is easily deceived about the power of its structure. One is tempted to go on without looking further.
This is not surprising if one considers that most if not all 'case' of a human Being is built upon the confusions and failures around goals.
To look at the deeper composition of a goal in general requires to look at one's own 'case' - something that Beings refused or didn't dare for aeons.
One of the very, very
few who ever found out about the importance of the structure of a 'goal'
was the Indian philosopher Patanjali, one of the greatest thinkers in the
known history of
However, since the
power of realizing the structure of the 'goal' is so immense and yet so
embarrassingly simple, he declined to share crucial details of his findings
out of fear that its knowledge
may be abused by evil persons.
He did leave enough clues, however, and the subject becomes much clearer after having studying his findings on the 'gunas' principle, one aspect of which has been described roughly in the chapter "Prime Axioms: A modern view on the gunas principle".
In any case, the basic
structure of a 'goal' is so extremely simple and yet, perhaps of this very
simplicity, persistently unrecognized
There are two parts to a 'goal':
This seemingly simple statement is at the core of man's problems since countless times.
It cannot be possibly underestimated and is therefore put in caps.
To see how completely
unrecognized this obvious
relationship remains in today's time, let's look
at a dictionary:
( http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary )
Etymology: Middle English 'gol': boundary, limit
1 a : the terminal point of a race
b : an area to be reached safely in children's games
2 : the end toward which effort is directed : AIM
3 a : an area or object toward which players in various
games attempt to advance a ball or puck and usually
through or into which it must go to score points
b : the act or action of causing a ball or puck to go
through or into such a goal
c : the score resulting from such an act
synonym see INTENTION
While the original meaning of 'goal' is literally a spatial definition, the dictionary defines it also as an 'action' and as a 'score' before giving 'intention' as a synonym.
This example demonstrates a bit the degree of collapse of conceptual domains that became associated with the concept of 'goal'.
Again, if 'intention' and 'objective' is NOT separated, the power of intention becomes paralyzed and the results of such paralyzed intention are random.
This realization can be used in a couple of ways:
- to create new 'goals'
in a way that the target
will be achieved reliably. In honor and respect to
Patanjali, the answer, albeit obvious from the
information given here in this chapter, will not
be spelled out.
- to analyze the creation
structures (or 'goals') in the past.
- to resolve past confusions
about goals (which is
the vast majority of all 'case', of course).
Let's start with the analysis of past goals.
In the 'beginning' Beings were powerful but bored.
In order to have a game, a 'goal' must be created.
This happened and happens in the following steps:
1. select an object
or state as a target ('objective')
(Note: it seems that it absolutely doesn't matter
what this object or state consists of).
2. find something in this object or state that
aligns with the individual 'prime axioms'.
3. PRETEND this property or quality cannot be achieved
(Note: this is the lie that will hold the construct
4. Create an energy of intention that propels toward
5. lean back and watch the spectacle unfolding.
Again, if the force of 'intention' collapses with the 'objective', their will be no movement towards the objective possible. Like a short-circuited battery, no power or action can result.
Like in a battery, the two poles 'intention' and 'objective' MUST be held apart in order to provide power.
Now, what happens if a Being confuses both?
A 'mental mass' remains
where the original two poles of the goal have been. This 'charge' remains
until the Being sorts out its original intention and the objective it pursued.
In the meantime,
the Being's focus is fixed to this charge but finds itself unwilling to examine it at the same time.
How can a collapsed goal be restored or resolved?
Here are some historical examples of solutions and pseudo-solutions:
- differentiating between
and core beingness (Patanjali's approach using
the 'gunas' principle);
- overloading one of
the poles to bleed out the
power (examples: 'raja-yoga' to overload the
force of intention, and 'bhakti-yoga' by
'underloading' the object of intention, meaning
giving up completely on the original objective.)
- suppressing the intention
and spotting the original
lie in the properties of the objective. (This
is the original Buddhist approach. If done only
partially, it is a very dangerous approach because
the intention, if unsuppressed before bleeding out,
will be recreated in full force if the objective
has not yet dissolved as well.)
- spotting at least
part of the lie in the objective.
(Gendlin's 'Focusing' theory draws its power from
this. His technique is one of the very few process
sequences ('rundowns') that found entry into the
academic mainstream. Of course, it is not the answer
to everything, despite his claims).
- moving the entire
construct completely out-of-sight.
This is a most dangerous approach that goes around
in some New-Age circles. The charge, hidden from
the person's view, will not diminuish over time
as assumed. Inevitably, one day the Being will look
at the area where it 'stowed away' the charged
constructs and then hit with unexpected force.
- rekindling the original
intention by fueling a
purpose associated with it. The strong attention
on the positive pole can act like a temporary
separation of the poles. Works like a charme, but
only temporarily so.
Much could be written about this subject. However, instead of theorizing about it, it is much more useful to use a process that brings about a separation of the poles.
The problem of past
failed goals is pervading the entire 'case' of a Being, from the 'lowest'
to the 'highest' levels. The latter will unfold a couple of obstacles,
such as hubris that is holding constructs in place and can derail many
good efforts. On such
'high levels', processes that prompt the Being to 'assume 'cause' over other things or areas can contribute to tearing large clusters of failed goal constructs apart in a whole-sale fashion.
As a side-effect of such processing the Being will be able construct new 'goals' in the future in a way that its poles will not block each other.
Ultimately, the Being should be able to let go off the 'carrot-stick' construct of past goals and cause things _directly_.
As an important example, as long as a Being has the goal to 'escape from this Universe', the Being will not possibly be able to do so.
Now, if one would say that to 'exit this Universe' one should not have the 'goal' of exiting, this would be a partial truth, of course, but it could also confuse a Being further.
Instead, it may be far better to encourage the process of active separation of 'intention' and 'objective' as one of the most important actions that can be done.
In other words, actions,
rather than words.