How to make Progress — and role of our (Pakistani) Education System:
Posted by khuram on August 20, 2006
How to make Progress? And Role of Education System:
Progress means forward movement in the way of developments etc. But to move in forward direction requires that we must ‘think’ in forward direction. We cannot move in forward direction if we think in backward direction. In case we do not ‘think’ at all i.e. our thinking is ‘static’, again we cannot make progress in this way. To move forward, towards the way of development, (i.e. to make progress) is possible only when we ‘think’ in forward direction.
The direction of our ‘thinking’ depends on the way we handle any new information. The usual course of handling any new information can be described in terms of following formula:
Learning = New Information + Updating the previous understanding
As a result of the application of new information, we usually update our previous understanding on the issue. In this way we ‘learn’. Learning also can be defined as “up-dating the previous understanding structure as a result of the application of new information”.
But, above is only the usual way of handling new information. All people, in all cases do not handle new information in the above mentioned way. There are basically three approaches for handling new information; (i) Regressive Approach; which is ‘backward thinking’ approach, (ii) Static Approach; where people do not ‘think’ by themselves and; (iii) Progressive Approach; which is the ‘forward thinking’ approach and is necessary for making progress.
These three approaches have been briefly described below:
1- Regressive Approach:
Every new information is viewed in such a manner as to just confirm the authenticity of old information. In this way, the structure of old information is not changed or up-dated in this case. We have defined ‘learning’ to be the ‘updating’ of the structure of previous understanding as a result of the application of new information. In regressive approach, basically every effort is made to protect and safeguard the structure of previous understanding. New information is not properly considered and evaluated. Any information that seems to be contradictory to the structure of previous information (understanding) is just rejected without proper considering or evaluating it. Since there occurs no ‘up-dating’ of the structure of previous understanding, therefore ‘learning’ also does not occur in a regressive approach of handling any new information.
2- Static Approach:
As a result of the application of new information, the previous understanding (i.e. the structure of previous information) may be up-dated but the new (resulting) understanding is not evaluated for further outstanding questions and also no new conclusions are derived. In fact, the new information, in as it is form, is just integrated in the previous mindset (i.e. structure of understanding). The previous structure of understanding is up-dated in this way. Since the previous structure of understanding is up-dated, so ‘learning’ takes place under the ‘static approach’ of handling new information. But since no new conclusions are derived under this approach, so there is no or at least less scope for the generation of new ideas under this approach. Missing of ‘new ideas’ simply means that the total knowledge is ‘static’ i.e. up to the level where it was before the application of new information except in case where ‘new information’ comes from direct observation of a whole new thing. Only in this case there has occurred some expansion in the total knowledge and in all other cases, ‘learning’ has been occurred only in an individual’s mind and so in this way, nothing ‘new’ has been ‘learned’ by the humanity as a whole. In ‘static model’, usually, already existing knowledge is just transferred from one mind to other or others. To whom the knowledge is so transferred, does not draw his own conclusions. He does not draw his own conclusions because actually he does not ‘think’ by himself. Whatever has been told to him, he accepts it in as it is form without properly considering its detailed implications. He does not consider the detailed implications of the new information because he does not ‘think’ by himself. The ‘static approach’ is so termed also because the ‘thinking process’ is ‘static’ under this approach. In this approach, ‘learning’ does occur but the idea generations do not take place due to the fact that ‘self thinking’ is ‘static’ or absent in this case. The knowledge remains ‘static’ up to the level of ‘up-dated’ understanding until another new information has come from the external world. One who follows static approach is only a follower of progressive people. Whatever the progressive people shall tell him, he shall accept it in as it is manner. No doubt he is ‘moving’ in a ‘forward’ direction because after all ‘learning’ is present in this approach. The type of this ‘forward movement’, however, is not impressive at all. The progressive people actually are ‘running’ in forward direction and our ‘static person’ is just ‘crawling’ behind them. Logically he cannot overtake the progressive people. He also cannot go towards any new direction. He only has to follow the path which was already explored by the progressive people. Also he moved up to the level to which he has been ‘pulled’ by the rapid progress of the progressive people. So in this type of ‘non-impressive’ forward movement, our ‘static person’ is not moving by himself. Actually he is being ‘pulled’ by the progressive people. This approach is ‘static’ also because our ‘static person’ is not moving by himself. He is just being ‘pulled’.
