Full Version: What's most important to you?
I didn't include anything related to an afterlife because it has yet to be proven. I assume that if you believe in an afterlife, then that is most important to you. I didn't want this to be that easy of a choice. If it's not on the list, then pick whatever is most important to you on this list and then tell us the unlisted things that are even more important to you in your comments.
I voted "Self." On a shallower basis, as they say, "If you don't take care of yourself, you can't take care of anyone else."
B. F. Skinner, in his later years, talked about what was, in essence, his conceptualization of what self-actualization (although he never would have used those words), or maturity, consist of. He said that, the more mature you are, the wider is your sphere of concept of "self." Therefore, most of us see our own physical selves as being of prime importance. As we mature, we take in our immediate family as being a part of what is of prime importance to us. Then our community. Ad infinitum, literally, until the very most self-actualized of us consider the well-being of the whole universe as being in our own best interest.
I'm not quite there yet!
B. F. Skinner, in his later years, talked about what was, in essence, his conceptualization of what self-actualization (although he never would have used those words), or maturity, consist of. He said that, the more mature you are, the wider is your sphere of concept of "self." Therefore, most of us see our own physical selves as being of prime importance. As we mature, we take in our immediate family as being a part of what is of prime importance to us. Then our community. Ad infinitum, literally, until the very most self-actualized of us consider the well-being of the whole universe as being in our own best interest.
I'm not quite there yet!
QUOTE(Pegatha @ Aug 13 2009, 03:32 PM) 
I voted "Self." On a shallower basis, as they say, "If you don't take care of yourself, you can't take care of anyone else."
B. F. Skinner, in his later years, talked about what was, in essence, his conceptualization of what self-actualization (although he never would have used those words), or maturity, consist of. He said that, the more mature you are, the wider is your sphere of concept of "self." Therefore, most of us see our own physical selves as being of prime importance. As we mature, we take in our immediate family as being a part of what is of prime importance to us. Then our community. Ad infinitum, literally, until the very most self-actualized of us consider the well-being of the whole universe as being in our own best interest.
I'm not quite there yet!
Good answer.B. F. Skinner, in his later years, talked about what was, in essence, his conceptualization of what self-actualization (although he never would have used those words), or maturity, consist of. He said that, the more mature you are, the wider is your sphere of concept of "self." Therefore, most of us see our own physical selves as being of prime importance. As we mature, we take in our immediate family as being a part of what is of prime importance to us. Then our community. Ad infinitum, literally, until the very most self-actualized of us consider the well-being of the whole universe as being in our own best interest.
I'm not quite there yet!
But which of the above would you sacrifice your own life for?
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Aug 13 2009, 03:39 PM)
QUOTE(Pegatha @ Aug 13 2009, 03:32 PM)
I voted "Self." On a shallower basis, as they say, "If you don't take care of yourself, you can't take care of anyone else."
B. F. Skinner, in his later years, talked about what was, in essence, his conceptualization of what self-actualization (although he never would have used those words), or maturity, consist of. He said that, the more mature you are, the wider is your sphere of concept of "self." Therefore, most of us see our own physical selves as being of prime importance. As we mature, we take in our immediate family as being a part of what is of prime importance to us. Then our community. Ad infinitum, literally, until the very most self-actualized of us consider the well-being of the whole universe as being in our own best interest.
I'm not quite there yet!
Good answer.B. F. Skinner, in his later years, talked about what was, in essence, his conceptualization of what self-actualization (although he never would have used those words), or maturity, consist of. He said that, the more mature you are, the wider is your sphere of concept of "self." Therefore, most of us see our own physical selves as being of prime importance. As we mature, we take in our immediate family as being a part of what is of prime importance to us. Then our community. Ad infinitum, literally, until the very most self-actualized of us consider the well-being of the whole universe as being in our own best interest.
I'm not quite there yet!
But which of the above would you sacrifice your own life for?
I wouldn't sacrafice my life or anyone else's life for anything...
I equated most important to what I spend most of my time at...
QUOTE(rla @ Aug 13 2009, 03:48 PM)
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Aug 13 2009, 03:39 PM)
QUOTE(Pegatha @ Aug 13 2009, 03:32 PM)
I voted "Self." On a shallower basis, as they say, "If you don't take care of yourself, you can't take care of anyone else."
B. F. Skinner, in his later years, talked about what was, in essence, his conceptualization of what self-actualization (although he never would have used those words), or maturity, consist of. He said that, the more mature you are, the wider is your sphere of concept of "self." Therefore, most of us see our own physical selves as being of prime importance. As we mature, we take in our immediate family as being a part of what is of prime importance to us. Then our community. Ad infinitum, literally, until the very most self-actualized of us consider the well-being of the whole universe as being in our own best interest.
I'm not quite there yet!
Good answer.B. F. Skinner, in his later years, talked about what was, in essence, his conceptualization of what self-actualization (although he never would have used those words), or maturity, consist of. He said that, the more mature you are, the wider is your sphere of concept of "self." Therefore, most of us see our own physical selves as being of prime importance. As we mature, we take in our immediate family as being a part of what is of prime importance to us. Then our community. Ad infinitum, literally, until the very most self-actualized of us consider the well-being of the whole universe as being in our own best interest.
I'm not quite there yet!
But which of the above would you sacrifice your own life for?
I wouldn't sacrafice my life or anyone else's life for anything...
I equated most important to what I spend most of my time at...
Having said that, it is possible to spend more time dealing with things that we consider less important as in the case of slavery or obsession. Many of us spend more time earning a living but would rather be doing something else.
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Aug 13 2009, 05:16 PM)
QUOTE(rla @ Aug 13 2009, 03:48 PM)
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Aug 13 2009, 03:39 PM)
QUOTE(Pegatha @ Aug 13 2009, 03:32 PM)
I voted "Self." On a shallower basis, as they say, "If you don't take care of yourself, you can't take care of anyone else."
