Logoteleology and the Parable of the Sower: A Method That Begins With the Ground

© 2026 Luis A. Marrero. Boston Institute for Meaningful Purpose.

[Text written with, by, and for human intelligence.]

Across psychology, philosophy, theology, and the behavioral sciences, meaning has long been recognized as central to human flourishing (Frankl, 1963; Ryff & Singer, 2008; Wong, 2012). Over time, these fields have generated a wide range of theories, frameworks, and interventions aimed at cultivating purpose, resilience, and well-being. Logoteleology belongs to this long and generative tradition of meaning-centered inquiry, though it differs in its method and point of departure (Marrero, 2013).

Alongside this abundance of insight and effort, however, a persistent tension has become increasingly visible. Broad historical observation, alongside contemporary well-being data, suggests that despite unprecedented access to psychological knowledge, therapeutic models, and meaning-oriented interventions, large segments of the global population continue to report sustained levels of dissatisfaction, alienation, and existential distress (Easterlin, 2021; Gallup, 2023; World Health Organization [WHO], 2022). These indicators are complex and multifactorial, and no single explanatory model can fully account for them. Still, their persistence raises a shared methodological question across the behavioral sciences: why have so many well-founded approaches produced improvements that are often uneven, fragile, or difficult to sustain over time?

The Parable of the Sower offers a useful lens for addressing this question (Matthew 13:1–23). In the parable, the seed is good and plentiful, yet outcomes vary dramatically. The explanation does not center on the quality or quantity of what is sown, but on the condition of the ground and the sequence by which growth becomes possible. The parable thus directs attention away from content alone and toward the conditions that determine whether content can take root, mature, and endure.

What Gave Rise to Logoteleology

Logoteleology emerged from sustained reflection on this disparity between effort and outcome. Rather than attributing limited or temporary results to insufficient meaning, inadequate techniques, or lack of commitment on the part of individuals or institutions, its foundational question was more basic and methodological: What if the primary constraint lies not in the meaning being offered, but in the condition of the ground through which that meaning is received?

This question marked a shift in focus—from refining meaning content to examining the preexisting structures that precede it. Across therapeutic, organizational, and educational contexts, meaningful interventions frequently encounter resistance, fragmentation, or short-lived integration (Hayes et al., 2012; Prochaska & Norcross, 2018). Such outcomes are not best explained by an absence of meaning, nor by a lack of effort or goodwill, but by the fact that meaning is often filtered through unexamined interpretive frameworks, identity-based assumptions, and organizing beliefs that shape how new insights are received and acted upon.

Importantly, logoteleology does not arise from the claim that prior schools neglected foundational work. Many established approaches incorporate foundational elements early in their methods, including attention to beliefs, values, narratives, assumptions, and self-concepts (Beck, 2011; Frankl, 1969; McAdams, 2013). These contributions have produced meaningful local successes and have advanced understanding across the field. The issue that logoteleology addresses is not whether such groundwork exists, but whether it has been sufficiently specified, sequenced, and stabilized to function as a reliable entry condition for lasting change.

A Distinct Method and Its Tools

What differentiates logoteleology, therefore, is methodological rather than ideological. Its contribution lies not in asserting the superiority of one set of meanings over another, but in formally designating the ground of meaning as the first domain of inquiry and intervention.

This ground consists of the pre-existing meaning-structure through which individuals interpret self, others, purpose, and reality. These structures are often tacit, internally coherent, and resistant to modification precisely because they organize experience prior to conscious reflection (Kahneman, 2011; Weick, 1995). When left unexamined, they can distort or fragment even well-articulated meanings, values, and goals.

To engage this domain systematically, logoteleology employs analytic tools developed specifically for this purpose, including the Meaning Construct (Marrero & Persuitte, 2022). These tools are designed to surface, organize, and examine operative meanings as they function in lived experience—clarifying identity-based attributions, internal coherence, and teleological orientation before new meaning-content is introduced or refined. In this way, groundwork is treated not as a preliminary conversation or implicit assumption, but as a distinct and disciplined phase of change with its own logic and criteria.

Only after this groundwork has been established does logoteleology proceed to the cultivation of purpose, values, and intentional meaning. Meaning is engaged at a point when it can be integrated coherently and sustained over time, rather than absorbed temporarily or distorted by unresolved interpretive conflicts.

Durability, Not Momentary Success

This methodological emphasis is informed by patterns observed not only in therapy, but also in organizational and societal change. In organizational history, periods of improvement are frequently followed by regression, restructuring, or decline once conditions shift or leadership changes (Collins, 2001; Kotter, 1996). Even widely cited cases of success often prove difficult to sustain over time. These patterns suggest that success alone—particularly when measured over short horizons—is not sufficient evidence of methodological adequacy.

The more demanding question is whether an approach reliably produces coherence that endures beyond favorable conditions, acute intervention periods, or exceptional circumstances. From a logoteleological perspective, the persistence of uneven and temporary outcomes across domains points not to a lack of insight or effort, but to the need for a more disciplined engagement with the ground through which meaning operates.

As the parable suggests, transformation depends not only on what is sown, but on when and where sowing occurs. Logoteleology’s distinctive contribution is to begin where growth begins—at the ground—so that meaning, once introduced, can take root and bear lasting fruit.

Clarifying the Scope of Methodological Distinctiveness

This paper does not argue that existing schools neglect foundational work or that they lack insight into identity, belief, or meaning structures. Rather, it addresses the persistent empirical pattern that such groundwork—however present—has not yet been formalized and stabilized as a distinct entry condition capable of producing durable outcomes at scale. Logoteleology is proposed as a methodological approach to address this unresolved problem, not as a final resolution.

References (APA 7th Edition)

Beck, J. S. (2011). Cognitive behavior therapy: Basics and beyond (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap…and others don’t. HarperBusiness.

Easterlin, R. A. (2021). An economist’s lessons on happiness: Farewell dismal science!. Springer.

Frankl, V. E. (1963). Man’s search for meaning. Beacon Press.

Frankl, V. E. (1969). The will to meaning: Foundations and applications of logotherapy. Meridian.

Gallup. (2023). State of the Global Workplace 2023 Report. Gallup Press.

Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (2012). Acceptance and commitment therapy: The process and practice of mindful change (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Harvard Business School Press.

Marrero, L. A. (2013). The Path to a Meaningful Purpose: Psychological Foundations of Logoteleology. iUniverse.

Marrero, L.A., & Persuitte, D. (2022). Meaningful Purpose: A Primer in Logoteleology. iUniverse.

McAdams, D. P. (2013). The redemptive self: Stories Americans live by (Revised and expanded ed.). Oxford University Press.

Prochaska, J. O., & Norcross, J. C. (2018). Systems of psychotherapy: A transtheoretical analysis (9th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (2008). Know thyself and become what you are: A eudaimonic approach to psychological well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1), 13–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9019-0

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage.

Wong, P. T. P. (2012). Toward a dual-systems model of what makes life worth living. In P. T. P. Wong (Ed.), The human quest for meaning (2nd ed., pp. 3–22). Routledge.

World Health Organization. (2022). World mental health report: Transforming mental health for all. WHO Press.