It's a bit grammatically "rushed" but I wouldn't say adding "us" is necessarily needed.
After all: "us" often assumes that something is directed at us, when most of the time we're not the target. We're just part of the structure. An employee for example works with what gets him promoted. A blogger gets by what makes him well connected and popular. A sports player gets by with what leads to a championship.
None to few of these are "bullets" or "curses" directed at us individually. Not even the arbitrary idea that this is what everyone in a workplace or in a stadium or a team desires. An employee might just want to have a stable job. A blogger might just want to have readers read their articles. There are tons of veteran quality players in sports that never really won a championship much less reach that elite level of a division.
The link describes how to work more effectively, by not working too long at any one time.
But what does that mean, in the context of what you say, to seperate this ineffectiveness from "our dreams turned goals turned projects" ?
 Do you simply mean to seperate it from out productive work?
If I had the solution it would be much easier to explain but the key is here:
Also, sometimes the only way to reach a consensus is for some participants to get so tired they become more willing to give up on their position just to bring things to a close. Thus, it would appear that the larger the organization and the more consensus-based it is, the better the likelihood that really important decisions will be made by tired minds, when they are most likely to make the decision badly.
...and it mostly goes back to the paradigm of goals that are important to us and goals that aren't. There actually has been alot of representations to this idea - so much that I've forgotten the names.
Things like this for example:Source
The biggest problem though is that it's always prioritization based and the problem with prioritization is that it's a step behind what GTD debunks/goes against already and the idea should be to move ahead rather than return to what has already not worked.
At this point though, I'm really going beyond what my original post contained.
The thing with Lin YuTang's quote of the busy man is never wise is that it is supposed to stand on it's own. It's not about separation or categorization of work but simply acknowledgement, that the more tired you are, the less likely your priorities are in place therefore over-working is not the key.
This supplements the anecdote nicely. Which is this question of Can an over-worked staff function "beyond properly"???
...and what is beyond properly?
In that context, it's not about separating productive work but elevating productive work from good to great or as the saying goes: Good (Not Bad) is the Enemy of Great.
Putting my meaning to it though, goes beyond that. It's about focus, it's about defeating practice and habits by practicing something (this is more Forster's idea here) - and then it's about something further.
I don't have the end definition though.
Just that we know in terms of ratio, that the most dedicated third world people are not as rewarded as the most dedicated people having modern world opportunities.
If that wasn't bad enough, modern world blue collar dedicated workers don't have as easy a time as white collar uber-rich people.
Then there's also... "the shifts". The sudden dark horses, the technological booms, the gold rushes and the guys taking advantage of those shifts.
In each of those structure lies our dreams and in each of our dreams lies the hope that we can turn them into goals and then into reality.
...In that sequence, productivity (the concept) is the closest thing to a standard that doesn't require a vast difference between the weak from the strong or the poor from the other poor.
It spreads from salt dolls ideas from here though - which is why I didn't really include my meaning in my original post. It's just supposed to stand as is. A few words here and there but sadly I don't have the answers to expand and explain the end.
...although, if you run with these thoughts, it ends up with the position that it doesn't matter whether we separate or include productive work. It's like the same lie the blue collar stereotype endures years upon years upon years only for them to give up on their dreams or for them to luck out or out-dedicate the competition (depending on which rational you value in that stereotype) but nonetheless, as a probability, most of them work themselves to death doing productive work but not being able to escape their productive work in order to convert it into productive work heading towards productive realities. Many may even think their work are the exception, but only a few people like a Gandhi is able to show the walkthrough and power of "hunger strike" for example. Walkthrough as in you could see as a tool to achieve a means...like quality investigative journalism or doing the right fundamentals (and breaking the right fundamentals) to reach a championship.
All those you could categorize as productivity systems with the exception that they are specifics to those categories
That's sort of what I mean by "to seperate this ineffectiveness from "our dreams turned goals turned projects" although with one emphasis, it's not ineffectiveness
- if it was then things would have fell down much faster. The reality is that it's effective. As effective as eating junk foods or watching propaganda TV ...or being part of a world where we need to do certain things to put food on our tables that we might not be proud of.
To reel it back to clarity though, can it simply be separated from productive work?
Probably, but it's like the excuse of needing to have a private place you can call your own before starting a getting organized experiment. (No personal offense intended towards mouser's assignments)
It sounds good but it's kind of like saying, get a house, get a job, get all that first out of the way and we're going to organize or make your life more productive. At that point, is it even about productivity or is it about creating false realities to hide or reduce the flaws of a productivity system so that more people would "feel good" just applying it until it can no longer work for them? (and then the victims have to contend on their own or even flat-out reject all forms of productivity experiments)