B. F. Skinner, in his later years, talked about what was, in essence, his conceptualization of what self-actualization (although he never would have used those words), or maturity, consist of. He said that, the more mature you are, the wider is your sphere of concept of "self." Therefore, most of us see our own physical selves as being of prime importance. As we mature, we take in our immediate family as being a part of what is of prime importance to us. Then our community. Ad infinitum, literally, until the very most self-actualized of us consider the well-being of the whole universe as being in our own best interest.
I'm not quite there yet!
Good answer.B. F. Skinner, in his later years, talked about what was, in essence, his conceptualization of what self-actualization (although he never would have used those words), or maturity, consist of. He said that, the more mature you are, the wider is your sphere of concept of "self." Therefore, most of us see our own physical selves as being of prime importance. As we mature, we take in our immediate family as being a part of what is of prime importance to us. Then our community. Ad infinitum, literally, until the very most self-actualized of us consider the well-being of the whole universe as being in our own best interest.
I'm not quite there yet!
But which of the above would you sacrifice your own life for?
I wouldn't sacrafice my life or anyone else's life for anything...
I equated most important to what I spend most of my time at...
Having said that, it is possible to spend more time dealing with things that we consider less important as in the case of slavery or obsession. Many of us spend more time earning a living but would rather be doing something else.
What one does is not as significant to the question as how one does it and why...
QUOTE(rla @ Aug 13 2009, 05:19 PM)
What one does is not as significant to the question as how one does it and why...
Which of the latter two are more important, the "how" or the "why?"
I voted for spouse/kids/immediate family
without that there is nothing but an empty void
further back family is for the most part now deceased
and one moves a few times so neighborhood is transient.
but the family always is there.
without that there is nothing but an empty void
further back family is for the most part now deceased
and one moves a few times so neighborhood is transient.
but the family always is there.
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Aug 13 2009, 05:55 PM)
QUOTE(rla @ Aug 13 2009, 05:19 PM)
What one does is not as significant to the question as how one does it and why...
Which of the latter two are more important, the "how" or the "why?"I think that might depend on how one perceives/conceives themself in their situation but in general I would guess the why is more important...
What's most important to me....
Well, first would come the welfare of my family.
Other than that, environmental issues are of paramount importance to me.....how can any of earth's creatures, including humans, thrive when what they depend on for life is mucked up....
What would I be willing to die for....I would put my life on the line (if it were necessary.. hopefully it wouldn't be) for my child, for any child, or for any animal that was being abused or in harms way. Sounds ridiculous but that's where my heart would lead me if I were to confront such a situation.
Well, first would come the welfare of my family.
Other than that, environmental issues are of paramount importance to me.....how can any of earth's creatures, including humans, thrive when what they depend on for life is mucked up....
What would I be willing to die for....I would put my life on the line (if it were necessary.. hopefully it wouldn't be) for my child, for any child, or for any animal that was being abused or in harms way. Sounds ridiculous but that's where my heart would lead me if I were to confront such a situation.
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Aug 13 2009, 02:39 PM)
QUOTE(Pegatha @ Aug 13 2009, 03:32 PM)
I voted "Self." On a shallower basis, as they say, "If you don't take care of yourself, you can't take care of anyone else."
B. F. Skinner, in his later years, talked about what was, in essence, his conceptualization of what self-actualization (although he never would have used those words), or maturity, consist of. He said that, the more mature you are, the wider is your sphere of concept of "self." Therefore, most of us see our own physical selves as being of prime importance. As we mature, we take in our immediate family as being a part of what is of prime importance to us. Then our community. Ad infinitum, literally, until the very most self-actualized of us consider the well-being of the whole universe as being in our own best interest.
I'm not quite there yet!
Good answer.B. F. Skinner, in his later years, talked about what was, in essence, his conceptualization of what self-actualization (although he never would have used those words), or maturity, consist of. He said that, the more mature you are, the wider is your sphere of concept of "self." Therefore, most of us see our own physical selves as being of prime importance. As we mature, we take in our immediate family as being a part of what is of prime importance to us. Then our community. Ad infinitum, literally, until the very most self-actualized of us consider the well-being of the whole universe as being in our own best interest.
I'm not quite there yet!
But which of the above would you sacrifice your own life for?
Certainly none of the last several. Probably not local community, although that, along with country, would depend on the threat level.
Family and other loved ones, yes. I'd also agree with Amy's scenario. But, if I were honest with myself, and I had time to reason it all out, it would also depend on whether or not my sacrifice had a reasonable chance of making a difference, i.e., saving that loved one's (or child's) life or well-being. After all, I wouldn't want to deprive my loved ones (not to mention myself) of my presence for no good reason.
Of course, so many of these situations don't allow one time to reason it all out. They oftentimes require a split second decision, i.e., whether to throw one's self into the churning water or not.
QUOTE(Pegatha @ Aug 13 2009, 09:12 PM)
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Aug 13 2009, 02:39 PM)
QUOTE(Pegatha @ Aug 13 2009, 03:32 PM)
I voted "Self." On a shallower basis, as they say, "If you don't take care of yourself, you can't take care of anyone else."
B. F. Skinner, in his later years, talked about what was, in essence, his conceptualization of what self-actualization (although he never would have used those words), or maturity, consist of. He said that, the more mature you are, the wider is your sphere of concept of "self." Therefore, most of us see our own physical selves as being of prime importance. As we mature, we take in our immediate family as being a part of what is of prime importance to us. Then our community. Ad infinitum, literally, until the very most self-actualized of us consider the well-being of the whole universe as being in our own best interest.
I'm not quite there yet!
