Self-actualization

kronocide · 05-07-06 02:52:02

I didn't get to go out to the islands until next week, dad's birthday party will need some preparations apparently, which is fine. So I thought I'd rant here (at length!) on some semi-philosophical issues instead.

---------------------------------

It got me thinking when Gala said in the thread about gender distribution on the forums that "equality" had a vagueness about it, while I at the same time was trying to get my head around the term "self-actualization" that she and others use with little hesitation. It's one of those expressions that are really good at looking like they mean something, but if you try to understand it in some detail, it gets more and more opaque, at least for me.

Well, this forum is a learning experience. I did a little research and discovered a few brief introductions to the psychology of Abraham Maslow and his hierarchy of needs, where self-actualization is at the top, above several more basic needs, such as physical survival and a sense of belonging to a group.

This is what Maslow says:
"Self Actualization is the intrinsic growth of what is already in the organism, or more accurately, of what the organism is."
"A musician must make music, an artist must paint, a poet must write, if he is to be at peace with himself. What a man can be, he must be. This is the need we may call self-actualization ... It refers to man's desire for fulfillment, namely to the tendency for him to become actually in what he is potentially: to become everything that one is capable of becoming ..."

This is pure Aristotelian potential forms; the seed contains the form of the tree, Michelangelo's block of stone contains the form of David, and so on. In the same manner, man supposedly contains the form of her ultimate manifestation. The form of the tree is a potential form in the seed, and becomes the actual form when the tree is grown. So likewise self-actualization happens when we take the form that we have always carried inside us, that we naturally strive for. Aristotle formulated his theory of nature in terms of everything's natural states and processes, such as their natural motions (earth - down, fire - up; the planets - in circle). It takes force for something to divert from its natural state, it's a kind of violation.* So self-actualization is the natural thing, the way things develop when the process is not violated, when there is harmony, if you like.

The only problem is, nature is nothing like this. The form of the tree is not in the seed. The tree gets its form when the machinery in the seed interacts with the rest of the environment. The example using Michelangelo's block of stone is there to point out that we're not talking about genes. Aristotle had no biochemical or other mechanism in mind, this is pure metaphysics. But what he describes isn't even mirrored well by genes. It's equally true to say that the program that describes how to build an organism is contained in the environment, as to say it's in the organism's genes, because it is shaped through interaction between both. Genes and environment are both necessary conditions for a certain phenotype to develop, none is a sufficient condition on its own.

So what about people? Do we have a potential form? In my mind, someone is a writer if they write. If they don't write but claim to have a consuming need to, they may be a wanna-be writer, which is something slightly different. Likewise, someone is an artist when they create art. The thing is, if you don't buy into the idea of potential forms, there is nothing to actualize.

The future contains uncountable possibilities. Some are a lot more desirable than others, but maybe we don't know which ones those are precisely, or maybe we will change our minds about it. "Potential form" is a variation on "destiny." But there is no destiny, just all of this and whatever we manage to do with it. There is no state of the universe that is "harmony" as opposed to "unnatural," that can ensure that these desirable forms come to fruition. The universe doesn't care, and what laws it has can not be broken, regardless of how badly one behaves. Only we can decide what we want, and we can change our minds along the way.

So, my final question is, how much have I now messed up my ability to understand feminist theory? Is self-actualization an important concept? Will I get a spanking?

* (Okay, now I'm writing footnotes.) In the earliest Greek speculation (several hundred years before Aristotle), natural laws and moral laws were the same thing. Aristotle's view of natural states seem to carry some influence from that, as, by proxy, does Maslow's theory.

Last edited by kronocide (05-07-06 02:57:54)

kronocide · 05-07-06 03:42:18

Liandra wrote:

Kronocide, firstly I thought it was plato that discussed forms and potential.

Plato's forms are ideal thingies that reside in the ideal world, Aristotle relocated them to our physical world. But the form idea does come from Plato. For Plato the ideal forms could never manifest in our world except as flawed shadows of the real thing though, so he wouldn't consider them as potentialities.

