Jump to content

What is self actualization & why is it important?


Mr H

Recommended Posts

So trying to keep this discussion on one thread.

 

For those interested.

 
It is a scientific method of thouroughly examining your actual experience to investigate what you are. By this I mean, the goal here so to speak, is to find out what in our experience is absolutely essential to us.
 
Methods used
 
Neti neti process, or the what am I question
 
As a scientist, you explore all of your experiences: and you access whether or not that experience is essential to your existence. This will be personal, there is no "one method" it will be dependent upon the neurological pathways you have have created.
 
As a general starting point, people tend to start with the most obvious. so for example
 
"I am MR H, I am 25 years old ( 🙂 ). I am a chef" - statement no 1
 
You then investigate until no questions remain whether anything in the above statement is essential to you.....
 
Everything needs to be investigated - your beliefs about the body and mind etc etc until no questions remain. You are absolutely certain what you are not - or rather what is not essential to you.......
 
Ok great Mr H, but why would I want to do this?
 
The reason is 2 fold.
 
If you do the enquiry with a scientific approach and leave no stone unturned the conclusions are usually two fold which will have profound effect on your existence.
 
No1. Everyone and everything is connected. Some people may express this discovery as oneness, scientists may call it entanglement, or quantum physics.... depends on your background what you call it.
 
Implication of this finding: You and other people who discover this will stop knowingly creating suffering in the world. Because if you knew FOR FACT what you think/do/say effects "everyone" else - you wouldn't do it, unless maybe you had some sort of illness - self harm is not conducted by intelligent beings
 
No2. That you are not a limited human as first thought. You are far greater than that
 
Implication: you no longer become victim of your circumstance. You realise you can create anything you wish. Pretty cool huh? You no longer are driven by animalistic fear -  which is used to control and motivate humans. Why? Because when you discover you are not just the body, you realise actually, what you essentially are cannot die - so the fear of death is removed.
 
If you then wish to take it one step further you start to investigate the qualities of your essential being - infinite, has no edge or limitation etc etc
 
Hope that hopes anyone interested in the topic
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Mr H  I was wondering what you mean by self-actualisation so thanks for that. People use the phrase in different ways, for example I've come across it as a level in Maslow's pyramid which puts it in a context of the other stages of development. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Campion said:

@Mr H  I was wondering what you mean by self-actualisation so thanks for that. People use the phrase in different ways, for example I've come across it as a level in Maslow's pyramid which puts it in a context of the other stages of development. 

I very much enjoyed reading Maslow's work. Very good

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mr H said:

I very much enjoyed reading Maslow's work. Very good

 

He later added another even higher level: Self-transcendence.

 

Some criticised him for suggesting that there was a biological elite who were more able to self-actualise than others. Sounds familiar. 

Edited by Grumpy Grapes
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Abraham Maslow, who was Jewish, divided us into inferiors and superiors, as this article on him indicates.

 

Abraham Maslow: Democracy for the Self-Actualized Few

 

“Self-actualizing individuals may have been the quintessence of all that was best and most promising about human nature, but according to Maslow, they were still only a tiny minority of the population, even in the United States. Consequently, different political structures were required even within a single society. Maslow, forever coining new terms, distinguished between "jungle politics," suitable for the majority stuck on the lower end of the motivational ladder, and "specieshood politics," for the self-actualizing elite. He wrote bluntly in his journal that there should be "one [political system] for winners & one for losers." 

 

“Because Maslow was much more hard-boiled than Rogers in both his political views and his political assessments, he did not shy away from the conclusion that his hierarchical scheme might support a self-actualizing ruling class and lead to a two-tiered society, a sort of psychological apartheid. Because he accepted the inevitability of inequality as scientific fact, yet was unwilling to relinquish his commitment to liberal democracy, Maslow opted for institutional arrangements that would reward the "biological" superiority of a natural elite, rather than one founded on aristocratic, racial, or religious prejudice. I quote at some length from three separate journal entries. 

 

“I think there are innate superiors & inferiors. How could there not be? Everything varies from more to less. But, on the other hand: (1) We must make the world safe for superiors. The lower the culture & the lower people are the more likely they are to resent & hate the superiors & so to kill them off and drive them into hiding & camouflage. The more we educate the bulk of the population, the better it will be for the elite, e.g., less danger, more audience, more disciples, protectors, financers, etc. Also the better the society & the institutional arrangements, the safer the world, the more synergic it is, the better it is for eliteniks. . . . 

 

“It seems clear to me (I said) that the regime of freedom and self-choice which is desirable for innovating-creative people (& which they desire) can be ruinous for noncreative people who are too authoritarian, too passive, too authority-ambivalent, too noncommitted, etc.—ruinous at least in the sense that this regime permits them to fail, since it assumes resources which are not there. . . . So I vote in favor of making life better for the ones I call "good students,"—those who are autonomous, committed, dedicated, hard-working, etc.—& letting the others go hang. . . . 

 

“Also, the humanistic psychology absolutely needs a doctrine of an elite, degrees of humanness, health & sickness, winners & losers, aggridants (whether by heredity or by learning), good specimens, good choosers, no equal votes, nonequal weighting. The taste or judgment of one superior can & should outweigh 1000 or a million blind ones. 

 

https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft696nb3n8&chunk.id=d0e5812&toc.id=d0e5683&brand=ucpress

 

Edited by Grumpy Grapes
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...