Good answer.B. F. Skinner, in his later years, talked about what was, in essence, his conceptualization of what self-actualization (although he never would have used those words), or maturity, consist of. He said that, the more mature you are, the wider is your sphere of concept of "self." Therefore, most of us see our own physical selves as being of prime importance. As we mature, we take in our immediate family as being a part of what is of prime importance to us. Then our community. Ad infinitum, literally, until the very most self-actualized of us consider the well-being of the whole universe as being in our own best interest.
I'm not quite there yet!
But which of the above would you sacrifice your own life for?
Certainly none of the last several. Probably not local community, although that, along with country, would depend on the threat level.
Family and other loved ones, yes. I'd also agree with Amy's scenario. But, if I were honest with myself, and I had time to reason it all out, it would also depend on whether or not my sacrifice had a reasonable chance of making a difference, i.e., saving that loved one's (or child's) life or well-being. After all, I wouldn't want to deprive my loved ones (not to mention myself) of my presence for no good reason.
Of course, so many of these situations don't allow one time to reason it all out. They oftentimes require a split second decision, i.e., whether to throw one's self into the churning water or not.
Exactly....and under certain circumstances, I could see myself instinctively reacting.......if no alternative was available....
Toys! That being defined as things that intrigue me, spark my curiosity, make me laugh, challenge me, make me chase that feather even if it's death off a cliff just to feel it's silkiness, to smell that forest or sea air that I've never smelled before, to think an original thought, to stand under a waterfall with someone whose never been there before and see their reaction. To take someone for a ride in an airplane for the first time, even if I'm not a pilot. To take chances, defend the oppressed, stand up for what I think is right but be ready to listen and learn along the way. To keep an endless supply of pixie dust. To know the most obscure, or diverse or odd or just plain interesting person anywhere on earth. To always do something I've never done before, and go someplace I've never been. To fight and laugh and love and die with minimal compromise and tons of heart! So, I would call that "Toys." But, I'm willing to change my pick if you can tell me what else it might be?
What would I die for? Well, it just matters that I die well!!!! Doing something really interesting....something my kids will tell their kids. Then, buy me the most beautiful flowing red, red, flamenco dress, with a small black hat on my head, and white and black fragrant roses on my breasts still with their thorns attached, and an AK laying next to me with my hand on the trigger and LIGHT MY PYRE!
What would I die for? Well, it just matters that I die well!!!! Doing something really interesting....something my kids will tell their kids. Then, buy me the most beautiful flowing red, red, flamenco dress, with a small black hat on my head, and white and black fragrant roses on my breasts still with their thorns attached, and an AK laying next to me with my hand on the trigger and LIGHT MY PYRE!
As for an afterlife, I'll be dressed for the ball and armed to the teeth:)
Heart, you are all over the spectrum.
I should have put "Entertainment" on the list just for you.
I should have put "Entertainment" on the list just for you.
Start with the premise that life is absurd. Then determine that it might be a university or cocoon, or something like that from which we might absurdly be using to grow and learn and it makes sense. You have to then ask what you should learn. I suppose that since I had the great fortune to be born (by the roll of the dice, and a roll in the hay) in a place that allows these adventures and entertainments and can afford silly philosophical theories which all fall out of your head when you're facing an oncoming bus, that you ought to learn and grow as much as your environment affords and do as many things that other people in less fortunate parts of the world could not ever hope to do.....Then, do it well, be innovative, have a good time and let the absurdity of life and the absurdity of an afterlife (which are equally absurd to me) take care of themselves. Just do it all with style AND content! So, that if you don't get lucky and die in some nifty adventurous way, you can at least lay in your death bed and laugh your MFin arse off! If you'll excuse my language (even if you won't excuse it).
And what's the use of "toys" if not to entertain?
And what's the use of "toys" if not to entertain?
QUOTE(heart @ Aug 14 2009, 12:28 AM)
And what's the use of "toys" if not to entertain?
Toys are for entertainment. But they are not the only form of entertainment. To me, entertainment has a much broader meaning which includes all the adventures of living life that you speak of.QUOTE(billfmsd @ Aug 14 2009, 11:24 AM)
QUOTE(heart @ Aug 14 2009, 12:28 AM)
And what's the use of "toys" if not to entertain?
Toys are for entertainment. But they are not the only form of entertainment. To me, entertainment has a much broader meaning which includes all the adventures of living life that you speak of.I prefer the concept of re-cre-ation to entertainment.
Hey, Bill -
Pony up.
dd dd dd dd
QUOTE(rla @ Aug 14 2009, 11:56 AM)
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Aug 14 2009, 11:24 AM)
QUOTE(heart @ Aug 14 2009, 12:28 AM)
And what's the use of "toys" if not to entertain?
Toys are for entertainment. But they are not the only form of entertainment. To me, entertainment has a much broader meaning which includes all the adventures of living life that you speak of.I prefer the concept of re-cre-ation to entertainment.
Re-cre-ating one's self every day (playing with one's self) may be the best way to facilitate emergent evolution
of the human scial system--or perhaps this is just my way of trying to claim Heart for a soul-mate...
QUOTE(Pegatha @ Aug 14 2009, 12:06 PM)
Hey, Bill -
Pony up.
dd dd dd dd
Pony up.
dd dd dd dd
rla: too funny!
Bill, what is YOUR answer? That's what Peg means.
Bill, what is YOUR answer? That's what Peg means.
QUOTE(heart @ Aug 15 2009, 11:37 AM)
rla: too funny!
Bill, what is YOUR answer? That's what Peg means.
Bill, what is YOUR answer? That's what Peg means.
"You are correct, sir!"
-Phil Hartman on SNL
QUOTE(Pegatha @ Aug 15 2009, 02:28 PM)
QUOTE(heart @ Aug 15 2009, 11:37 AM)
rla: too funny!
Bill, what is YOUR answer? That's what Peg means.
