Comments on: Why pursue personal growth at all?

By: EA

EA — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 17:49:56 +0000

This calls for a response.
First of all, might I say you, serious_observer, have a fantastic logic way of thinking to things. Your lifesystem is quit efficient, robust and secure. However, as I’m going to show you, it’s also prone to a designflaw.
Seriously, serious_observer. Let me tell you a little story. There was once a farmer who wanted to know which of his sons should be given most of his land. So he decided to give the boys a challenge: to draw a right line in the fields without any technical aparatus. The first boy, the oldest, walked through the field, but coudn’t make a straight line. The second didn’t either. The younghest, however thaught and came to the idea of using a tree as a reference point. He managed tot secure a straight line and won the challenge.
You, my friend, failed like the first ones. You fail to realise that you need to analyse situations and devise a way of tackling them (with the right steps) so problems cease. With your current way, you’d just repeat the process of just going around the problems. Offcourse there isn’t infinite growth, but the problem with you is that you count in feedback. The problem with you is that you think one should only look at failures and thus absolutly render goals unnecessary. The flaw is, that everything isn’t absolute. Even you and your thaught are relative to the knowledge you have. According to your own thinking, you aren’t even speaking English, simply because you don’t know al of its words and grammer. You fail easily that way. You implent wrong criteria.
But why are you being so reactive for events that aren’t no good for you, while you can steps consciously for a certain amount of time with certian criteria to overcome those events/problems? Why can’t you be that third son? (Who made a difference by setting a goal)
If you donnot secure the future, you lose by default. Nature’s law. This simple wisdom my friend, lacks you. You can’t just live and see things going. Even your muscles know better, not training them enough means losing then. Even your brain, renders your thinking wrong. I don’t care whether you take Steve’s this way or Athony’s that way. As long as you take a way, it’s better than being mr.depressio. That’s why I can’t take ignorant thinking like your kind of people. Use your life or lose it. Nature’s law.

By: Bill Keller

Bill Keller — Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:56:51 +0000

Goals are just a tool. A means to an end. It really doesn’t matter what the end *is*, that’s up to you. A hike across Europe, learning Japanese, losing 50 pounds, whatever. Some future state exists, you want it, and need to figure out how to get it.

For example, my 8 year old daughter has been begging me to teach her how to fish. I don’t know beans about salt water fishing. When I fished as a kid, I would put a worm on a hook, throw it in the lake, and take home whatever bit. Salt water is quite a bit different. Now, I could just say “salt water fishing is not in my nature, and it’s pointless to figure out how. There are so many things that could go wrong.” Or, I could say that it *is* in my nature, which means that all of the faculties necessary to do it are already in me. I already have the licenses, know the right kind of fish, bait, locations, and techniques. I should just wander down to the pier and cast, since it’s in my nature and good results will come.

Both scenarios are silly. I don’t know about salt water fishing, but I can learn. I can set the goal of learning what I need and gathering the materials to be able to do it. I can change myself from a non-saltwater fishing person to a saltwater fishing person.

A trivial example, to be sure, but a valid one, I think. Someone may be trying to lose weight, and just not know the techniques to get it off and keep it off. Or may not know the techniques for mastering will power. I could just come to the realization one day that I am not content with some aspect of my life and want to change it. Fighting my nature? I don’t think so, not if my nature is to want to improve.

By: Aaa

Aaa — Thu, 25 Nov 2004 21:00:36 +0000

The Fortune lead one who goes and pull one who resists…

By: Roger Jack

Roger Jack — Thu, 25 Nov 2004 19:55:04 +0000

serious_observer: You forgot a third possible reason, doode. The third reason is that I was trying to kindly point out flaws in your lazy approach to life. I can see kindness doesn’t work for you, doode.

Good luck with your meaningless life!

By: Michael Le

Michael Le — Thu, 25 Nov 2004 18:19:48 +0000

Actually, your post wasn’t meager, and there is a point to responding because he probably bet there were many people like you so he chose to rebuttal his arguments.

Second, people who let things go don’t deny them, they take the time to understand that there is no point on giving brain time to things they can’t control. Sure, it might be in there in intuition, but to rely on intuition results in bad thinking.

