one school of thought (where i belong to at the moment) believes goals are necessary. i don't think they are an end, rather, a mean to the means. i'm fully convinced the process is the important part - but for certain people, having a goal helps me get into the process. an end needs the means to complete it - and the means need an end to jump-start it. how much weight i attribute to the means or the ends is a learned matter. but having an end is pretty important. critics ask me what happens when i run out of goals, and aren't i still subscribing to the rat-race mentality, setting goals and trying to achieve them?
the other school of thought, while we agree on the importance of the process, believes setting out goals and ends are futile - planning ahead makes no sense as things almost never turn out the way they're supposed to, so rather, we should "go with the flow". if an intention comes along, our intuition will tell us what to do - there's no need to analyze and plan our next step. if no intention comes along, we simply go with non-action. setting goals goes against the essence of letting things be. critics wonder if the act of "un-intention" is a decision in itself, and we are deluding ourselves into thinking are letting destiny take complete control of us. and in all practicality, the fact that there are decisions to be made every moment - unintentional decision-making seems to be a contradiction in terms.
what are the differences?
in the first camp - a lot more mental energy is devoted to figuring out what kind of goal there should be. this arguably could be wasted mental energy - there's no guarantee that i) the goal is appropriate or ii) it's necessary to "jump-start" the process, one could just as easily fall into the process due to circumstances, situations, etc.
in the second camp - the focus is on present and not some distant possibly achievable or unachievable goal. the innate trust in their intuition is much stronger, and they have little/no issue in following it. if a direction emerges that presents a substantial conflict with their current life, they don't need to agonize much over the appropriate decision, but rather, believe they'll be picking whatever they were supposed to pick, good or bad.
in a way, i envy the people in the second camp. what it comes down to, is i do not trust my intuition as yet. perhaps i've confused intuition and impulse, but i know for a fact my impulses should not always be acted on (trust me). i remain convinced best decisions are made after a good bit of investigation.
the real key is the full belief in whatever it is i'm doing. the first way is the long road of analysis, leaving as many stoned unturned as to the best of my abilities, so i am convinced beyond doubt. alternatively, i grow to trust my instincts. and how to do that? since i don't seem to be able to suddenly force myself into a belief that i don't subscribe to, the current remaining method is to think really long and hard, and to gain instincts via experience (real or imagined)? until i figure out a way convince myself to take the proverbial leap of faith and start believing in my intuitions?