Bill, what is YOUR answer? That's what Peg means.
"You are correct, sir!"
-Phil Hartman on SNL
My wife picked Immediate Family. But she's not a member, so it's not reflected in the results.
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Aug 15 2009, 07:15 PM)
QUOTE(Pegatha @ Aug 15 2009, 02:28 PM)
QUOTE(heart @ Aug 15 2009, 11:37 AM)
rla: too funny!
Bill, what is YOUR answer? That's what Peg means.
Bill, what is YOUR answer? That's what Peg means.
"You are correct, sir!"
-Phil Hartman on SNL
My wife picked Immediate Family. But she's not a member, so it's not reflected in the results.
Thanks! I sort of picked the same thing, in the ideal. It's an ideal to which I aspire.
QUOTE(rla @ Aug 15 2009, 07:38 AM)
QUOTE(rla @ Aug 14 2009, 11:56 AM)
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Aug 14 2009, 11:24 AM)
QUOTE(heart @ Aug 14 2009, 12:28 AM)
And what's the use of "toys" if not to entertain?
Toys are for entertainment. But they are not the only form of entertainment. To me, entertainment has a much broader meaning which includes all the adventures of living life that you speak of.I prefer the concept of re-cre-ation to entertainment.
Re-cre-ating one's self every day (playing with one's self) may be the best way to facilitate emergent evolution
of the human scial system--or perhaps this is just my way of trying to claim Heart for a soul-mate...
And why shouldn't it be that so? Except playing with one's self and claiming heart for a soul-mate is a bit funny. But, seriously rla, why not? Who says a soul is one, two or ten? No one. It could be. It's absurd, and that's why it can all be possible
QUOTE(heart @ Aug 20 2009, 01:44 PM)
QUOTE(rla @ Aug 15 2009, 07:38 AM)
Re-cre-ating one's self every day (playing with one's self) may be the best way to facilitate emergent evolution
of the human scial system--or perhaps this is just my way of trying to claim Heart for a soul-mate...
And why shouldn't it be that so? Except playing with one's self and claiming heart for a soul-mate is a bit funny. But, seriously rla, why not? Who says a soul is one, two or ten? No one. It could be. It's absurd, and that's why it can all be possible
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Aug 20 2009, 04:42 PM)
QUOTE(heart @ Aug 20 2009, 01:44 PM)
QUOTE(rla @ Aug 15 2009, 07:38 AM)
Re-cre-ating one's self every day (playing with one's self) may be the best way to facilitate emergent evolution
of the human scial system--or perhaps this is just my way of trying to claim Heart for a soul-mate...
And why shouldn't it be that so? Except playing with one's self and claiming heart for a soul-mate is a bit funny. But, seriously rla, why not? Who says a soul is one, two or ten? No one. It could be. It's absurd, and that's why it can all be possible
The Shadow Knows...a projection of our collective soul...
I voted "Local" because it is a community I can actually do something about.
And I do.
And I do.
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Aug 20 2009, 03:42 PM)
QUOTE(heart @ Aug 20 2009, 01:44 PM)
QUOTE(rla @ Aug 15 2009, 07:38 AM)
Re-cre-ating one's self every day (playing with one's self) may be the best way to facilitate emergent evolution
of the human scial system--or perhaps this is just my way of trying to claim Heart for a soul-mate...
And why shouldn't it be that so? Except playing with one's self and claiming heart for a soul-mate is a bit funny. But, seriously rla, why not? Who says a soul is one, two or ten? No one. It could be. It's absurd, and that's why it can all be possible
Maybe not that either, but this sense of individualism may also be completely wrong when it comes to topics like one's soul.
We change everything we come in contact with in some small way. We can do that, as individuals, globally now. So, if we change (and very importantly are also changed) by our interactions then we can be the change agent in another country, or in our own community equally. Sometimes it may even be easier to be a change agent online than in a community or even in a family.
Having a hierarchical sense of "what's important" is great but what is most important to you doesn't really have be associated with what you can most easily change.
QUOTE(heart @ Aug 21 2009, 09:07 PM)
QUOTE(billfmsd @ Aug 20 2009, 03:42 PM)
QUOTE(heart @ Aug 20 2009, 01:44 PM)
QUOTE(rla @ Aug 15 2009, 07:38 AM)
Re-cre-ating one's self every day (playing with one's self) may be the best way to facilitate emergent evolution
of the human scial system--or perhaps this is just my way of trying to claim Heart for a soul-mate...
And why shouldn't it be that so? Except playing with one's self and claiming heart for a soul-mate is a bit funny. But, seriously rla, why not? Who says a soul is one, two or ten? No one. It could be. It's absurd, and that's why it can all be possible
Maybe not that either, but this sense of individualism may also be completely wrong when it comes to topics like one's soul.
We change everything we come in contact with in some small way. We can do that, as individuals, globally now. So, if we change (and very importantly are also changed) by our interactions then we can be the change agent in another country, or in our own community equally. Sometimes it may even be easier to be a change agent online than in a community or even in a family.
Having a hierarchical sense of "what's important" is great but what is most important to you doesn't really have be associated with what you can most easily change.
I usually found that I had the greatest impact on helping persons change when I was able to be most accepting of them and with the really successful, "cases" they learned to apply this to themselves...
I usually don't like to throw big pastes around but I thought this one from Wiki-Pedia was interesting (see below link). I bolded "Self-Transcendence" though because I have a problem with his use of the term "Self" (with the first letter capitalized). The reason is that there are at least several meanings to the term "Self". I think he means the conscious "self" (small first letter) or as some term it the "ego". To transcend that makes sense in that one is concerned with more than one's own conscious needs physiologically and even with one's own self-actualization. But I think one cannot even "self-actualize" unless one recognizes that more than the conscious "self" exists within us.
