A Short Piece
On the importance of emphasizing “vision” first and then “planning,” for vision is more practical.
There is nothing wrong with planning, assuming we aren’t dependent on it. Plans give us a sense of direction and organization, and without them it would be impossible to coordinate with other people on what we should do, when we should meet, and the like. But plans are also dangerous in that we can “outsource” our thinking to them and cease “actively thinking” once we have a plan, which means we might miss opportunities, better ways of doing things, creative possibility, and the like. This reminds me of the dilemma with “facts,” which are necessary for multiple people with different hermeneutics and subjectivities to “think together” (without facts, agreement would likely be impossible, for there would only be opinion), but at the same time it becomes easy to “let facts do our thinking for us,” precisely because they are so powerful, at which point we actually stop thinking. “Facts” are not self-evident in their meaning, but they seem so self-evident that it’s tempting simply to search for facts and emphasize them, but at this point we’ve denied the active role of the subject in interpreting and organizing facts, which can lead to trouble. This reminds me of “The Negative Effects of Science on Society,” a video which can be found at the incredible channel, “WhatifAltHist,” but I will let the brilliant creator of that video present his points himself.
As “facts” in their very ability to be (relatively) easily shared between subjectivities tempts us to let them do our thinking for us, so we can let “plans” do our thinking, choosing, and living for us — but this can be a problem. If I plan to do x, then my possibilities for the day are limited and narrowed to x, which of course increases the effectiveness and coordination by which I might operate to accomplish x, but it also risks me focusing on x at the expense of y and z. Now, x might be superior to y and z, so this is not necessarily a loss, and furthermore I cannot live if I’m always paranoid about what I “might have missed,” so I don’t mean to suggest anxiety. Rather, I mean to say that planning is linear and focused, which is why it can be powerful (like science), but it’s also why it can be limiting and problematic. If y is better than x, “planning x” will make it likely that we miss y.
Furthermore, the world is insanely complex, and so the likelihood that our plan of x (which must be arrived at before experiencing x to be a plan) being correct is very low. If it is correct, then we likely are ignoring outside information that would unveil otherwise and/or we’ve imposed our plan about the world in such a way that we do not allow alternatives to “speak” to us. This is indeed a point which can be aligned with Heidegger, as I’ve spoken on with Andrew Luber, though please don’t take me to say that it’s “impossible” for x plan to be optimal — it’s just unlikely, especially the larger and more distant the plan is, a point which brings to mind hurricanes.
The likelihood that a weather forecast about a hurricane is accurate is relative to how close it is to landfall. When the hurricane is five days away, the likelihood we can accurately predict where it will hit is far less than when it is only ten hours away, which is to say approximation increases accuracy. Not necessarily, of course, but this basically means that the more immediate a plan is, the higher the likelihood that the plan is accurate. My plan to say visit Food Lion is more likely to work out than my plan to visit Maryland five months from now, and both of those plans are more likely to “work out” versus my plan to become a dentist. Of course, I can become a dentist and realize that plan, but if one had to bet, I would bet that “the plan to visit Food Lion works out” over “the plan to be a dentist,” but nothing can be said for certain. Also, critically, if I do become a dentist over say a decade, the likelihood I sacrificed or even missed other opportunities is very high, though of course I might not care, seeing as that my goal was “to become a dentist.” However, it might also be the case that we gradually come not to want this goal as much as we thought, but admitting this can make us feel like a failure, for we are “failing to reach our goal.” This is another reason why plans can be problematic: we now have a standard of failure. We can succeed or fail, but even if we do succeed, the likelihood that our plan to do x was “the best of all possible options” is very low. This doesn’t mean we will be unhappy, but it does mean our strategy might not be the best.
The need to transition from “vision” to “plan” increases the closer the hurricane approaches, but indeed if we have a “vision” of say x, y, and z possibilities, then we can simply “narrow down” to x as the hurricane approaches, which means that we can arrive at a plan from within a vision, but we cannot arrive at vision from a plan. This is critical: “planning” is what we do in the near-term, while “vision” is what we should cultivate for the long-term. We culturally come to treat “planning” as a long-term strategy, when as such it is extremely ineffective and impractical, while we don’t bother to cultivate “vision’ at all. Obsessed with efficiency and pragmaticism, we are not very efficient or pragmatic at all.
Ironically, it is precisely because vision is dynamic and “open,” and thus “truer to life,” that it can seem impractical and “fluffy.” Plans in being linear and things which “bracket out possibility” are thus easier to communicate and observe, and as a result seem practical and wiser. Funnily, the exact opposite is the case: vision is more practical than planning. In the same way that it is wiser and more practical to plan for multiple scenarios than a single plan when we first learn that a hurricane is heading our way but it’s still a week away, so it is more practical to have the vision to see and realize multiple and/or unexpected opportunities. Thus, a paradox is at play: to be prepared for the long-term, we should focus on our self-cultivation now, whereas planning is what we should do relative to “the near future.” If we start planning beyond a month or two, we’re likely to be wrong. Yes, of course, we can plan for a Christmas party a year in advance, but a Christmas party is not the same as “doing dentistry” — the later is something we should prepare for not by “planning the future” but by cultivating our ability to be a dentist now. The future is best addressed today, in the concrete, not the abstract. Though vision sounds abstract, concreteness is a pivotal difference between “vision” and “plan,” which mean our association of “planning” with “being concrete” is the opposite of the case.