However I have to say I'm not into either of those philosophers. They both talked such utter tripe about women.

I think Plato was a lot better than Aristotle in this repsect. Aristotle thought women were really men who hadn't fully developed, and considered them secondary in every respect. I think it's fair to say the guy had issues, even considering the times in which he lived. But that doesn't mean he didn't say other things that have been of monumental influence and importance (and not just for the worse).

Secondly, interesting though your research into it has been, I think you're being far too pedantic with the term.

Oh yes, no suprise there. I was just curious about where it came from and what it could mean except "be able to do what you want."

Feminist use of the term is about the pursuit of, and the right to have access to, the same opportunities in society to fulfill ambitions as men have always enjoyed.

I figured as much, just being the word pedant. I really find it quite meaningful to go into the detailed history of an expression though--thought maybe someone else might be amused by it as well.

kronocide · 05-07-06 04:02:46

I should add that I really think that when you use a word that belongs to some particular theory, you're kind of invoking that theory. That's why I try desperately to not use the word "paradigm" to avoid invoking that part of Kuhn's theory of science, even though it has become more or less a household word. But I'm a pretty sick puppy.

blissed · 05-07-06 04:08:13

kronocide wrote:

Will I get a spanking?

Only if you really want one

It's about having confidence in yourself and asserting that in a constructive way. I think. We could winge and protest about how bad something is or we can start a business or project on our own or with others that rectifies the problem. Dandy seems to be quite a good example of somebody self actualised. I might be talking rubbish here. it is getting late. I'll read this in the morning and see what I think then.

Night

.

Last edited by blissed (05-07-06 04:09:00)

Siobhan · 05-07-06 06:11:24

.

Wow.

NOW you're talkin'!

kronocide · 05-07-06 10:20:39

Liandra wrote:

Unless that particular theorist coined the word themselves, and gave it its first meaning I don't see why that should be the case. How can a word belong to a theory in any other sense.

Yes of course, that's what I mean. "Paradigm" in the sense that we use it was coined by Kuhn, and for what I have seen "self-actualization", although not coined by Maslow (Wikipedia says Kurt Goldstein), was first used by him in a major way. If you Google the expression, you get a lot of Maslow. I don't mean that any word used in a theory becomes associated with that theory, sorry if I was unclear, but just as you say, expressions that are given their meaning in a theory "drag the theory along" when you use it.

I just want to add that "self actualization" is not synonymous with "be able to do what you want".
The first is about the fulfilment of an individuals deepest ambitions. The latter is a broad term that could refer to anything from chaos and anarchy to a desire to not bother being polite whilst out in general society.

I understand what you mean. However, call me superficial or stupid, but I'm not sure I think there are deeper ambitions, even though I often feel that what I try to do with my life right now, is precisely fulfilling a deeper ambition. But if I change my mind next year and realize I want to do something completely different, was it still a deep ambition? How do I tell the difference between those and whims in general? Do all people have deep ambitions? One of the things I didn't like with Maslow was that he talks about "non-peakers," people who are unable for whatever reason to reach self-actualization. He makes them sound almost subhuman, while he keeps a (very predictable) list of people in history who have "peaked," achieved "perfection." So very Scientology.

"Deep ambition" still suggests something preexisting and permanent in the individual to me. I agree that our ambitions feel more or less important to us at a given time. Is that enough? If it is, I'm back on track.

Last edited by kronocide (05-07-06 10:49:38)

kronocide · 05-07-06 10:53:17

Siobhan wrote:

.
Wow.

NOW you're talkin'!