Not to get religious. But Christ Himself said that the Kingdom of God is within.
Carl Jung refers to the "Self" (large first letter) as an embodiment of the "whole being" including the conscious and the unconscious and all that entails. This whole "Self" before "Individuation" (Integration) is perceived by the conscious mind as something separate from the ego as are the other elements or aspects of the unconscious. They may even (and often are) be anthropomorphized and have functioning and seemingly separate personalities. For example in males the "Anima" is often refered to as the female side of a male mind (in a woman's mind it is the male "Animus") and is often encountered in dreams and seen by males as extremely attractive and desirable, but also a singularly important "guide" to the unconscious IF related to properly. Otherwise it can be deceptive.
Many Legends and Myths describe these inner relationships within the Psyche as tales of about outer adventures. Such as King Arthur's Camelot ( Arthur as the "Self". Lancelot as the "Ego". And Guinevere as the "Anima"), or (as one of the few remaining female myths) "Psyche and Eros (or Cupid)". With "Psyche" as the ego and Cupid as the "Animus".
Where I find Maslow's use of terms confusing is that he doesn't seem to acknowledge this seemingly fragmented structure of the Psyche which often operates in a fragmented manner affecting everything one does or achieves including self actualization and "Self Transcendence". And yet acknowledges that this level, "Self Transcendence," exists. ((He does finally say "Unitive" but doesn't go far enough IMO.)
In other words he is saying what I consider quite improbable because as far as we know we cannot "Transcend" the "Self" since ALL THAT WE KNOW exists perforce within our Psyches.
I am not claiming that nothing can have an existence beyond our "ken" (Our "Self"). But Let me explain this remarkable statement. If we perceive something either individually or collectively it must be processed through our "psyche" (or mind) in order for us to be able to relate to it. We need to be able to perceive it. Which according to Jung is a "Psychic Process" in and of itself. If something is invisible to our five senses and to our scientific instrumentation one would have a hard time proving it exists at all.
Yet...there are things the Mind can "see" (Through the Imagination) and further, things the Heart can "perceive" (Feel) that register neither on our physical senses nor on our instrumentation. Yet we "Imagine" certain things exist. The use of the word "Imagine" has been given a bad rap scientifically speaking and is rather like a dismissal. Yet millions believe individually and collectively that certain things exist that cannot be proven to exist scientifically.
In the bolded section below Maslow points to the essential nature of "Transcendence" which is recognizing the divine or the transcendent nature of our being. Meaning to me that something is "added" to the human physical being that is not physical and cannot be perceived except through the mind and heart or what may be known as the "Spirit" ("Self" IMO the totality). No doubt there are also plenty of physical things we have not yet discovered or imagined that do exist and do affect us physically. Energies and other things perhaps that we haven't yet detected. I repeat I don't mean to say that just because we cannot detect something it does not exist. Merely that to our mind it does not exist for us...yet.
So for the purposes of this thread in my opinion what is most important (once the basic needs have been met) has to be the recognition that we are more than we seem and even more than we can see and the "proof" is that we can "Imagine" that. Imagination is no "will o' the wisp" or if it is, so is everything else. Writers for example can create worlds and galaxies within the "little infinity" of the mind. Further, every concrete thing we have done that affects the environment around us which separates us from the un-imaginative flora and fauna is contained within and flows from minds and hearts which are "un-provable" scientifically. I'll go further. In fact it has been shown through a number of experiments that at the very smallest levels even smaller than the sub-atomic (smaller than quantum level - down to the level of "Strings") the very foundations of reality seem to respond to our very thinking about it.
In Jung's and certain other's opinions (and more and more in mine) we are actually taking part in creation itself to some degree by our very contemplation of the physical universe. And the "creation" in a certain very integral way of ourselves by our "contemplation" of ourselves both individually and collectively. Thoughts and feelings (Concepts) matter is what I'm getting at and if they do what we "Imagine" is very important and significant (Love and Hate, Fear and Wisdom, etc...) and cannot be dismissed as "un-real". For if it is "un-real" so are we.
Just some "out-there" thoughts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
Maslow's hierarchy of needs
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
An interpretation of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, represented as a pyramid with the more basic needs at the bottom.[1]Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a theory in psychology, proposed by Abraham Maslow in his 1943 paper A Theory of Human Motivation,[2] which he subsequently extended to include his observations of humans' innate curiosity.
Maslow studied what he called exemplary people such as Albert Einstein, Jane Addams, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Frederick Douglass rather than mentally ill or neurotic people, writing that "the study of crippled, stunted, immature, and unhealthy specimens can yield only a cripple psychology and a cripple philosophy."[3] Maslow also studied the healthiest one percent of the college student population. In his book, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature, Maslow writes, "By ordinary standards of this kind of laboratory research... this simply was not research at all. My generalizations grew out of my selection of certain kinds of people. Obviously, other judges are needed."[4]
Contents [hide]
1 Representations
2 Deficiency needs
2.1 Physiological needs
2.2 Safety needs
2.3 Social needs
2.4 Esteem
2.5 Self-Actualization
3 Self-transcendence
4 Success of offspring
5 Marketing
6 Criticisms
7 See also
8 References
9 External links
[edit] Representations
Maslow's hierarchy of needs is predetermined in order of importance.[5] It is often depicted as a pyramid consisting of five levels: the lowest level is associated with physiological needs, while the uppermost level is associated with self-actualization needs, particularly those related to identity and purpose. Deficiency needs must be met first. Once these are met, seeking to satisfy growth needs drives personal growth. The higher needs in this hierarchy only come into focus when the lower needs in the pyramid are met. Once an individual has moved upwards to the next level, needs in the lower level will no longer be prioritized. If a lower set of needs is no longer being met, the individual will temporarily re-prioritize those needs by focusing attention on the unfulfilled needs, but will not permanently regress to the lower level. For instance, a businessman at the esteem level who is diagnosed with cancer will spend a great deal of time concentrating on his health (physiological needs), but will continue to value his work performance (esteem needs) and will likely return to work during periods of remission. [6]
[edit] Deficiency needs
The lower four layers of the pyramid are what Maslow called "deficiency needs" or "D-needs": physiological, safety and security, love and belonging, and esteem. With the exception of the lowest (physiological) needs, if these "deficiency needs" are not met, the body gives no physical indication but the individual feels anxious and tense.