3- Progressive approach:
In progressive approach, as a result of the application of new information, the previous understanding is up-dated. This up-dated ‘new’ understanding is further evaluated for the further outstanding questions. Answers to those outstanding questions are found out and new conclusions are drawn accordingly. Need for the new information is also recognized at various levels and efforts are made to get the required information. The new information so acquired again up-dates the previous understanding and the cycle continues. In this way the knowledge makes progress. Progressive approach not only is a continuous learning process, it has a greater potential of generating new ideas as well. The progressive person ‘thinks’ by himself. Since he ‘thinks’, so he draws his own conclusions. Many of such conclusions can come up to the definition of ‘new idea’. So there is greater potential for the generation of new ideas under the progressive approach. A progressive person is not ‘pulled’ by other progressive people. He, by himself seeks for new information from every potential source but he is not just the follower of those information sources. He draws his own conclusions and thus organizes his own knowledge. He makes improvements in knowledge. He is moving in forward direction in an impressive style. A static person was just crawling behind the fast moving progressive people. Our this progressive person is one of the fast moving persons. Whether or not he is actually behind other progressive persons does not matter at all. Since a progressive person draws his own conclusions, so in fact he is exploring an entirely new way. He is the leader of his own way. Actually all the progressive persons are leaders of their respective fields. Even if the progressive persons belong to same area of study, still then there is sharp difference between a progressive person and a static person. The static person is just crawling behind the progressive people and is being ‘pulled’ by those progressive people. In case of a progressive person who is actually moving behind other progressive people, even in this case, his position is far better than that of a static person. Unlike a static person he is not ‘crawling’ behind the progressive people. He is ‘running’ after the other running progressive people. Unlike a static person, he is not being ‘pulled’ by the progressive people, he is actually ‘running’ by himself. Since the static person is ‘crawling’ behind the running people, so logically he cannot overtake those progressive people. The progressive person in this case, on the other hand, is also ‘running’ behind the other running persons. He may have his speed greater than other progressive people because after all he is ‘running’ and not just ‘crawling’. So logically, the possibility exists that he may overtake other progressive persons in that particular field.
Our formal education system basically is an example of ‘static model’. Students are taught only that material which is written in syllabus books by some progressive people. Students only have to go through that written material and only have to improve their understanding of the related concepts. But that ‘improved’ understanding is considered to be the ‘upper limit’ or the ‘upper boundary’ of all what students can be expected to do. Students are not required to further improve that ‘improved’ understanding with the help of their own ‘thinking and analysis’. Any further improvement is considered possible only in a situation when the same author has written a new edition of the same book. Only this ‘new edition’ is considered to be the sole source of any kind of ‘further’ improvement in the understanding level.
In this way, what a progressive person has done, the students have to follow it. Students are required to ‘crawl’ behind that progressive person. Students (and many teachers also) remain static up to that level to which they have been ‘pulled’ by the progressive people. By themselves, students cannot (also not expected to and also not required to) go beyond.
Students are evaluated only for their ‘improved’ understanding level and it is still irrelevant to consider that if they are able to practically apply that ‘improved’ understanding or not. Students actually are bound to remain unable to practically apply their better understanding level because ‘practical approach’ is missing in this kind of ‘static’ understanding ‘improvement’ model.
Students themselves do not analyze or evaluate what is written in the syllabus books. They view the written text only from a single angle. Practical situations always require analysis of situation from maximum possible angles. Since students do not do that, they remain unable to handle the practical situations.
