Obligation is more important than outcome?

[Piscarian]

Recently while watching the Bill Moyers program on PBS, he had as a guest Vandana Shiva. She was referred to as a physicist and an activist who has been campaigning for some time on behalf of small agriculture, most recently in India, and other place of the world as well. In all of her efforts she has been working tirelessly to thwart Monsanto's activities and its relatively limitless resources, which prompted Bill Moyers to ask, “What keeps you going?” Her reply made mention of a passage from the Bhagavad Gita. Paraphrased, it was the idea that the obligation associated with an effort is more important than the outcome. This sparked my curiosity. Why would the idea of an obligation be considered more important in anyone's efforts, even above results? My guess is that there are at least a few people reading this who have either experienced or witnessed a situation where there was a commitment to a useless cause, or things changed in a way that would make any results achieved a moot point. I'm aware that any one particular situation may be only a small part of a much larger or long term consideration, but when does a person decide that his efforts have become an obsession rather than a healthy obligation? In a sense this issue seems to be related to the thoughts surrounding intention versus anticipation, with intention being the obligation and anticipation being the outcome. Am I relating these various concepts in a relevant way, and if so, how would the focus on obligation (or intention) contribute to a person's staying power? The potential value in exploring this question may have importance as it relates to the contest between STO and STS interests, in so far as I recall reading elsewhere in the forum that this contest comes down to a battle of wills.

 

[whitecoast]

This sounds like the old philosophical contrast between deontological ethics (judging people by their adherence to rules or their motivations) and consequentialist ethics (judging people based on outcomes of their actions). I think our own ethical system about external versus internal considering is deontological, because two identical actions can potential have very different motivations depending on whether the person acts for objective or subjective reasons.

My personal rule of thumb is, judge people according to their motivations, but their actions according to their outcomes. Sometimes it can be hard to separate the two though.

Edit: just to clarify, I meant "judge" people in the sense of categorizing them as being collinear or not with your own STO aims, and not in the sense of prescribing how they "ought" to behave.

 

[obyvatel]

In all of her efforts she has been working tirelessly to thwart Monsanto's activities and its relatively limitless resources, which prompted Bill Moyers to ask, “What keeps you going?” Her reply made mention of a passage from the Bhagavad Gita. Paraphrased, it was the idea that the obligation associated with an effort is more important than the outcome. This sparked my curiosity. Why would the idea of an obligation be considered more important in anyone's efforts, even above results?

Maybe it is simply about doing something with all of one's being because of the inner conviction that it is the right thing to do for that person. The inner conviction gives perseverance or "staying power" in the face of adversity, even when statistical odds of a desired outcome are not in one's favor. The Law of Three applies in determining the true nature of the activity - whether it serves the STS cause or are steps towards a STO dynamic.

Vandana Shiva has become a spokesperson for ecology as well as third world women empowerment - "ecofeminism". She is a popular public figure. I have not looked deep enough into her activities for an informed opinion though.

 

[Voyageur]

In all of her efforts she has been working tirelessly to thwart Monsanto's activities and its relatively limitless resources, which prompted Bill Moyers to ask, “What keeps you going?” Her reply made mention of a passage from the Bhagavad Gita. Paraphrased, it was the idea that the obligation associated with an effort is more important than the outcome. This sparked my curiosity. Why would the idea of an obligation be considered more important in anyone's efforts, even above results?

Maybe it is simply about doing something with all of one's being because of the inner conviction that it is the right thing to do for that person. The inner conviction gives perseverance or "staying power" in the face of adversity, even when statistical odds of a desired outcome are not in one's favor. The Law of Three applies in determining the true nature of the activity - whether it serves the STS cause or are steps towards a STO dynamic.

Vandana Shiva has become a spokesperson for ecology as well as third world women empowerment - "ecofeminism". She is a popular public figure. I have not looked deep enough into her activities for an informed opinion though.

Think like Gandhi's known actions, Shiva's are similar. Both their inner convictions of who they were/are guided them for their communities against oppressors, osit.

Like obyvatel said, do not have an informed opinion of her either, however, she rightly understands the evil intent of the purveyors of BT, historical land management practices of her people, the social costs of this new corporate disease to farmers/families and the ecological and biological travesty of their wears upon all of humanity.

