EFFECTIVE PURPOSEFULNESS
Contents:
Reality can only be dealt with via simple units of complexity.
I.e.:
Only a focus kept simple is effective in dealing with reality.
Abbreviation: Unit of Complexity = UOC
Something complex is something made of two or more interrelated units*; “complexity” refers to the coexistence of these interrelated units. Now, we grasp things and their relationships through conscious units**, and too much complexity is when there are more conscious units than we can keep within our focus at once. A UOC is a conscious unit (e.g. a symbol, a word, a statement) that refers to something complex. A simple UOC is a UOC that was too complex before but now can be easily understood and applied (i.e. that can be tied to a broader context and tied to concretes).
* Unit: A member of a group of similar things.
** Conscious unit: A discrete part of the consciousness (e.g. a thought, feeling, memory, etc.).
1.
For a child to grasp the concept of “multiplication”, it must be broken down to addition, a simpler UOC. If she does not grasp addition either, it must be broken down to counting, an even simpler UOC.
2.
Consider the concept of “science”. We can break it down as:
science
|
+----------------+--------------+
| | |
evidence <-------> logic <------> method
| | |
* observation * axioms * step
* experimentation * principles * process
* information * order
A goal without a goal ends up purposeless, inspiring no will.
A human is a goal-driven being; to a human, there can be no act without will, and no will without goals. Logically, the same applies to goal-seeking itself; to a human, there can be no goal without a broader goal, and no broader goal without a self-sustaining goal, i.e. an end in itself.
What is an end in itself? Can there be more than one? These are deep questions that deserve deep, i.e. philosophical reasoning. Drawing from my reasoning in The Standard of Value from Ethics from Philosophy (not my original idea, but one I have reasoned first-hand), the only end in itself is life; to a human, this means life lived as a human, i.e. one driven not just by self-sustaining action but by self-sustaining volition. Hence, to revise my earlier point, there can be no goal without a broader goal, and no broader goal without life lived as a volitional being.
A purposeful goal is not merely a goal that ties to the pursuit of a value. Here, it is key to note two key points: (1) values cannot be pursued in isolation and must be pursued as an integrated whole (see: “Integrity of Values” from The Nature of Value from Ethics from Philosophy), and (2) goals are pursuit to concretise values. Now, logically, if values cannot be pursued isolation, and if a goal is the pursuit to concretise a value, then pursuing a goal in isolation amounts to pursuing a value in isolation. Therefore, just as values must be pursued as an integrated whole, so must goals. In particular, to pursue goals purposefully, we must not just integrate our values in abstract terms but also integrate our efforts to pursue them in concrete terms, i.e. we must understand whether and how our goals are tied to each other.
Consider: why am I writing this? If there is no goal behind it, I am acting purposelessly such action cannot be sustained for long volitionally. No, I write because I want to be clear about how a goal can be sustained volitionally, and by writing, I (1) lay out my ideas where I can see them, without them going out of focus or being forgotten, and (2) make a longer logical chain of arguments easier to build, refer back to and thus validate. Now, why do I want clarity? Sometimes, the desire to gain clarity can feel like an urge, but I see that my urge draws from my grasp of the importance of ideas in my life, and thus the importance of being clear about my ideas. Here, we can see how it ties to my life itself, the end in itself.
Focus is limited; to divide it without reason is to waste a precious resource.
What does it mean to divide focus without reason?
In short, to place the arbitrary above the rational.
Focus is the basis of awareness, and is the means by which I identify, integrate and effectively pursue the facts and demands of reality, including the facts and demands of an endeavour. If the endeavour is simple enough, it may not need full focus, but for endeavours that are complex, not giving your full focus and dividing your attention harms your very ability to deal with the facts and demands of the endeavour, and if it is worth doing, then harming your ability or at least your potential capacity to deal with it is counterproductive.
