Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Beyond Gamification. Designing up Maslow’s Pyramid.
Paul Keith:
Ironically I found an unintentional pyramid that makes self-actualization easier to understand in a concrete yet simple manner:
I say unintentional because not only was this not intended as a simplified version of Maslow, the actual content is nothing enlightening. It's the same old simplified bastardization of social curation that's been roaming around in blogs when curation first took off.
Think of it like this: 99% of the lower hierarchy of Maslow are needs but they are non-productive needs on their own.
You can breathe but breathing won't make you become an athlete.
You can have self-esteem and be an athlete but self-esteem won't push you beyond the average yet exclusive crowd of elite athletes.
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.
Love for example is often equated to insanity and so Love by definition has many hypocritical interpretation, often leaning towards the positive and often painting the insane part of love as "tragic".
Of course the above pyramid is meant to paint contributors as "several different number of users". You have to modify that to one individual to make the idea more concrete.
As a human being, a person can be a lurker. As he feels safer, fall in love, belong, gain self-esteem he earns the courage to contribute.
Of course as most have experienced of self-help by now, many motivational highs can be a con. Extremely motivated people do not become superman. An extremely motivated man will never defeat a sociopath genius on steroids. Not even 1000 motivational men vs. 1 special person especially when that 1 person can be the head of an oligarch, lead people to delusions, create a cult, etc.
That doesn't mean a person can't achieve something from failure though. That's the 1% only it's not heavy contributor but one of a kind consistent contribution.
It can be something shallow from being the GOAT of a sport or something difficult like charity work. The key thing is to be consistently doing one of a kind work. The likes that even people who have your same drive or can explain your motivation can't even do. That's the simple definition of self-actualization from my understanding.
Let's take Paul Farmer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_farmer
Co-founder - difficult task check but how do you one up that? How do you Mountains beyond Mountains as the book says?
In addition to his hospital in Haiti, Farmer oversees projects in Russia, Rwanda, Lesotho, Malawi and Peru.
...now it's starting to become a special one of a kind form of obsession and love.
...but there are still many Paul Farmers out there even though, when you zoom out, he's part of a select few.
What creates the self-actualization part? It's becoming the equivalent of a heavy contributor of the online world only with the real world where you can actually die.
It's when you use your physiological needs to go to a place that lacks said physiological needs like how one review for the book writes:
Furthermore, he chose not just to dedicate superhuman effort to this profession, but to practice in one of the poorest of poor regions of the world, Haiti, where every newcomer is "blan" (white), even African Americans from the US.
--- End quote ---
Then on top of that, he used the growth he gained from safety to prepare himself and head towards a not so safe situation:
On a certain level, a doctor like Paul Farmer is an indictment of the way most physicians in this country practice. Paul Farmer could, if he chose, be one of the highest paid consultant in the country. He has demonstrated the intellect and the force of will to succeed at any branch of medicine. And yet, he chose infectious disease and epidemiology as his twin callings, two of the lower-paying specialties within the field.
--- End quote ---
Then on top of that, he falls in love only to leave his love ones:
V. Munsey says:
Yeah, what about his wife and kid? It sounds like they are pretty much ignored by him. How sad. Why did he marry and have a family if he knew his work would always take first place?
--- End quote ---
Then on top of that, he uses his self-esteem to put him in places that would destroy a normal person's self-esteem:
I think even non-physicians might have this initial reaction. I think a common defense mechanism might also be one that occurred to me, to pathologize Farmer, to think of his drive to help others as a need to satisfy some kind of internal conflict. After all, if Farmer does what he does to "quite the voices", then the rest of us are off the hook.
In the end, I came to realize that this was grossly unfair. A reader does not know and never can know what drives a man like Farmer, we can only judge him by his works. And those works are amazing. Time and again in his career, Farmer chose to push for the absolute best care for the absolute poorest of his patients. He refused to accept that the best HIV and tuberculosis drugs were "inappropriate technology" for Haiti. Instead, by tirelessly fighting for his patients, he redefined how tuberculosis and other horrible diseases are treated. I would encourage a reader to look closest at this aspect of Farmer, as it can be applied to all of our lives.
