It’s not so much about the tangible tools as it is about the almost-tangible processes. One must start with the processes that produce desired results and then find, or create, tools to match. The classical “begin with the end in mind,” except the next step being “what are all the pre-ends that lead to the end-end, and what motivates towards, and facilitates during, those pre-ends?”
The other problem is that the end-end changes constantly, so there is required some process with which to manage that constant change, and then control for those changes down through the less-flexible pre-ends. And, what pre-ends are more universal, and remain pre-ends for various end-ends? A rethinking of the classic 4 quadrant life planning paradigm.
Is planning for more general end-ends useful? Does having the final aim be character, or relationship (although even relationship is not general enough, meaning, relationship with whom, or what?), or generic skills (social or physical prowess, perhaps?), or generic gains (financial independence) help keep the pre-ends generic enough to withstand other potential end-ends change? Like {Another classical life question, does one do whatever necessary to gain financial independence, so that they can do what they please with the rest of their time on earth, or does one structure their lives so they can do what they please with their time now, even if it means constant compromise? It’s really those that haven’t had to compromise, meaning they have or are achieving financial independence doing what they really want to do, that we envy so much. But what if what we really want to do isn’t valued by the marketplace enough to create any financial independence, period?}
I think the one common thread here is change. The as-yet-unmentioned problem is external change. As if internal change wasn’t enough. So how do we create processes for our life that can withstand the constant change? Only then can we think about tools to facilitate those processes.
A correllary is relational dynamics. Our labels and ethics and categories and institutions, none of them do an adequate job of really helping us traverse the topographically rich landscape of our relational lives. We need better processes, new vocabularies, and new mental and social processes in order to negotiate all that change. So if the generic ends are still that same, ie we want lasting, stable, trustworthy, rich relationships, what are our more generic-yet-complex things to do to reach them? Clearly, our current tools have left us wanting.
Pete Rollins clip, from his talk at GB this year. He said similar things much better.