 

[Nienna]

Recently while watching the Bill Moyers program on PBS, he had as a guest Vandana Shiva. She was referred to as a physicist and an activist who has been campaigning for some time on behalf of small agriculture, most recently in India, and other place of the world as well. In all of her efforts she has been working tirelessly to thwart Monsanto's activities and its relatively limitless resources, which prompted Bill Moyers to ask, “What keeps you going?” Her reply made mention of a passage from the Bhagavad Gita. Paraphrased, it was the idea that the obligation associated with an effort is more important than the outcome. This sparked my curiosity. Why would the idea of an obligation be considered more important in anyone's efforts, even above results? My guess is that there are at least a few people reading this who have either experienced or witnessed a situation where there was a commitment to a useless cause, or things changed in a way that would make any results achieved a moot point. I'm aware that any one particular situation may be only a small part of a much larger or long term consideration, but when does a person decide that his efforts have become an obsession rather than a healthy obligation? In a sense this issue seems to be related to the thoughts surrounding intention versus anticipation, with intention being the obligation and anticipation being the outcome. Am I relating these various concepts in a relevant way, and if so, how would the focus on obligation (or intention) contribute to a person's staying power? The potential value in exploring this question may have importance as it relates to the contest between STO and STS interests, in so far as I recall reading elsewhere in the forum that this contest comes down to a battle of wills.

She actually did explain this. From how I understood what she was saying is doing what you know is the right thing to do. You may sometimes fail in your efforts, but you did what was right, maybe even knowing that it may not work. In other words, do what your essence feels as right. Not what your ego says is right. Maybe your ego may only want you to do what will be recognized as an achievement so that you get a minute in the spotlight, but it is not the right thing to do.

fwiw

 

[Buddy]

Recently while watching the Bill Moyers program on PBS, he had as a guest Vandana Shiva. She was referred to as a physicist and an activist who has been campaigning for some time on behalf of small agriculture, most recently in India, and other place of the world as well. In all of her efforts she has been working tirelessly to thwart Monsanto's activities and its relatively limitless resources, which prompted Bill Moyers to ask, “What keeps you going?” Her reply made mention of a passage from the Bhagavad Gita. Paraphrased, it was the idea that the obligation associated with an effort is more important than the outcome. This sparked my curiosity. Why would the idea of an obligation be considered more important in anyone's efforts, even above results?

An answer might be found in the meaning of "Dharma". That Sanskrit word is an almost exact translation of how we'd say "duty toward self" in English.

In H.D.F. Kitto’s "The Greeks", there is a passage that describes "the very soul of the Homeric hero," the legendary figure of predecadent, pre-Socratic Greece":

"The Iliad is the story of the siege of Troy, which will fall in the dust, and of its defenders who will be killed in battle. The wife of Hector, the leader, says to him: "Your strength will be your destruction; and you have no pity either for your infant son or for your unhappy wife who will soon be your widow. For soon the Acheans will set upon you and kill you; and if I lose you it would be better for me to die."

Her husband replies:

"Well do I know this, and I am sure of it: that day is coming when the holy city of Troy will perish, and Priam and the people of wealthy Priam. But my grief is not so much for the Trojans, nor for Hecuba herself, nor for Priam the King, nor for my many noble brothers, who will be slain by the foe and will lie in the dust, as for you, when one of the bronze-clad Acheans will carry you away in tears and end your days of freedom. Then you may live in Argos, and work at the loom in another woman’s house, or perhaps carry water for a woman of Messene or Hyperia, sore against your will: but hard compulsion will lie upon you. And then a man will say as he sees you weeping, `This was the wife of Hector, who was the noblest in battle of the horse-taming Trojans, when they were fighting around Ilion.’ This is what they will say: and it will be fresh grief for you, to fight against slavery bereft of a husband like that. But may I be dead, may the earth be heaped over my grave before I hear your cries, and of the violence done to you."

So spake shining Hector and held out his arms to his son. But the child screamed and shrank back into the bosom of the well-girdled nurse, for he took fright at the sight of his dear father...at the bronze and the crest of the horsehair which he saw swaying terribly from the top of the helmet. His father laughed aloud, and his lady mother too. At once shining Hector took the helmet off his head and laid it on the ground, and when he had kissed his dear son and dandled him in his arms, he prayed to Zeus and to the other Gods: Zeus and ye other Gods, grant that this my son may be, as I am, most glorious among the Trojans and a man of might, and greatly rule in Ilion. And may they say, as he returns from war, `He is far better than his father.’

""What moves the Greek warrior to deeds of heroism," Kitto comments, "is not a sense of duty as we understand it...duty towards others: it is rather duty towards himself. He strives after that which we translate `virtue’ but is in Greek aretê, `excellence’ — we shall have much to say about aretê. It runs through Greek life."

To me, this passage represents "duty toward self" which is an almost exact translation of the Sanskrit word dharma, sometimes described as the "one" of the Hindus.

Kitto had more to say about this aretê of the ancient Greeks:

"When we meet aretê in Plato," he said, "we translate it 'virtue' and consequently miss all the flavour of it. 'Virtue,' at least in modern English, is almost entirely a moral word; aretê, on the other hand, is used indifferently in all the categories, and simply means excellence."

