Well, not having a goal leads us to a zero level of activity. Which is wrong. Why? Because time range for action is a resource that does not reproduce, but is instead consumed as the clock ticks, showing the passing of time marks. Using a time delay for not doing anything is the equivalent of being in a supermarket with a six hundred dollars coupon the value of which diminishes at a rate of ten dollars per minute, therefore leaving us with a zero value of goods purchased if we remained idle during the whole one hour delay or validity of the coupon.
Moreover, the achievement of a goal constitutes itself a very positive feedback for self reliance and assertiveness, which are factors that increase productivity and efficiency, i.e., effectiveness. Success in a project leads to ease on attaining goals, therefore increasing the speed of development and evolution. Idleness, on the other hand, drives people away from activity, work and action, but it won't build up a feeling of conformism, which would offer the idle person a way to cope with his sluggishness and lack of capability of succeeding in anything. Instead, idle people are led (by mechanisms the presence of which they are completely unaware) to believe that they are doomed to failure, that it's fate itself which make them that way, that only lucky people are able to drive their lives according to their will. Are idle people right when thinking in such a way? I'd say that their situation is better described as similar to that of the gardener who, despite needing to weed out his garden every day, chooses not to do anything for a while, finding at the end before the unsurmountable task of weeding out a multitude of vines covering every inch of the garden. His efforts still will put him in the right direction, but the unaccomplished tasks before him are enormous, and the feeling of progress, which needs a reference and is therefore relative, will be very tiny.
No comments:
Post a Comment