what does it mean to achieve...
it should be pointed out in case anyone reads this post that i am in a 'certain' mental state that would be difficult if not impossible to clarify further. in the following paragraphs i have pushed out, in quasi-stream-of-consciousness, a thought process which i believe to be true but do not believe to be the whole story.
i cannot seem to come to terms with the idea of achievement or success. certainly for most of life's activities there are relatively straightforward metrics for success. my difficulty comes in determining the interplay between the various activities and their varous metrics.
a part of me lends itself to the idea that we are all in the process of performing some overwhelmingly complex optimization problem. there are certiainly absolute comparisons to be made. someone is in fact the best tennis player in the world. someone has written the best selling novel of the year. someone will win the nobel peace prize. we cannot judge ourselves against the entire world in every area and thereby determine whether our lives have been successful. i have never written a novel and have no desire to do so. as a consequence i did not write the best selling novel of the year. i don't think this makes me a failure.
the complexity of this problem comes from the idea that i need to somehow optimize the outcomes of my life's endeavors subject to the constraints of my personality, innate characteristics, desires. etc. etc. i am not particulary tall, strong, fast, or interested in basketball. this reasonably excludes me from participation in the NBA and an endorsement deal with the shoe company of my choice. however, if i am capable of contributing to the neighborhood game and helping my team win than probably i would be considered more successful in life than if i cannot do this (at least in the cold calculating sense with which i am currently approaching this topic i would get a couple of succes points added to my tally). however, as previously stated i am not particulary gifted with either innate athleticism or the driving motivation to play basketball. perhaps i can earn more success points with some other activity.
this is how we live our lives. i am not good enough at basketball to pursue it in such a way to produce 'added value' to my resume or my selfworth. my time is therefore better spent somewhere else...but where? of the vast array of potential activities we are left to choose the few that will (under the obvious contraint of who we are) me most likely to produce 'success'.
i don't even think i know what that word means anymore. in every realm of endeavor there exists the idea that even someone who 'fails' actually succeeds if they pursued the endeavor at hand with certain traits. this concept seems natural enough to spiritual or religious discussion but it is fully exhibited in completely secular circles. from sports to business, tenacious, well-meaning, gracious failures are touted as somehow not quite losers. they have lost certainly, but they can't be losers. to the victor goes the spoils, but if you tried hard and didn't maul anyone in the effort, maybe you deserve a tip of the hat and a couple of fine-sounding sentences of praise despite the fact that you lost.
failures in the absolute sense for a particulary contest (and everything can at least be cast in the light guise of a contest) are exulted because they have somehow put together enough success points in ancillary activities to merit some notice. they have adequately solved the constrained optimization problem set before them. their need to succeed in the absolute sense has been normalized by their capacity to succeed and in this new metric failure with style is counted as success. actual success would of course be a bonus, but it is not necessary if the probability of actual success is low.
this analysis would stand, i think, for a single acitivity (ie. a project at work, an athletic tournament, hosting an event for a person you value). the problem becomes even more complex when we try to consider the reality that most (if not all) people attempt multiple tasks in life and often more than one at a time. our society seems to overlook extreme failure in one area if extreme success exists in another. clearly it would be too much to ask an individual be both a rock star and a good father or mother, husband or wife, etc. all at once. horrible tragedy in the interpersonal arena is acceptable if the latest albumn in up to snuff. few actually achieve this level of 'extreme success'. in this case the ability to juggle an array of tasks without allowing any one to fall too far becomes essential.
i feel the need to summarize. juggle well. realize that when you fail it is probably because you weren't good enough to succeed but that your lack of capacity also nullifies your failure. essentially, if you go about it the right way, a string of mostly failures is ok (this is what most of us call life). we can't all be winners because there are a lot more people than actual contests.
i cannot seem to come to terms with the idea of achievement or success. certainly for most of life's activities there are relatively straightforward metrics for success. my difficulty comes in determining the interplay between the various activities and their varous metrics.
a part of me lends itself to the idea that we are all in the process of performing some overwhelmingly complex optimization problem. there are certiainly absolute comparisons to be made. someone is in fact the best tennis player in the world. someone has written the best selling novel of the year. someone will win the nobel peace prize. we cannot judge ourselves against the entire world in every area and thereby determine whether our lives have been successful. i have never written a novel and have no desire to do so. as a consequence i did not write the best selling novel of the year. i don't think this makes me a failure.
the complexity of this problem comes from the idea that i need to somehow optimize the outcomes of my life's endeavors subject to the constraints of my personality, innate characteristics, desires. etc. etc. i am not particulary tall, strong, fast, or interested in basketball. this reasonably excludes me from participation in the NBA and an endorsement deal with the shoe company of my choice. however, if i am capable of contributing to the neighborhood game and helping my team win than probably i would be considered more successful in life than if i cannot do this (at least in the cold calculating sense with which i am currently approaching this topic i would get a couple of succes points added to my tally). however, as previously stated i am not particulary gifted with either innate athleticism or the driving motivation to play basketball. perhaps i can earn more success points with some other activity.
this is how we live our lives. i am not good enough at basketball to pursue it in such a way to produce 'added value' to my resume or my selfworth. my time is therefore better spent somewhere else...but where? of the vast array of potential activities we are left to choose the few that will (under the obvious contraint of who we are) me most likely to produce 'success'.
i don't even think i know what that word means anymore. in every realm of endeavor there exists the idea that even someone who 'fails' actually succeeds if they pursued the endeavor at hand with certain traits. this concept seems natural enough to spiritual or religious discussion but it is fully exhibited in completely secular circles. from sports to business, tenacious, well-meaning, gracious failures are touted as somehow not quite losers. they have lost certainly, but they can't be losers. to the victor goes the spoils, but if you tried hard and didn't maul anyone in the effort, maybe you deserve a tip of the hat and a couple of fine-sounding sentences of praise despite the fact that you lost.
failures in the absolute sense for a particulary contest (and everything can at least be cast in the light guise of a contest) are exulted because they have somehow put together enough success points in ancillary activities to merit some notice. they have adequately solved the constrained optimization problem set before them. their need to succeed in the absolute sense has been normalized by their capacity to succeed and in this new metric failure with style is counted as success. actual success would of course be a bonus, but it is not necessary if the probability of actual success is low.
this analysis would stand, i think, for a single acitivity (ie. a project at work, an athletic tournament, hosting an event for a person you value). the problem becomes even more complex when we try to consider the reality that most (if not all) people attempt multiple tasks in life and often more than one at a time. our society seems to overlook extreme failure in one area if extreme success exists in another. clearly it would be too much to ask an individual be both a rock star and a good father or mother, husband or wife, etc. all at once. horrible tragedy in the interpersonal arena is acceptable if the latest albumn in up to snuff. few actually achieve this level of 'extreme success'. in this case the ability to juggle an array of tasks without allowing any one to fall too far becomes essential.
i feel the need to summarize. juggle well. realize that when you fail it is probably because you weren't good enough to succeed but that your lack of capacity also nullifies your failure. essentially, if you go about it the right way, a string of mostly failures is ok (this is what most of us call life). we can't all be winners because there are a lot more people than actual contests.
posted by whiteforks at 11:29 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home