The self-actualization trap

interim

First, I will start with this - not a native English speaker. Be warned, possibly many mistakes ahead. Although, nowadays, most trash their own language anyways...

Second, this will be a mind dump, that can be helpful for very small auditory, and most will just not get it, making them angry. If you don't understand the ideas of pessimism, antinatalism, metaphysics, gnosticism, buddhism. If you don't know who Kant and Schopenhauer are, make yourself a favor and skip. I'm from a small minority of thinkers, and what I write is for this minority. Actually this is why I write in English, or otherwise - such minority may be even non-existent...

So, self-actualization... we are lead to believe, that this is the pinnacle of life, to realize one self in this realm, this body. Two problems here however - what is the "self", and what exactly is this "realm". Both are unknown to us. Seems paradoxical maybe, how the self do not know itself. How we are part of this realm, but do not know it. No matter how these question look to us, the facts are there, it's the living paradox in which we exist. If we know ourselves, we would not talk about "self-actualization" at all, right, since we would have already achieved it. This statement is actually pretty important. Self-actualization is obviously a process... like making something. But if it's a process that you are in, this also means - it's not done, you've not achieved it. So... we start to take out of the positive aura of this process. It means, this is a process for an "inferior" self, one that doesn't realize itself. But also another question arises - if a self realizes what it is, it can't be part of this self actualization process any more. You must be at some other state, maybe completely different then this one.

Actually, a simple example was given by Westworld (which is of course a gnostic show, since those that rule this planet are gnostics). Too good to pass:

"You want to know the saddest thing I ever saw?

When I was a boy, my brother and I wanted a dog, so our father took in an old greyhound. A greyhound is a racing dog. Spends its life running in circles, chasing a bit of felt made up like a rabbit.

One day, we took it to the park. Our dad had warned us how fast that dog was, but... we couldn't resist. So, my brother took off the leash, and in that instant, the dog spotted a cat. I imagine it must have looked just like that piece of felt. He ran. Never saw a thing as beautiful as that old dog... running.

Until, at last, he finally caught it. And to the horror of everyone, he killed that little cat. Tore it to pieces. Then he just sat there, confused. That dog had spent its whole life trying to catch that... thing. Now it had no idea what to do."

In this story, it's revealed quite a lot actually. First - running in circles, chasing. This is huge part of the self-actualization process. Chasing goals, again and again. In the same way the hound is given a goal, we are given a goal. Who gave it to us? Well, in true Westworld fashion, I must say - our creators. And we don't need to search them in the skies, they are before us - our parents, and their parents, the whole evolutionary chain. We get born in this realm, as part of the self-actualization process of someone else. Isn't it interesting... Think about the irony for the moment. Just like Westworld portrays quite more dramatically - we are creation of someone else, it was someone's else will. We inherited the qualities, the intentions, the drives, the vision, the goals... of someone else. If you were born as a hound, you had to chase rabbits right now... One may say that this someone else gave you "the gift of life", but I will again point out Westworld, and the simple fact - you are only part of someone's else self actualization, self-interest, it was their choice, it was their genes, they had that power over you, to create you regardless of your own will (you technically didn't have one).

And here is the next important thing - power! Power of one over another. It's really a game of power. Like in the greyhound allegory, some power is given to everyone, but of course - not in the same way. The rabbit has the power to run for its life, the hound - to kill its prey. In the process of self-actualization, we have to achieve different goals, which inevitably turns into a fight over power. Yes, I know the will to power, was big thing for Nietzsche and favorite topic for his followers. But do you know where he actually got the idea from? Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer was the one that described the principle of individuality that ends in constant struggle for dominance, constant cause of suffering that can not be escaped. And actually this realization (I think) is the core of his pessimism. We are all part of this game of self-actualization, which sadly - is a zero sum game, govern by the principle of balance. Some have the naivety to think that it's not all competition, we can work together... But who are "we", and what "working together" means. We, our species? At the cost of another species? Or we the red party, vs the blue party? There is no "we", there are just common interest for a group that is put into one situation... as opposed to other group, in other situation. Since remember - there must be balance... And what "together" means. I will be the boss, on the top, and you will follow orders? That sounds good... Even if we are all equal somehow, and you for example discover something before me, it means you rob me from the chance for me to discover it. Even I, right now, revealing these things, in some way, I'm robbing you from the chance to think on this subject purely on your own. And you know, deep down, you realize I'm taking something from you, so you get angry of such people. It's like when you know the other is right in an argument, but you hate it that it came from him, not you. He robbed you from the chance you to be right, and therefore... self-actualization. You better now turn to the wrong side, so at least you have claim on something... Truth in that regard, if comes from outside, runs against your own goal. This reinforces the pessimistic view even more - we are not really here to "make it work", be "happy", to have a "good life". We are here to struggle, with ourselves, trying to achieve our self actualization, whatever it is. We are trying, that's our "job", but can we achieve it?

Just like the hound however, we often run towards goals, that we can't possibly achieve, so we more often fail. Interestingly, this makes us even more interested, more motivated in achieving them. This is the core of the game, right - if the hound can just get the rabbit, would there be a race? So we need to struggle, need more and more difficult goals. Well let's get involved more science here, climbing the Maslow pyramid... What we have there:

1) food, water, shelter. So we must kill weaker animals for food and clear some land only for us. Maybe even fight with others like us, that need the very same things.
2) security/safety. Well how you get safe? By killing other predators. Today we rarely kill ourselves, but we love to use the government. For example, to save you from all these people that may have the bug, and may pass it to you, and you may get ill... We totally need the home arrests, cancel all the civil protests, obligatory vaccines, mass surveillance... If I need to feel safe, the question is - from who, and on what cost. Maybe, from his perspective, he needs to be protected from you. We played quite long and dangerous cold war on the theme, but as food, it's always relevant and can be replayed to infinitum...
3) intimate relationships, friends. Well at this level there is not (that much) killing for a change... You just need to be popular, to be sociable, to make people laugh, to show them how good looking you are, how much money you make. But overall - it's yet another competition for resources and good genes.
4) feeling accomplished. Climbing the leader to that dream high paying job. Being finally a respected boss, calling the shots. Sadly, 99% of us never get there...
5) finally, we self-realized to our full potential, just like that..

