Goals & Gods: Scoring Them & Saving Them

In a way I am saying that 'goals' are bad. It is all too easy... perhaps even inherent in the nature of goals that they become these encrusted 'objects' in our minds that we presume lie 'out there' in space-n-time somewhere. Again, goals become objects; that 'thing' that we pursue, and often with a fever pitch.

The side-effects of pursuing 'goals' should be listed as a series of disclaimers right inside of any self-help book. The pursuit of goals may adversely affect one's perception of reality. Reality may become distorted. Reality may take on a diametric flavour opposing that which one percieves as 'affirming/assisting one's goal-gaining' and that which 'denies/obstructs one's goal-gaining.'

You are either for my goal or against my goal. Whether we like him and his political agenda or not, we each take on a Bush/Bin Laden psychological approach when it comes to our pursuit of the proverbial 'pot of gold' at the end of the rainbow. You are either for my goal or against my goal. An ally or an enemy combatant. Who are you? Shall I love you or hate you?

If I want to know that I just ask you what you think of my 'prime objective' and then your fate is sealed in my mind. I'll interrogate you. I'll question you as to the nature of your stance towards what my number 1 goal is--then I'll know what I think of you... then I'll know what to do with you and your kind.

Suzi Gablik, authour of The Reenchantment Of Art, among other works, has written that,

Many of the difficulties and conflicts we experience... are related to the framework of beliefs and standards of behaviour provided by our culture to serve as guidelines for our individual lives. We tend to pattern ourselves and our worlk view after our culture, taking as self-evident certain beliefs, values and beahviours; thus, if our model of culture is faulty and disordered, then we ourselves are disordered in precisely the same way.

Does that mean that a goal-driven, ends-seeking, pay-any-cost, bear-any-burden culture will tend to foster a similar mentality/disposition amongst its members? I'll let you answer that one for yourself. My answer, based upon my own experience, along with my observations of others whom I happen to share a certain emerging Global Culture with--one primarily based upon standards dictated by Modernity/Western Civilization--is a resounding yes!

Before you take issue with me and my appraisal of the situation I would like you to sit for a moment and keep in mind that this investigation is just getting under way. I have barely even started to broach the topic. So bear in mind that all of the evidence is not yet in; evidence that I am going to use to support the case I am going to make for a goal-less existence.


AIMLESS WANDERING?

One of the chief fears of those more conservative types who espouse the merits of intense goal-setting is that we are bound to become slothful vagabonds wandering the Universe if we don't have a direction and set a number of goals for ourselves. How will we know where to go? How will we know what to do? The asumption inherent in such questions is that if we don't have a goal then we must somehow be imbeciles. It is as if there is a sense that goals make us intelligent! Without them we are stupid and lazy!

But is the seat of human intelligence within the goal? Does the goal make us smarter, sexier, more beautiful? Studies seem to confirm that there is at leats some truth to this in that heterosexual women tend to be more attracted to a 'man with a mission.' I mean, shoot even Charles Manson was scoring with the ladies back in the day when he was far beyond 'driven.' Having goals... and perhaps, more importantly, pursuing them... can get you laid!

Maybe it's not so much the goal-setting that is sexy as it is the fact that those with strond desires to achieve a certain goal or agenda are psychologically reassuring to us. That maybe why George W. Bush won two elections (that and the Supreme Court's deciding vote). He represents--for all of his more obvious failings--an intensely driven psychological stance that portrays a sense of stability and security in the midst of a world in tremendous flux and impermanence. His... er, uhm... rigidity and inflexibility are psychologically reassuring to an American populace. And while I would not go so far as to proclaim him a 'Hitler' I would go so far as to suggest that the time in which he won office was perhaps a time not too dissimilar to the time when Hitler won office. It was a time of uncertainty and seeming ambivalence. There was talk of a loss of values and the country 'losing its way.'

At such a time, even a man who has the wrong convictions (or I should say, potentially harmful convictions) is still a man who represents strength to a populace begging for direction and leadership.

The election of George W. Bush also points to the failings of the so-called 'Left.' The overriding sensation provided by the Left-wing to the American populace is that there is no direction. What does the Left stand for? Can you tell me? What is their claim to fame of late? Can you tell me what the convictions of the Democrats are?


POLITICS AS SEXUAL LIAISON

If a majourity of heterosexual women tell us that a 'man with a plan' is sexier and more attractive than a man without one, then perhaps such evidence suggests that we are more or less attracted psychologically to politicians who evidence some erectness of the spine (even if it in that former Yale cheerleader cum Texas cowboy wanna-be way of George W. Bush).

The truth is that both sex and politics have a lot to do with confidence--or at least the appearance of confidence. It shouldn't be surprise that more than a few women have been 'conned' by a con-man (a confidence man). Nor should it be a surprise that much the same can happen to a whole nation in political terms. We sometimes only hear what we want to hear. A woman wants to hear that she is sexy and that she is 'the only one,' just as a nation of people want to hear that they are 'being protected' and 'taken care of.'

Not on my watch baby! I won't let anything bad happen to you (just so long as you overlook that last time I was on vacation and all hell broke loose).

And the lady and the people want to believe. We want to believe that we are THAT IMPORTANT! We want to believe that a person really means what they are saying. The trouble is that that only job of the con-man is to get us to have confidence in him. Because if we are 'just believers' (hello you Conservative Christians out there!) then we shall be saved and have everlasting life.


JESUS'S FINAL COMMANDMENT: MAKE BELIEVERS OUT OF ALL NATIONS & PEOPLES

All we have to do is believe in GW. Just like we believe in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour. he'll watch out for us.

In reality, though, that might be the problem. The problem might be when a cheerleader secretly wants to be the quarterback. The problem might be when a C student is forced to make decisions that even the Valedictorian would be challenged by. The problem is when we take as our example for living the life of one whose capacity far outstrips our own. The problem is when you set Christ as your goal and example, and yet get a nation to to follow you on the principle of faith in a world where facts suddenly seem to have no merit. The problem is when you gain a people's confidence, for all the wrong reasons.

The problem is that Jesus Christ is seen as a planetary saviour by the Christian faithful, and that the leader of the world's strongest military-industrial complex takes that same Jesus Christ as his political exemplar. So what does the leader of the world's strongest military-industrial complex need to do in order to be like Christ--to realize his greatest goal? Does he too need to try and become a 'world saviour?' And if so, then what is going to save the world from?

Maybe he should start with himself. Save us from you GW!! ; o )

Seriously. I truly do feel that there is a monumental problem on one's hand when one sets as one's goal that which one may not have the capacity to achieve. This is especially problematic when one is a politician of the executive order and is playing the role of leader. When we mix God and our earthly Goals in a pot we may end up with a disasterous set of circumstances on our hand because we are operating under the assumption that we have the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient capacities of God with us.

Which is maybe why it is good idea to never mention what God sees the goal of the world as being. For once we are convinced we know what God wants from the world we then go about trying to make the world conform to some bastard goal we arrogantly proclaim God as the Father of.

Me? I don't know what God wants from the world. I don't know what the goal of everything is. I do know it is time for lunch though. Care to join me?