Maslow's Hierarchy of needs and self actualization

[shunyadragon]

Maslow proposed a pyramid composed of levels of human needs and desires. At the base was basic needs of food, shelter and clothing. At the top was an ideal he called self actualization. He interpreteted human, social, intellectual and spiritual advancemnt to follow through history that once basic needs are satisfied humans could move up to the next level, love and belonging. Once these needs were saticfied people could continue up to reach penicale of the pyramid he called self actualization. The point of this discussion is his phillosophy and other alternative views of what the progression of human advancement might lead to. What is self actualization?

[Gorgo]

I assume since you didn't put down Maslow's definition of self-actualization you're not asking what his views are, but what our views are.

Self-Actualization is, as I understand it, an attempt to realize our full potential as humans.

Some take this as the idea that there is a self-actualized person "in there somewhere," and that we can, like a sculptor, carve and peel away that which is not us and get to our "real" selves.

This conflicts with the idea that we are a bubbling pot of chemicals and instincts that really has little choice in what we do from day to day, that we can only react to the world around us and the urges and desires that were wired into us at the moment of conception.

I think the answer is somewhere in between, and that we can strive for some comfort and pleasure beyond survival, and that we can help others not only survive but also help bring comfort and pleasure to those that do survive.

This is where the word optimum comes in handy. Optimum health, optimum enjoyment, etc.

[Ralph38449]

Malow's Heirarchy has it's flaws like Ericksons eight stages of life. But you have to admit that it does a good job at what it is trying to do. It is trying to map out life. From the physiological needs that must be provided to us. Next was safety in all forms which we need. Then love which most claim we need to lead to esteem. Then self-actulizaton. The problem is that the whole thing is to general to explain to someone so they understand. It's like explaining a shirt to someone, you say it's red, but it's maroon, it can creat the wrong picture.

But in the basic mapping of life... He was right.

And he also stated that very few peopl (one or two percent) actually reach the top.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Ralph38449, Malow's Heirarchy has it's flaws like Ericksons eight stages of life. But you have to admit that it does a good job at what it is trying to do. It is trying to map out life. From the physiological needs that must be provided to us. Next was safety in all forms which we need. Then love which most claim we need to lead to esteem. Then self-actulizaton. The problem is that the whole thing is to general to explain to someone so they understand. It's like explaining a shirt to someone, you say it's red, but it's maroon, it can creat the wrong picture. But in the basic mapping of life... He was right. And he also stated that very few peopl (one or two percent) actually reach the top.

You made some very good points. It is more of a broad model. The top, self actualization, probably has what you may call a half-life of attainment.

The journey of course is not that neat. I would avoid calling it the mapping of life. People may have crisis at different level, which effect their well being and choices. One criteria I had for self actualization is that people suffer less and handle crisis and loses better.

There are three words that I use to describe emotional relationships on the different levels of Maslow's hierarchy, sympathetic, empathetic, and compathetic (new word).

Sympathetic relationships are strongly dependent selfish relationships. People tend react strongly to the emotions of others. I cry when you cry, I laugh when you laugh. Belonging to a group with similar beliefs is essential. There is often a strong drive to solve the problems of others and to view the world in the absolutes of black and white and good and evil. Friendships and relationship are highly dependent on circumstances and can change quickly. Change and flexibility in beliefs and phillosophy are not easy options in sympathetic relaionships.

Empathetic relationship are more detached and less dependent. This is the halfway house to compathy. Relationships have more flexibility and less emotional involvement. The person is more open to change and flexibility.

Compathetic relationships are detached but compassionate. Change and flexibility are important. Relationships are not dependent on fulfilling personal needs. There is more effort devoted to understanding and awareness than sorting choices as black and white or good and evil. There is less effort devoted to trying to solve problems of others and the world by direct action. Problem solving is done by collective efforts and consultation. People tend to maintain relationships with others from a wider range of beliefs and backgrounds.

'Compassion is like the earth, regardless of what you do, good, evil or indifferent, it is always there beneath your feet and recieves you in death.'

'The reflection of the moon is beautiful, but waver and change with the touch. In bad weather it is no longer there.'

[moondusk]

Well said Shanydragon!

Originally posted by shunyadragon, 'Compassion is like the earth, regardless of what you do, good, evil or indifferent, it is always there beneath your feet and recieves you in death.'

I belive that's where the individuals are driven by self-actualization, to be compassionate towards the other humans. When a person is at or near self-actualization the person would suffer less, relizes the situations better, happy about himself, and compassionate towards the world.

Maslow believed that people should be able to move through the needs to the highest level provided they are given an education that promotes growth. Some of the changes in the educational process that Maslow espoused:

People should -

Be authentic.

Transcend their cultural conditioning and become world citizens.

Find their vocation and right mate.

Know that life is precious.

Be good and joyous in all kinds of situations.

Learn from their inner nature.

See that basic needs are satisfied.

Refreshen their consciousness, appreciate beauty and other good things in life.

Understand that controls are good, and complete abandon is bad.

Transcend trifling problems

Grapple with serious problems such as injustice, pain suffering and death

Be good choosers.

Be given practice in making choices of goodies, then making choices in their religious beliefs.

[castille]

You know this is why spoilt American teenagers protest about everything....my parents call it "They have too much to eat so now they've advanced to a whining stage"////

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by castille, You know this is why spoilt American teenagers protest about everything....my parents call it "They have too much to eat so now they've advanced to a whining stage"////

Self actualization has a leaner sharper edge than the spoiled overweight indulgent soft American society.

[castille]

It was meant to be a joke


I think self-actualization is more about fulfilling your maximum potential. To realise who are you spiritually, etc.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by castille, It was meant to be a joke I think self-actualization is more about fulfilling your maximum potential. To realise who are you spiritually, etc.

This a valid point, but maximum what?

[shunyadragon]

One interesting level of need in the hierarchy is'Love and belonging'. The need for love and 'to belong' is a very strong motivating force in peoples decisions. A person's religious affiliation may be more strongly rooted in these needs than actual personal belief.

Other choices in life may also dictated by these needs and not personal belief or preference.

Any suggestions or ideas out there?

[castille]

Love and belonging is not the loving-doving "Lets hold hands and help each other". A neo-Nazi feels loved and belongs to a group, as does Osama bin Laden's followers, or NAMBLA.

In a way most people want to belong to something. Whether its a socialist party, a cult or religion, a family (both legal and illegal), a circle of friends, or a neo-Nazi movement.

Even the "individuals" (ie. goths, rebels, teen "thugz") want to belong to something, so they all dress alike and get together (which ironically destroys every sense of their own individuality).

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by castille, Love and belonging is not the loving-doving "Lets hold hands and help each other". A neo-Nazi feels loved and belongs to a group, as does Osama bin Laden's followers, or NAMBLA. In a way most people want to belong to something. Whether its a socialist party, a cult or religion, a family (both legal and illegal), a circle of friends, or a neo-Nazi movement. Even the "individuals" (ie. goths, rebels, teen "thugz") want to belong to something, so they all dress alike and get together (which ironically destroys every sense of their own individuality).

Your point has merit. Unhealthy dependency has many motives.

Love and belonging has a legitamite role in the well being of individuals, relationships and their nurturing when young, but like all needs and desires they have their darker side.

what ways does our society encourage dependent relationships?

[castille]

Well, I would imagine security is a big driver for dependent relationships. Most people are afraid and want to be secure, even above individual achievement. Just ask how many people prefer the insecurity of business/trading to say, a job at Microsoft or Walmart.

Security then becomes related to seeking relationships because it is secure. Whether you are a democrat/Nazi/neocon/"Ping Ping's Anime Group", groups in general provide security from insecurity (sounds weird, but think carefully and it does make sense). Once in those groups, you are no longer faced with fate alone - you can simply copy someone else and be happy.

I also find strength in numbers is a big factor of dependency. Think about it - alone you don't have much of a say (unless your name is Adolf Hitler) - but when you are in a group that shares your philosophy, you have a say.

Groups however do tend to push you towards a common philosophy, even if you didn't believe it yourself, and since everyone is supposed to be on the same side, they all nod and agree. How many socialists would admit to reading "capitalist books"? How many neo-Nazis would admit they respect a Jew? Even if the socialist or Nazi or Republican or Albanian Catholic accepts something, they will not want to alienate themself from the group, so they go along with it.


These are the reasons I've found, there are probably more, but I havent been able to find out about it uyet.

[giuliano]

self actualisation is developing a sense of self-worth or purpose.

having achieved the lower levels of need, safety, love and esteem, there is a need to add meaning to your life.

self actualisation can be succeeding at your job (as aside from making enough money to buy a porsche), or being involved in a cause.

someone joked about whiney teenagers protesting. they aren't whining, they are pursuing self-actualisation. if you believe maslow, they won't achieve it until they firstly fulfil the lower echelons of need.

teenagers 'whine' because no one is taking the time to teach them the important things in life ... the why's and wherefore's. Our society is so fast-paced that there's a big crowd getting left behind - our young people.

As responsible adults, I think we should spend more time teaching, rather than demanding. This will enable our whiney teenagers to begin taking responsbility for themselves, thereby moving up the pyramid.

[Dr. Pundit]

Self-Actualization (SA) is a state in which the person who experiences it is realistic, accepts him or her self, continually grows in context to the mind, is open-minded, is not affected by various cultural norms, is creative, and does not "hate" others. As SA is at the top of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, it is the hardest to achieve; however, it is also the most satisfying.

[Hazzard]

Indeed the pyramid does reprisent the human requirements of life with the tip reprisenting, say what ghandi came to realise. Or what many people on tripping on LSD came to realise, what are we and what is this consciousness that hounds me and how can I take advantage of its limitless potential when it comes to theorising the universe and asking questions.

Unfortunatly, and you will hear alot of this from concpiracy theorists, todays society has been ram raided into a double pyramid reprisentation of life. It is becuase of the rulers of societies actions that this has taken place and the consequences of this are that a persons needs are reprisented first by the illusion of self actualisation, meaning we BELIEVE we are content when what makes someone content is merly an illusion and you cannot be truly content until you realise this. The double pyramid is a close to impossible way of life to accomplish AND remain happy with yourself. You must first understand that it is not about YOU, then you can rise to the top of the pyramid, but with a double pyramid it starts with YOU and like a sink hole it is very difficult to escape, hence abominable suicide rates, divorce rates rising and stress related illness growing phenominal year by year.

[JamesMcBride]

Are you saying that LSD users become enlightened through psychotropic substance abuse?

I'm not sure how you can just say human life is a pyramid - it's a good metaphor when considering the ranges of people that are "aware" I guess...

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "aware" though? Are you saying that they become freed from the "ego" and hence are happy? Surely any act of altruism is an act of egoless benevolence are they enlightened?

I assume in creating the metaphor of society as a pyramid you've placed yourself at the top - in which case: What's the view like up there? Really, you're trying to make MANY assumptions in two paragraphs and I don't really understand what you're trying to say, or at least - you're making assumptions without any rational evidence to support it.

It's one thing saying something but another thing entirely to prove it.

[Hazzard]

Quote by: JamesMcBride Are you saying that LSD users become enlightened through psychotropic substance abuse? I'm not sure how you can just say human life is a pyramid - it's a good metaphor when considering the ranges of people that are "aware" I guess... I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "aware" though? Are you saying that they become freed from the "ego" and hence are happy? Surely any act of altruism is an act of egoless benevolence are they enlightened? I assume in creating the metaphor of society as a pyramid you've placed yourself at the top - in which case: What's the view like up there? Really, you're trying to make MANY assumptions in two paragraphs and I don't really understand what you're trying to say, or at least - you're making assumptions without any rational evidence to support it. It's one thing saying something but another thing entirely to prove it.

The LSD thing was a joke. Watch Bill Hicks, funny guy.

Sorry for the way ive worded it, its an accurate reprisentation of life. I wouldnt say it is everyones life balls to bone, thats just not true there are too many variables to take into concideration to say that everyones life can be measured using a pyramid.

And I think egos are based on survival, the need to boost yourself up for the benefit of your own self esteem. Altruism can be said for any species, you cant just say humans do it out of the kindness of there heart, as im sure ants dont collect food for the queen becuase they like her and want to be nice. I do however think that humans can selflessly give for the sake of others becuase they truly want to. Whether or not there is a deep rooted agenda, in order to ultimatly get what you have given, im not sure. This brings about the idea that we are autonomous, making us no different for ants in the end if it were true.

There cant be evidence for a theory, and everything I said was a theory. I cant prove something that isnt fact, once again if ive worded it as fact im sorry. I do have a habit of saying things like this without wording them properly. Society I think is an illusion, a collective of ideals that people try to stick to in the hope that everyone else is doing the same, but I think that there is so huge a risk of leaders of society abusing this trust, that it simply doesnt work. Leaders almost always do abuse this trust, becuase they themselves must survive and they cannot resist the oppurtunity to get one up on everyone else if the oppurtunity presents itself, and to someone in power thats probably very often.

I think, if you were at the top of the pyramid, you would realise that nothing matters and cant be changed, but this conflicts with the human side of you urging you to fight what you feel is wrong or could threaten your survival, so I suppose getting to the top of the pyramid AND not going completely mental, is a difficult process. Im not referring to you directly btw.

[jeffl]

Self-actualization is intensely context sensitive, i'd say. In the Mahabharat, the sage needs support; and self-actualization of the prime minister is a matter of service to the nation. In the christian dogma, the 'sages' are to go from place to place doing what they can and taking what they're given, and everyone is to love their neighbor as self. In both instances, self-actualization of the rest is a matter of social structure; it's not an individual event necessarily.

Judgement is a big part of this; self-actualization for a christian is not a matter of buddhist serenity, it's a matter of testimony and commitment.