Did I say science, this pyramid is actually ridiculous... It's what our society imposes on us. Actually, was imposing at the time it was developed. We live in a bit different times now. But we can still take something from it. An obvious one - after one level, comes another, and then more and more... It seems we must get a lot of stuff to be self actualized. Also - most of it depends on others, submitting them on our will, or submitting to them, so they can give them to us. This can be done less or more aggressive, but it's obvious we need to get them through other. For example, you want to be a parent... Well not an easy job without a partner, and of course - giving birth to another being that will/must play the child. In one form or another, these other parties must submit to this goal of yours. Otherwise - no self actualization for you, at least according Maslow... What will you do to make this work? What you wouldn't? But even this is not enough... At the very same time, keep fighting and climbing to get and keep that high prestige job. Run circles at home, run circles outside home, but this is how things work, just follow the process, follow the rabbit. Not all will make it, actually the vast majority will fail at some point. This is, because they don't have enough power, they are just weak. But when you get there, on the top, it will all worth it. Or will it?

Sadly, this was not really a process of self-actualization, it was merely a process of needs - real or perceived ones, smaller and bigger. And like every need, it's negative in nature (which Schopenhauer also proved). The need exist, only while you have it. Once satisfied, it just disappears. Poof, like a magic trick. This is why it must be a pyramid, since there must be always a higher/next level. Of course, most of us struggle to survive on the first few level, so the Maslow pyramid is not that tall. But for someone else, it may be - marry a famous actor, become a president, rule the world... Nietzsche himself did the same thing - become an ubermensch. Being normal human, just won't cut it, not good enough... Maybe, maybe if you were a "god", it would be different... Sadly, this is typical for inferior minds - to compensate personal weakness with desire for more and more power. More power, so you can walk to that higher level of the pyramid. Higher and higher... to the top of the nothingness... Sadly few (like Schopenhauer and Kant) have both the intellect and integrity of the character, to produce actual work of value, actual truthful thought. And exactly because of this, they are ignored.

So, what exactly is self actualization? What is a self knowing itself? The self can't really be known, since all we can know is the world of phenomenon, of objects, of relations. All that is part of the mind. However the self, at least in its true metaphysical meaning, transcends the mind and exists outside it. This means that the mind can never explain the self, can never explain our true nature. It's merely a game of appearance, illusion, and that's actually the secondary nature (although for the majority - it's the one and only nature). And if we return to the old saying "know yourself", one must realize it has so many layers, and the deepest one is that you can never really know the self, you can only know what it isn't. This approach actually is used in Buddhism, through the explanations what is not the self. Sadly, few people actually get it's meaning - that there is no way to show what is the metaphysical self. But yet, we have the proof for its existence, in each and everyone of us. We can play thousands of roles, we can reach and fail thousands of goals, but this will never truly reveal what the self is. Who you really are. It's all of that, and none of it. And yes, when you try to use your mind to see the metaphysical, it fails, it reaches infinity, unable to calculate. Life is a mind game, that starts with this idea of self-realization. However, this is a game you can't "win", since the only real thing in it is you. You can lose yourself however, since our objective self, is part of this game of the mind, and it brings with the it the transcendental self. And from there comes the second idea of this world - of salvation. Salvation means returning to the metaphysical self, so you regain your true self. Self actualization, at least in its popular meaning, leads to... the edge of the map... where is just nothingness. Like waiting for the ending of Lost... Like the center of the maze at Westworld, which turned out to be just pointing back to you.

Wayfarer

So, what exactly is self actualization? — interim

It was coined by Abraham Maslow 'an American psychologist who was best known for creating Maslow's hierarchy of needs, a theory of psychological health predicated on fulfilling innate human needs in priority, culminating in self-actualization.' He had the view that beyond the basic needs for physical well-being, there are needs to realise higher goals in terms of career, artistic achievement, or the attainment of 'peak experiences':

'Maslow envisioned moments of extraordinary experience, known as Peak experiences, which are profound moments of love, understanding, happiness, or rapture, during which a person feels more whole, alive, self-sufficient and yet a part of the world, more aware of truth, justice, harmony, goodness, and so on. Self-actualizing people are more likely to have peak experiences. In other words, these "peak experiences" or states of flow are the reflections of the realization of one's human potential and represent the height of personality development.'

'Most psychologists before him had been concerned with the abnormal and the ill. He urged people to acknowledge their basic needs before addressing higher needs and ultimately self-actualization. He wanted to know what constituted positive mental health.'

Freud, for instance, famously wrote that the aim of psychotherapy was 'the conversion of hysterical misery into ordinary unhappiness'.

I think there was a strong influence of 1960's thinking in Maslow, which in turn drew on the Western encounter with Indian spiritual religions, which had become a cultural phenomenon by the sixties. But it should be remembered that by that time, there had been Eastern spiritual teachers in the US since the late 19th C.

Swami Vivekananda spoke at the World Parliament of Religions (1888?) and then toured America by rail for some months. He was said to be a highly charismatic individual and great public speaker and had a lot of influence. Theosophy and other precursors of new-age spiritual movements flourished throughout the early 20th C - Paramahansa Yogananda bought a center in Hollywood, where it still flourishes, and was also a pioneer of mail-order. Those kinds of Eastern spiritual movements have been established in California since the early 1900's.

Of course it is true that some of these movements devolved into cults and there certainly was a shadow side, exemplified by horrors such as Jonestown and its industrial-scale cynicism and exploitation by Scientology.

A good essay on all this is Camille Paglia Cults and Cosmic Consciousness. Also the book American Veda, Philip Goldberg.

Buddhism, which you mention, would never speak in terms of self-actualisation, because of their principle of anatta, no-self. Advaita speaks in terms of of the higher or cosmic or universal self, and is certainly a major strand in American transcendentalism, although in its cultural setting it is often associated with asceticism and renunciation, which doesn't square with modern technological consumer culture. The Teachings of Ramana Maharishi is one of the source texts for those teachings.

All part of life's rich tapestry.

Mww

↪interim

Perhaps the best first post I’ve seen here. Only parts of it are of interest to me, but that shouldn’t matter.