To close, I am reminded of the old saying:
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
--George Bernard Shaw
Dr. Paul Farmer is an unreasonable man who has changed the world.
--- End quote ---
That and see the critical Amazon review for his book Pathologies of Power (his self-esteem "unbelongs" him to the world:
Not only that: we should help them because, in most every case, their poverty is a sign that we have failed them. Farmer angrily ticks off case after case, most of them straight from his first-hand experience, where what initially looks like a senseless, random death is seen to be a symptom of a deeper systemic problem. The most haunting of these may be the death of a young Haitian girl named Acephie who contracted HIV from a Haitian soldier. She had sex with him because soldiers are some of the few Haitians with dependable salaries. But what led Acephie into that position of economic dependence to begin with? It didn't help that the Haitian government, with the blessing of Western development agencies, had evicted Acephie's family years before to build a dam; the family had to move to higher, poorer ground because of someone's idea of what was good for them. The road from there leads more or less directly to the AIDS death of a Haitian girl. (James Scott's Seeing Like A State contains a lot more tragedies in this direction.)
Pathologies of Power is filled with stories like that. It is not a hopeful book; it is very, very bitter. This despite Kidder's blurb on the cover to the contrary: Kidder recognized the anger, but saw hopefulness that I didn't.
--- End quote ---
That's what makes self-actualization both simple to understand and yet too vague. It's hard to categorize a word that should encompass one of a kind beings that in themselves are hard to define. Self-actualization gave it a good try but in order for it to give as much as a relevant definition, it had to fall under buzz word "vagueness" category too.
Not only that but we each in our lives can do something on par with a "lite" version of self-actualization but if we can't do it in a manner that makes us go through the lower areas of the pyramid, we can't intentionally pursue and destroy our bodies and minds in a one of a kind challenge to "Samsara"
The best introspection occur when we act similar to lurkers in the internet but in real life.
The only way to gain enough friends or supporters to do something even bigger is to be a consistent contributor that shallow people would look upon as a beacon of hope or heroism.
...but those alone would be missing. If we were to create a children's story level of stereotype: A villain cannot self-actualize until he cons enough people and creates enough effective and dangerous plans for the best of heroes behind the scenes. Ditto for a hero. Even superman is just an overpowered boy scout until you see him lurk in his fortress or consistently beat better villains. Without those qualities, he's just a boring hero that even the best Hollywood writers or directors can't make interesting.
...and that's just paper thin self-actualization. Imagine encompassing the real aspects of a person's life like that of Paul Farmer in a single general word for everybody.
Full links to the reviews:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2IS87DMU7F8FH/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R2IS87DMU7F8FH
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2H611UM550HLQ/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R2H611UM550HLQ
http://www.amazon.com/review/RH4MU92DDW3SV/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#RH4MU92DDW3SV
IainB:
Just to help things along:
Definition of terms being used in a rational discussion:
1. Self-actualisation: (a term used by, but not coined by Maslow)
This is a BS/buzzword/cliché (QED).
Maybe what Maslow was aiming for with this term was something like "transcendent", but somehow I doubt it, because otherwise he could easily have used that term - so why did he use another - and an undefined one to boot? That would surely have been deliberate - no? If it was deliberate, then he deliberately picked an ambiguous and undefined compound word as a term for something which he imagined but could not define.
In any event, it is kind of academic for us to suppose what he did mean, because even he seemed not to know or be able or willing to articulate a definition - as you point out above. It's the Emperor's new clothes, again.
So, really, there is arguably little practical use in discussing the veracity of, or use in real life of, an imagined and undefined thing ("self-actualisation") - even from a philosophical perspective. It's certainly not a scientific or a proper theoretical construct, anyway.
For example, even the theoretically ephemeral Higgs boson has a definition, though we do not yet know whether that boson exists beyond the realm of theory.
