begins as follows:
1.What is the main goal of your work?
2.What are the tangible benefits of achieving your goal?
3.What are the technical problems that make your goal difficult to achieve?
4.What are the main elements of your approach?
etc. (the rest is elided for copyright reasons). My thought: Doesn't all this
talk about 'goals' immediately put us into a world in which the goal is always
distant, perhaps even -- unreachable? This is the typical critique of the
business of fighting poverty or what have you.
At the same time, explication is important, not just to function in 'society'
but also to function as part of the 'society of self'. In my case, at least
at the moment, it seems easier and more natural to have many small
goals than to have one large/central goal.
I *have* had various large/central goals in the past, and some of them
continue to resonate for me. But I tend to feel a bit guilty about the
way these giant-sized goals seem to come out of left field. If instead
of an extra-dimensional goal imposed from 'outside', I lived in a world
populated by micro-goals that sometimes assemble themselves into
interesting configurations... would I earn any respect from the
'academic establishment'? Or is that sort of thing just seen as... dicking
around?
0 comments:
Post a Comment