Well done.

Gregory

Some people desire to know and understand life. That is their peak moments. Although people turn to religions because of the fundamental mechanics of psychological stress (Freud), economic stress (Marx), and social stress (Durkheim), some just desire to wonder and be satisfied. Day dreaming about philosophy is part of my meditation scheme

Baden

↪interim

Nice critique. I'd put it that the actual self (Self) is just (?) a conglemeration of physical and mental drives and capacities, and instantiations thereof, such as thoughts, moods, and behaviours, with any more or less temporally stable subset of the above being what we refer to as a personality. And the self-reflexive mode of the personality then being the folk sense of self, or ego etc. And it's that on which theories like Maslow's self-actualization rest. So, it's scientific clothes obscure ideological underpinnings. It's not just that the theory presumes a false premise (folk self = Self), but that it aims to recreate the basis of the false premise: Those who seek self-actualization are those strongly reinforcing the folk notion of self. So, the theory functions as a mechanism (one of many) for social reproduction. And that hints at the missing piece in the puzzle of the first sentence

"the actual self is "just" a conglemeration of physical and mental drives and capacities, and instantiations thereof, such as thoughts, moods, and behaviours"

None of which is coherent except in a socio-linguistic context, which is a social super-organism that like its physical counterparts blindly acts to reproduce itself, and needs folk selves to do so.

Of course, you need to play the game anyway, just with an eye to its absurdity. You can never be "the actual self" because it is exactly that which lies outside the bounds of the type of localized coherence which forms your folk self. True actualization would be a form of insanity, a separation from mother social super-organism. Just the opposite to fake Maslow self-actualization (a marrying to one of its narrow instantiations—your dream "role", whatever).

schopenhauer1

In this story, it's revealed quite a lot actually. First - running in circles, chasing. This is huge part of the self-actualization process. Chasing goals, again and again. In the same way the hound is given a goal, we are given a goal. Who gave it to us? Well, in true Westworld fashion, I must say - our creators. And we don't need to search them in the skies, they are before us - our parents, and their parents, the whole evolutionary chain. We get born in this realm, as part of the self-actualization process of someone else. Isn't it interesting... Think about the irony for the moment. Just like Westworld portrays quite more dramatically - we are creation of someone else, it was someone's else will. We inherited the qualities, the intentions, the drives, the vision, the goals... of someone else. If you were born as a hound, you had to chase rabbits right now... One may say that this someone else gave you "the gift of life", but I will again point out Westworld, and the simple fact - you are only part of someone's else self actualization, self-interest, it was their choice, it was their genes, they had that power over you, to create you regardless of your own will (you technically didn't have one). — interim

Great points. I invite you to read my threads on antinatalism, pessimism, and Schopenhauer (which are most of them). These are along the lines of what my themes usually are.

And here is the next important thing - power! Power of one over another. It's really a game of power. Like in the greyhound allegory, some power is given to everyone, but of course - not in the same way. The rabbit has the power to run for its life, the hound - to kill its prey. In the process of self-actualization, we have to achieve different goals, which inevitably turns into a fight over power. Yes, I know the will to power, was big thing for Nietzsche and favorite topic for his followers. But do you know where he actually got the idea from? Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer was the one that described the principle of individuality that ends in constant struggle for dominance, constant cause of suffering that can not be escaped. And actually this realization (I think) is the core of his pessimism. We are all part of this game of self-actualization, which sadly - is a zero sum game, govern by the principle of balance. Some have the naivety to think that it's not all competition, we can work together... But who are "we", and what "working together" means. We, our species? At the cost of another species? Or we the red party, vs the blue party? There is no "we", there are just common interest for a group that is put into one situation... as opposed to other group, in other situation. Since remember - there must be balance... And what "together" means. I will be the boss, on the top, and you will follow orders? That sounds good... Even if we are all equal somehow, and you for example discover something before me, it means you rob me from the chance for me to discover it. Even I, right now, revealing these things, in some way, I'm robbing you from the chance to think on this subject purely on your own. And you know, deep down, you realize I'm taking something from you, so you get angry of such people. It's like when you know the other is right in an argument, but you hate it that it came from him, not you. He robbed you from the chance you to be right, and therefore... self-actualization. You better now turn to the wrong side, so at least you have claim on something... Truth in that regard, if comes from outside, runs against your own goal. This reinforces the pessimistic view even more - we are not really here to "make it work", be "happy", to have a "good life". We are here to struggle, with ourselves, trying to achieve our self actualization, whatever it is. We are trying, that's our "job", but can we achieve it? — interim

Yes, I agree with you. It is struggle. I talked about how by the needs of our own condition (of survival, comfort, entertainment), this creates demands on others which essentially makes each other laborers for the perpetuation of a third-party- the society itself.

Sadly, this was not really a process of self-actualization, it was merely a process of needs - real or perceived ones, smaller and bigger. And like every need, it's negative in nature (which Schopenhauer also proved). The need exist, only while you have it. Once satisfied, it just disappears. Poof, like a magic trick. This is why it must be a pyramid, since there must be always a higher/next level. Of course, most of us struggle to survive on the first few level, so the Maslow pyramid is not that tall. But for someone else, it may be - marry a famous actor, become a president, rule the world... Nietzsche himself did the same thing - become an ubermensch. Being normal human, just won't cut it, not good enough... Maybe, maybe if you were a "god", it would be different... Sadly, this is typical for inferior minds - to compensate personal weakness with desire for more and more power. More power, so you can walk to that higher level of the pyramid. Higher and higher... to the top of the nothingness... Sadly few (like Schopenhauer and Kant) have both the intellect and integrity of the character, to produce actual work of value, actual truthful thought. And exactly because of this, they are ignored. — interim

Astute observations. Excellent stuff!