For the purposes of definition, and just to get us out of the discussion rut we seem to be in, this (following) seems like it could be at least one assumption or likely close approximation of what Maslow perhaps could have intended or meant:
From: World English Dictionary
transcendent (trænˈsɛndənt)
— adj
1. exceeding or surpassing in degree or excellence
2. a. (in the philosophy of Kant) beyond or before experience; a priori
b. (of a concept) falling outside a given set of categories
c. beyond consciousness or direct apprehension
3. theol (of God) having continuous existence outside the created world
4. free from the limitations inherent in matter
— n
5. philosophy a transcendent thing
--- End quote ---
2. Gamification:
This was the term used in the link in the opening post. It is a BS/buzzword/cliché (QED).
We still do not seem to have arrived at a possible definition for this otherwise undefined term. It does not appear to relate to the application of game theory. We have so far apparently been unable to guess at a definition that might fit/work in most/all of the various contexts in which it seems to be used in the current idiom. It is still therefore - by definition - a BS/buzzword/cliché (QED).
3. Anthropomorphism: (I think that's what you meant by "anthromorphism"- yes?)
From: Cultural Dictionary
anthropomorphism definition
(an-thruh-puh- mawr -fiz-uhm) The attributing of human characteristics and purposes to inanimate objects, animals, plants, or other natural phenomena, or to God. To describe a rushing river as “angry” is to anthropomorphize it.
--- End quote ---
If that (anthropomorphism) is what you meant, then could you please explain to me what you meant by:
"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."
--- End quote ---
- because I do not understand the sense of this.
4. Lack of defined terms leads to irrational discussion:
Earlier on in this discussion, you wrote:
I can't really speak for Nikki obviously but as I'm also one of those who refer to Maslow's hierarchy of needs loosely in my own writing, I think what makes it so appealing to refer to that concept is not so much the existence of the hierarchy itself but the final step of self-actualization which depending on how you interpret it has elements of buzz and manipulation to it too.
-Paul Keith (October 18, 2011, 01:38 PM)
--- End quote ---
Nikki's post was in a link per your opening post: Beyond Gamification. Designing up Maslow’s Pyramid. Her post is absurd (QED).
I wonder if, because you have inadvertently used these BS words in trying to articulate your thinking in what you have written here or elsewhere, you might have entered into a state of ahamkara with the very BS terms we have been discussing.
If that (ahamkara) is the case, then:
* (a) you will be unable to accept any denial of their existence as real/useful objects, because to do so would mean that you had been mistaken in using them in the first place, and your ego can't allow that thought (cf. De Bono re "intellectual deadlock"). So your ego may now oblige you to have to defend these useless BS things instead of saying, "You know Iain, you have a point there. They are purely imaginary and undefined constructs and I have only been imagining that I have been using them, but it seemed very real to me at the time."
* (b) to rationally refute the terms at this stage could be a very hard thing for you to do, but it would be interesting if you were able to do it. It would probably demonstrate that you are able to exercise the capacity to overcome your internal intellectual deadlock and transcend your ego, and become more rational in the process.
Over the years, this is the sort of battle I have sometimes had with myself over some issues. One of the approaches I tend to use to help myself overcome my ahamkara is to become less "passionate" about what I think or believe, and more rational. Hence I describe myself as a rationalist. It feels like a bit of a battle sometimes, as it does not seem a natural thing for me/us to be rational, but we have the capability for rational thought and can direct our thoughts and thinking processes, if we choose.
Paul Keith:
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-leadership.org/Maslow_on_transpersonal_psychology.html
Abraham Maslow:
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. …
--- End quote ---
...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.etymonline.com/index.php?term=actualize&allowed_in_frame=0
actualize
1810, first attested in Coleridge, from actual + -ize. Related: Actualized; actualizing.
Notice how that link separates to actual:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=actual&allowed_in_frame=0
...a word which contains no simpler alternatives that matches it's meaning
and
ize:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=-ize&allowed_in_frame=0
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.insightmeditationcenter.org/books-articles/articles/daily-life-practice-retreat-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”.
--- End quote ---
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".
