Accuracy of Maslow's Heirarchy?

[David]

Re: NONLINEAR

I think it should be understood in a more nonlinear way - especially self-actualisation.

I have been through periods in my life when I've been highly self-actualised, in so far as having wonderful nonhostile humour with close friends, numerous peak experience (every day) and other traits. I'd say there have been periods when I fulfilled all the criteria (20-22yo). In those halcyon days. But I've lost it recently. I'm turning into a bit of an ass. I'm becoming more hostile and having fewer peak experiences. I don't like it, but I know that it's in response to my environment. And perhaps some decisions I've made. Whatever, you never achieve self-actualisation and then have it forever, and you don't have to have be 55 or over to achieve it. I've seen it inthe very young, and then they loose it. The world forces it out of them. And I don't think that the ability for the world to force it out of you qualifies it as 'not-self-actualisation', because it can force it from anyone. The only criteria left if that a person is capable, under reasonable conditions, to achieve this state of being in the absence of any enabling relationships, one becomes a self-enabler. I suppose, but being a self-enabler does not necessarily lead to self-actualisation.

Except for the you talking about yourself part, I agree completely.

 

[xxuxx]

I try for unconditional acceptance of whatever happens.

That's very Buddhist. But it probably won't help in finding a purpose or a goal. Unless of course something sweeps you away into something, which if you hang around long enough, it probably will. My sister said something interesting the other day. In Europe they have too much ego, and in Asia they don't enough. That's one of the reasons I really like Asian people (racist?). You can feel Buddhism in their culture. I know that doesn't preclude them from doing bad things or being assholes, but, maybe I'm projecting or extrapolating from a small set of Asian friends at uni who I actually get on with for completely non-racial reasons. Meh.

 

[U.R.B.4.U.R.]

That's very Buddhist. But it probably won't help in finding a purpose or a goal. Unless of course something sweeps you away into something, which if you hang around long enough, it probably will.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's not just Buddist. That's the psychonauts code of survival. My purpose is just that. I trust that if I make myself available to the flow of the Universe without resisting, my purpose will unfold before my eyes. So I agree with the part about hanging around long enough.

 

[sexyanon2]

I like the non-linear idea.

 

[fungus44]

I really like the questions you pose to Maslow's scheme, sexyanon2. This was some of the first social psychology I was exposed to, and have only just realized how much I have internalized it.

On one hand I feel an affinity for it, in a sense it paraphrases the marxist Hegelian notion of "Freedom as the recognition of necessity", but also find it a bit too structuralist for my liking.

My primary concern with structuralism these days is around Piaget's ideas about development, and I find the same problems with Maslow's hierarchy. Yes, they do reflect certain realities. They do tell us something what we are able to do and under what circumstance. How does it apply to a group? Where do we look for power relations in this schema? Is self actualization at the point of total non-conformity? Or in acts of altruism? Or creating bonds of social solidarity?

I can think of examples of various steps being realized simultaneously, but often at the risk of other steps being endangered. For instance going on strike may be part of "belonging" and "self actualization" while endangering one otherwise. Or doing certain kinds of intellectual work, may help one reach basic physical needs and esteem, but provide little else. Or we can look at things like potlatch ceremonies amongst North America's aboriginal people and the whole thing gets rearranged. Maybe.

 

[sexyanon2]

^^ Definitely. The non-linear approach to this hierarchy works well here. We can see our actions and see the results we expect from them. These results will fill our belonging, like going on strike perhaps, and thus notch up our happiness.

Is self actualization at the point of total non-conformity? Or in acts of altruism? Or creating bonds of social solidarity?

All of the above I'd say.

 

[fungus44]

Some of these things can also make us miserable though.

 

[sexyanon2]

In the long run, yes. The reason humans are "above" animals is because of our abstract thinking, or planning ahead. When we let our emotions take control, or rather our instincts, we act only for what we think will be good now. Could hurt us though.

Now I'm wondering if there is any substitue for a need, such as Social needs. Could you merely accept not belonging and not have your Social depravities affect you negatively? Hmm..

 

[xxuxx]

In the long run, yes. The reason humans are "above" animals is because of our abstract thinking, or planning ahead.

This is what Popper called the Third World we live in, the first two being purely immediate. Frued would probably see it as the super-ego, but unrealisable without the ego.

I think being self-actualised means that you are able to switch from one attitude to another. The criteria for how accurately the switch is made is not important, since it will be, in an extreme situation dictated by evolution, and in other situations by one's own set of values. But the ability to be not just adaptive, but to switch from one 'background of mental constructions' to another without it making you feel insecure. I suppose to be good at it you need a decently wide repetoire, but the size isn't the crucial thing, I think then that the most defining characteristic of a self-actualised person, or at least someone approaching self-actualisation, is someone who as undogmatic as possible. There are structures. But modelling them changes what they look like in our own minds so Maslow and Jung et al could not have really given us anything to 'build a boat' by. More like a set of interesting guidelines. They actually formulated a lot of this stuff after intensely analysing themselves 8)

I don't know. You know self-actualisation or authenticity or individuation (all similar) when you see it. That is, provided you're not too caught up in your own dogma.

I just have to finish, but another idea about Future Shock comes to mind. A world like this one, with a lot of constantly shifting perspectives and intensely conflicting issues can promote more of what might look like self-actualisation (perhaps a new definition of self-actualisation in accordance with changing cultural dimensions), but Future Shock has it's cost as well. The modular man (person) is flexible, and adaptive, and has a broad repetoire, but there are a new set of problems here too. Don't know, just musing.

 

[StagnantReaction]

Has anyone mentioned that this theory was (intentionally or not) stolen from the Hindu chakra system?

 

[xxuxx]

No.

 

[StagnantReaction]

Is self actualization at the point of total non-conformity? Or in acts of altruism? Or creating bonds of social solidarity?

a) it depends on where the society is in contrast to the self-actualized status b) altruism is about living for something other than oneself. self-actualization is the complete opposite. c) i'm sure that's subjective

 

[fungus44]

Has anyone mentioned that this theory was (intentionally or not) stolen from the Hindu chakra system?

Are there strong parallels? Was Maslow aware of Eastern cultures?