So, what exactly is self actualization? What is a self knowing itself? The self can't really be known, since all we can know is the world of phenomenon, of objects, of relations. All that is part of the mind. However the self, at least in its true metaphysical meaning, transcends the mind and exists outside it. This means that the mind can never explain the self, can never explain our true nature. It's merely a game of appearance, illusion, and that's actually the secondary nature (although for the majority - it's the one and only nature). And if we return to the old saying "know yourself", one must realize it has so many layers, and the deepest one is that you can never really know the self, you can only know what it isn't. This approach actually is used in Buddhism, through the explanations what is not the self. Sadly, few people actually get it's meaning - that there is no way to show what is the metaphysical self. But yet, we have the proof for its existence, in each and everyone of us. We can play thousands of roles, we can reach and fail thousands of goals, but this will never truly reveal what the self is. Who you really are. It's all of that, and none of it. And yes, when you try to use your mind to see the metaphysical, it fails, it reaches infinity, unable to calculate. Life is a mind game, that starts with this idea of self-realization. However, this is a game you can't "win", since the only real thing in it is you. You can lose yourself however, since our objective self, is part of this game of the mind, and it brings with the it the transcendental self. And from there comes the second idea of this world - of salvation. Salvation means returning to the metaphysical self, so you regain your true self. Self actualization, at least in its popular meaning, leads to... the edge of the map... where is just nothingness. Like waiting for the ending of Lost... Like the center of the maze at Westworld, which turned out to be just pointing back to you. — interim

Interesting stuff!

I've written a lot on this forum about how people's reasons for having other new humans is for some sort of vision like Maslow's Hierarchy.. We need people to struggle to get to some goal (which actually isn't really reached), just acts like a carrot-and-stick to get people to feel they are going somewhere and not just the same usual human conditions of survival, comfort, entertainment, repeat. See my recent comments I've made in another post below:

Arthur Schopenhauer: All is actually Will. We are living in a sort of maya (illusion) of Representation, that is nonetheless part of the scheme of Will. It strives, but for nothing. It is manifested via time, space, causality into individuated events or objects. Will, from the subjective viewpoint leads to frustration, boredom (when one is not occupied with goals that seem to provide relief but really don't), and survival instincts. The way to diminish the suffering of unrequited striving, is to diminish one's own will-to-live to approaching 0. That is to say "deny the will-to-live". For him, this amounts to being an extreme ascetic. Only certain people with the characters to do this, will probably achieve this (he was sort of an essentialist about people's innate character). Suicide would not be the appropriate response, because it is using one's will to fight will, and that is still using will, so will not work.

David Benatar: There is no overarching scheme of metaphysics here (like in Schopenhauer). There is no unfolding of reality to a subject of understanding about the nature or reality. Rather, it is a very discreet form of ethics that combines some deontology but mainly based on negative utilitarianism. Rather, the focus is on maximizing good while alive but minimizing pain by not having future people. While it is best to maximize pleasures if already alive, one has no duties to make happy people. Rather, we do seem to have a duty to prevent suffering people. His main argument is what he sees as an asymmetry for considering future people. If we consider having a child, that "potential" that could exist, does not exist yet to suffer, which is ALWAYS a good thing. However, that "potential" that could exist, does not experience pleasure/good which is NOT a bad thing (or good thing) because that potential "person" does not actually exist to be deprived of the goods of life to begin with. Thus it is ALWAYS better to prevent harm, even though there is no person who might exist to appreciate this.

My ideas: So I have sort of a combination of both in my philosophy. I agree much with Schopenhauer's view that reality does seem to be striving-but-for-nothing.
1) I add to this the idea of the absurd. It is the absurd repetition that also adds to the suffering

2) I add to this the idea of three major categories of existence: Survival (production/consumption/labor/shelter, etc. in some sort of system- whether hunting-gathering on one side or advanced industrial on the other, it doesn't matter), comfort (not necessarily survival but our tendency to pursue comfort.. warmth, cleanliness, orderliness, maintenance, etc.), and entertainment (anything not survival or comfort related that keeps our minds occupied so as not to think of existential problems, like boredom or the absurdity, or why, etc. To find some sort of meaning or flow states, etc. ). These categories are kind of an elaboration of the striving-for-nothing Will of Schopenhauer's original conception. It is just parcing it out.

3) Due to our own needs of survival, comfort, entertainment, humans together can't help but create the epiphenomena of socio-political-economic systems which in turn use us. We are used by society, as much as we are using others for our needs. Then through enculturation, the system itself perpetuates itself by creating more people to perpetuate the system itself. People then work for the system. We don't even know what we are trying to do anymore when we have more people in the world, as they are simply more workers, more laborers, more society-maintainers. We say we want people to pursue their happiness, but is it just pursuing the epiphenomnenal goals of society instead? Etc. etc.. these and other ideas I have added to the general talk of pessimism.

4. The idea of contingent vs. necessary suffering. Necessary suffering is the striving that Schopenhauer talked about. It cannot be taken out of what it means to be a typically functioning human being. The contingent aspect is all the external things that by contingent circumstances of time, place, and cause/effect occur to a person (disease, disaster, frustrations, all the usual harms we think of).

However, in no way have I ever denied that we can experience happiness, good, etc. I've even explained that many times before what I believe to be the handful of goods many people hang their optimistic jackets on, and again refute that this is enough impetus for having children, or making a characterization of life as thus a good enough situation in the first place.

Wolfman

What will you do to make this work? What you wouldn't? But even this is not enough... At the very same time, keep fighting and climbing to get and keep that high prestige job. Run circles at home, run circles outside home, but this is how things work, just follow the process, follow the rabbit. Not all will make it, actually the vast majority will fail at some point. This is, because they don't have enough power, they are just weak. But when you get there, on the top, it will all worth it. Or will it? — interim

I used to be an avid MMORPG player. The one commonality I found among every game was that once I reached the highest level, amassed the most wealth, and collected the most sought after items, I became bored. Sometimes I would start new characters just to repeat the process.

Whenever I find myself alone in a contemplative mood, wishing I had more power, or wealth, or something of the sort, I think about this. I usually come to the conclusion that eventually, after the monotony of being rich and powerful wears off, I would be bored again, and I would resume the search for whatever it is I think will make me happy -- whatever it is I think will fill the void of that existential vacuum.

The life of a dog, I think, is not so different from ours. It lays around the house all day, takes care of its bare necessities, and tries to occupy itself with a toy, or a bone, or whatever it can get its paws on. Granted, our interests seem to be more complicated than a dog’s, I think the search is similar. In a sense we are all chasing our own rabbits, that take the form of wealth, or power, or the latest mechanical amusements.

