Defining your life's purpose is bad

[Andy]

Even if it's difficult to get to what "real" definition your life purpose is, the whole process of trying to define it will result in more clarity on the issue, and that is a huge benefit in itself.

[Brutha]

First I would like to post a link: http://www.ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalks...key=b_schwartz

Having to much choices is bad.

If you define your purpose you reduce your choices.
The good think is that the choices you drop are the ones inconsistend with your defined purpose.

Sure you will drop a few good choices, since you don't define your purpose perfectly.
But the majority of choices that you drop are bad choices because they conflict with your purpose.

[ImOpen]

Originally Posted by Brutha

First I would like to post a link: http://www.ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalks...key=b_schwartz

Having to much choices is bad.

If you define your purpose you reduce your choices.
The good think is that the choices you drop are the ones inconsistend with your defined purpose.

Sure you will drop a few good choices, since you don't define your purpose perfectly.
But the majority of choices that you drop are bad choices because they conflict with your purpose.

That's an interesting thought Brutha, also because it's really an argument worth discussing. I'll watch the video, think about it and hopefully get back to it.

[dorothy hanna]

What Brutha posted reminds me very much, of an old saying of the druids. "When all choice is removed, a perfect path remains".

[ImOpen]

Okay, I've watched the video now and what Barry Schwartz basically seems to be saying is that a lot of alternative choices leed to unhappiness because when you have decided you feel that with all of those choices you should have been able to found a perfect one - and of course you didn't.

But the thing here is that I actually think I and Schwartz think alike, and that this is a good argument for my hyopthesis. We all have the choices - there's nothing you can do about it. But you decide and I actually don't. So I think it's you who suffer from this and you who will suffer from the high expectations Schwartz is talking about.

Using my model, there are no expectations whatsoever and never even a conscious feeling that you have decided about anything. Optimally, you'd just be like a piece of wood in a brook. You'd be drifting but the brook itself would be your personality, your inner core etc. The opposite to what most motivational speakers are talking about, but I still like this idea of mine (although I'm of course not the first one to think in this manner).

[HANDELL]

ImOpen,

I do not feel as though you successfully defended your argument that having a defined purpose is bad and that defining your purpose will cause an individual to dry and simplistic. You offer the following evidence in your OP that I have paraphrased; that purpose is complex, that purpose exists without our knowing it and acts as our guide, and that the limits of language prevent us from accurately defining "true purpose." I will assume that all three premises are true. The argument rests on the reader making the last implicit assumption that attempting to define something that is complex and rooted in the unconscious will lead to a poor outcome. I do not think you can make this jump in reasoning, a poor outcome does not need to follow, (Anyone define their purpose with a positive outcome recently) Essentialy we could probably offer equal examples of both good and bad outcomes, not a good thing for deciding whether an argument is true or false. Note that I am not making the agrument that defining a purpose is good, I'm just pointing out that I do not believe your argument is particularly effective in supporting your conclusion.

I think your hang-up may rest on your definition of purpose is. I do not believe purpose, at least in the context of this site, must ever be exact. Personally I think the purpose defining exercise presented by Steve in his blog goes hand in hand with the "channeling" method of poetry, and your advocacy of meditation, getting at that indefinable TRUE PURPOSE, never reaching, but closer than floating randomly. Its an exercise, a tool, a particularly effective one for many, like a utility knife or something along those lines. Good for you, apparently not, but I hope you see how it can be likened to your advocated practice of poetry or meditation.

As this thread has progressed you have shifted to offering a new model (brook and wood) which has carried you away from the argument of your OP. That is fine and good, but I implore you to rethink the effectiveness of the argument in your original post.

As an end note, I believe you were incredibly rude to annie and dorothy hanna, sarcastically asking if she had read your post. You are advocating a point, their not coming away from reading your post with a clear grasp of your argument is your fault as writer. Imagine a Doctoral candidate defending their thesis when someone challenges their argument in a way the candidate does not agree with, "Hey did you read my thesis..."

-Brian

[kafaria]

Originally Posted by ImOpen

Okay, I've watched the video now and what Barry Schwartz basically seems to be saying is that a lot of alternative choices leed to unhappiness because when you have decided you feel that with all of those choices you should have been able to found a perfect one - and of course you didn't.

But the thing here is that I actually think I and Schwartz think alike, and that this is a good argument for my hyopthesis. We all have the choices - there's nothing you can do about it. But you decide and I actually don't. So I think it's you who suffer from this and you who will suffer from the high expectations Schwartz is talking about.

