Define Success (Part 3):Talk is Cheap, Times Have Changed

When queried at dictionary.com the top result for success is: "The achievement of something desired, planned, or attempted". Using this loose defintion within an attempted explanation for what success is in our individual lives means, quite simply, that however we term success it will never occur without action. We cannot be Van Gogh, Bill Gates, Alexander the Great, whoever without a pursuit of the model which we've defined. We not only must determine what success means (as I have attempted to do in the 2 previous posts) but we must also actualize this definition to truly be pleased.
Success in a limited, animalian scope can be literally translated into survival. An animal is successful if it can live long nough to pass on its genes. We too can be pleased with this solution, after all an intuitive survey of our environment shows we are merely animals. Improbably sophisticated and ubiquitous yes but still subject to famine, hurricane and injury. There was a point, not long ago in geological time, in which a successful hominid was that one who could simultaneously kill or gather a surplus of food (for him/herself and any dependents), evade death from predatory animals (or even defensive prey) and injury, and find a mate who was equally capable of spawning children. In simple terms, mankind's sophistication (that is cleverness, language, ability to manipulate objects, etc) came from competition, some of which he was desperately disadvantaged in. Early man was no match for the tiger, and many a simpleton was likely gobbled up kicking and screaming, cursing his weak arms and high-pitched growl. Of importance is that this task, survival and reproduction, was basically a full-time job (at least until agriculture came along) or at least so demanding that other ventures were marginalized (for example, nomads did not spend their entire day trying to kill things, but the destabilized nature of their lives stymied the evolution of culture).
In reference to the prioritized list of Part 2, early hominids could only be successful in the first (or second if they were truly skilled) list: themselves. Nothing they did could affect the species, even if they declared war upon their fellow man they would only be able to destroy a handful before some other self-interested hominid put them down. As man approached the agricultural age his potential for influence amongst the prioritized list grew, with the advents of language and more sophisticated tools men and women could settle in tribes and work for the betterment of their community. A medicine man could find a life-saving or pain-relieving herb, a skilled craftsmen could develop a better arrowhead, a wise leader could develop a new logarithm for making decisions. Man's increased sophistication quite literally changed the definition of success by changing the potential for influence.
As man settled into farming communities their influence spread, and as the role of chieftain became the role of king, one's actions could have influence throughout communities in a region. In pre-Columbian America the first group to devise the zero concept, or to use the Incan method for counting ropes could potentially influence other people that they would never meet.
In a very short time, man devloped amazing abilities. He could influence change (Thomas Edison, Newton, John Locke, Christ) around the planet not only to people he would never meet, but people who didn't even look like him. As the globe shrank the potential influence throughout the priorization list above grew. Millions of people all over the world are involved in activities that influence and affect themselves, their family, their communities, their civilization and in fact all mankind.
Whatever the precise definition of success is, it must take into account our potential to affect change from top to bottom of the list in a way that has never been possible before.

This does not mean that it is easy to affect change, merely possible. And it makes some sense from a strictly physical perspective that the further down the list one would like to go with their objective (recall, success has something to do with attaining a goal) the more energy of one kind or another it will take. Species-level influence will not come through individual-level energy. One essentially gets out what they put in, and some individuals are much more capable of directing particular types of energy (that is some people are more creative, outspoken, visionary or prone to leadership). If there were an inkling that mankind was really one large organism (root word organize) it could very well be argued that each individual is a cell (civilization merely the order of one's body extrapolated) and each individual has some function mostly decided by their abilities. However, this is another discussion. Let's make the assumption (and yes it may be overreaching) that the individual will pursue that track in which their talent/function lies. Or at the very worst the track they decide on will be a stab at pursuing this function (even in failure perhaps increasing competition in this arena and thus useful).

What is all of this getting at? Defining success for oneself is a multipart problem. First, one must decide upon their personal version of right and wrong (one can select organized religion, nihilism, or their particular flavor of prioritization). Secondly, one must decide on an objective that somehow squares with this vision of the world. And finally one must pursue it. It can be assumed that if one desires their success in the higher levels of prioritization (or within the more poorly defined structure of say x-tianity) they will have to dedicate their entire lifestyle to it and that it will not be easy.