Somewhat paradoxically, people pity the dog's life, whilst simultaneously wishing to enjoy that kind of freedom. In Office Space, Lawrence asks Peter what he would do if he had a million dollars. He says, “Nothing… I would relax [and] sit on my ass all day. I would do nothing.” To which Lawrence replies, “Well, you don’t need a million dollars to do nothing, man. Take a look at my cousin. He’s broke, don’t do shit.”

I used to live in Downtown Los Angeles. Sometimes I would stare out of the window and look at people walking around on the street below. Who are these people? Where are they going? I could never be sure, but sometimes they would seem to be in quite the hurry. To them I’m sure wherever it is they were going, and whatever it is they were doing, was very important; but to me, they look like ants scurrying around in an ant colony. It depends on your perspective I suppose. Astronaut Edgar Mitchell once said that from up on the moon, “you develop an instant global consciousness, a people orientation, an intense dissatisfaction with the state of the world, and a compulsion to do something about it. From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch.’”

At any rate, human beings seem to have some innate proclivity for categorization – for filing things away tidily so we can retrieve at a later time. When we get into a hotel room, many of us have to unpack our clothes and put them away in drawers, put our toiletries in the bathroom, put our keys, wallet, and phone in some particular area, and so on and so forth. Until then we aren’t really at ease. I think the same is mostly true for how we treat concepts. We like to label things, compare them, and file them away. We also like to give opinions. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is a sort of preeminent example of this, when he attempts to describe what self-actualization consists in.

I’m currently reading a book called The Blue Zones by Dan Buettner. It’s a book that details the lives of people, from different cultures all across the world, who live in areas where there is the greatest concentration of centenarians (people living to the age of 100 or older). He found that besides having a very healthy diet, all of these people -- whether from Okinawa, Sardinia, or Icaria -- lead active, social lives, and put an emphasis on family and spirituality. In Okinawa, they have what is known as an ikigai, or life purpose. In Nicoya it is called a plan de vida. But what every blue zone society has in common is that they live relatively simple lives (by modern Western standards). They also happen to have lower rates of depression, stress, heart disease, cancer, dementia, and the like. If this can tell us anything, it’s that the paths to self-actualization, if such a thing exists, are wide and varied, and need not include the possession of great power, or riches, or fame, or anything of that sort.

In any case, it is evident that we each are allotted only a certain amount of time on this earth. The most rich and powerful among us share something in common with those perceived as the lowliest among us; that is, when the sickle of death comes down on us, we’re stripped bare of our possessions, our ego, and accomplishments, and returned to the earth from whence we came. Our children will remember us, and perhaps our grand-children and great grand-children, but eventually, our memory will fade, and it will be as if we never existed. Even the “great” accomplishments of people like Alexander the Great, Gandhi, or Einstein, will eventually be forsaken to the desolate sands of time. This is a sobering thought. But as long as we are not vain or take ourselves too seriously, it shouldn’t be a depressing one.

EDIT: Btw, good posts, guys :cool:

Deleteduserrc

[edit]

BC

↪interim

You seem to have won a Double First Prize: Your readers rated your OP quite favorably (1 prize) and then gave you thoughtful responses (2nd prize). You can take that to the bank (so to speak).

Paradoxically, we can think that we have minds (and we're mighty proud of them) but when pressed for details about what our mind-body selves are, we generally can't come up with anything too compelling.

We can not rise above ourselves and view our selves at a distance. We are always subject, and making ourselves simultaneously subject/object is perhaps beyond our capability. We're stuck. We'd like to understand who/what/how we are, but we are by our nature.

Still, all of us have a varied set of features which we like to express. Your greyhound had a very strong feature of pursuit. It was bred to run, to pursue. Catching its prey was less enjoyable, maybe, than chasing it. Some of us like the chase more than the catch, too. We like to do the research; we don't enjoy writing the paper.

We do well to fulfill the exercise of our various features without leaving behind too much wreckage.

BC

Freud, for instance, famously wrote that the aim of psychotherapy was 'the conversion of hysterical misery into ordinary unhappiness'. — Wayfarer

And such a modest, yet difficult goal that is.

Wayfarer

↪Bitter Crank

You don't want to fall short of normality, but it's also something that can be surpassed. It's a Bell curve.

javra

In this story, it's revealed quite a lot actually. First - running in circles, chasing. This is huge part of the self-actualization process. Chasing goals, again and again. — interim

I'm replying more to my overall impression of the OP in total than to any particular thing, and this will be a bit of a ramble as well:

Can’t remember ever desiring to self-actualize myself or recommending to anyone other that they do, and I haven’t seen Westworld (though you’re making it sound interesting).

I could easily see how at least some Buddhists would insist that the point to it all is to actualize no-self – i.e., to become utterly selfless being, and, paradoxically, that only there can non-hyperbolic equality reside. But this would be an about-face from the self-actualization motif as most interpret it. Still, it maybe could yet be interpreted as in tune with the “know thyself” dictum.

At any rate, I thought of a counter-example to the Schopenhauer-like generalization of an endless and unsatisfying striving: Itches. Its crude, but I think the example is concrete enough that all might be able to relate. If you feel an itch, it’s bothersome, and you hold as goal the disappearance of that itch. Scratching the itch can be in itself pleasing, this as a process toward an end. But it is not the case that one longs for new itches once the current itch disappears due to having been scratched. One instead would rather that no future itches reoccur. And, in a very diminutive sense of the term, in satisfying the eradication of the itch one obtains a state of (a very minor form of) eudemonia – i.e. a flourishing of being. The cessation of the itch allows you to better do that which you want done, rather than being persistently distracted, and hence hindered, from such (again, very minor form of) flourishing. So, in recapping this thesis, the scratching of an itch may be pleasing, but it of itself is not the obtainment of eudemonia, instead being a transient happiness; unlike the pleasure here referenced, it is the disappearance of the itch which grants the (minor) obtainment of a lasting eudemonia.