Robert Pirsig also expresses this with an analogy of 'ego-climbing' vs 'self-less climbing':

It made the kids at camp much more enthusiastic and cooperative when they had ego goals to fulfill, I'm sure, but ultimately that kind of motivation is destructive. Any effort that has self-glorification as its final endpoint is bound to end in disaster. Now we're paying the price.

When you try to climb a mountain to prove how big you are, you almost never make it. And even if you do it's a hollow victory. In order to sustain the victory you have to prove yourself again and again in some other way, and again and again and again, driven forever to fill a false image, haunted by the fear that the image is not true and someone will find out. That's never the way.

Phædrus wrote a letter from India about a pilgrimage to holy Mount Kailas, the source of the Ganges and the abode of Shiva, high in the Himalayas, in the company of a holy man and his adherents.

He never reached the mountain. After the third day he gave up, exhausted, and the pilgrimage went on without him. He said he had the physical strength but that physical strength wasn't enough. He had the intellectual motivation but that wasn't enough either. He didn't think he had been arrogant but thought that he was undertaking the pilgrimage to broaden his experience, to gain understanding for himself. He was trying to use the mountain for his own purposes and the pilgrimage too. He regarded himself as the fixed entity, not the pilgrimage or the mountain, and thus wasn't ready for it. He speculated that the other pilgrims, the ones who reached the mountain, probably sensed the holiness of the mountain so intensely that each footstep was an act of devotion, an act of submission to this holiness.

The holiness of the mountain infused into their own spirits enabled them to endure far more than anything he, with his greater physical strength, could take.

To the untrained eye ego-climbing and selfless climbing may appear identical. Both kinds of climbers place one foot in front of the other. Both breathe in and out at the same rate. Both stop when tired. Both go forward when rested. But what a difference! The ego-climber is like an instrument that's out of adjustment. He puts his foot down an instant too soon or too late. He's likely to miss a beautiful passage of sunlight through the trees. He goes on when the sloppiness of his step shows he's tired. He rests at odd times. He looks up the trail trying to see what's ahead even when he knows what's ahead because he just looked a second before. He goes too fast or too slow for the conditions and when he talks his talk is forever about somewhere else, something else. He's here but he's not here. He rejects the here, is unhappy with it, wants to be farther up the trail but when he gets there will be just as unhappy because then it will be ``here.'' What he's looking for, what he wants, is all around him, but he doesn't want that because it is all around him. Every step's an effort, both physically and spiritually, because he imagines his goal to be external and distant.

That seems to be Chris's problem now.
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, 216

If you're interested, you can explore the idea of how the cultural Mythos of civilizations can teach their members. For example, this thread, The Odyssey - Manual of Secret Teachings? can reveal from where and why we get our 'Hospitality' implementation.

 

[Average Joe]

I think her intent is more along the lines of doing what is right without attachment to the outcome, as in no anticipation or wishful thinking.

 

[obyvatel]

An answer might be found in the meaning of "Dharma". That Sanskrit word is an almost exact translation of how we'd say "duty toward self" in English.

Dharma is usually regarded as pertaining to a natural/cosmic principles of existence. These "natural" principles used to be laid out to a large extent in ancient texts like the vedas. So actions which support "dharma" are virtuous in the sense of being in accordance with cosmic principles - which was also usually interpreted as "what the gods would like humans to do". As vedic thought was partially displaced by later vedantic (meaning after vedas) thought, the concept of Self as Ultimate Truth (or Atman as Brahman) gained precedence. If dharma is interpreted in the vedantic sense, it could perhaps be treated as "duty towards self". However, the popular understanding of dharma in Hindu culture still retains the older vedic flavor.

 

[Buddy]

An answer might be found in the meaning of "Dharma". That Sanskrit word is an almost exact translation of how we'd say "duty toward self" in English.

Dharma is usually regarded as pertaining to a natural/cosmic principles of existence. These "natural" principles used to be laid out to a large extent in ancient texts like the vedas. So actions which support "dharma" are virtuous in the sense of being in accordance with cosmic principles - which was also usually interpreted as "what the gods would like humans to do". As vedic thought was partially displaced by later vedantic (meaning after vedas) thought, the concept of Self as Ultimate Truth (or Atman as Brahman) gained precedence. If dharma is interpreted in the vedantic sense, it could perhaps be treated as "duty towards self". However, the popular understanding of dharma in Hindu culture still retains the older vedic flavor.

Thanks, obyvatel! In light of this new (to me) distinction, I will offer a simple distillation: I'm thinking that what Hector, the self-less climber and Vandana Shiva have in common is that their basis for acting is other than self as fixed entity (AKA the narcissistic self AKA the ego's false personality).