[edit] Physiological needs
For the most part, physiological needs are obvious - they are the literal requirements for human survival. If these requirements are not met (with the exception of clothing and sex), the human body simply cannot continue to function.
Physiological needs include:
Breathing
Homeostasis
Water
Sleep
Food
Sex
Clothing
Shelter
[edit] Safety needs
With their physical needs relatively satisfied, the individual's safety needs take over and dominate their behavior. These needs have to do with people's yearning for a predictable, orderly world in which injustice and inconsistency are under control, the familiar frequent and the unfamiliar rare. In the world of work, these safety needs manifest themselves in such things as a preference for job security, grievance procedures for protecting the individual from unilateral authority, savings accounts, insurance policies, and the like.
For the most part, physiological and safety needs are reasonably well satisfied in the "First World." The obvious exceptions, of course, are people outside the mainstream — the poor and the disadvantaged. They still struggle to satisfy the basic physiological and safety needs. They are primarily concerned with survival: obtaining adequate food, clothing, shelter, and seeking justice from the dominant societal groups.
Safety and Security needs include:
Personal security
Financial security
Health and well-being
Safety net against accidents/illness and the adverse impacts
[edit] Social needs
After physiological and safety needs are fulfilled, the third layer of human needs is social. This psychological aspect of Maslow's hierarchy involves emotionally-based relationships in general, such as:
Friendship
Intimacy
Having a supportive and communicative family
Humans need to feel a sense of belonging and acceptance, whether it comes from a large social group, such as clubs, office culture, religious groups, professional organizations, sports teams, gangs ("Safety in numbers"), or small social connections (family members, intimate partners, mentors, close colleagues, confidants). They need to love and be loved (sexually and non-sexually) by others. In the absence of these elements, many people become susceptible to loneliness, social anxiety, and clinical depression. This need for belonging can often overcome the physiological and security needs, depending on the strength of the peer pressure; an anorexic, for example, may ignore the need to eat and the security of health for a feeling of control and belonging.
[edit] Esteem
All humans have a need to be respected, to have self-esteem, self-respect. Also known as the belonging need, esteem presents the normal human desire to be accepted and valued by others. People need to engage themselves to gain recognition and have an activity or activities that give the person a sense of contribution, to feel accepted and self-valued, be it in a profession or hobby. Imbalances at this level can result in low self-esteem or an inferiority complex. People with low self-esteem need respect from others. They may seek fame or glory, which again depends on others. It may be noted, however, that many people with low self-esteem will not be able to improve their view of themselves simply by receiving fame, respect, and glory externally, but must first accept themselves internally. Psychological imbalances such as depression can also prevent one from obtaining self-esteem on both levels.
Most people have a need for a stable self-respect and self-esteem. Maslow noted two versions of esteem needs, a lower one and a higher one. The lower one is the need for the respect of others, the need for status, recognition, fame, prestige, and attention. The higher one is the need for self-esteem, strength, competence, mastery, self-confidence, independence and freedom. The last one is higher because it rest more on inner competence won through experience. Deprivation of these needs can leads to an inferiority complex, weakness and helplessness.
Maslow stresses the dangers associated with self-esteem based on fame and outer recognition instead of inner competence. Healthy self-respect is based on earned respect.
[edit] Self-Actualization
The motivation to realize one's own maximum potential and possibilities is considered to be the master motive or the only real motive, all other motives being its various forms. In Maslow's hierarchy of needs, the need for self-actualization is the final need that manifests when lower level needs have been satisfied.
[edit] [b]Self-transcendence
Near the end of his life Maslow revealed that there was a level on the hierarchy that was above self-actualization: self-transcendence[7]. "[Transcenders] may be said to be much more often aware of the realm of Being (B-realm and B-cognition), to be living at the level of Being… to have unitive consciousness and “plateau experience” (serene and contemplative B-cognitions rather than climactic ones) … and to have or to have had peak experience (mystic, sacral, ecstatic) with illuminations or insights. Analysis of reality or cognitions which changed their view of the world and of themselves, perhaps occasionally, perhaps as a usual thing."[8] Maslow later did a study on 12 people he believed possessed the qualities of Self-transcendence. Many of the qualities were guilt for the misfortune of someone close, creativity, humility, intelligence, and divergent thinking. They were mainly loners, had deep relationships, and were very normal on the outside. Maslow estimated that only 2% of the population will ever achieve this level of the hierarchy in their lifetime, and that it was absolutely impossible for a child to possess these traits.[/b]
Not to get religious. But Christ Himself said that the Kingdom of God is within.
Carl Jung refers to the "Self" (large first letter) as an embodiment of the "whole being" including the conscious and the unconscious and all that entails. This whole "Self" before "Individuation" (Integration) is perceived by the conscious mind as something separate from the ego as are the other elements or aspects of the unconscious. They may even (and often are) be anthropomorphized and have functioning and seemingly separate personalities. For example in males the "Anima" is often refered to as the female side of a male mind (in a woman's mind it is the male "Animus") and is often encountered in dreams and seen by males as extremely attractive and desirable, but also a singularly important "guide" to the unconscious IF related to properly. Otherwise it can be deceptive.