Some goals are held with false projections of how their obtainment will result in just such state of increased eudemonia – e.g., the desire to have the coolest car in town, to be richer than others, or the want to be seen by others with a romantic partner they all covet and envy you for. I think these are typical examples most are familiar with of how some approach a desire for self-respect and peace of mind (an untroubled inner being). Maybe pertinent, what is portrayed in these examples is often termed materialistic. Unlike these, though, the obtainment of other goals can actually result in eudemonia – as example, in an honest self-respect and peace of mind – such that it is lasting, often regardless of the material losses that might further occur somewhere down the line. For some, like the ancient philosophers that used the term “eudemonia”, the obtainment of eudemonia is pivoted around conformity to virtue, be it applied to ethics, to reasoning, or to anything else.

I believe that once we get into discussing the very nature of outcomes such as self-respect and peace of mind, things can get very complicated and debate might be non-stop. But I again stipulate that a basic physical itch can amply suffice as counter-example to a pessimistic understanding of life as endless struggle without the possibility of lasting satisfaction: The obtainment of some goals manifests something within us which is of value in and of itself, which is held irrespective of other’s opinions, and which is lasting rather than fleeting (sometime to the effect that we take it to the grave).

Metaphorically, then, all goals one seeks to accomplish are in some ways each an itch at which one scratches. Just that some of these do result in increased eudemonia and some don’t – the latter maybe being here best stipulated as “false itches” … for, their being scratched, while producing momentary pleasures, does not alleviate that which one is bothered by, this even when the goal is obtained.

With that in mind, firstly, I don't think eudemonia can be about being greater than thou. If you believe you hold it but you’re surrounded by those who don’t, you won’t be flourishing all that much – so, unlike many understandings of pleasure and happiness, hording it to yourself will paradoxically make it vanish. I believe this is one reason why the ancient philosophers wanted others obtain it. Then, secondly, as with the saying “scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” – here staying true to the same theme I started with – endowing someone with eudemonia (with a flourishing of being), if not a bs proclamation, will get the other to want to help you out in turn. This instead of having the other hold grudges about you having done so fist.

As with others, my compliments on a very nicely written OP. My main overall disagreement is that rather than the Schopenhauer-like pessimism of “the glass is half empty” I’d rather acknowledge that “the glass contains 50% water”. In other words, there’s both good and bad to life and, by extension, to struggles for the obtaining of goals; focusing on one aspect and ignoring the other will not of itself make the other vanish.

tim wood

↪interim

You seem to have won a Double First Prize: Your readers rated your OP quite favorably (1st prize) and then gave you thoughtful responses (2nd 1st prize). — Bitter Crank

I'll second that. My own preference is for shorter, but that doesn't matter here. But I wonder if you're thinking, after this weight of response and reply, maybe "oops, what did I get myself into?!"

BC

↪tim wood

Well, actually I haven't given it a second's thought since I lavished high praise on the whole thing. One of the benefits of defects in short-term memory -- nothing makes it to long term storage. Simplifies things greatly.

BTW, what are we talking about?

tim wood

nothing makes it to long term storage. Simplifies things greatly. BTW, what are we talking about? — Bitter Crank

Indeed! But the oops was for the OP. I'm thinking you're well past the day when you might have said oops about anything. Benefit of age and experience and all that.

Changeling

There is no true self. Truth does not exist in reality

tim wood

↪interim

At the risk of doing an injustice to your OP by making brief reply, I note you mention Kant. If you know any Kant you know the term, or phrase, self-legislating, along with the various forms of his categorical imperative. And this just a moment in the development that appears to have started with the pre-Socratics, worked through Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, through Kant and even right exactly to you - to each of us with eyes to read, ears to hear, a mind with which to understand - of the entire idea of personal freedom, personal duty, and personal responsibility. I defer to @Wayfarer on parallel developments in the East - bearing in mind that the East and West are different places, & etc.

In your OP, as I understood it (and maybe I didn't) you reckon self-actualization as somehow externally conditioned. Maybe at first. But an adult at some point takes ownership and responsibility for his or her own self-actualization, as best they can. And perhaps for most it remains a never quite attainable goal.

BC

↪Evil

Does 'reality' exist in 'reality'?

You dismiss truth -- fine by me; truth is like pornography -- I can't define it but I know it when I see it. Isn't 'reality' as nebulous a concept? As for the "true self", drop the adjective and self is one word clearer. Fake self? What would that be?

I feel like I have achieved some degree of self-actualization, finally! Self-actualization is emergent -- it's a coming together of one's efforts, a dropping away of one's (often self-built) barriers. It feels good, but I don't think one should get a prize for being self-actualized. If one happens to self-actualize, one should just be grateful and carry on.

A lot of the words we use, like beauty, truth, God, evil, and so many others, don't map onto the concrete world. They map onto our symbolic systems which are, of course, real enough.

schopenhauer1

And, in a very diminutive sense of the term, in satisfying the eradication of the itch one obtains a state of (a very minor form of) eudemonia – i.e. a flourishing of being. The cessation of the itch allows you to better do that which you want done, rather than being persistently distracted, and hence hindered, from such (again, very minor form of) flourishing. So, in recapping this thesis, the scratching of an itch may be pleasing, but it of itself is not the obtainment of eudemonia, instead being a transient happiness; unlike the pleasure here referenced, it is the disappearance of the itch which grants the (minor) obtainment of a lasting eudemonia. — javra

But this is very Schopenhauerian as I see it. It is the constant need to get rid of a feeling lack. We are lacking the sensation of not being bothered by an itch. Then it is only temporary, as another itch might take its place. The same goes for our desires...Desires represent a lack of something in the moment. When they are obtained, they lead to other desires. Some desires are a lack of something that you want but do not have. Some desires are to get rid of an externality (like an itch or the coronavirus) that befalls you. But these externality ones are simply things we would rather not have, and are trying to be rid of (uncomfortable feelings, pain, etc). In other words, they are not proof of something positive, but more examples of how we have to deal with life. We are in constant need of being alleviated- both of things which befall us, and things we want but do not have now.

javra

But this is very Schopenhauerian as I see it. [...] We are in constant need of being alleviated- both of things which befall us, and things we want but do not have now. — schopenhauer1

The part you quoted wanted to make a distinction between pleasure and eudemonia. Namely, that pleasure is of a transient nature whereas eudemonia is not. I gather my example was unsuccessful in so doing. Yet Stoic texts, for instance, speak of this distinction.

