THE LOGIC OF FAILURE
If you see someone trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, the first thought may be that this person has absolutely no chance of success. Looking at their actions shows that they are trying to accomplish something that is clearly impossible. If they are able to fit the peg inside the whole it will not be a clean fit. There will possible be gaps in the spaces where there is not a peg. Or the Square peg will be altered to fit inside the hole. Potentially the hole is altered to fit the peg. Any way you do it this piece is is not going to “fit” and there is nothing that can be done about that. But this idea presupposes that the individual is pursuing an action with a desired result in mind. It is entirely possible that the individuals intent may actually be to break the block. In which case their actions will almost certainly lead to success.
If we look at failure and success logically then we may find that there is failure is only as certain as the intent and expectation of a particular result. Just as you can not ask an incorrect question, you can only give an answer that is in correct. An answer is an ideological position one settles to at the end a journey. The journey is the question.
Failure is not so much a state but a description that be measured. Such as the distance between a landed dart and a bullseye. The difference between aiming for a bullseye and anything else in life is so great that in many ways success can only be achieved if the intent is as simple as hitting a red dot.
Finding “success in life” is not only a moving target but an amorphous one as well. It changes state with the weather, timing and other variables that we can neither predict or even always observe.
The litmus for success or failure can be expressed by a, which is the action or behavior committed in pursuit of i, an intended outcome. (a-i=d)The distance (d) between which is the degree of failure or success and the more clearly defined the intent, the more room there is for distance between it and the outcome. Our common notion of success and failure are this: when d=0 we have success, but when d ≠0, we have failure.
But what if we modify the definition of success to d=x, d= 0~1, or d= x,y, or z where success is yet to be determined or where it exists within a range, variety of possible out comes? The logic of failure can be manipulated during the process by the user to suit the greater ambition (GA).
The GA is that which the success or failure is incumbent upon. It may be a system or, process that is dependent upon specific criteria or circumstance, without with the system or process fails. The fragility of system is determined by the other variable in the system.
Our lives, and bodies are a series of systems operating in synchronicity, governed by homeostasis. There is a tolerance within which we remain “healthy” because these systems counter balance each other and mitigate the likelihood of overall failure. Assuming the GA in our lives may be to move towards ultimate fulfillment and with select criteria needed to allow for this fulfillment we can tolerate many “failures” in varying degrees and still fulfill our GA.
Modifying the definition of success decreases the likelihood of failure in any case where there is a higher purpose for the action than simply committing it. Applying this to our lives gives is greater freedom to risk, higher chance of success, and brings us closer to fulfilling out purpose.