What matters?

[aquarius]

It is not that a result is achieved in itself, but that a continual process endures from one’s efforts. One might also consider that the process itself works as a result. I struggled to find something this wouldn’t apply to.

[BillHopkins]

It is not that a result is achieved in itself, but that a continual process endures from one’s efforts. One might also consider that the process itself works as a result. I struggled to find something this wouldn’t apply to.

It seems you're talking simply about 'discipline'? A fine things to cultivate.

[Cargést]

The journey is more important than reaching the destination; upon reaching the destination, another journey begins!  There is no pitstop in causality; Life Continues.

[crow]

What matters?
The first step.
Then the one that follows it.
Then the ones following the preceding steps.

[scourge]

It is not that a result is achieved in itself, but that a continual process endures from one’s efforts.

Some people are going to get irritated with that idea. It's more commonly presented as "it's not the kill but the hunt itself that matters".

So, it would seem another way of saying a method is more important than the goal which is contrary to our nihilist doctrinal orthodoxy. However, in each instance, methods are criticized for the primacy of their anthropocentricity over the actual goal itself.

In other words, even if we aim to benefit our entire species, if any member or small group should get left out, or harmed, we simply cannot act toward that end. Eugenics and environmental conservation are two prominent examples.

Returning to our original statement, some rewording can help to see if we have a valid comparison to find where we stand with regard to our orthodoxy.

The ongoing process of struggle is superior to a given end phase of our overcoming something. I'm seeing an apples and oranges non-analogy between the two, so it really can't fall under precise critique for prioritizing methods over goals.

Take any lifeform for consideration. The lifeform has a lifecycle process commonly divided into maturation stages. We wouldn't say the most important thing for the lifeform, upon conclusion of the process, is its death.

So defined, we can't even equate struggle or process of life with a method toward some goal because struggle would have to mean something greater. Again, for a lifeform, struggle isn't for the purpose of the goal which is dying.

Instead, we struggle to continually overcome until our own end occurs. I would think of process then as a metamethod that makes achieving any goal at all possible to begin with. Some method then, for comparison, is like a selection from a set. But, with the process of life we're either overcoming or we're dormant/dead.

If I don't get up off the sofa, meet Seabass and Bubba down at the boggy creek, jump in our airboat with our compound bows to hunt hog then guess what? Nobody gets to have a pork roast cookout for the weekend. The hunt: makes the kill possible at all.

[username]

It's true the whole and the goal is important when compared to the journey speaking of achievments as such.

But speaking of how to achieve peace i oneself and happiness, it's probably counterproductive to chase after abstract goals in the future or desiring external object in the illusion they have a value in themselves.

So the question should be how should one set his goals, rather than how goals are best achieved.

[§Transcix]

Nice thread.

I think it's wrong to define the physical process by contrasting it with the goal, because this assumes the goal exists.

A physical process consists of patterns of intentions, desires, emotions, thoughts, beliefs, attitudes or actions, as they interactively constitute the chain-reactionary process of one's being; I consider things like thoughts to be physical processes, such as subtle (but tangible) astral energies or, if you prefer, sparks of electricity and neuron relationships in the brain.

A goal, on the other hand, is defined by a specific, set target, but not by virtue of what that target's physical process constitutes in its very animation, but rather by virtue of what one takes that target's physical process to mean. What is this "meaning", where does it exist?

Just as if I define myself by asserting that I'm not a giant pink elephant I fail to delineate very much of my definition's contour, similarly defining a process in contrast to its "goal" is illogical.

Allow me however to play devil's advocate. If a physical process consists of patterns of intentions, desires, emotions, thoughts, beliefs, attitudes or actions, as they interactively constitute the chain-reactionary process of one's being, what if the process is not constituted by the thought or action itself, but by the deliberate, purposive choice of the thinker to choose that thought over another thought, that intention over another intention or that action over another action?

Let us put aside, for the moment, that the vast majority of people have dreadfully poor grip of their physical and mental faculties.

The problem is, if we consider the physical definition of something to be based on existential self-determination, then again we're defining it in contrast of something terribly moot. One never chooses to think one thought over one other thought as if those were exclusively the two possible options. Nor, for that matter, can one potentially choose from an infinite amount of thoughts to think.

"What matters?"

What doesn't matter?

If enlightenment is liberation from ignorance, then to what end is it so? If enlightenment is the pure ISness of being, the physical process itself in its very animation, then what is the point of pursuing enlightenment if the physical process' chain-reactionary flow dictates in the first place through existential gridlock when you pursue it and when you attain it?

Unfortunately I must depart for bed before unraveling my own mystery. I'm sure I'll succeed at it, the bed is only a few steps away and I'm perfectly able-bodied.

[aquarius]

I am particularly interested in an alternative to achieving some sort of finality as is commonly implied in a ‘desired result’.  This would also exclude the idea of a process outweighing a result because it still aims for finality.

What’s wrong with achieving finality in a desired result? It is achieved only to be replaced by something undesirable further on down the track. The extreme right gives way to the extreme left and so on.

A way out of this would be to continually overcome without viewing life in terms of fixed endpoints. As mentioned, perhaps only rigid self-discipline can make this possible.

[aquarius]

It would also stop our favourite bands from selling out.