Using my model, there are no expectations whatsoever and never even a conscious feeling that you have decided about anything. Optimally, you'd just be like a piece of wood in a brook. You'd be drifting but the brook itself would be your personality, your inner core etc. The opposite to what most motivational speakers are talking about, but I still like this idea of mine (although I'm of course not the first one to think in this manner).

but that in itself is a purpose aint it? to "decide" to drift along. so you're a drifter. with a personality of a brook. of the choice to drift or to swim ( after all you are a piece of wood with arms) you have chosen to drift. not to use your arms, not to bother to think, not to bother to try.... just be a wood in a brook. thats your purpose in life!
in any case, even suspending judgment is a decision, to be confused is a decision. everything you do is a decision. and for me to quit this forum right now... yep its a decision

[DKSprocket]

Originally Posted by ImOpen

My idea is that you could express part of it by using "abstract channels" - writing poems, painting etc. but it is just plain silly to believe that we have the verbal power to define our true meaning of life (espiecally after just a couple of months of consideration).

This is a good point. Of course a written statement of your life purpose can only be a limited map of what your true purpose is. Your about using other ways to express it is definately a good one.

Originally Posted by ImOpen

It is multi-leveled and language itself set the limitations for what can be expressed. (Describe a color like yellow, but one that you have never seen before... Describe yellow in correlation to other colors and concepts... "it's... bright..."

I understand what you're saying as "since we can't express it perfectly in writing its pointless to even try". That's a very absolute attitude. Being a perfectionist is the perfect excuse never to do anything in life (I know that's not who you are, but your reasoning is pointing in that direction).

You are also neglecting the experiental evidence from all the people who has done the process and ended up with a written purpose that literally made them cry. To say that having such a purpose written down is useless is pretty extreme. Of course the written purpose should not be taking as a fundamental truth, but its definately an enlightening process.

The fact that you didn't arrive at a written purpose that made sense to you could mean several things. Maybe you didn't try long enough. Maybe you weren't open to the possibility of actually succeeding. Or maybe you are right in the way that a written purpose simple isn't the right thing for you (and possibly many others) - maybe some people need to use the kind of channels you are talking about.

Rasmus

[ImOpen]

ImOpen,

I do not feel as though you successfully defended your argument that having a defined purpose is bad and that defining your purpose will cause an individual to dry and simplistic. You offer the following evidence in your OP that I have paraphrased; that purpose is complex, that purpose exists without our knowing it and acts as our guide, and that the limits of language prevent us from accurately defining "true purpose." I will assume that all three premises are true. The argument rests on the reader making the last implicit assumption that attempting to define something that is complex and rooted in the unconscious will lead to a poor outcome. I do not think you can make this jump in reasoning, a poor outcome does not need to follow, (Anyone define their purpose with a positive outcome recently) Essentialy we could probably offer equal examples of both good and bad outcomes, not a good thing for deciding whether an argument is true or false. Note that I am not making the agrument that defining a purpose is good, I'm just pointing out that I do not believe your argument is particularly effective in supporting your conclusion.

This implicit assumption you are talking about is my hypothesis and your argument against it is that there are people who has had positive outcomes from writing their life purpose after 20 minutes+. Well, how do we know that they wouldn't have been even better if not doing so?

Because noone can live two identical lives, do differently, and then compare, I think this empiric argument lacks internal validation.

I think your hang-up may rest on your definition of purpose is. I do not believe purpose, at least in the context of this site, must ever be exact. Personally I think the purpose defining exercise presented by Steve in his blog goes hand in hand with the "channeling" method of poetry, and your advocacy of meditation, getting at that indefinable TRUE PURPOSE, never reaching, but closer than floating randomly. Its an exercise, a tool, a particularly effective one for many, like a utility knife or something along those lines. Good for you, apparently not, but I hope you see how it can be likened to your advocated practice of poetry or meditation.

Wait, there is an essential difference here. The goal when writing poetry and so on is not to define your whole life purpose (lol). It's the commitment to cover it all in Pavlina's strategy, that is dangerous.

As this thread has progressed you have shifted to offering a new model (brook and wood) which has carried you away from the argument of your OP. That is fine and good, but I implore you to rethink the effectiveness of the argument in your original post.

No, this was just an abstract description based on my reasoning in the first post. We make choices but without a clear cut map, and because how effortlessly it is done it is sort of like the "brook and wood"-thingie

As an end note, I believe you were incredibly rude to annie and dorothy hanna, sarcastically asking if she had read your post. You are advocating a point, their not coming away from reading your post with a clear grasp of your argument is your fault as writer. Imagine a Doctoral candidate defending their thesis when someone challenges their argument in a way the candidate does not agree with, "Hey did you read my thesis..."

-Brian

Annie found something very insignificant that she just had to point out (which, by the way, was because of an misunderstanding on her part). Therefore, with the same degree of respect, I asked her if she really had read my post because I thought she would find out what she had missed if she read it again. After that she continued in the same way...

As for dorothy hanna... The discussion is about if it's good or bad defining you life's purpose, not how to do Steve's 20-minutes-thing. I just wanted to say this and try to keep the discussion from going OT.

You are also neglecting the experiental evidence from all the people who has done the process and ended up with a written purpose that literally made them cry.

