The missing apex of Maslow's hierarchy: self-transcendence
bigthink.com
bigthink.com
If you'd prefer the 19th century's expression of this ideal to the 20th's, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humboldtian_model_of_higher_ed...
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/003050...
Makes it hard to take this article seriously.
moreso, caring about others is what creates that belonging in the first place.
so while basic needs are kind of a foundation, it seems that the other needs are more or less in parallel on top of that.
also, another thought is to look at needs not from an individual perspective, but from a community perspective.
once you have achived belonging, it is the belonging and the community that ensures your basic needs.
when i am homeless and hungry, i don't automatically ignore the needs of my family and community in order to get food and shelter.
in fact losing family and community is part of what causes me to be homeless and hungry in the first place.
so i can't have food, shelter and protection unless i transcend and care about my community, or, in reverse i care about family and community because they provide food and shelter
In fact I'd say this concept is strongly related to how you behave precisely when there's no belonging: to those that don't belong in your perceived group and when you don't feel like you belong in a group.
you are right, transcendence of self needs to reach everyone, and especially the outsiders.
Even animals "self-trancend" for their family/herd. it is instinctual.
Most Humans "self-trancend" for their tribe/nation. it is emotional (+ instinctual).
But it is not really "self-transcendence" as posited here: universal and mindful (to not say "intellectual").
Self-transcendence is on the side of the hierarchy of needs, though admittedly a person isn't going to be very good at self-transcendence if they are starving or aren't educated. I think this drive of self-transcendence guides many people whenever they are at the various levels. Though admittedly some people get all the way through a Ph.D. without really having a sense of meaning or purpose, I think this kind of trajectory is in the minority and most of us mix it up a bit.
All aspects of the pyramid are present at all levels, what the pyramid represents is what you have to free yourself of in order to truly and wholly endeavor in each stage.
You can act with self-transcendence even if you're starving, but you can't direct as much thought, time and energy towards it unless you cover the underlying needs.
This is all well and good, by my psychological need for esteem, and to a lesser extent love/belonging, is so much less that I ignore its pull to large extents (and have even been viscerally repulsed by praise through portions of my life). Maybe that's why I've not been all that facile at Captaining my own destiny in this world.
I think the pyramid is a bad shape.
Kind of contradictory, isn't it? By the way, who are they?
Well I used to stand for something
Now I'm on my hands and knees
Traded in my God for this one
And he signs his name with a capital G
A popular creation myth at the moment is simulation theory.
Reducing consciousness to material data-processing is a way to believe there's a possibility of life after body-death.
A popular "promised-land" myth is that technology will save us.
The assumption that mind stems from matter is so commonly beheld that people take it as fact, in the same way some people take god as a fact, unquestioningly.
Ultimately you'll realize that you want something that is impossible, like changing the immutable aspects of you ('transcendence').
There is no real shift between self-actualization and transcendence. Just wanting more to be above your peers, from being at the top of the hill (self-actualization) to being at the top of the world, for all time (transcendence). It's all still in the framework of competition.
- Zarathustra
For WHAT is it then--the highest time?"--
Thus spake Zarathustra.
Transcendence is what one obtains via the community of faith.
The materialists will reject this answer, yet fall short of offering an explanation for life beside "bag of electric meat".
The idea that existence must fall entirely within the scope of human existenceis the bugaboo.
[1] https://www.classicalstuff.net/episodes-1/2017/10/31/episode...
Not quite sure how one takes a euphemistic phrase and gets "smug" out of it. However, the reader has the right of it.
It felt like caricature -- like the written equivalent of me doing an impression of a Christian while crossing my eyes and saying in a doofy voice "I believe in the magic sky-man", where obviously their conception of god could be given a more charitable viewing :)
How would the material as such be aware of these properties?
I'm sincerely questioning here. The accusation of "smugness" up the thread seems a cop-out. The dirt needs to explain its awareness of its dirt-state.
Conversely, any theistic interpretation I could offer is going to have some hand-wavy aspects to it. I freely admit that there is no closed-form, mathematical expression for existence that falls within the scope of human intellect.
To the extent that I have a point, the rejection of the human mind as the measure of all things is my point.
What we do know is that doing purely physical things to the brain has very apparent effects on the person. People with brain damage have suffered effects as varied as changes in personality, to defects in information processing, to loss of abilities and memories. Less extremely, psychoactive drugs operate physically on the brain and cause changes in behavior, mood, and perception.
If the brain is not the seat of consciousness and the self is instead the result of some metaphysical process that's external to the body, these effects remain to be accounted for. And that aside, I've never heard any reason to accept dualism, besides an appeal to incredulity that the mind could be caused purely by physical processes.
This seems backwards to me. It is the self that is the result of processes from the interaction between consciousness and the body (including the brain).
Analogy: the sea does not create the matter of the stone it hits against on the shore, that is already present. But it is the interaction between the sea and the rock that shapes the rock, and in doing so it can create a pattern that looks like a face.