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gajendra_Moksha
IainB:
Well, I'm sorry Keith, this is all very repetitive. Maybe we are talking at cross-purposes and will never be able to understand each other in this - and it's possibly because of our different and peculiar paradigms.
The trouble is that I have not yet found a more useful/constructive paradigm than one which is fundamentally rationalistic, and, looking at the world through that paradigm, and thinking with it, I see some of your writing in this thread as sometimes being irrational and thus largely incomprehensible.
If you take a classic communication model:
Transmitter parcels communication:-->encode-->transmit-->decode--> :Recipient reads parcel and understands.
- then what you say does not seem to decode at my end into something that is entirely comprehensible to me. Failure of communication.
I only used the definition of "transcendent" because there was no working definition (that I am aware of) that we were using for "self-actualisation". I have consistently pointed out that a discussion that uses undefined terms cannot be rational, by definition (that's not an opinion).
By suggesting "transcendent", I was only trying to be helpful and move things along. If that definition ("transcendent") won't do, then why do you not not suggest something else that will do? Otherwise, continuing discussing things using the term "self-actualisation" would indeed be (as I think I have already suggested) rather like discussing the buttons on the Emperor's new (invisible) clothes - i.e., an absurdity/irrationality.
I think I did previously establish the connection between BS=jargon=buzzord=cliché, so that should be nothing new.
The term "ahamkara":
* Could never fit into that equation, simply because it has a clear definition - as the condition of being in a completely illusory state where, in the mind, the "self" becomes bound up with "a created thing".
* Does not require any religious mumbo-jumbo to understand it. It happens to be a useful and self-supporting concept taken out of ancient Vedic philosophy and later incorporated into Hinduism.
* Because it is such a concept, I can do what the heck I want with it without abusing anyone or anything, and it's use does not rely on alignment with any mumbo-jumbo in Hinduism.
By the way, I don't "hate" buzzwords as you suggest. I merely detest the use of buzzwords in attempts to hold a rational discussion or in making an argument. The use of such terms potentially clouds our thinking, and that could make us stupid and easier for others to manipulate. It also undermines or defeats the objective of holding a rational discussion. If you unthinkingly accept the use of buzzwords in an argument, then you effectively relinquish the responsibility for thinking for yourself.
Are you kidding me?! Who's mindful when they are urinating and defecating?
--- End quote ---
Anyone who wishes to practice mindfulness as a meditative exercise. I can confirm this is so from my own experience in meditation.
Then there's reality. If self-actualization is just a state, then it can't be superior to the lower levels of the pyramid.
You would probably be right, but the thing about Maslow's pyramid was that it was a hierarchy of needs. It wasn't suggesting relative superiority/inferiority of states per se, but merely that you could not move from the 1st need level to the 2nd one until your needs at the 1st level had been met, and so on. I think that that part of Maslow's theory stands up pretty well, simply because he defined them as fixed but necessarily linearly successive states.
The trouble with using pyramids in diagrams is that they are ambiguous on their own. If you employ them in a concept diagram, then one person's interpretation of meaning could be quite different to what the author might have intended.
"Each layer of Maslow's hierarchy becomes more and more anthromorphic..."
--- End quote ---
Well, yes, of course it is anthropomorphic. It is, after all, supposed to be modelling human needs. Whether it becomes more anthropomorphic as you progress up the pyramid would arguably be a matter of individual perception.
For a person to go to this extreme and be truly mindful, they would have to...
--- End quote ---
I am not aware that the Universe has put any rules on what must be done to be truly mindful, though I strongly suspect that meditation helps as a start.
"You know Paul Keith, you have a point there."
--- End quote ---
I actually did ask myself that question, before writing what I did. I considered but was unsure as to whether it was my inability to decode what you said, or your inability to put things more rationally, or a mixture of both that was the problem.
If you're sincere in using such a grave word as ahamkara though in this context...
--- End quote ---
- and there I think you show something of yourself. Who says it is a "grave word"? It can be any kind of word. I call it a useful and defined concept. It is merely a very useful tool for thinking with. Ahamkara with the word ahamkara? Possibly ahamkara with the terms "self-actualisation" and gamification as well?
We are all probably in a state of ahamkara to some degree, at one stage or another, if not all the time.
...life does not end at all...
--- End quote ---
Can be neither proven nor disproven, except presumably by individual experience.
Transcendence.
But "self-actualisation" = a form of transcendence as I had suggested? It could be so, as I supposed, but I am not convinced. Who knows? I only siuggested it as a working definition, to get out of this rut we seem to be in.
However, all this would seem to be a long way from the absurdity of "Gamification and designing up Maslow's pyramid".
Paul Keith:
I have consistently pointed out that a discussion that uses undefined terms cannot be rational, by definition (that's not an opinion).-IainB
--- End quote ---
Then you need to reflect more on your own post.
Rational behaviour would be either one of these:
1) Make your case and then reply to it as a failure of communication
2) Repeat your case and then rephrase it to make it easier to understand
Rational behaviour would not include these:
I only used the definition of "transcendent" because there was no working definition (that I am aware of) that we were using for "self-actualisation"
--- End quote ---
I wonder if, because you have inadvertently used these BS words in trying to articulate your thinking in what you have written here or elsewhere, you might have entered into a state of ahamkara with the very BS terms we have been discussing.
If that (ahamkara) is the case, then:
* (a) you will be unable to accept any denial of their existence as real/useful objects, because to do so would mean that you had been mistaken in using them in the first place, and your ego can't allow that thought (cf. De Bono re "intellectual deadlock"). So your ego may now oblige you to have to defend these useless BS things instead of saying, "You know Iain, you have a point there. They are purely imaginary and undefined constructs and I have only been imagining that I have been using them, but it seemed very real to me at the time."
* (b) to rationally refute the terms at this stage could be a very hard thing for you to do, but it would be interesting if you were able to do it. It would probably demonstrate that you are able to exercise the capacity to overcome your internal intellectual deadlock and transcend your ego, and become more rational in the process.
--- End quote ---
...now you're even stepping back on your own words.
You didn't take a classic communication model.
1) This is not your first reply so it didn't stop at decode and you didn't just received...you replied. Several times at that.
2) You may have understood or misunderstood but you did not simply failed to decode in your last post. You decided to obfuscate/shred/insert new irrational content.
It can't even be objectively rationalized that you were trying to be helpful. There's too many irrational things with your previous and current line of thinking.
For example your mixing of ahamkara and trascendent and gamification, etc. etc.
A rational person would have easily figured out that sticking to one word would have been helpful if indeed inserting the word transcendent is what you mean by helpful.
As an addendum, if you were trying to be helpful, you would be defining why transcendent is not a buzz word but instead you're focusing on ahamkara.
One also cannot ignore the obvious. Even if one were to accept that you were trying to be helpful, why is it that you added a word for self-actualization and simply mixed and repeated the BS/buzzword/cliche demagoguery for the other terms?
Even here, I dare you to rationalize to me how this is objective: then why do you not not suggest something else that will do? Otherwise, continuing discussing things using the term "self-actualisation" would indeed be (as I think I have already suggested) rather like discussing the buttons on the Emperor's new (invisible) clothes - i.e., an absurdity/irrationality.
--- End quote ---
A rational man would have simply asked, "why do you not suggest something else that will do?"
Nay, a rational man would have already remarked on how I have done so already several times and explained why my previous suggestion does not make sense to him.
You sir, though often are rational, am not being a rational person in this thread. Why, you cannot even keep yourself from repeating the words Emperor's new clothes several times. Each time adding one new insult or sarcasm such as (invisible).
The term "ahamkara":
* Could be used as a BS word if a person is so in love with the word that their defense is not "I am not using it as such because of so and so" but instead they start with "Could never. It is akin to someone saying a car could never or a gun could never or a religion could never or... vedic philosophy could never be corrupted by someone irrational. As the old saying goes, never say never.
* Could be used as a BS word if one claims it does not require mumbo jumbo only to be the one who previously added such mumbo jumbo like:
you will be unable to accept any denial of their existence as real/useful objects,
--- End quote ---
If one is unable then how can one ahamkara be subordinated to the lord?
and your ego can't allow that thought (cf. De Bono re "intellectual deadlock").
--- End quote ---
If ahamkara is so clear then why do you fear it's "clear" definition and defer to another word "intellectual deadlock".
So your ego may now oblige you to have to defend these useless BS things instead of saying,
--- End quote ---
If ahamkara is so clear then why do you include such guilt inducing words as "defending these useless or BS things"? I dare you to find the equivalent of useless and BS when relating to ahamkara in Hindu philosophy.
No, these are your own additions. Your own mumbo jumbo on top of ahamkara. They may not be religious mumbo jumbo (or they may depending on the atheist or other religious sect you ask) but what any rational man could clearly see with this post is that even if ahamkara does not require, you have so little faith in it's definition that you require the addition of other things besides the definition of ahamkara to accuse another person of being in such a state. You require these because while your love for the word may be pure, your ego cannot give you the confidence to put your faith in another party's acceptance of ahamkara even when said party has not yet replied. It is so because your ego is still unsure whether you can accept your pet word being debunked in it's own terms and thus you have to kill dissent before it even arises.
* Finally to paraphrase a Star Wars quote,
Because it is such a concept, I can do what the heck I want with it without abusing anyone or anything, and it's use does not rely on alignment with any mumbo-jumbo in Hinduism.-the passion is strong in this one
--- End quote ---
Speaking of BS logic: "Yes, you are right. Hate and detest would not be considered the same words in the context of this discussion." /sarcasm
Again, I apologize for being harsh. I am not a religious person but I can be a fundamentalist when I observe that someone is misusing and bastardizing a religious or spiritual or philosophical dogma to pump themselves up whether it is to win an illusionary argument/to defend their own egos/or simply to attack another person with more unorthodox words. I try to be less passionate about it but it's hard when you know a person has done better before. I'm almost always motivated to call them out on it even to the point of offending them.
As you say, one can detest the use of any word. I will say though, you are confused. Of course if a topic includes words that you consider buzz words then of course those words would be included in the discussion lest you want to go off-topic. To adopt such an attitude and post in a thread you detest would cloud the rationality of a thread more than simply desiring the removal of buzz words in any discussion especially when a rational person like you would end up acting irrational because of your... detestation.
You would probably be right, but the thing about Maslow's pyramid was that it was a hierarchy of needs. It wasn't suggesting relative superiority/inferiority of states per se, but merely that you could not move from the 1st need level to the 2nd one until your needs at the 1st level had been met, and so on. I think that that part of Maslow's theory stands up pretty well, simply because he defined them as fixed but necessarily linearly successive states.
The trouble with using pyramids in diagrams is that they are ambiguous on their own. If you employ them in a concept diagram, then one person's interpretation of meaning could be quite different to what the author might have intended.-IainB
--- End quote ---
True. But as the pyramid was made then yes, it depicts a relative superiority/inferiority of needs. (not states).
This doesn't devalue the inferior need though for the very reason you cited: "the 1st level is required for the 2nd level therefore the 1st will always be a necessary need but the higher level would always be more of a desirable need."
I would say this is not a weakness though but a strength. If we should adopt Maslow's personal interpretation of love then what happens when we disagree with his version of love? The inflexibility of such an idea would keep the hierarchy of needs from being valid.
Even with food and water. If this is rigid to Maslow's interpretation then clearly abundance of food and water would be a physiological requirement for love but that is not the case for many impoverished areas of the world. One can fulfill the need of belonging if for a brief moment that trickle of water preserves them a moment to live and said belonging could be imparted by the mutual love of two beings. It may not be truly safe...say the couple is surrounded by approaching scorpions, snakes and wolves while a mega-tsunami full of immortal sharks is going to wash upon them but one could fulfill the need of safety/belong/love/etc if only because they can acquire an extended time that would allow them to feel a sense of peace before they die thanks to that trickle of water.