Also, following my plan to “be a dentist” (mixing hurricanes and dentistry perhaps suggests something subconscious…), if I only developed abilities to be a dentist, it is also probable that I missed opportunities I don’t even know I missed, precisely because I never experienced myself as having those abilities to realize those different practices. This is in one way “a failure,” but it’s also a failure that might be invisible to me precisely because of my conditioning to become a dentist, which suggests another reason why planning can be so problematic: it conceals its negative ramifications in and with its very focus. Yes, I can also “fail to have vision,” but precisely because it is diversified and not siloed, it is easier for me to “pivot” and “improvise” my way into an alternative solution and way of life (if new information arises, if things change, etc.). Vision means I have versatility, and critically “failing at vision” is “failing at cultivating ‘a way of life,’ ” not just failing to realize “a specific path of life.”
Vision as “way of life” and plan as “path of life” might be a nice way to capture the difference. “Vision” is a matter of intellectual cultivation, “intrinsic motivation,” creative capacities, mastering social arts, and the like: it is something we cultivate with our leisure and freedom (planning more so “imposes” itself upon possibility). In a culture that’s main concern is consumption and entertainment, it is very unlikely that the average person will cultivate vision, regardless how often they might plan. Worse yet, if we believe planning is a good long-term strategy, then we will likely not even realize that we are missing out on something by lacking any “cultivation of vision.” As a result, we will have a poor long-term strategy, all while we think we have a wise and practical one.
Vision is multiple, while planning is singular, and as we move toward our present moment, we must make a decision and plan accordingly, so planning has a critical role. Considering this, I am certainly not saying that “planning is bad” or that “we shouldn’t make plans”: I am saying that we should not treat a short-term strategy as a long-term strategy. In investing, it’s wise to diversify our portfolio, and we can align “vision with diversification”; however, if we see a stock in our portfolio begin or need to be cut, we can sell our position, thus strengthening our portfolio. In this way, we can in vision start deciding that x needs to be dropped from our vision to leave open y and z, which means we’ll make available more attention (or “liquidity” to stick with the metaphor) and energy to capitalize on y and z if we come to conclude in our experience (not primarily ideas) that y or z is best. In this way, we can see a translation of vision into planning relative to what happens now, versus relative to what we make happen now (so that everything conforms to our plan) — which risks the ineffectiveness of power and force.
Critically, vision puts the focus on being present with others and open to our immediacy, not “future-focused” where we miss out on what is happening now. Vision has us plan for the future in making the most of the present, while planning has us “make the most of the future” by focusing on the future instead of the now (and the likelihood of our “idea of the future” being accurate is low, especially without force and imposition). To “go into the future in and with the present” is a strategy that is more likely to take into account unknowns, complexity, and the like, while “planning for the future over the present” is likely impractical and mistaken, and yet again “planning” will seem more practical, precisely because it is easier to communicate and “get” precisely because of its linearity and simplicity (suggesting that “communicability” can suggest error, a risk theologians warn about involving God).
Vision is the implicit shaping the explicit, and if we don’t have vision, then our explicit is simply “what is given.” Simply “planning” then is contained and organized by those “givens,” whereas if we have vision (then “planning”) we can help shape the “ground” upon which our planning occurs. Vision empowers us to “clear” aside notions and ideas that have us be “pulled along” by an explicit dimension that likely just reflects our zeitgeist, social conditioning, etc., whereas if we just plan we will likely be more organized and controlled by our environment and circumstance than we realize. This is why we must “vision to plan” versus have “planning replace vision.”
In closing, if vision sounds passive while planning is active, I would note that people who plan pass by countless opportunities and miss opportunities to cultivate themselves. Ironically, vision seems passive but is actually far more active than planning, because to have vision we cannot waste time, consume mindlessly, or use our time poorly. However, we can plan to be a dentist in ten years, do some studying an hour or two a day, and then spend the rest of our time consuming (and the fact we “did something for our plan” might make us less skeptical of our consumption habits, which is to say we might more readily rationalize consumerism). To live by vision is for me to live focusing on the cultivation of Nietzsche’s Will and “intrinsic motivation,” as discussed in “The Overman and the Allegory of the Cave,” which is to resist the mistake of living only by “purpose.” Now, purpose plays a necessary role, as does planning, but the problem is we tend to have “purpose” today at the expense of Will, as we tend to have “plans” at the expense of vision. What is needed today is a reordering, where “purpose and plans” are short-term while “Will and vision” are matters of life as a whole. If we miss out on seeing the whole, the parts gained by our plans and purposes will just feel like fragments.
.
.
.
For more, please visit O.G. Rose.com. Also, please subscribe to our YouTube channel and follow us on Instagram, Anchor, and Facebook.