Processes are abstract concepts. They can't interact with concrete objects, except through the concrete objects that support them. Talking about consciousness interacting with the brain makes as much sense as talking about movement interacting with a car. It's a process that's running on the brain. If it can be said to "interact" with the brain, what's happening ultimately is the brain interacting with itself.
>Analogy: the sea does not create the matter of the stone it hits against on the shore, that is already present. But it is the interaction between the sea and the rock that shapes the rock, and in doing so it can create a pattern that looks like a face.
Okay, now undo the analogy.
> Talking about consciousness interacting with the brain makes as much sense as talking about movement interacting with a car. It's a process that's running on the brain.
If we follow this logic then "movement is a process that's running on the car."
Cars are a result of multiple conditions, including movement and the necessary material conditions to employ movement in a specific way.
Consciousness is a result of multiple conditions, including mind and the necessary biological conditions to employ mental factors in a specific way.
>Consciousness is a result of multiple conditions, including mind
What do you mean by consciousness that's different from the mind? I see the two as synonymous.
What I mean is that mind is to consciousness what matter is to the brain. It is a property of the universe, that manifests itself in ways that can form memories, identities, self awareness. But underlying these systems there is pure awareness, in the same way that all matter can be reduced to the same fundamental particles.
In the same way that something like a car or a brain can be made from these same fundamental building blocks, an identity and a self can be made from fundamental mind-properties that are just inherent parts of the universe. They become identifiable as "a person" at a certain scale in the same way that a group of particles becomes "a car" at a certain scale and distance.
It also seems odd that a mind independent of a brain has never been observed. If minds are fundamental to the universe it's something that would have to happen. At the very least when a person dies their mind should be a physical process that's still detectable and goes on independent of the body, because it's fundamental to the universe and not reducible to interactions between ordinary matter particles; that's what it means for something to be fundamental or inherent. For all the world it seems as if a mind without a brain makes as much sense as a car without matter.
> It also seems odd that a mind independent of a brain has never been observed.
Has a mind dependent of a brain been observed? You can observe a brain, a body, a face, and hear speech, and you can take it upon faith that this is all guided by a mind, but you can't observe that mind unless it's your own. Same applies to your mention of the process of death.
Science is limited to phenomena that can be verified and measured objectively. So it is not odd that it would not be the right tool to examine something that is not entirely subject to matter. At most it can examine its interaction with matter, but to draw conclusive theories from that will carry on to those theories the limitations fundamental to science, and you will confuse those limitations with truth about nature.
The way to observe this is direct experience, but the issue there is that conceptualization and intellect get in the way, because what you know and assume about the world will bias direct observation.
Gravity can be detected by its effects, even if there's no particle that propagates it. We've been able to detect not just the strength of gravity (by weight) but also its propagation through space (see LIGO).
>Has a mind dependent of a brain been observed?
Um, obviously? What distinguishes a person from a braindead patient is that one of the two has a mind. Are you saying that the fact that you talk to a person and have them recall facts is not enough to say that they have a mind? Also, to say that a mind has never been observed either dependent or independent of a brain would mean that the idea of mind has no basis in reality at all.
>At most it can examine its interaction with matter
Well, ultimately yes, because any instrument we are able to construct will necessarily have to be made of matter. The upside of this is that if there's a phenomenon that does not interact with matter in any way whatsover, even indirectly, then that phenomenon cannot possibly have any relevance to human life. If minds are an inherent physical phenomenon that can interact with brains, then we should be able to construct a device that's able to interact with them. If this is not possible even in principle, then I don't see how minds can be said to be fundamental. What aspect of reality informs that belief of yours?
You're observing communication, which like the gravity example, is one effect that's discernible and understandable to us. Much like the effects of gravity could be observed by people of the past but without sufficient measurements and tools, they did not attribute the orbit of the planets and what glues us to the earth as the same principle.
> The upside of this is that if there's a phenomenon that does not interact with matter in any way whatsover, even indirectly, then that phenomenon cannot possibly have any relevance to human life.
First, whether it has relevance to human life had nothing to do with something being true or not. Secondly, clearly mind does interact with matter, it does so through the brain. We can already construct devices that interact with mind, by making babies.
But we cannot construct devices that can peer into your mind and perceive experience in the way that you do. You might theorize that we should or that science will, someday, but this is a promise not unlike religious ones.
> What aspect of reality informs that belief of yours?
The most fundamental aspect of reality is that which perceives reality in the first place, aka. your experience. Without this awareness, there is no perception, no memory, no intellect. Without these, there is nothing to construct and hold the theory of how mind came to be out of matter.
Fundamentally, I can posit that it is all a dream, the matrix, plato's cave, etc, but whether the contents of experience are illusory or not, it can't be denied that there is the fact of experiencing taking place.
The scientific fundamentals are posited on the premise of "if we didn't exist, what would we agree on is true about the universe". And that's a valid endeavor, but it rests on a hypothetical because we do exist as sentient beings.
https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691145471/th...
I see life in general, but yes humans as well, as the makers of value judgements. Measuring is a judgement. Without a person to deem it worthy and implement it, even a holy text is just words on a page.