Students only have to ‘follow’ the progressive people so they are bound to remain behind those progressive people. Whatever ‘milestone’ they have covered, in fact has already been left behind by those progressive people. The situation is the worst in the case of static minded teachers. In fact static students are still in a better position than to the one which is held by the static minded teachers. Students are ‘improving’ their understanding. They go to next class and ‘further improve’ their understanding. But the static minded teachers – they actually, even are not ‘improving’ their understanding. They are just teaching the same material which was already known to them. They are just teaching the same material over and over again and from year to year. Since they are required to teach the ‘same’ material under this education system, so actually they are not in need to generate any new ideas in the related subject. So the static minded teachers are not even doing what is being done by the static students because students after all, are improving their understanding level from year to year but these teachers are at the same level of understanding for the most part of their respective careers.
Suggestions for improvement:
The situation can be improved and this static education system can be transformed into a better progressive system. Following are the necessary points or steps that are required for this purpose.
i. Class room should not be only lecture based. There should mainly be formal discussion activities in the class rooms. Every student should be required to give his/ her opinion on the topic. He/ she also should be required to identify further necessary areas of investigation in the current topic.
ii. There should be discussion groups who can choose different topics for the discussion.
iii. Evaluation of students should be based on their participation level and their performance in the discussion activities.
iv. For every discussion topic, all students should be required to write down their own analysis, opinions and conclusions in the form of thesis.
v. However, half the class time can be devoted to lectures also.
vi. Written examination system must have to be thoroughly changed. Only those subjects or topics should be evaluated in written examination which otherwise cannot be evaluated. Even in such conditions, written examination must have to be analytical oriented i.e. not just descriptive or calculation oriented.
Progressive information handling approach actually is simple and easy as compare to the static approach. In the static approach, one has to go through all the contents of, lets say, syllabus books because the maximum goal in this approach is to get satisfactory understanding of all the contents of that knowledge which is already available in those syllabus books. To acquire the understanding of all the contents of syllabus books, using the static approach is a tedious task. With relatively more effort, the maximum result is only a ‘satisfactory’ understanding of the already existing knowledge.
In the progressive approach, on the other hand, the progressive person only has to choose the issue or topic which is the most interesting for him. Then he has to analyze all its related aspects. He has to mentally organize all the related information in a proper, meaningful and in a systematic and consistent manner. For a progressive person, it is not difficult at all to choose the issue or topic for his analytical activities. Progressive person is the one who ‘thinks’ by himself. In this way, the most ‘interesting’ subject or topic for this person would be that issue or subject etc. about which he ‘thinks’ in his spare time. Under this approach, since the progressive person has to choose that subject or topic, for his analytical activities, which happened to be the most interesting subject for him and since the most interesting subject for him is that one about which he already ‘thinks’ in his spare time so in this way he would choose the subject, for his analytical activities, about which he already ‘thinks’ in his spare time. As a result, this progressive person would acquire a definite purpose and a proper line of action for himself. Having a definite purpose in his mind, he himself shall search for maximum information about the subject or issue from whatever sources of information that shall include not only the syllabus books on the subject but shall include other non-syllabus sources of information that would include direct observations as well. In this way, he may has to go through all the contents of those syllabus books along with also consulting the non-syllabus sources of information. He also has to generate new ideas about the topic/ issue. The successful search of the information from all the available sources of information shall result in ‘linear expansion in knowledge’ whereas the new ideas shall result in ‘parallel expansion in knowledge’. He also has to critically analyze the issue which shall result in ‘improvement’ in knowledge because such critical analysis shall ‘improve’ the ‘accuracy level’ of knowledge on the issue.
The above mentioned activities apparently may seem to be more tedious than to that of the static approach, but the fact is opposite. Since the person who is doing all the above mentioned things for the sake of a ‘definite purpose’ i.e. analysis of issue/ topic/ subject etc. for which he is personally interested, so he shall take all these activities lightly. He has a definite purpose and a proper line of action. He does not have to memorize/ understand all the boring and un-interesting topics of syllabus books though he might has to go through even more new information materials as may be offered by any set of syllabus, for the performance of his analytical activities.