I will never visit a pr0n site again where I can't have both hot images and stimulating conversation. Consider me spoiled, nothing less will do.

kronocide · 07-07-06 13:57:37

Sorry, Liandra, I'm just being my contrarian self. (Annoying, isn't it?) I understand and agree with the difference as you describe it, and I of course also agree that self-actualization (in this sense) should be available to all. Which, interestingly, seems to mean precisely the same thing as what I meant by "equality" in the other thread. Nice closure.

gala · 08-07-06 17:49:54

i like stealing words from their associated theories and using them for mine, personally.

i am also not terribly concerned with "destiny" or the biological/genetic elements of our "forms." i want something i can see and something others can see at work. so when i talk about self-actualization, i think i'm in a similar situation with liandra: the option, the tools, the ability to figure out what that self is and desires and creates, and the option, tools, and ability to see that materialize in the practical world.

this, of course, assumes that there is a self to be actualized, which is a big point of contention, and anyone who's taken their intro to postmodern thought class has seen some of the major players and their takes on this. the death of the author, of the self, of history, etc. my personal experience with it is this: when i invoke ideas about my self, i am seeing things which are specifically constructed in my life, as well as what i have inherited from the other humans/women who have done this before. when i create something, i am mimicking and adapting what they have done, because their creations have shown me what it means to create. this "self" is pulling from all over the place. i am not sure how much i feel that i was ever a "seedling." i don't think i had a potential form when i was born or when i was a child. and i have no real idea what that form is going to be in five years. i am only ever able to see the form retrospectively, and i can pull from that and from others to determine where i want to point myself and what resources i need for that. i am creating the form as i go along, and just when i think i've narrowed down the best one, another more fantastic one hints at existence.

meh.

Elfman · 09-07-06 02:21:01

Kronocide wrote:

That's why I try desperately to not use the word "paradigm" to avoid invoking that part of Kuhn's theory of science, even though it has become more or less a household word.

Not in my house it hasn’t . Anyway I looked it up. Apparently it is a brand of Hi-Fi equipment. OK. I can see that some people might find personal fulfilment from a good stereo system, but something told me that this was not what kronocide was driving at so I researched a little further. Next I discovered that a “paradigm” was the Gestalt of a Weltanschauung. Right. I moved on. Then I learnt that Mervyn Allister King said that Paradigm is “a word too often used by those who would like to have a new idea but cannot think of one”. I liked that one. The good old OED told me that a paradigm is “A pattern or model, an exemplar" and that an additional component of Kuhn's definition of paradigm is: “how is an experiment to be conducted, and what equipment is available to conduct the experiment”. This is where I gave up.

The point I am trying to make here in my fumbling, uneducated, barely-literate way is that people have started throwing philosophical/sociological terms around like confetti on this forum lately as if (a) They each have a single, definitive meaning and (b) with an assumption that everyone understands them. The first is dangerous, often resulting in misunderstanding (I think that kronocide was alluding to this in the first paragraph of his opening post on this thread) and the second is, quite frankly, rude. The use of jargon instead of plain English effectively disbars anyone who has not studied philosophy, sociology or any other particular ology you care to mention from confidently understanding what is being discussed and therefore deprives them of the opportunity to participate in the discussion. This is not a scientific forum. It is one dedicated to human sexuality. If members choose to use scientific short hand I have no problem with that. Just clearly define your terms please for those of us do not have the benefit of a university education but would like to participate in the discussions. (Unless of course you believe that only those with a higher education are capable of discussing such ideas. Now that is a “political dynamic” I am happy to debate all day).

Ok. Rant over. Back to what I think this thread is about. I firmly believe that no one can be truly content or fulfilled if they are denied (or deny themselves) the most important element which makes them unique. The thing which makes them true to themselves. "A musician must make music, an artist must paint, a poet must write, if he is to be at peace with himself. What a man can be, he must be. This is the need we may call self-actualization ... It refers to man's desire for fulfillment, namely to the tendency for him to become actually in what he is potentially: to become everything that one is capable of becoming". Succinctly put. I think however that it goes deeper than that. To paraphrase Marcus Aurelius “Of each particular thing ask, what is it unto itself, for that is its true nature”. The image that each of us has of ourselves is what truly defines us. Deny someone the right or the means to be true to that self-image then they will remain incomplete, unfulfilled. Our aspirations aren’t immutable however. If someone achieves what they feel that they need to “complete” them they may discover that it is just one step on a much longer journey and their self-image will change. All human beings are in a constant state of evolution.