As one aspect of eudemonia, being at peace with oneself is not something that can be quantified. Nor does it bring about a cessation of all desires and of all dolors. Yet I reckon that once obtained it persists regardless of what befalls one, unless one were to squander it by willfully engaging in one too many vices. Here, then, is an example of an actualized goal that is not subject to an endless cycle of striving to alleviate frustration followed by more frustration. To the extent it is obtained, it is an end in and of itself and, as such, it breaks free from the cycle of endless frustration.

But then this can lead to Eastern notions which Schopenhauer overlooked despite being embedded in the overall Eastern metaphysics he translated for a Western culture. Notions of Moksha or of Nirvana come to mind. These have a lot to do with what in the west would be termed eudemonia gained via virtue and wisdom, as well as with an obtained awareness of what the self ultimately is. Or so are my best current understandings of these traditions.

I understand that we probably still disagree on issues of pessimism, but I’m thinking this disagreement hinges on basic metaphysical presumptions. All the same, the samsara which Schopenhauer addresses in his own ways is nevertheless something I readily acknowledge.

Harry Hindu

Think about the irony for the moment. Just like Westworld portrays quite more dramatically - we are creation of someone else, it was someone's else will. We inherited the qualities, the intentions, the drives, the vision, the goals... of someone else. If you were born as a hound, you had to chase rabbits right now... One may say that this someone else gave you "the gift of life", but I will again point out Westworld, and the simple fact - you are only part of someone's else self actualization, self-interest, it was their choice, it was their genes, they had that power over you, to create you regardless of your own will (you technically didn't have one). — interim

This is a contradiction.

If I don't have any power over the self-actualization of my self, and I owe my existence to other's self-actualization, then they too are in the same predicament I would be in - of not having control over their own self-actualization, so how can it be said that they have control over me, if they never had control over themselves?

If this were the case, then all siblings would be the same, but they aren't. There would be no distinction between twins and non-twins. The fact is that parents contribute (unwillingly) an amalgam of half their genes, and don't get to pick which genes get into the final product. I may inherit dormant genes from my parents that were never expressed in them, but do get expressed in me. I am a unique combination of half of my father's genes and half of my mother's genes.

What about children that don't follow the wishes (goals) of their parents? For instance, a child grows up to an adult and swears to never have children and never does, or a child who becomes an atheist but was raised by Christian parents who are now disappointed?

So, what exactly is self actualization? What is a self knowing itself? The self can't really be known, since all we can know is the world of phenomenon, of objects, of relations. — interim

The self can't be known, yet you claim that all we know is the world of phenomenon, objects and relations. It seems like you just asserted what you are - a knower of phenomenon, objects and relations. Most of philosophy is an artful misuse of words.

deletedusercb

Until, at last, he finally caught it. And to the horror of everyone, he killed that little cat. Tore it to pieces. Then he just sat there, confused. That dog had spent its whole life trying to catch that... thing. Now it had no idea what to do." — interim

So, we read this parable and think, I am the greyhound. Achieving my goal will only lead to confusion. Or I chase my goal and run in circles.

But this doesn't fit the range of my experience. I have experienced in a range of contexts that I can achieve a goal or even more important engage in a new process and I feel more actualized, expression myself in a way that feels, metaphorically, like I have come home. I have experienced this in jobs, relationshis and creative endeavors. With the last I used to be creative and was fairly successful in one art form. It was one that I did not need to collaborate with others. I was drawn to two other art forms that were collaborative at base, but I was afraid. Over time I was able to slowly go through these fears, gently, and begin to engage in the activities.

I do feel much more myself, now. I feel less split. I feel less like I must suppress parts of myself, or set aside yearnings, as I did with previous art forms.

So with my wife. Other relationships were even fairly good, but something was missing. Now I don't have that feeling. Perfections is not here, of course, but I feel 'at home' or 'right' or in my right place. I feel aligned in a way, in a balanced connection. I am more able to express the full range of myself in the relationship.

Of course there are things I still want. These processes can always be learned more about. I can always improve. But there is a marked difference between these and what I have had earlier. There was never this home feeling. The now I am finally engaged in a process that fits me.

Some people call this a calling or use other terms that may or may not carry what could get called metaphysical baggage. I am not saying those terms are incorrect, but I am avoiding that language since it brings in more issues.

schopenhauer1

But then this can lead to Eastern notions which Schopenhauer overlooked despite being embedded in the overall Eastern metaphysics he translated for a Western culture. Notions of Moksha or of Nirvana come to mind. These have a lot to do with what in the west would be termed eudemonia gained via virtue and wisdom, as well as with an obtained awareness of what the self ultimately is. Or so are my best current understandings of these traditions. — javra

Schopenhauer criticized the Stoics, as they were still fully rooted in the world of Will. Schopenhauer wanted to pull the roots completely, by suggesting deny the Will completely and become a full ascetic. There was no natural reason by which we were to adhere to. Stoics wanted us to be a part of society, perpetuate its institutions but with some sort of accord with natural reason. Schop would say that is simply will having its way. There is no end goal of happiness in a world that is rules by Will. Rebel against the Will completely is more Schop's recommendation. Thus, don't have children- it brings the horrors of more Will, more of its manifestations. Don't buy into the survival/goal-attainment, and boredom pendulum swing of the course of human condition.

I understand that we probably still disagree on issues of pessimism, but I’m thinking this disagreement hinges on basic metaphysical presumptions. All the same, the samsara which Schopenhauer addresses in his own ways is nevertheless something I readily acknowledge. — javra

Cool.

schopenhauer1

If I don't have any power over the self-actualization of my self, and I owe my existence to other's self-actualization, then they too are in the same predicament I would be in - of not having control over their own self-actualization, so how can it be said that they have control over me, if they never had control over themselves? — Harry Hindu

That is his point. No one really has control. If it was in Schopenhauerian terms, it is the Will manifesting itself over and over. What is the case is your birth was out of your control. That is his main point. I agree with you however, that we don't actually "inherit" specific drives and goals of someone else. However, surely our lives came about in hopes of seeing to fruition some desire of the parent. Whether this actually occurs is a different story.

praxis

You can never be "the actual self" because it is exactly that which lies outside the bounds of the type of localized coherence which forms your folk self. True actualization would be a form of insanity, a separation from mother social super-organism. Just the opposite to fake Maslow self-actualization (a marrying to one of its narrow instantiations—your dream "role", whatever). — Baden

I believe that form of insanity is called nihilism.