It has been mentioned in this discussion that the progressive person, first chooses a subject of interest and then start analyzing various aspects of that ‘interesting’ subject. It may seem that this progressive person shall keep himself confined up to the search and positive responsiveness towards only those information sources that are directly related to his own area of interest. This may be true as for as the so called ‘professionalism’ is concerned but this, however is not true in the case of a progressive person. Progressive approach is different or rather opposite to this so called ‘professionalism’. In this professionalism, efforts are made to get expertise/ specialization in only one field of study through reading/ analyzing only those subjects that are directly related to the main field of study. Subjects having no direct link/ relationship with the main field of study are considered to be ‘irrelevant’. Study/ analysis of ‘irrelevant’ subjects is avoided because it is considered just useless for the achievement of the main objective, which is to get expertise or specialization in only one field of study. In this way these ‘professionals’ willingly keep themselves limited within the framework of their area of ‘specialization’.
As previously has been stated that the progressive person not only has to get maximum possible information on the topic, he also has to generate new ideas as well. In this way, he actually has to make ‘improvements’ and ‘expansions’ in knowledge. This objective is possible to achieve if his approach is compatible with the optimum functioning system of human mind. For the optimum functioning, human mind can accommodate any amount of information whether relevant or irrelevant provided that too much burden of un-necessary memorization of the ‘material objective information’ is avoided. This fact has been explained in another section of this thesis. Idea generation process does not require ‘material objective information’ as its input but idea generation process shall function at optimum level if more and more information, whether relevant or irrelevant to the main subject, is continuously integrated in the mindset. For the optimum functioning of the idea generation process, it is only the ‘material objective information’ which is not used as input but more and more ‘abstract objective or subjective information’ however is compulsorily required irrespective of the fact that it has any direct relation with the main subject/ issue or not. Since a progressive person, unlike a ‘professional’, also has to generate new ideas and since the optimum functioning of the idea generation process requires continuous additions of more and more, relevant or irrelevant information except only un-necessary (i.e. irrelevant) ‘material objective information’, so in order to generate more new ideas, the progressive person shall not confine himself in getting only the ‘relevant’ information. He would be requiring ‘irrelevant (abstract) information’ also for the generation of more new ideas.
Human mind’s working principle is the ‘identification’ of similarities and associations between various sets of information and then manipulating those ‘identified’ similar or associated sets of information in a way which ultimately results in the formation of ‘knowledge’. We know that the concepts of ‘similarity’ and ‘association’ do not have any rigid meanings. Human mind is able to identify (or detect) ‘similarities’ and ‘associations’ even in those sets of information that belong to totally different or even opposite fields of study. Thus we are able to detect similarities and associations in those two sets of information, let’s say, one of which belongs to the study of Ethics and the other belongs to the study of Mechanics. Now consider a person who is a ‘professional’ in the field of Mechanics and being a ‘professional’, he considers the study of Ethics to be useless for him because the study of Ethics would be ‘irrelevant’ to his profession. In this case, since this ‘professional’ shall not study Ethics so he shall remain unable to identify that ‘similarity’ or ‘association’ which exists between the contents of Mechanics and Ethics. Since this ‘professional’ does not identify the similarity (or association) between different sets of information so no manipulation operation can be performed by his mind because mind can perform manipulation operations only on ‘identified’ similar or associated sets of information. Since the ultimate result of the manipulation operations by the mind on the ‘identified’ similar or associated sets of information would have to be the formation of particular ‘knowledge’, so this ultimate result shall not be taken by this professional because in this case no such manipulation operation has been performed by the mind due to his non-identification of existing similarity or association between the contents of Mechanics and Ethics. In this way this ‘professional’ shall remain unable to conceive that new idea (most probably this new idea would have to be related to his own area of study) which was possible to be conceived by him if he did not avoid studying Ethics. As a result, this ‘professional’ actually would be acquiring expertise/ specialization only in already existing theories of his subject and he would not actually be further identifying/ exploring more new issues related to his own subject.
