self-actualization cannot lead to universal good

[foolish heart]

[YOUTUBE="oGECJP3phyY"]Daft Punk - Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger[/YOUTUBE]

^ Since these topics are usually so bland.


There is a prevalent belief amongst all mankind that perfection (which I will define as a universal state of goodness) is something to be reached by moving forward, and indeed advances in things like technology and social understanding do improve things. We think that by globalization our efforts we can overcome the seemingly enigmatic root cause of suffering.

In doing so we are deceiving ourselves... just like a magic trick where the magician draws your attention away from the sleight of hand, our attention is continually drawn away from human intention towards human effort, and we see the efforts I mentioned above and say to ourselves it is good to do these things. However, does this make us good? or does it merely allow us to become whatever we want on the inside as long as we are a part of a good effort?

Let's be realistic... even if the entire world were unified in a single effort under the name of globalization, it still consists of roughly ~7 billion individuals, each with their own imperfect intentions. Thus, it is a logical eventuality that this effort will not reach it's goal of universal good.

Ironically, this trend is the opposite of what is required if we were ever to reach such a goal. Self-actualization, on an individual or global scale, can never result in what we're attempting to achieve by it in any lasting, harmonious way.

Actually, I think the best thing to do is entirely remove our focus from efforts and results and refocus them on individual reform, because no matter what it all starts with individuals and their intentions... we need this focus to eradicate issues such as the greed that causes political and economic "mistakes" like the stock market last year.

 

[Moiety]

I'm not aware of any such belief (or maybe I just didn't understand your words).

When you say individual reform though, do you mean each of us doing our own self-actualization?


Either way, the way to go is, in my opinion, for self-actualization to be done by each one of us on our own, and for the love of self-actualization to be taught and supported.

I used to not think so, but now I believe that peace is a value that one usually arrives to the more one tries to self-actualize.

 

[Mole]

Actually, I think the best thing to do is entirely remove our focus from efforts and results and refocus them on individual reform...

This is the gospel of narcissism.

We have decided on something entirely different. We follow the Enlightenment and practise the greatest good for the greatest number.

 

[Jaguar]

This is the gospel of narcissism.

What is, your posting history?

 

[foolish heart]

This is the gospel of narcissism.

which is why it's true. if we acknowledge our narcissism and reform (which is an entirely different subject) then we can have greater good that is just as true.

it feels good to imagine humanity as a whole. it gives us a sense of control and power. but realistically, humanity is just a bunch of people like you and me, and which of us is selfless? certainly not me.

if we want lasting change for the better, then we have to turn away from this obama-style feel-goodery and be realistic--society is a collection of individuals, and without individual accountability, responsibility and reform then it wont make an effective difference.

 

[gromit]

Self-actualization, on an individual or global scale, can never result in what we're attempting to achieve by it in any lasting, harmonious way.

What are we attempting to achieve by it?

 

[Bamboo]

who watches the watchmen?

 

[FDG]

You can be self-actualized while working as a farmer in Tibet (as long as you're not on the edge of starvation, of course). There seems to be a misconception where self-actualization can only be reached when you're a high-level researcher, artist, etc.

 

[gromit]

You can be self-actualized while working as a farmer in Tibet (as long as you're not on the edge of starvation, of course). There seems to be a misconception where self-actualization can only be reached when you're a high-level researcher, artist, etc.

Self-actualization = fulfilling ones potential? Is it a static state? Once you have become self-actualized, once you "reach" your potential, you're done? Or does self-actualization merely refer to the process of moving toward your potential?

it feels good to imagine humanity as a whole. it gives us a sense of control and power. but realistically, humanity is just a bunch of people like you and me, and which of us is selfless? certainly not me.

if we want lasting change for the better, then we have to turn away from this obama-style feel-goodery and be realistic--society is a collection of individuals, and without individual accountability, responsibility and reform then it wont make an effective difference.

Actually, for me, imagining humanity as a whole makes me feel more accountable, not less, because my actions impact others, not just my self. We do not exist in isolation. Our behavior affects other people.

How does individual accountability, responsibility, and reform differ from self-actualization? I would imagine the two are extensively intertwined...

 

[ragashree]

Self-actualization = fulfilling ones potential? Is it a static state? Once you have become self-actualized, once you "reach" your potential, you're done? Or does self-actualization merely refer to the process of moving toward your potential?

I think it's better treated as process than outcome. At any given moment you may be engaging in a self-actualising process; I think the ability to actually do so is more something to aspire to than some kind of projected "self actualised" state where all is perfect and rosy forever. Life itself isn't static; a final fixed cognitive state implies the inability to further adapt and make the most of each changing moment and experience as it happens, which itself is contrary to the concept of self-actualisation.

 

[gromit]

I think it's better treated as process than outcome. At any given moment you may be engaging in a self-actualising process; I think the ability to actually do so is more something to aspire to than some kind of projected "self actualised" state where all is perfect and rosy forever. Life itself isn't static; a final fixed cognitive state implies the inability to further adapt and make the most of each changing moment and experience as it happens, which itself is contrary to the concept of self-actualisation.

Yeah I agree. I think also as we grow our potential increases. As we move toward fulfilling our potential, it expands. Growth opens the way for further growth. That has been my experience, though I'm only 26. Perhaps when you're 56 or 76, it's a lot different... or maybe it's only somewhat different and a lot the same.

 

[Mole]

...society is a collection of individuals...

We make society and society makes us.

So to give too much weight to the individual or too much weight to society, unmakes us all.

 

[Mole]

But of course self-actualisation is based on Maslov's hierarchy of needs, with self-actualisation at the top.

But Maslov's hierarchy of needs is a crock as we can see by reductio ad absurdum by saying that Jesus attended to his basic needs first before He self-actualised on the Cross.

This is not only insulting but entirely misunderstands the cultural meaning of the Cross.

Can you imagine Jesus attending to his basic needs first for thirty years before he self-actualised? It's the sheerest nonsense, just as Maslov's hierarchy of needs are the sheerest nonsense, as is self-actualisation.

Just look at it - 'self-actualisation' is a bureaucratic word to disguise blind narcissism.