I think this is sort of funny. Humans work very differently and it's a really strange assumption that starting to cry would be evidence for having found your purpose.
The reasoning behind this seems to be:
- Pavlina started crying
- Pavlina really found his purpose (really?)
- Pavlina's behaviour is generic and the same for everyone (really?)
- Therefore, you should do the test until you cry. If you do that you most certainly have found your purpose (really?)

but that in itself is a purpose aint it? to "decide" to drift along. so you're a drifter. with a personality of a brook. of the choice to drift or to swim ( after all you are a piece of wood with arms) you have chosen to drift. not to use your arms, not to bother to think, not to bother to try.... just be a wood in a brook. thats your purpose in life!
in any case, even suspending judgment is a decision, to be confused is a decision. everything you do is a decision. and for me to quit this forum right now... yep its a decision

It's a very different matter to decide on something very specific and decide not to decide, so to say.

[Brutha]

Originally Posted by ImOpen

Okay, I've watched the video now and what Barry Schwartz basically seems to be saying is that a lot of alternative choices leed to unhappiness because when you have decided you feel that with all of those choices you should have been able to found a perfect one - and of course you didn't.

But the thing here is that I actually think I and Schwartz think alike, and that this is a good argument for my hyopthesis. We all have the choices - there's nothing you can do about it. But you decide and I actually don't. So I think it's you who suffer from this and you who will suffer from the high expectations Schwartz is talking about.

The point is that you have to make only one decision about your purpose in your whole life.
From there on each of your decisions has a significant reduced amount of choices that don't conflict with that purpose.

It's a very different matter to decide on something very specific and decide not to decide, so to say.

Lets say you finished school and are thinking about what job to get or what to study.
What does it mean to you to decide not to decide is this situation?

If you have a defined purpose the amount of different choices that you have in that situation are less.

[HANDELL]

ImOpen,

My argument is simply that your hypothesis, "attempting to define something that is complex and rooted in the unconscious will lead to a poor outcome," is not effective, it leads readers to neither a true conclusion or a false one. I offered the example that person x attempted to define it and had a good outcome. You countered with, "Well, how do we know that they wouldn't have been even better if not doing so?" We don't know either way, that is the point, each point and counterpoint begs the question, and goes nowhere.

I would like to stress again that my argument is that your hypothesis is not effective. I am NOT advocating that since your hypothesis is not effective, the opposite must be true. Actually, such an argument would be just as poor.

I suggest you reinvestigate your hypothesis. Here is a suggestion:

Purpose is and incredibly complex and unconscius guide in an individuals life. Recognize that by putting your purpose into language, you are using an imperfect medium that has limitations. Approach the 20-Minute exercise with the belief that you will uncover a beautiful aspect of your purpose that can serve to guide you, but avoid believing that the purpose you come up with is unchanging, as refusal to keep your mind open can lead to an individual becoming less conscious.

I think that hits the mark a bit better than saying defining your purpose is bad and will cause you to by "dry" and simplistic.

-Brian

[Katrina]

Originally Posted by ImOpen

I can't see anything good coming out of doing this.
We're talking about something very complex. Something that is rooted deep within us. It is with certainty guiding us all day long without our knowledge of it.

My idea is that you could express part of it by using "abstract channels" - writing poems, painting etc. but it is just plain silly to believe that we have the verbal power to define our true meaning of life (espiecally after just a couple of months of consideration).

It is multi-leveled and language itself set the limitations for what can be expressed. (Describe a color like yellow, but one that you have never seen before... Describe yellow in correlation to other colors and concepts... "it's... bright..."

When we try to define meaning we are boxing ourselves in and limit our outlook on life. We cannot possibly cover everything and if we were to live after this "home-spun" ideom, the result would only be that our lives would get very "dry" and simplistic.

My goal would be something like:
"I want to live a good life, feeling good but also experiencing pain in order to enjoy the good times. But I also wan't to feel that special satisfaction when you're feeling low and enjoying it in some weird way. I also want to have a lot those feelings where everything just feels "real". When you are just stricken by how beautiful everything is and so on. The meaning of my life is always to be calm and spread that calmness to my friends, but without interfering with their underlying personalities. I don't want to change them too much. I want the negative people negative, who likes to be negative. My goal is to understand life and different outlooks on life..."

...and I could go on for the rest of my life.
So - do you see what I'm getting at? All of the things I could possibly write could just be summed up in a feeling from within which is aways there. Just pick it out and let that feeling or intuition guide you. Meditate if you have to to get it out.

....

I agree and disagree. I agree that it's a feeling within me. There's something warm and energizing in my chest when I think of my purpose...

..but I also use two words to define it. I use these words because no matter what someone else might read when they see these words, the way I understand them calls to mind all the things that causes that feeling. Defining it is a tool to help me remind myself when I might lose that silver little thread binding my thoughts to my true reasons. I don't use a paragraph, only two words to try and keep it simple because that works best for me.

I think the words we choose only confine us if we choose to let them. If we get stuck on the words themselves, instead of the meaning and emotions behind them - then yes, they can be terribly confining. If we choose words that "sound good" or seem to be inspiring purposes without those words calling up our inner courage, well then we haven't quite figured it out