Reason is the fundamental value, and rationality the fundamental virtue. Why? Consider: what is anti-reason? Reason is the power that takes what is given by the senses and ties it together, identifying entities, actions and relationships, and putting them together to identify systems. Thus, that which is anti-reason rejects our best efforts to know reality. Hence, that which is anti-reason is anti-knowledge and thus anti-life, because how are we to live well if we blind ourselves? Thus, as St. Thomas Aquinas said, “Every will at variance with reason, whether right or erring, is always evil.”
For more on rationality in practice, check here.
Suppose I am listening to someone, and I miss some point they made earlier, which I have no reason to think was too important right now. But I am not certain. Suppose my uncertainty made me try to remember the missed point, just to make sure I did not miss something that could important right now. What is the likely result? My rumination would result in my focus being divided as I listen to the speaker, losing more information as time goes by, adding more to the list of points I missed. Is this an effective way to listen to someone? No, for a few reasons, but at root, because it divides focus irrationally.
Suppose I am preparing for a project. What if I study every topic even tangentially related to my project, just because I think it could be relevant? Most likely, I will (1) cover far fewer topics, (2) cover less relevant topics, and (3) expend much my time and energy with little-to-no effect. What is the likely result? Slow progress, mental and physical overload, and potentially, burnout. Is this an effective way to prepare for a project? No, because it divides focus irrationally.
Simplicity clarifies goals.
Goals drive steady focus.
Steady focus leads to:
Furthermore, note that these principles are not ordered in any way. Each are aspects of an integrated whole, this whole being effective purposefulness. Purposeful goals may be followed by simplicity, or simplicity may lead to purposeful goals, or steady focus may reveal purposeful goals, or steady focus may lead to simple focus, etc.
Concrete value sustains volition, especially for long-range goals.
Hence, the process itself must be valuable, not just the result.
The goal’s object may represent one or few values, but often does not represent all the values relevant within the overall context (overall ⇒ including the process and the result). Furthermore, the probability of success is often less than certain and can even be quite uncertain. Hence, it stands to reason that what makes a goal worth pursuing is not just the values represented by the goal’s object but the integrated system of values represented by the steps within the process of the pursuit itself.
The goal is vital in that it serves to integrate the whole system of one’s values in a concrete (i.e. particular) context, and thus, serves to achieve moral and practical efficacy (the moral is the practical; distinction is made for emphasis). Hence, a goal must be evaluated with respect to not only its object but also the way it integrates the whole system of one’s values in the process of the pursuit.
In other words, the process is as valuable — if not more — than the result, because the process is (1) what makes the result possible in the first place, and (2) what helps achieve interrelated results (positive results) that can further one’s progress in other key ways as well.
To conclude…
The long-range is not separate but rather integrated to the present and the short-range. Integrating your pursuit of your value for life in the long-range to your present gives value to the present, leading to greater happiness in the moment. This is in line with the fact that happiness is the state of non-contradictory achievement of your values.
If the gain of concrete value depends on the outcome, then motivation is tied much more strongly or even entirely to the outcome, which makes bad outcomes all the more crushing to one’s motivation and thereby to one’s ability to persevere and make further efforts. However, if the gain of concrete value comes from the process as well, then, as long as there is a rational basis for hope or for the value of engaging in a pursuit (no matter how high the difficulty or how low the chance of success), your motivation has much more fuel and thus a much greater ability to sustain itself.
Based on the principle of purposeful goals, goal-setting and goal-integration are key to effective purposefulness. However, based on the current principle, valuing the process is key to sustaining purposefulness. Evidently, both aspects are important to effective purposefulness. Hence, excessive result-orientation and excessive process-orientation are both ineffective; the key is to balance them. How? My suggested approach:
The goal of these principles is to enable us to deal with the whole range of actual and potential situations that may arise in life. Their effectiveness lies in the generalisability. Now, tips geared toward situations can be valuable in narrower, more focused contexts. But to proliferate tips on specifics without considering whether these tips are valuable in general, or whether it is practical or even possible to hold them or try to hold them in focus when dealing with life — this is irrational and goes against what makes these principles valuable in the first place, namely unit economy.