Many Legends and Myths describe these inner relationships within the Psyche as tales of about outer adventures. Such as King Arthur's Camelot ( Arthur as the "Self". Lancelot as the "Ego". And Guinevere as the "Anima"), or (as one of the few remaining female myths) "Psyche and Eros (or Cupid)". With "Psyche" as the ego and Cupid as the "Animus".
Where I find Maslow's use of terms confusing is that he doesn't seem to acknowledge this seemingly fragmented structure of the Psyche which often operates in a fragmented manner affecting everything one does or achieves including self actualization and "Self Transcendence". And yet acknowledges that this level, "Self Transcendence," exists. ((He does finally say "Unitive" but doesn't go far enough IMO.)
In other words he is saying what I consider quite improbable because as far as we know we cannot "Transcend" the "Self" since ALL THAT WE KNOW exists perforce within our Psyches.
I am not claiming that nothing can have an existence beyond our "ken" (Our "Self"). But Let me explain this remarkable statement. If we perceive something either individually or collectively it must be processed through our "psyche" (or mind) in order for us to be able to relate to it. We need to be able to perceive it. Which according to Jung is a "Psychic Process" in and of itself. If something is invisible to our five senses and to our scientific instrumentation one would have a hard time proving it exists at all.
Yet...there are things the Mind can "see" (Through the Imagination) and further, things the Heart can "perceive" (Feel) that register neither on our physical senses nor on our instrumentation. Yet we "Imagine" certain things exist. The use of the word "Imagine" has been given a bad rap scientifically speaking and is rather like a dismissal. Yet millions believe individually and collectively that certain things exist that cannot be proven to exist scientifically.
In the bolded section below Maslow points to the essential nature of "Transcendence" which is recognizing the divine or the transcendent nature of our being. Meaning to me that something is "added" to the human physical being that is not physical and cannot be perceived except through the mind and heart or what may be known as the "Spirit" ("Self" IMO the totality). No doubt there are also plenty of physical things we have not yet discovered or imagined that do exist and do affect us physically. Energies and other things perhaps that we haven't yet detected. I repeat I don't mean to say that just because we cannot detect something it does not exist. Merely that to our mind it does not exist for us...yet.
So for the purposes of this thread in my opinion what is most important (once the basic needs have been met) has to be the recognition that we are more than we seem and even more than we can see and the "proof" is that we can "Imagine" that. Imagination is no "will o' the wisp" or if it is, so is everything else. Writers for example can create worlds and galaxies within the "little infinity" of the mind. Further, every concrete thing we have done that affects the environment around us which separates us from the un-imaginative flora and fauna is contained within and flows from minds and hearts which are "un-provable" scientifically. I'll go further. In fact it has been shown through a number of experiments that at the very smallest levels even smaller than the sub-atomic (smaller than quantum level - down to the level of "Strings") the very foundations of reality seem to respond to our very thinking about it.
In Jung's and certain other's opinions (and more and more in mine) we are actually taking part in creation itself to some degree by our very contemplation of the physical universe. And the "creation" in a certain very integral way of ourselves by our "contemplation" of ourselves both individually and collectively. Thoughts and feelings (Concepts) matter is what I'm getting at and if they do what we "Imagine" is very important and significant (Love and Hate, Fear and Wisdom, etc...) and cannot be dismissed as "un-real". For if it is "un-real" so are we.
Just some "out-there" thoughts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
Maslow's hierarchy of needs
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
An interpretation of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, represented as a pyramid with the more basic needs at the bottom.[1]Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a theory in psychology, proposed by Abraham Maslow in his 1943 paper A Theory of Human Motivation,[2] which he subsequently extended to include his observations of humans' innate curiosity.
Maslow studied what he called exemplary people such as Albert Einstein, Jane Addams, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Frederick Douglass rather than mentally ill or neurotic people, writing that "the study of crippled, stunted, immature, and unhealthy specimens can yield only a cripple psychology and a cripple philosophy."[3] Maslow also studied the healthiest one percent of the college student population. In his book, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature, Maslow writes, "By ordinary standards of this kind of laboratory research... this simply was not research at all. My generalizations grew out of my selection of certain kinds of people. Obviously, other judges are needed."[4]
Contents [hide]
1 Representations
2 Deficiency needs
2.1 Physiological needs
2.2 Safety needs
2.3 Social needs
2.4 Esteem
2.5 Self-Actualization
3 Self-transcendence
4 Success of offspring
5 Marketing
6 Criticisms
7 See also
8 References
9 External links
[edit] Representations
Maslow's hierarchy of needs is predetermined in order of importance.[5] It is often depicted as a pyramid consisting of five levels: the lowest level is associated with physiological needs, while the uppermost level is associated with self-actualization needs, particularly those related to identity and purpose. Deficiency needs must be met first. Once these are met, seeking to satisfy growth needs drives personal growth. The higher needs in this hierarchy only come into focus when the lower needs in the pyramid are met. Once an individual has moved upwards to the next level, needs in the lower level will no longer be prioritized. If a lower set of needs is no longer being met, the individual will temporarily re-prioritize those needs by focusing attention on the unfulfilled needs, but will not permanently regress to the lower level. For instance, a businessman at the esteem level who is diagnosed with cancer will spend a great deal of time concentrating on his health (physiological needs), but will continue to value his work performance (esteem needs) and will likely return to work during periods of remission. [6]
[edit] Deficiency needs
The lower four layers of the pyramid are what Maslow called "deficiency needs" or "D-needs": physiological, safety and security, love and belonging, and esteem. With the exception of the lowest (physiological) needs, if these "deficiency needs" are not met, the body gives no physical indication but the individual feels anxious and tense.
[edit] Physiological needs
For the most part, physiological needs are obvious - they are the literal requirements for human survival. If these requirements are not met (with the exception of clothing and sex), the human body simply cannot continue to function.
