GOAL-ORIENTATION
Contents:
Lifted from “Life as the only self-sustaining purpose” from The Standard of Value from Ethics.
A goal of an entity is a potential toward which it orients itself consistently (i.e. across time and with respect to a range of external factors) by self-generated action. Consistency is essential, since an inconsistent orientation is essentially a lack of orientation. The self-generated nature of the action is also essential, since an action that is first and foremost a reaction is not driven by the entity and thus reveals the orientation not of the entity but of a whole context in which the entity exists.
Epistemological note on the concept of “goal”:
The purpose of the concept of “goal” is to distinguish between a cause in a broader sense from a cause that is derived from an entity that acts on its own toward a potential it grasps or orients itself toward in some way. Where does the need for such a distinction come from? I posit that it first comes from the distinction between “coincidental” and “intentional” actions or occurrences. To clarify, consider these observations: (1) Our conscious actions are always with respect to a potential that we already identify in some form and already orient ourselves toward before we pursue it. (2) We also see such actions in other conscious beings. Furthermore, (3) we observe that the pursuit of such potential is ongoing and interrelated with other such pursuits, i.e. we pursue some things for the sake of other things and ultimately for the sake of a goal that is its own goal (i.e. an end in itself). Lastly, (4) we observe that certain characteristics that separate conscious actions from natural causes, i.e. the characteristics of being self-generated, potential-oriented, interrelated and continuous until failure, are present in the characteristic actions of all living beings, not just conscious beings. These observations point to the existence of a fundamentally distinct kind of causation, i.e. final causation or goal-orientation.
Life is the self-generated, self-sustaining and potential-oriented action of an entity capable of such action. These characteristics are the essential distinguishing characteristics of living entities; without any one of these characteristics, an entity is but an object oriented by factors apart from its potential to exist. To see how and why, consider: (1) If its actions are not self-generated at least to some extent, then it is only reactive, i.e. its actions are never for something, only because of something; such an entity cannot srive toward any potential, let alone its potential to exist. (2) If its actions are not self-sustaining, then its actions are not based on what its existence demands; such an entity is either dying or non-living, but in either case, it has no orientation toward life (though it may still have some potential for life) and thus cannot be a living entity, at least not for long. (3) If its actions are not potential-oriented, then it cannot strive for any potential, let alone its potential to exist.
Hence, an essential of life is goal-orientation, and the essence of life is self-sustaining goal-orientation. Now, from “Life as the only self-sustaining purpose” from The Standard of Value from Ethics, we have that life is the only end in itself, and thus, that life is the ultimate goal and value. Now, we also have from “The source of purpose” from The Standard of Value from Ethics that a goal that is not a means to a broader or further goal is arbitrary, i.e. for the goal-driven entity, it has no basis in reality. Integrating these facts, we see that any rational goal is always a means to a broader goal, and the broadest goal is life (note that even life, as an end in itself, is also is a means to a broader form of itself, i.e. to the further pursuit of its own potential). Hence, any goal that is based on reality is a part of a broader goal, and thus, all goals of a living being are integrated, i.e. part of one whole, which amounts to life in terms of both the actual and the potential.
Without goal-orientation, there is no question about what to do or how to do it, since there is no question about self-generated action toward a self-realisable potential. Hence, a goal determines the standard of action. However, the existence of a goal is inseparable from the potential for failure in achieving that goal. Why? Suppose the success of a goal is a given; in such a case, the achievement of this goal depends neither on self-generated action nor, naturally, on the context that conditions the effects of such action. In other words, the achievement of such a goal exists apart from any self-generated and potential-oriented action, in which case it is not a goal but an inevitability, in which case there is no question about what to do or how to do it, and hence, no basis for a standard of action.
Hence, we see that a goal determines not only the standard of action but also, as an inseparable corollary, the standard of success and failure. Without a goal, there are no such things as “success” and “failure”, and by extension, no such things as “value”, “gain”, “loss”, etc. In other words, without a goal, there can be no values, no value-based alternatives, and thus, no value judgements and value-based choices. In other words, the lack of a goal leaves an entity essentially passive or reactive.
Evidently, then, goal-orientation is also the basis by which volition can be exercised. This includes the exercise of focus, which is the basis of volition. In other words, a goal determines what you value, what you focus on, and thus, how you see the world. Consequently, goal-orientation is also the means by which problems can be recognised and corrected for, since a problem is that which causes loss, failure or a potential for either, and such a thing cannot be recognised without (1) a standard of success and failure, and (2) a basis for value and focus; (1) and (2) both refer to a goal.
Ultimately, only particulars, i.e. concretes exist. Abstractions, while objective, are essentially ways of organising and studying concretes. Hence a “goal” that one does not act to concretise remains a potential goal but is not an actual goal. In other words, a goal does not bring forth the benefits of goal-orientation just by being thought of. Hence, one needs to invest time and energy toward a goal in order to: (1) have some grasp of the meaning of success or failure, and thus of value and loss, (2) have the ability to grasp problems and correct for them, and (3) have the ability to strive toward life, achieve success in life and flourish in life.
A broad or long-range goal integrates a vast range of concretes, each concrete having its own nature, effect and relationships with other concretes. Hence, a broad goal is a complex goal, and like any complex area of focus (be it a subject, a topic or a problem), it must be simplified progressively, i.e. in terms of a hierarchy of complexity.
If you do not simplify a complex area progressively, then to understand it, you must aim to retain, recognise and relate the whole range of concretes it integrates all at once. Since all focus is finite, and since "complexity" is defined with respect to the ability to focus, it is clear that if an area is complex, grasping all its concrete parts and potentials is beyond the capacity of direct focus. However, direct focus is the fundamental function of awareness, and awareness is the only means of grasping that which exists. Hence, we see that we need to use direct focus, but at the same time, our direct focus cannot be on all the area's concretes at once; thus, our direct focus has to be selective. But the only way selective focus can be effective is if we selectively focus on those aspects that omit enough measurements so that it relates a range of concretes at once, but not so many that the relevant aspects of the concretes are omitted. Hence, we cannot make much meaning of a broader abstraction unless we can tie it to narrower abstractions and ultimately to concretes. Thus, the integration of concretes must be progressive, or else it is impossible to deal with them effectively in concrete contexts.
NOTE: To deal with a broader context (e.g. a more long-range context) requires dealing with broader abstractions, but a broad context has to ultimately break down to particular concretes, since metaphysically, only concretes exist. Hence, we see that broad abstractions are invaluable to deal with reality at a larger scale, but we also see that broad abstractions can only have utility if they are built progressively and can be progressively broken down to concretes.
Hence, we see the need for a hierarchy of goals, each level representing a certain level of the goal’s breadth. It is not sufficient to have a broad goal and then to try pursuing it through specifics without tying the specifics to the broad goal progressively and comprehensively (i.e. in a way that relates the specifics to everything else that is relevant for the broad goal). This is especially important since goals are integrated, which means no goal can be pursued meaningfully without understanding its relation to other goals one has decided to undertake.