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
and misapplied.

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:

Merriam-Webster WWWebster 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
[end quote]

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 of objective/intention
   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
    in place).
4. Create an energy of intention that propels toward
    the objective.
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 objective, intention,
   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.

Copyleft © 1999 by Maximilian J. Sandor