The task before the progressive person is not just to get expertise only in the already existing theories of his subject. The task before him is to move forward. To move forward, by himself, the progressive person has to look forward, beyond the boundary limits of already existing theories. He has to identify more new issues so that he may perform analysis of those newly identified issues. Proper analysis of those new issues is possible to do if the progressive person regularly conceives/ generates new ideas. As previously has been stated that optimum functioning of the idea generation process requires continuous additions of more and more, relevant or irrelevant information except only un-necessary (i.e. irrelevant) ‘material objective information’. But only this continuous addition of more and more information of every sort alone cannot stimulate the idea generation process to function at optimum level. Idea generation process can be stimulated for its optimum performance by first having outstanding issues/ problems/ questions etc. in mind and then by regular and continuous acquisition of more and more, relevant or irrelevant information. Here, it should be noted that most of the times, it shall be the acquisition of that ‘irrelevant’ information that would help in identifying new issues/ problems/ questions relating to the main subject of interest as has been explained in the previously stated example where the professional in the field of Mechanics would possibly become able to find new issues in the subject of Mechanics just if he did not avoid studying Ethics. So the proper sequence of all this process identified here is that first the progressive person shall choose a subject of interest. Then he shall engage himself in acquiring more and more, relevant or irrelevant information. The acquisition of the ‘relevant’ information shall result in ‘linear expansion in knowledge’. The acquisition of ‘irrelevant’ new information, on the other hand, shall help him in the identification of new issues/ problems/ questions etc. relating to the main subject of interest. By keeping these outstanding issues/ problems/ questions in mind, the progressive person shall continue to engage himself in acquiring of still more and more, relevant or irrelevant information. Now at this time, he would be fulfilling both the essential requirements of the optimum functioning of the idea generation process which are (i) presence of outstanding issues/ problems/ questions etc. in mind; and (ii) regular and continuous acquisition of more and more, relevant or irrelevant information. The new ideas that shall be resulting due to the ‘optimum functioning’ of the idea generation process in this way would be having the basis, the important component of which was that newly acquired ‘irrelevant’ information. In this way, the acquisition of ‘irrelevant’ new information shall ultimately result in ‘parallel expansion in knowledge’.
We know that idea generation process basically is an analogical process. It means that it is not in the best interest of a person, who really wants expansions in his knowledge, to keep himself confined to the study of only one subject/ issue even if his main objective is to get expertise/ specialization in only that subject because if he studies other subjects also, he in this way, possibly can expand his knowledge about the main subject/ topic just by making analogies with even ‘irrelevant’ topics. It means that more and more general knowledge can help in making him more and more specialist in any particular field, which usually has to be his own subject of interest. To become more specialist in his own subject of interest by adopting this strategy is possible when that person is acquiring more and more general knowledge while keeping the outstanding issues/ problems/ questions of his own subject of interest in mind. If the person studies only one topic, he expands his knowledge only in linear mode. But if he studies more and more topics/ subjects, he is expanding his knowledge about the main subject of interest in both linear as well as in parallel mode. In linear mode also because the apparently irrelevant topic may have direct connections or relations with the main subject of interest. And in parallel mode also because by having more diverse sets of information in mind, he becomes able to draw more valid analogical inferences.
We can conclude, on the basis of above discussion that progressive approach may prove to be more time consuming than to the static approach but this progressive approach, however is not tedious. Progressive approach offers more comprehensive results than can be offered by the static approach. Progressive person not only forms new knowledge, he also gets better, clear and more transparent level of understanding. That much transparent level of understanding is not possible to get in the static approach because in the static approach, analytical activities are missing. Only self analytical activities can give a better understanding level.