Whether credit is given Bhagavad Gita, aretê, "what the gods want", or Self-as-Ultimate-Truth, it seems one's Work is what is important. Acting in accord with personal excellence--what is experientially felt and known to be right--is being a living embodiment of 'The Good'. Outcomes are left to DCM or whatever Name is preferred.

Just my feelings on the matter as I currently understand it.

 

[Piscarian]

This sounds like the old philosophical contrast between deontological ethics (judging people by their adherence to rules or their motivations) and consequentialist ethics (judging people based on outcomes of their actions). I think our own ethical system about external versus internal considering is deontological, because two identical actions can potential have very different motivations depending on whether the person acts for objective or subjective reasons.

My personal rule of thumb is, judge people according to their motivations, but their actions according to their outcomes. Sometimes it can be hard to separate the two though.

Edit: just to clarify, I meant "judge" people in the sense of categorizing them as being collinear or not with your own STO aims, and not in the sense of prescribing how they "ought" to behave.

Whitecoast, thanks for introducing me to the philosophical concepts involved with the issue. Those considerations helped to delineate the question somewhat and to a certain extent demonstrate that there is no one particular approach that has application for all occasions. My impression of Vandana Shiva is that in addition to utilizing her sense of commitment, she also keeps a keen eye toward the results. What I was hoping to get at was how she used the primary focus on obligation as a resource or reservoir to aid her endurance. Apparently, she has found the right balance of concepts in light of her successes against the adversary's advantages. The balance or mix seems to be where the potential or peril resides. If the dynamics of this balance could be illustrated somehow - a balance that contributes to endurance - the process might be used as a sort of conceptual tool, OSIT.

 

[Piscarian]

Hello obyvatel, voyageur, Nienna Eluch, Buddy, and Average Joe.

Thank you for taking the time to answer some of my questions. What I was hoping to discover when I first began to consider the idea, that obligation is more important than outcome, was what is associated with the whole concept, pro and con. My assertions, on how a focus primarily concerned with obligations can have drawbacks, were part of my questioning of some of the variables involved. There are certain people like Vandana Shiva, who appear to have some mastery over the process of utilizing their sense of commitment in a way that leaves people like myself somewhat mystified and puzzled, in that they seem to make it look relatively easy. In that regard, I was hoping that if the process could be dissected into some of the essential components, that somehow it could illustrate for people what might amount to a short checklist. The elements of this list could possibly serve as a sort of instrumentation for people to gauge situations with and so navigate accordingly.

Since reading through your replies I've been pondering what might be the characteristics of successfully using a sense of obligation to fortify will power or endurance. It seems like what most of the replies have in common is for a person to go with his inner convictions, his personal sense of what is right. This seems ambiguous to me. Would it be accurate to say that a person needs to have clarity on what is going into his sense of obligation or intentions? For example, if a person's convictions were comprised of subjectivity, egotism or just plain wrong information in any significant way, wouldn't there be a greater risk of his convictions weakening?

Nienna Eluch « Reply #4 on: Yesterday at 01:36:25 PM »
"She actually did explain this. From how I understood what she was saying is doing what you know is the right thing to do. You may sometimes fail in your efforts, but you did what was right, maybe even knowing that it may not work. In other words, do what your essence feels as right. Not what your ego says is right. Maybe your ego may only want you to do what will be recognized as an achievement so that you get a minute in the spotlight, but it is not the right thing to do. "

Could it be that identifying or differentiating the greater cause from the lesser, which may seem obvious at times, is actually an important consideration? For example, a person might not want to take up a cause and then try to apply his sense of conviction, but rather solidly identify his convictions first and then choose or align with those issues that supply an avenue for expressing those convictions. In other words, convictions aren't used on behalf of circumstances so much as the circumstances are used on behalf of convictions. Everything would be mostly filtered through what an obligation or intention is constructed of rather than what circumstances might happen to be. Then could it be that in the case of Vandana Shiva, she perceives that the priorities are not Monsanto or small agriculture, but rather some greater consideration whatever that may be?

 

[Voyageur]

[quote author=Piscarian]
[...]
Then could it be that in the case of Vandana Shiva, she perceives that the priorities are not Monsanto or small agriculture, but rather some greater consideration whatever that may be?
[/quote]

The little i've sussed out about her background, stemming from her study of physics and philosophy and moving into biodiversity, which is where Monsanto comes into the picture, seems to be her sense of family/community first and of her "consideration", or so it seems to me, is born out of her outrage at the tampering by corporate forces upon historical ways of life and natural biodiversity. When it comes to agriculture (she studied at Guelph) i'm not sure, based on such subjects as the ruinous aspects of agriculture (see the Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Keith as example) how she sees this. The Indus Valley, like almost all agra-areas, has some saddening ecological practices; with or without Monsanto.