To me Platonic ideals such as gods and souls are things to aspire to, not things which already exist.
That's not an explanation of life, that's a description (perhaps a characterization) of life. What explanation does faith offer besides what's effectively an audible shrug?
That's absurd. The entire essay describes the hierarchy.
"But what happens to man's desires when there is plenty of bread and when his belly is chronically filled?
At once other (and 'higher') needs emerge and these, rather than physiological hungers, dominate the organism. And when these in turn are satisfied, again new (and still 'higher') needs emerge and so on. This is what we mean by saying that the basic human needs are organized into a hierarchy of relative prepotency. "
https://ndisisnd.medium.com/maslow-didnt-create-the-pyramid-...
Hasn't this been obvious and practiced in various ways by many/most people, for millennia?
Are they talking about something different?
If a model like Maslow's hierarchy is useful, it is reasonable to add in a spiritual layer. However, anything related to faith is automatically controversial.
---
This comment does not assume an organised religion is involved.
If nothing else, we clearly don't physically exist for most of eternity and any action taken to delay inevitable death is so logically futile doesn't make any sense to do so without some sort of faith-based leap. You'll notice in most religions the conversation is some variant of: "don't commit suicide" "why not?" "God said so. Live.".
What about “I enjoy living”
Why not just say “justification for living”
> Why not just say “justification for living”
Because we have several perfectly good words for it. Faith. Beliefs.
If you want to break out a different dictionary be my guest, but faith means, and I quote [0] the first entry in the Cambridge dictionary, "great trust or confidence in something or someone". Spiritual, FYI, is "relating to deep feelings and beliefs, especially religious beliefs".
[0] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/faith
If you ever have to explain that the words you’re using don’t mean what others think they mean in order to maintain your points validity, you’re not discussing anything of worth. You are discussing semantics. like I said, your view is just porno. Which is a perfectly cromulent descriptor for some definitions that I don’t care to explain.
And no, don’t bring up the authority of the dictionary. Because we are now here discussing definitions rather than actual concepts so any rightness you had is forfeit to the fact that people don’t agree with your semantics.
If it makes you feel any better, the Buddhist monks take vows of celebacy and swear not to discharge semen. They really are the best for counterexamples. Unless you have very odd tastes in porn.
Of course, a lot of serious spiritual types do similar things. I'm not as sure what the specific vows of the Catholics are.
Usually I'd ask you to explain yourself, but in this case I don't think you can. So instead I'll just close off with the observation that you probably would benefit from sitting down, relaxing a bit and thinking a little bit about your beliefs. Life is pretty good, but you don't want to get old and then have big spiritual revelations - it is too late to do much with them. It is worth talking about this sort of thing seriously rather than just pushing nonsense.
As for the “god said so” argument, that just demonstrates lack of understanding of the basic tenets of whatever culture or religion one follows.
Faith can operate on low levels such as: You arrange to meet with a friend at the park tomorrow.
You don't know for a fact that you will still be alive, or that your friend will, or that an accident won't befall either of you, etc. You operate on faith that your and their word will be made reality.
This is faith. It doesn't need to involve god, it doesn't have anything to do with superstition. You just take a belief and you act as if it will pan out.
You _can_ have non-religious faith on _people or institutions_ (not necessarily religious, but faith isn't the same as _any set of arbitrary assumptions_ (which is your example). Basic assumptions (in particular those you have evidence for or don't require an internal justification to exist) aren't faith.
Most definitions of the word also require _commitment_ to something or someone, as part of the definition of faith - so someone who blindly trusts a specific car manufacturer and always buys that brand has faith in it, whereas someone who just expects their brakes to work does _not_ have "faith on the brakes".
Trusting someone's word over something trivial isn't faith, it's just trust.
Faith is believing that all the other conditions, the ones that we do not think about, will align. It is important to highlight that it is working on a low level, because we take this for granted all the time. Actually it might not be until you lack this low level of faith that you see its presence (through its absence).
Either way, your linking of faith to superstition remains completely bogus.
If anyone is interested:
I was a practising psychotherapist for over 25 years.
Never once have I seen a Self-Actualized person.
Self-Actualization is a goal that can never be achieved.
Having met our basic needs at the bottom of the pyramid, having worked on our emotional needs in its middle and worked at achieving our potential.
That statement does not represent any sample of human beings currently living on earth.
> Never once have I seen a Self-Actualized person.
Would a self-actualized person seek psychotherapy? This perception could be due to sampling bias.
As an example, I remember a friend of mine started working on cars with his buddy. They finally got to an old vehicle they took all the way apart and put it together. He had gotten to the point where he could pull the engine and put it on a stand, weld things, paint, redo the wiring harness, and more.
I recall one day I went and looked at it and he sort of casually said, "I can do anything".
He wasn't bragging, or deluded. He had just sort of reached somewhere or something and was sort of balanced.
It's been a while since I listened to it, but if I remember rightly they spend some time talking about a model of human psychology that doesn't depend on any concept of an actual 'self'. Instead, they talk about competing motivations and how they give rise to an illusion of a self.