We have seen previously that the progressive person has a definite purpose and a proper line of action for him. The ‘definite purpose’ is to move forward, beyond the boundary limits of already existing theories and the ‘line of action’ is to make expansions and improvements in his overall knowledge with particular emphasis on the main subject of interest, first by identifying new outstanding issues/ problems/ questions relating to main subject of interest and then by continuously acquiring of more and more, relevant or irrelevant information, and finally by doing analysis of the information so acquired, as well as of those new ideas that shall be conceived by him during all these processes. ‘To move forward’ also have another sense and this is continuous ‘upward shift’ in the ‘overall understanding’ and ‘level of abilities’. Up-grades in the ‘overall understanding’, under progressive approach is relatively a routine matter because progressive approach is a continuous learning process and the process of learning involves up-grades in the overall understanding. Whereas the ‘upward shift in the level of abilities’ has specific meanings in this context. As we already have identified that the task before the progressive person is to move forward. He has to move forward, not only beyond the boundary limits of already existing theories but also beyond the limits of his own maximum abilities. But can a person really go beyond his own maximum abilities? The answer to this important question would be No, if asked from us and we are to answer the question while keeping in view the real implications of the static education system. Under this static education system if a student remains unable, even in some case – due to certain un-avoidable reasons, to get passing marks in the examinations, he would not be allowed to take admission in the next class even in case where courses offered for study in the next class happen to be relatively easier and more interesting for him than to that of the previous class. In this way that student would be considered, by this static education system, to be not able to do such a task which actually be at much below the level of his maximum abilities. The actual problem with this static education system is that this system cannot identify the levels of students’ abilities and so cannot take any effective steps for the improvements in those levels. This system only can do whatever is more convenient to do. It is quite easy to devise a rigid syllabus, then to teach only the syllabus subjects to all the students, then to force all the students to get themselves familiar (only) with the contents of those subjects and then making ‘assessments’ about the levels of students’ abilities on the basis of such types of examinations which are quite easy to conduct and whose purpose is only to check the compliance of students’ understanding with those syllabus contents. In this way if the ‘level of abilities’ in case of a student is found to be ‘in compliance with’ the syllabus requirements, then he would be considered to be able to go to next class. Being ‘able’ to go to next class would be considered to be equivalent to the ‘upward shift in the level of abilities’ of that student, under this static education system. In this way the answer to the question that whether a person can go beyond his own maximum abilities or not would be positively answered by this education system itself.
In my opinion, the real answer to the question that whether a person can go beyond his own maximum abilities or not, would be yes but not in that sense in which this question is ‘positively’ answered by the education system. A person can really go beyond his own maximum abilities if he actually achieves his own maximum level. To become able to go beyond his own maximum abilities, by a person, may not make proper sense at first instance. But to become able to achieve his own maximum level by that person does make proper sense. A person can achieve his own maximum level if he successfully performs that task/ activity etc. such that to perform that task/ activity was possible only if he would have applied his maximum effort and ability. Once this maximum level is achieved, now onward it is no more the ‘level of maximum ability’ of that person. Now onward, the ‘level of maximum ability’ of that person would be located somewhere at a higher level than before. That person, as a result of this ‘upward shift’ in his ‘level of maximum ability’, becomes able to perform such a task/ activity which was impossible to be performed by him previously when his relatively lower level of ‘maximum ability’ could not let him perform ‘higher level’ tasks or activities. Now when he is at a ‘higher level of maximum ability’, some of those ‘higher level’ tasks/ activities are no more at ‘higher level’ for him. And obviously there shall still be infinite number and kinds of those tasks/ activities which would still be beyond the scope of this new and improved level of abilities. Now again when this person shall ‘achieve’ his new ‘maximum level’, he would become able to perform still ‘higher level’ tasks/ activities and this cycle shall continue in this way. A point, here, needs to be clarified. It has been stated that after when a person ‘achieves’ his own maximum level, that person as a result becomes able to perform those tasks/ activities etc. which were impossible to be performed by him previously. This point actually does not give any such meanings as for example before when a syllabus book was not formally taught by the teacher, it was ‘impossible’ for students to understand the contents of book. We earlier stated that ‘up-ward shifts in the level of abilities’ have specific meanings in this context. In this example, if we keep ‘specific’ meanings of ‘up-ward shift in the level of abilities’ in mind, we shall not conclude that before when particular syllabus book was not formally taught by the teacher, it was ‘impossible’ for the students to understand the contents of that book. By keeping the ‘specific’ meanings in mind, our conclusion would be that it was within the range of normal abilities of students that if taught by a teacher, they were able to understand the contents of that book. So if students understand some new syllabus contents in this way they actually do not cross their ‘level of maximum ability’. The maximum level for them is still at the same point where it was located previously.
But what is that ‘specific’ meaning of ‘upward shift in the maximum ability’? First of all we should clarify that we are considering here, only the mental abilities and we are not addressing the issue of improvements in ‘physical’ abilities of persons. By the term ‘mental abilities’ we mean such abilities of persons as ability to understand new and strange things/ situations, ability to handle and solve new and puzzling problems/ situations, ability to generate more complex new ideas and/ or to formulate new theories etc. Keeping in view the issue of improvements in these types of abilities which are related to mind’s performance, the meaning of ‘upward shift in the maximum ability’ can be considered to be like as to become able to understand those things/ situations, or to become able to handle and solve those problems/ situations, or to become able to generate more complex new ideas, and/ or to become able to formulate new theories such that previously it was out side the scope of maximum ability of the person to perform any of these tasks. Previously the person, in this case was not able to perform any of the above mentioned tasks. But now if he has become able to perform any of these tasks, then it means that actually he has crossed his previous level of maximum ability which also means that there has occurred ‘upward shift in the maximum ability’ in case of this person.
Thus in the case of example given in the previous paragraph, lets say that person first successfully handles a complicated issue such that to handle that issue was possible by him only if he applied his maximum efforts and skills. Before handling the issue, that person was in a state of doubt. He was not fully confident that he could successfully accomplish the task. If he did not apply his maximum effort and ability in order to accomplish the task, he would still remain in state of doubt in the possibility of successful accomplishment of that task by him. The state of doubt shall continue and the person shall remain in trap of his already existing vision. But if he apply his maximum efforts and in this way brings himself out of the trap of his previous limited vision, that person as a result would get a new broader vision about his next objectives. Those next objectives were outside the scope of his previous limited vision. Previous vision was limited because its corresponding objectives were still un-accomplished. Now when previous objectives have been accomplished the person’s vision has been broadened due to the fact that he has got such new objectives for him which were simply outside the scope of his previous level of maximum ability. Now the level of his maximum ability would be located at some higher level. His new maximum vision would be showing him those objectives such that to accomplish those objects would have been considered by the person just close to something impossible. He again would be in need to apply his (better) maximum ability in order to accomplish those near to impossible objectives. He would successfully accomplish those new objectives also when he would apply his new better maximum ability. He again would get still broader vision for him and some new objectives shall come within the range of new broader vision. In this way the person shall continue himself in a ‘forward’ movement.
So in order to move in forward direction in a real sense, a person should prefer to undertake to perform only those tasks which should appear to him close to impossible to be successfully accomplished by him. The tasks which may seem to be ‘close’ to the impossibility actually are not quite impossible to do. Such tasks can possibly be performed provided the person uses his maximum effort and skill in order to accomplish those tasks. If the person continues to engage himself in the performance of just routine type of tasks such as those which are normally assigned to students by the static education system, he shall continue to remain at the same level of his maximum ability. He would be having his vision static and fixed at a particular level. He shall not undertake to accomplish the maximum possible objectives so those objectives may remain ‘close to impossible’ throughout his career.