By: serious_observer

serious_observer — Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:30:50 +0000

[Here is more food for thought. Suppose that I have a big goal that appears to be unrealistic and then I define a series of smaller goals to get to the big goal. The first small goal that I set appears 100% acheivable. Should I try to acheive that goal? If I do acheive that goal, should I keep going toward the big goal even if it still looks unrealistic?]

The whole is not the sum of the parts. Suppose you were the assitant of Leonardo Da Vinci. By analysing his each brush stroke whilst he paints the Mona Lisa, can you go away and do your own Mona Lisa that exactly matches his? Obviously not. Breaking up a large goal into a million chunks and then achieving each one of them sounds logically neat but a countless things can go wrong. This is not integral calculus doode. You seem to like this equation:

integral (deltaGoal) = goal

Now imagine another situation. You suddenly discover say like Vincent van Gogh that you like to paint and go out find something inspiring to you and paint. The goal is achieved when you finish the painting but that is not the point. The act of painting is the point. You are only looking at the goal forgetting the process.

[serious_observer: How do you know whether a goal is achievable or not? When is a goal too big and unreleastic?]

Why do you want me to tell you? What sort of an expert am I? I’m just a nickname doode. And even if I am the best expert in the universe why do you care? In any case this is not physics to present you with nice equations you can apply to all human beings. That is one more problem with self help books. They herd people under one umbrella. The problem is with you too. What is wrong with you doode? When you ask this question I can see you subtly saying these things:

* I cant think for myself cos I dont believe I’m good enough.
* I need someone else to do the thinking for me.

I am saying each person that is not mentally challenged can do the above. And I dont believe outsourcing this (actually letting it hijacked) to anyone.

By: Roger Jack

Roger Jack — Thu, 25 Nov 2004 14:51:54 +0000

Here is more food for thought. Suppose that I have a big goal that appears to be unrealistic and then I define a series of smaller goals to get to the big goal. The first small goal that I set appears 100% acheivable. Should I try to acheive that goal? If I do acheive that goal, should I keep going toward the big goal even if it still looks unrealistic?

By: Roger Jack

Roger Jack — Thu, 25 Nov 2004 14:45:10 +0000

serious_observer: How do you know whether a goal is achievable or not? When is a goal too big and unreleastic?

For instance, if I say that I’m going to build a spaceship just like the Starship Enterprise then that is obviously an unrealistic goal. If I say that I’m going to take a brief trip to outerspace someday then it might be achievable if I can save enough money. I’m not sure. So how do I know?

By: serious_observer

serious_observer — Thu, 25 Nov 2004 13:16:37 +0000

Roger Jack: Please read post 4 of mine. I say that goals are not wrong. Goals that are almost 100% achievable are in my definition not goals at all (altho you can be adamant and define them as such). Most of them are needs and the rest are trivial – you only need to be alive to achieve them. As you mention, the size of the goal is crucial. The bigger and more audacious it is relative to your current situation the greater the chance of you being miserable if you dont achieve it. Eating lunch at 1.30 pm today is trivial if you just got off the bed at 12.30 pm (like I did now and the freezer is full of ready-meals and an empty microwave is waiting for your command – ah the joy of living in a developed country! – but it can be a dangerous and foolish one if you are stuck on top of a craggy cliff with just a bottle of water and a long climb down to your favorite McDonalds.

[I have one more thought. If I decide that I don’t want to have goals, isn’t that a goal? My goal would be that I won’t have goals.]

This is entirely a thought experiment at any moment and hence 100% achievable the ‘moment’ you decide not to have a goal which can be any instant!

To recap, I dont advocate goal-less living. Semantically, its impossible. I’m only saying have goals that are almost 100% achievable to ‘you’. That is essentially the goal-less living to most people.

The problem is people influenced by the skill of a self-help professional create goals they cant achieve and when they dont they feel miserable. Thats not so bad – I pity the guy that in fact achieves a few of of them, because he cant now stop setting goals. He will keep setting goals which are bigger, better, greater than the last and soon wont achieve one and feel really miserable. Lets break the cycle at its bud. Dont set big, hairy, audacious goals (which self-help book was that? ) If you want to set goals, then set goals that are 100% achievable to you

By: Roger Jack

Roger Jack — Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:15:22 +0000

I have one more thought. If I decide that I don’t want to have goals, isn’t that a goal? My goal would be that I won’t have goals.