Physiological needs include:
Breathing
Homeostasis
Water
Sleep
Food
Sex
Clothing
Shelter
[edit] Safety needs
With their physical needs relatively satisfied, the individual's safety needs take over and dominate their behavior. These needs have to do with people's yearning for a predictable, orderly world in which injustice and inconsistency are under control, the familiar frequent and the unfamiliar rare. In the world of work, these safety needs manifest themselves in such things as a preference for job security, grievance procedures for protecting the individual from unilateral authority, savings accounts, insurance policies, and the like.
For the most part, physiological and safety needs are reasonably well satisfied in the "First World." The obvious exceptions, of course, are people outside the mainstream — the poor and the disadvantaged. They still struggle to satisfy the basic physiological and safety needs. They are primarily concerned with survival: obtaining adequate food, clothing, shelter, and seeking justice from the dominant societal groups.
Safety and Security needs include:
Personal security
Financial security
Health and well-being
Safety net against accidents/illness and the adverse impacts
[edit] Social needs
After physiological and safety needs are fulfilled, the third layer of human needs is social. This psychological aspect of Maslow's hierarchy involves emotionally-based relationships in general, such as:
Friendship
Intimacy
Having a supportive and communicative family
Humans need to feel a sense of belonging and acceptance, whether it comes from a large social group, such as clubs, office culture, religious groups, professional organizations, sports teams, gangs ("Safety in numbers"), or small social connections (family members, intimate partners, mentors, close colleagues, confidants). They need to love and be loved (sexually and non-sexually) by others. In the absence of these elements, many people become susceptible to loneliness, social anxiety, and clinical depression. This need for belonging can often overcome the physiological and security needs, depending on the strength of the peer pressure; an anorexic, for example, may ignore the need to eat and the security of health for a feeling of control and belonging.
[edit] Esteem
All humans have a need to be respected, to have self-esteem, self-respect. Also known as the belonging need, esteem presents the normal human desire to be accepted and valued by others. People need to engage themselves to gain recognition and have an activity or activities that give the person a sense of contribution, to feel accepted and self-valued, be it in a profession or hobby. Imbalances at this level can result in low self-esteem or an inferiority complex. People with low self-esteem need respect from others. They may seek fame or glory, which again depends on others. It may be noted, however, that many people with low self-esteem will not be able to improve their view of themselves simply by receiving fame, respect, and glory externally, but must first accept themselves internally. Psychological imbalances such as depression can also prevent one from obtaining self-esteem on both levels.
Most people have a need for a stable self-respect and self-esteem. Maslow noted two versions of esteem needs, a lower one and a higher one. The lower one is the need for the respect of others, the need for status, recognition, fame, prestige, and attention. The higher one is the need for self-esteem, strength, competence, mastery, self-confidence, independence and freedom. The last one is higher because it rest more on inner competence won through experience. Deprivation of these needs can leads to an inferiority complex, weakness and helplessness.
Maslow stresses the dangers associated with self-esteem based on fame and outer recognition instead of inner competence. Healthy self-respect is based on earned respect.
[edit] Self-Actualization
The motivation to realize one's own maximum potential and possibilities is considered to be the master motive or the only real motive, all other motives being its various forms. In Maslow's hierarchy of needs, the need for self-actualization is the final need that manifests when lower level needs have been satisfied.
[edit] [b]Self-transcendence
Near the end of his life Maslow revealed that there was a level on the hierarchy that was above self-actualization: self-transcendence[7]. "[Transcenders] may be said to be much more often aware of the realm of Being (B-realm and B-cognition), to be living at the level of Being… to have unitive consciousness and “plateau experience” (serene and contemplative B-cognitions rather than climactic ones) … and to have or to have had peak experience (mystic, sacral, ecstatic) with illuminations or insights. Analysis of reality or cognitions which changed their view of the world and of themselves, perhaps occasionally, perhaps as a usual thing."[8] Maslow later did a study on 12 people he believed possessed the qualities of Self-transcendence. Many of the qualities were guilt for the misfortune of someone close, creativity, humility, intelligence, and divergent thinking. They were mainly loners, had deep relationships, and were very normal on the outside. Maslow estimated that only 2% of the population will ever achieve this level of the hierarchy in their lifetime, and that it was absolutely impossible for a child to possess these traits.[/b]
To me, the important thing to remember about Maslow's work is to put it in the period of time that it occured in...I would make the same assertion about Freud's work...They both made major contributions. They were both products of Western Culture, as it had evolved up to and through their time.
QUOTE(rla @ Aug 22 2009, 10:12 AM)
To me, the important thing to remember about Maslow's work is to put it in the period of time that it occured in...I would make the same assertion about Freud's work...They both made major contributions. They were both products of Western Culture, as it had evolved up to and through their time.
Yes that is true. But just as Jung moved on from Freud's work, so must we.
QUOTE(TheRestofUs @ Aug 22 2009, 12:49 PM)
QUOTE(rla @ Aug 22 2009, 10:12 AM)
To me, the important thing to remember about Maslow's work is to put it in the period of time that it occured in...I would make the same assertion about Freud's work...They both made major contributions. They were both products of Western Culture, as it had evolved up to and through their time.
Yes that is true. But just as Jung moved on from Freud's work, so must we.
Yes, and that is true of Jung's work and Maslow's work, we build on those who have gone before...
TRoU, Rollo May has a lot more to say about what you are talking about. I recommend his books to you.
QUOTE(heart @ Aug 23 2009, 11:24 PM)
TRoU, Rollo May has a lot more to say about what you are talking about. I recommend his books to you.
Yes, Victor Frankl and Rollo May influenced me a lot...
Hmmm.... I'll have to check them out. Thanks heart and rla. ( I just finished reading Joesph Campell's "The Hero with a Thousand Faces".)
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.