I believe that once we get into discussing the very nature of outcomes such as self-respect and peace of mind, things can get very complicated and debate might be non-stop. But I again stipulate that a basic physical itch can amply suffice as counter-example to a pessimistic understanding of life as endless struggle without the possibility of lasting satisfaction: The obtainment of some goals manifests something within us which is of value in and of itself, which is held irrespective of other’s opinions, and which is lasting rather than fleeting (sometime to the effect that we take it to the grave). — javra

According to Stoicism, the development of virtue is one of the few things that we have control of and therefore is a worthwhile goal and something that will have lasting value.

A thought that comes to mind after reading the OP, the mention of West World, and this part of your response to it is that societies may have a tendency to devalue the development of virtue. American culture, for instance, doesn't train us to pursue well-being in the eudaimonic sense. It trains us to pursue a good career, wealth, status, etc. The fifth level felt rabit is heaven, nirvana, or whatever. All these dangling carrots are dependent on others, which isn't nessisarily a bad thing, but it does leave us open to West World-like manipulation. The development of virtue can be countercultural in the sense that it leads to independence.

javra

societies may have a tendency to devalue the development of virtue. American culture, for instance, doesn't train us to pursue well-being in the eudaimonic sense. It trains us to pursue a good career, wealth, status, etc. The fifth level felt rabit is heaven, nirvana, or whatever. All these dangling carrots are dependent on others, which isn't nessisarily a bad thing, but it does leave us open to West World-like manipulation. — praxis

Much of current American culture, which is spreading worldwide, subsists on insecurities. From Orwellian fears of other that hold no tangible resolution to the feelings of inadequacy which compels us to buy things we don't need and wouldn't otherwise want, this because some commercial so tells us to. Having problems with romance, buy this car; it will change the quality of your life. "Fun food" I still don't get as a concept, but it sells. Were most in society to cultivate virtue and feel more integral by so doing, economy as we currently know it would be devastated.

I very much agree with your statements. Just wanted to complement them a bit.

The development of virtue can be countercultural in the sense that it leads to independence. — praxis

I agree, but believe it would be an empathetic form of independence, rather than a form of self-isolationism. Hoping that makes sense as expressed.

praxis

I agree, but believe it would be an empathetic form of independence, rather than a form of self-isolationism. Hoping that makes sense as expressed. — javra

Yes, as the Stoics would say, in accord with human nature, which is social and has the capacity of reason. Virtue/reason applied to social living.

It's just a new and kind of disturbing thought that human culture may generally have a natural tendency to devalue the development of virtue, and not just that particular cultures may have that tendency.

javra

It's just a new and kind of disturbing thought that human culture may generally have a natural tendency to devalue the development of virtue, and not just that particular cultures may have that tendency. — praxis

I greatly admire the ideal of the USA founders: a checks and balances of all power. Given human imperfections and tendencies, this imv best stabilizes what would otherwise become competitions for supremacy over others. But our drives to be superior relative to others are most always at a crossroad with our drives to find a home in a community of individuals that all honestly affirm something along the lines of “liberty, equality, fraternity”.

I don’t know, maybe I’m being unrealistically optimistic in this case, but I hold that societies (and thereby cultures) can either move toward the first mentioned structure of interaction, one of slave-master and slaves, or toward the second. Given a checks of balances of power, both political and economic, one that is actively maintained rather than undermined, I think that a society can be structured so as to maximize the social cultivation of virtue. I’m saying this while recognizing the chasm between such possibility and the actualities we are currently living in. And, to further complicate matters, such checks and balances of power would nowadays need to be implemented globally for it to hold any import. Otherwise one power will subjugate the rest – politically, economically, or both. Despite this, I don’t think that all possible societies are inherently antithetical to the development of virtue in individuals. My two pennies’ worth, at least.

Harry Hindu

That is his point. No one really has control. If it was in Schopenhauerian terms, it is the Will manifesting itself over and over. What is the case is your birth was out of your control. That is his main point. I agree with you however, that we don't actually "inherit" specific drives and goals of someone else. However, surely our lives came about in hopes of seeing to fruition some desire of the parent. Whether this actually occurs is a different story. — schopenhauer1

This is just another way of stating the problem of free will, which isn't new. What you are basically saying is that "control" is meaningless. I have no idea what you mean by "the Will" unless you mean God, or solipsism.

What is more interesting, is that if no one has control, then what about morality? Morality is based on the idea that you do control your actions and that you could have chosen otherwise. You can't say that the act of procreating is good or evil, if no one has control over their actions, to then say that we shouldn't be procreating because it is evil. At best, it would be "natural".

schopenhauer1

This is just another way of stating the problem of free will, which isn't new. What you are basically saying is that "control" is meaningless. I have no idea what you mean by "the Will" unless you mean God, or solipsism. — Harry Hindu

Well, I did explain it was in Schopenhauerian terms. So you can look up Schopenhauer's theory of Will i you want. The OP mentions him as well.

What is more interesting, is that if no one has control, then what about morality? Morality is based on the idea that you do control your actions and that you could have chosen otherwise. You can't say that the act of procreating is good or evil, if no one has control over their actions, to then say that we shouldn't be procreating because it is evil. At best, it would be "natural". — Harry Hindu

No, you misinterpret the theory then. The parent has control not to have the child. The person born has control over not creating the next generation.

Harry Hindu

That is his point. No one really has control. If it was in Schopenhauerian terms, it is the Will manifesting itself over and over. — schopenhauer1

No, you misinterpret the theory then. The parent has control not to have the child. The person born has control over not creating the next generation. — schopenhauer1

Then the "theory" contradicts the OP.

The self-actualization trap

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions