Sorry, you lost me again with this reply.
There seems to be a strange subtext here where you picked up the word transcendent and now are enforcing that upon self-actualization. I would understand if Googling it would lead to some clues but the Google results I found leads to this:http://www.rare-lead...onal_psychology.html
I have recently found it more and more useful to differentiate between two kinds (or better, degrees) of self-actualizing people, those who were clearly healthy, but with little or no experiences of transcendence, and those in whom transcendent experiencing was important and even central…. I find not only self-actualizing people who transcend, but also nonhealthy people, non-self-actualizers who have important transcendent experiences. …
...so now I'm confused as to why you're insisting all of
self-actualization is intended to mean transcendent.
Even the word transcendent is too obscure, unscientific, often used as marketing babble supplement...so again this is confusing. Transcendent's etymology appears to simply be the word transcend. That's a proven word that tries to obfuscate a clear word.
Meanwhile actualize from the beginning is already a complicated word:http://www.etymonlin...p;allowed_in_frame=0
1810, first attested in Coleridge, from actual + -ize. Related: Actualized; actualizing.
Notice how that link separates to actual:http://www.etymonlin...p;allowed_in_frame=0
...a word which contains no simpler alternatives that matches it's meaning
When you add another -tion to it. Of course it can come off complicated and vague especially when you are being unhelpful at clarifying where your misunderstanding is and because you would prefer to paint an impractical word that intentionally obscures a simple word as opposed to sticking with the lexicon of the words you are railing on.
It's just not helpful attitude for discussions. It would be like asking a geologist what geography means and how it is scientific only to point out that since the geographer has never been to other planets that geology is just as hoaky and un-scientific as astronomy and then compounding the problem further by insisting that one should have ought to use "biology of earth" instead of the term "geography" because you consider the word geo to be vague.
I'm not saying the words used here are as scientifically linked to empricism as geography but rather the argument you're raising could easily be applied to any word and make them all seem vague and therefore buzz words.
Not only that, you've gone from questioning whether it is a buzz word (a point of discussion that has already been settled) and are now reraising the point as a way of demonizing and ignoring the counter points raised towards your previous replies.
Worse, you've gone totally blind in your own hatred for what you perceive as buzz word. Instead of defining why it is BS, you simply add it as BS. Fair enough, you haven't exactly brought your usual IainB mentality to this thread but it's so bad - you're now lumping an entirely different concept that not only wasn't brought up prior but is not relevant at all to the BS of buzzword. The word cliche.With regards to anthropomorphism:
I apologize. I constantly misspell that word.
What I mean by that is the higher you supply your needs, the more human you or I become based on the anthropomorphic view of humanity.
Man for example can survive entirely in the physiological and has done so before and many suffering in poorer countries, continue to do so because of this aspect.
Without safety though, man becomes closer to that of an animal. Not only in terms of personality but growth.
A good portion of the creative and nurturing aspect of man came from then having safety. Not the safety of employment and other modern terms but just the thought of safety switches man's subconcious intelligence to things like family or working on things like agriculture.
...but are we human simply because we have love? ...are we exempt from becoming automatons simply because we have jobs?
No. If anything, we'd be more bionic. Not in the typical assumption we have of what it means to be a robot, a man-beast, a cave man, a neantherthal, a hobo, etc....but we become cold.
The more we fill up our needs (according to the pyramid), the more we become like animals, like plants, like inanimate objects.
Without problem solving for example, PC users end up becoming more like plants. Where as plants need sunlight, we end up becoming humans chained to MMORpgs, Facebook, 24/7 internet and the more we rely on it, the more we're rooted to our chairs. Yes, we could stand up but eventually that's no better as mobile gadgets make us more rooted to an external piece of device.
Only people who have solved the problem of computer ignorance can humanize themselves while still being addictive to a computer lifestyle
. Why is that?
Because when you learn to troubleshoot computers, you get to improve upon your area of employment. Not just in terms of opportunities or promotions but also in terms of expansion. When computer software are just like paper to you and you can make great art, you can have a job as an artist and all the benefits that comes with that versus someone who barely scrapes by on a PC.
When you know how to hack, certain desires that you used to do with your computer expand. Maybe you used to just read an online news site, now you're knowledge makes you stand up from your seat and establish grassroots campaigns, gain faster knowledge of inside info that you used to have to rely on face value, do things that make the computer be more a tool rather than a drug even if you're consuming like a drug. It'd be the equivalent of someone who loves basketball getting to the NBA.
In terms of humanizing inanimate objects, just ask anyone who feels like they are in a dead end job or have bad training how much static their world is. Not only this but there's so many slice of life storylines made to depict such human beings who fall into a job, fall into a depression, fall into apathy. All these very possible not just despite of love or security or water or food but often times because of those.
In terms of humanizing animals. without morality, soldiers would consistently go to war like bots assigned by politicians to kill a target. Without creativity...film,art, sexual positions, innovations...all those stagnate. Without spontaneity, we'd end up feeling suicidal over one situation that makes us depressed and the world while dynamic, would seem dull to us. The list goes on and on.
That's a basic flaw of Maslow's hierarchy if you omit self-actualization.
Of course then the question is, why not just put creativity on top? Why not just put any pet word you want on top like your pet word of transcendence?
Hell, why not buzz it up? Why not just say dreams or goal setting or GTD black belt...why not just put a word that people want to transcend to? Why not just put spirituality? Why not just put religion? Why not just put being worshipped as a king in a world where monarchy is dead?
Because those don't properly encompass what humans aspire to. Not only that, it doesn't address basic human delusion. People who want to become firemen end up not wanting to become one as they grow up.
People who transcend so many office politics end up becoming more bitter and psychopathic because of what they have to sacrifice.
Even those who "self-transcend", how many "self-transcend" from lowly virtuous politician only to be eaten alive post-transcendance and become corrupt politicians who continue the toxic job of a status quo? How many become Che Guevaras? How many become Ferdinand Marcos? How many become Obamas? Even in literature there's plenty of examples.
It is not some deep or obscure pitfall.
The Queen in Snow White transcended to become a queen only to die how?
The Little Mermaid transcended the basic acquisition of love only to be payed by her lover how?
Even in modern kid's tales. Shrek transcended from Ogre to Hero only to destroy the kingdom in Shrek Forever After and managed to make up for it simply because of a retcon loophole.
At the same time, people do transcend but what makes their transcendence different?
That is the difficulty the word self-actualization is trying to encompass.
What is a word that can differentiate between Muhammad Ali and other sports athletes while still respecting elite sports achievement such as those done by Michael Jordan for basketball? What is a word that can encompass both sets of those motivations while still fulfilling it's place as a need
Not only that, what is a word where it can both fit a criteria where you can place creativity at the top while still demanding a form of fusion where you have to involve your love, your belonging, your security, your physiological needs...you have to put all those motivations together just to gain the consistent guts to train for a prize fight, the consistent guts to be a brave soldier who has a specialty surpassing the ordinary soldier who is also brave? What is a word that would make one organize a revolution against their King, Oligarch or even mini-dictator like mayors especially a revolution that has a 1% chance of success?
What is a word that not only encompasses a person reaching a certain state yet not simply glorify him for reaching a hard to reach spot?
...for it's too easy to use that as a con. When the world can respect a position that's historically linked to the most anti-Christ tasks such as mass murder. A position that was even once accused of being the Anti-Christ: The position of Pope...then you know it is dangerous to simply use any word like transcendence as the top of any "need chain". I am not saying it's not a remarkable achievement to transcend especially self-transcend but just like any buzz word that has been used to cultify the desperate... such a word placed on top would be glorified in such a manner that it provides a false picture of need.
...yet want is important is it not? Pass the physiological level, are not love/safety/belonging just as much wants as they are needs? What word can avoid that?
I'm not saying self-actualization has done a picture perfect job of filling that position but that is what the definition of self-actualization is trying to define and it's what I mean when I wrote: "Each layer of Maslow's hierarchy becomes more and more anthromorphic yet as we know of anthromorphism, many of that can be illusions humans created."...only it gets worse:
To me, every word has two notability.
1) A word's definition is it's notability. Even a vague definition can be notable if it's definition has the intent to clarify. Especially as there are many philosophical, cultural and contextual based words that don't survive the transition to another language.
The 2nd one:
2) A word's impact and influence to one's philosophy. Example: If that hobo from across the street wrote Politics in the English Language with the same content but with a different title like, TrampSpeak in the Bazoo of the Barnacle... would you use that lesser known example or would you cling towards the authoritative familiarity of Orwell? It's a rhetorical question but such a choice defines and decides why a person would use a certain phrase or a certain line of explanation to define something.
Therefore when I wrote:
"Each layer of Maslow's hierarchy becomes more and more anthromorphic yet as we know of anthromorphism, many of that can be illusions humans created."
...I also meant to highlight by using Paul Farmer as an example the case that the above "standard" is a kiddie one.
The world is a lot worse than Popes. It's a lot worse than Presidents. It's a lot worse than governors.
Unlike Hollywood movies, life does not end in a happy or conclusive ending.
...but also unlike unorthodox Hollywood and indy films, life does not end at all and I think because of this fact, the word self-actualization (while it can be used as a buzz word) also transcends and does a good job of being the word on top of the hierarchy needs.
There's the part where glorifying leads to buzz words and cons and all of the things I wrote above.
Then there's reality. If self-actualization is just a state, then it can't be superior to the lower levels of the pyramid. After all, no one considers love to be just something you "transcend" over. Not even in an idealized romanticized version of love. Not even if love is painted as a mindset. Love is not a word whose definition sticks.
You can think you're in love only to find out you're not. You can think you're used to love only to find out you've fallen in love again. You can even live an entire life cycle where you encompass most of the social norms of love like years of marriage, loyalty to your wife, opted for a loved one over a better sex partner, loved not just your wife but become a person who's reknowned for loving lots of people but still loving your wife the most...all those, yet it's very possible for you to realize on your death bed that you've not truly loved at all.
That's the beauty of the word "actual". What is actual to you now may not be actual a second later. What is actual to others that they impose on you may not be something that you impose on yourself. Add the -ize and it's just as beautiful.
What seems like a word similar to "activate" sounds more profound if only because of our basic knowledge or habits when we used the word actual.
Then add self and -tion and it is really a word that transcends it's basic lexicon if only because we often think of the word self as referring to "us".
It's not though. As most productivity based self-help books that are often praised like to hide behind on: Self can mean your goals, self can mean your influence, self can mean everything you as a human being is doing around you.
Self can basically mean what you can and have and are now capable of achieving. In short, self can be a word used for BS and buzz especially as an add-on and self-actualization is no different.
What is different though is that actualization as a word is both too wordy and too obscure to use as a buzz word and the only reason it can be used to BS someone is because the hierarchy of needs became famous.
In truth, it's word holds a basic yet great philosophical question similar to questions like "What is free will?" and "Who owns the sky?"
Things that used to be grand and profound and have now become made tedious by academia.
The question self-actualization alludes to ask me when I read it is: "What is your actual self?"
Now without the hierarchy, the question itself is nothing special to me.
It's the combination of the obviousness of the lower needs plus the word self-actualization that makes it profound.
To link this to my above addendum, the reason I say it's worse is that self-actualization also hints to the fact that even if you fused your creativity and belonging and love and physiological needs...you're not really doing enough of the needs...but worse, you may not even realize it...but even worse, you may reject it upon realizing it.
For example, lots of people praise/want to be Jesus, Paul Farmer, someone else...but what's toxic is that often times we don't even know ourselves and that's why even the best idealized fusion of the lower needs of the pyramid are not enough to simply be written as "Fusion of the elevated experience of the below needs". It has to be written as self-actualization if simply for the fact that what truly motivates us (even if we're just limiting it to philosophy) is not something that we truly know or embrace....or even when we embrace it, we'd quit mid-way of our life
But that's not what makes it worst. What makes it worst is that even if you embrace it, there's no neutral or even cynical ending.
Someone who wants to be a follower of God does not necessarily want to be crucified...or even punished in a lesser manner. So those who do indeed go through that...even in a world where crucifixion is likely, assuming they did not just do it to commit suicide or are masochistic in nature, these people are the ones who self-actualize. That is to say, these people do not just overcome. They do not just reach. They are philosophically hard wired towards this. It's not just a conscious choice nor is it a totally subconscious decision. It's a living lifestyle but it's also a constant lifestyle of achieving enhanced safety, enhanced belonging, enhanced physiological access across a wider span of the planet
... it's borderline crazy.
If you want to throw some Hindu Philosophy on it, I can only rely on some Buddhist examples like:http://www.insightme...at-theme-march-2010/
“Furthermore, when going forward & returning, he makes himself fully alert; when looking toward & looking away… when bending & extending his limbs… when carrying his outer cloak, his upper robe & his bowl… when eating, drinking, chewing, & savoring… when urinating & defecating… when walking, standing, sitting, falling asleep, waking up, talking, & remaining silent, he makes himself fully alert”.
Are you kidding me?! Who's mindful when they are urinating and defecating?! It's impressive to just be able to pray when nature calls but indeed not only do teachers/disciples/scholars tend to omit these details but they don't dare state it in such details.
Instead this is just an addendum. For a person to go to this extreme and be truly mindful, they would have to not only self-identify and transcend into a state of mindfulness, they have to self-actualize. Just to bring forth the full picture: You have to consistently be fully alert whenever you're defecating and urinating. It doesn't matter the intensity of your bowel pains. It doesn't matter if you can't find a place to pee or the public toilet is so dirty and there's no tissue paper, you have to be alert and there's no reward. (Well there is in a religious enlightenment sense but still...no one will blame you if you fail this one detail...)
That's the depths of self actualization. In it's true lexicon, in it's sincerest definition, it has no rewards and it's anti-motivational despite supposedly being a need that someone has to fill.
As far as ahamkara, I don't want to go into details because I still respect your posts in other threads but have you asked yourself:
"You know Paul Keith, you have a point there."
Because I have, and the lengths of my replies and the directions they go forth on are existing evidence that you may not understand me but I try to make you understand through constant rephrasing, re-editing all while you insert such unhelpful replies and constantly repeat the same vague "there's no clear definition for this" and now you've even gone forth to flaming me as delusional and worse you treat a word like ahamkara so lightly that it becomes a BS word in your usage.
While I fail to see why such a non-passion necessary post could lead to such deep insults, because I respect you and I respect this community, I suggest you find some way to revisit your perception because you're not being rational as far as this post goes. By using ahamkara in such a light manner just as a way to avoid the discussion, that is not only passion, that is vitriole.
As you said you can choose and I'm not even a novice on Hindu philosophy but again, I suggest you reflect on your recent post. I don't care if your later reply claims that you have reflected prior to writing that post...ahamkara is not a word you throw out in a civil internet discussion. Ego is ego but ahamkara is not just ego, it's not just delusion, it's not just anger, it's not even the delusion of insisting a certain belief.
Please reflect! Again, I am in conflict because you're usually as you say a rational user. Not only that but by telling you to reflect, it can be interpreted as an angry rebuttal to your own words. Not only this but I am also not very familiar with Hindu philosophy so what right do I have to tell you to reflect? Furthermore, who knows whether you're just trolling me or not.
If you're sincere in using such a grave word as ahamkara though in this context, forgive me for not treating you as an equal and only being able to comeback with a simple rhetoric of reflect. Reflect and understand why the bolded parts of this paragraph was included in the story:http://scriptures.ru/guide_in.htm
205. What is the inner significance of the story of Gajendra Moksha?
Gajendra was a king in his previous birth and he became an elephant on account of a curse given to him by a sage. Here king signifies Atma. Atma is the king and Paramatma is the kingmaster. This elephant forgot the Atmatatwa and he was leading a life of attachment and illusion, entering the forest of life. Wandering in the forest of life it became thirsty. This thirst relates to the enjoyment of the senses. Immediately it saw a lake. This lake signifies worldly desires and that is called the samsara. He wanted to enjoy the pleasure of samsara and entered the lake. At once a crocodile, which can be compared to 'Mamakara' or attachment and 'Ahamkara' or ego, caught hold of its leg. The elephant was not able to escape from it. It tried all its physical and mental strength but in vain. At last it prayed for God's help. Similarly we are leading our lives entirely depending upon the strength of the body and mind. But these are not capable of giving happiness or peace. When we dedicate these two strengths to God and think that everything depends upon the grace of God, then we may get peace and happiness with the grace of God. When the elephant prayed, God sent his Chakra called "Sudarsana Chakra" and killed the crocodile and saved the elephant. The inner meaning of 'Sudarsana' is "Su" means good - darshan means vision. So Sudarshan is not merely a weapon or instrument: it is the good look of God, when elephant turned his sight to God, the look of God also turned towards the elephant. So also our Bhagawan says "You look to me and I shall certainly look to you".
Furthermore reflect on why:
The crocodile in its last life was a king called HuHu in the Gandharva planet. Once while enjoying himself in the waters, he pulled the leg of a sage. The enraged sage cursed the king to become a crocodile in his next life. The repentant HuHu asked for pardon. The Sage proclaimed that though he cannot reverse the curse, the crocodile would be liberated from the cycle of birth and death when Gajendra would be saved by the Lord Vishnu Himself.http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Gajendra_Moksha