Well, yes, of course it is anthropomorphic. It is, after all, supposed to be modelling human needs. Whether it becomes more anthropomorphic as you progress up the pyramid would arguably be a matter of individual perception.-IainB
--- End quote ---
Incorrect. Human needs differ from culture to culture. (no different from animals)
Anthropomorphism is when the mind tries to rise over the cultural/social bias to depict humanity in a more objective light. Unfortunately because it does so, it mistakes certain attributes for it relieves said attributes of the right context especially when one is not fully knowledgeable of a different culture. That's why it is possible to be applied to inanimate objects or animals.
There is little anthropomorphic view about the physiological needs for example. You can program a robot to not only eat but need food or water with the proper innovation and that would not raise the anthropomorphic view that much.
In fact, you don't need to wait for robots. How many humans apply an anthropomorphic view to puppies drinking water or eating food? Little to none. It is instead the desire for hunger and thirst that might raise that characteristic in a human. An attribute more related to safety than to the need of food or water.
Not only that but by adopting a model where the 2nd cannot be reached without the 1st, it is almost impossible to go up without becoming more anthropomorphic if only because the attributes of the 1st would be brought to the 2nd and the attributes of both the 1st and 2nd would be raised to the 3rd.
This is not just a case of perception. It is the inevitability of it's design.
I actually did ask myself that question, before writing what I did. I considered but was unsure as to whether it was my inability to decode what you said, or your inability to put things more rationally, or a mixture of both that was the problem.-IainB
--- End quote ---
Then I apologize then but the feeling is mutual. Not until the part of this reply where you got back to talking about Maslow and my statement of anthropomorphism have I felt that you considered my point.
- and there I think you show something of yourself. Who says it is a "grave word"? It can be any kind of word. I call it a useful and defined concept. It is merely a very useful tool for thinking with. Ahamkara with the word ahamkara? Possibly ahamkara with the terms "self-actualisation" and gamification as well?
We are all probably in a state of ahamkara to some degree, at one stage or another, if not all the time.-IainB
--- End quote ---
I don't know...maybe Hindu philosophy? Maybe Vedic philosophy?
To me, this shows less of me and more of your disconnect.
It would be like asking how the phrase "an eye for an eye" can be a grave word when thrown by a Christian.
Even you alluded to this by making a statement of "all the time". Any "all the time" event is a grave word especially when that "all the time" word is used in a contradicting observation where I, Paul Keith, somehow was not in a degree of ahamkara who with my constant posts in this topic "fell" into what should be a state that I should already have but not only fell but fell to the point that I fell into a severe state of ahamkara that I am deluding myself and keeping myself from admitting that you have any point despite constantly replying and borderline necro-bumping this thread after I have been briefly held back by a real world event from replying.
Sounds pretty grave to me.
Not only this but some consider ahamkara a "computer bug" left behind from the recreation of the universe. A bug so persistent that Krishna could not command nor save the world with his death (like Jesus and the concept of sin) and can only utter a detestation where it must be rejected somehow through subordinating it not just to a superior being (like one would delegate a problem to a specialist) but to THE most superior being that Krishna perceives.
Of course all grave words can be useful for thinking because of the gravity of their implications so yes, certain paradigms we use does make it harder for us to understand each other and this rebuttal is one of them. How can I show myself when most people would consider ahamkara a grave word especially when it is being thrown at them by what usually is a rational person? It's a weird line of thinking especially as it is you who introduced this word to the discussion. Introduced it in a manner directed at me rather than Maslow's hierarchy or Gamification even.
Can be neither proven nor disproven, except presumably by individual experience.
Transcendence.-IainB
--- End quote ---
Uhh...no... I'm not talking about just individual life but the impact of individual life. The things left behind by a dead person like memories, influence, contributions, legacies.
But again, I am disappointed. We're back again to the cheap replies and now you've gone to cherry picking words and rebutting with your pet word transcendence when earlier in your reply you have already admitted it is unhelpful.
I can't even figure out your last paragraph as you don't even explain it. You simply humped on back to an unhelpful direction just when you seem to be leaving it just so you can have a last word on how much you detest buzz words.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version