IF success is the achievement of a goal, then at minimum following must be considered:
What is a goal? Do we know of the goal? and who made the goal?
Talos suggested this comes in various segments, so a goal can be many things defined by various sources including yourself. Talos posits 3 types of goal: Societal, "quality of Life" based and finally personal.
To be the abstract, extracted fundamental of success and not just the concept of it would remove the necesity for consideration of levels. For if levels of such a thing were to exist it would remove the imbued "cellular" core that it would be. So for now I will ignore levels for those who understand that idea. As an abstract concept, this would to me mean success is simply an indicated point of finality. There is none better or worse in abstract terms, only are or are nots.
Moving on from this, I have to wonder, is a goal truely 3 separate (or more) concepts? or only one? What is important for me here is the word who, and when I say who i could be meaning the universe or an individual or any influencing force...yet...perhaps even the who is an irrelivant concept. Consider breeding. Some people believe that one of the basic things about existing is to continue to exist as a species, not just on an individualised basis as leaving a mark, but also on a fuller universal basis for the sake of what is and is not or can and can't be. Now...if I were to breed, on this theory, I would be an overall success, and yet, one could say this were only success in the eyes of the universe, but it is I who performed the action. I don't want to get too elongated here so hopefully that is enough, but my point is simple, success is not anymore than one thing, and im not even sure goals have anything to do with it....and potentially lets look at Shadow's analysis for a possible solution....
IF success is the ability to specialise within your given circle of (im going to call it movement but it can be called whatever you like) "movement" then at minimum the following must be considered:
How is this circle defined, who defined it, does it expand and of so when and how
So here we have one individual with their circle of movement. Any action performed therein towards one specific goal is success on this basis if I am following correctly. So again this is a goal based theory, and extracting previous commentry perhaps we have the circle and the arrow as visual indicators of it. On a conceptual basis, as a non abstract, perhaps I would agree both with Talos and with Shadow....however...that wasn't the original question. Originally we wanted to find the fundamental core of success, so I am not going to speak of subjective goals, nor of arrows, indicators or circles....
Let us consider a man who cannot walk. On a spherical realm of action theory he is quite restricted, yet, I believe he can step outside of his boundary, because in effect...im not sure there really is one. Not for success in this term. Consider a bulb, it sits at the edge of a piece of tracing paper, where is the light? and then after that...where is the light?
Lets not look at humans, let's take an eraser. Lets assume both erasors were created with the purpose of erasing pencil marks. Does an erasor that rubs things out well signify a successful erasor and one that does not signify an unsuccessful one? If the answer is yes then success would be the fulfillment of purpose, and the better it was at erasing, the more successful it would be, but once again we hit the trap of non abstraction. if the answer is no, then what makes the erasor successful? I might attempt to suggest the following: No matter it's movement inside, outside or around abouts it's sphere if there even is one, the erasors are completely equal in terms of success (remember the levels earlier?) if this is the case, then their being able to erase or not to is irrelivant, what is relevant is their being at all.
So then...if anyone even vaguely followed that mess up there (you have to make a lot of jumps to my thought process without me scribing forever, which i appologise for) I think I would say this:
On a subjective level, the fulfilment of a purpose may be the key to success, the fufillment of a goal is the key to the sensation of success but not necessarily success itself.
On an abstracted level, perhaps there is not such a thing as abstracted success, or perhaps it is simply the fact that something exists or doesnt exist at all.
Z