Elfman

Last edited by Elfman (09-07-06 02:38:42)

kronocide · 09-07-06 03:18:28

Elfman, on your first point: Exactly. That was my issue with the expression "self-actualization," which has a fairly specific, technical meaning (that I had to look up), and it wasn't obvious to me whether this was what was being eluded to or something more general. If it wasn't, then a more neutral term would do the job, I think. And I hope you didn't take objection to that I used the word "paradigm" when I mentioned that I do what I can to avoid using it. I should probably have made clear that I avoid using it because I mostly write in a context where people are aware of Kuhn's theories. But I'm certainly not going to assume that those I talk to are not aware of them, that would be very rude, so I follow the same rule regardless of the forum.

As to the topic of the thread, we seem to all agree that our ambitions evolve over time, and about the importance of having a fair chance of realizing whatever ambitions we have, regardless of sex, "race," etc.
I still have an intuition that behind some of the language used, such as "deep ambitions," lurk traditional ideas and concepts that I don't agree with, but that's very probably of less importance.

Last edited by kronocide (09-07-06 03:19:02)

footman2 · 12-07-06 14:49:57

kronocide wrote:

Siobhan wrote:
.
Wow.

NOW you're talkin'!
I will never visit a pr0n site again where I can't have both hot images and stimulating conversation. Consider me spoiled, nothing less will do.

I'm so godamned horny the crack of dawn better be careful around me... but first let me do some research

kronocide · 12-07-06 14:52:21

hahahahh

footman2 · 12-07-06 15:04:54

I enjoyed this thread because it made gave me a few things to think about and I bookmarked a few essays to read. I am sure there will be more like this.
Thanks!

jerryb76 · 12-07-06 15:05:58

Let's get back to the most important part of this conversation, when is Liandra going to give kronocide her spanking and how long will it take max to edit and post it?

msnevil · 13-07-06 07:28:55

Hmm, I have a Maslow dictionary. And still can't figure out what everybody is stating.

Idiot Self-Actualization ='s Superman. (w\o kryptonite)

kronocide · 13-07-06 17:17:29

Liandra, I got it. It wasn't you in particular I had read it from, it was being used by several people and I felt I was missing something. I am slowly adjusting myself to this particular form of discourse though, I hope.

Last edited by kronocide (13-07-06 17:18:53)

bodyhead · 13-07-06 20:04:23

"We become free human beings... in that we go out of ourselves, enter into relation with others, and in a certain sense relinquish ourselves to them. Only in this way do we determine ourselves as individuals, not by watering ourselves like plants..."
Adorno.

greycat · 14-07-06 14:46:02

Liandra wrote:

. It need only be understood as a desire to fullfill potential, and the right to pursue into actuality whatever potential/s the individual chooses for itself. Feminist use of the term is about the pursuit of, and the right to have access to, the same opportunities in society to fulfill ambitions as men have always enjoyed.

yes, this is exactly as I see it. I hate to use what is a bureaucratically abused phrase here in US, but 'equal opportunity' seems to catch aspects of this. no glass ceiling, the old boys network broken open, no deciding stuff in 'the back room' where only some get into the room, etc. and freedom to explore self to find what is meaningful, limited only by a FAIR degree of limits in society i.e. if robbery is what works for you, well so sorry but cant have that. while I know that may be a slippery slope, it still must be there to manintain a society

#1 05-07-06 02:52:02

Self-actualization

#2 05-07-06 03:42:18

Re: Self-actualization

#3 05-07-06 04:02:46

Re: Self-actualization

#4 05-07-06 04:08:13

Re: Self-actualization

#5 05-07-06 06:11:24

Re: Self-actualization

#6 05-07-06 10:20:39

Re: Self-actualization

#7 05-07-06 10:53:17

Re: Self-actualization

#8 07-07-06 13:57:37

Re: Self-actualization

#9 08-07-06 17:49:54

Re: Self-actualization

#10 09-07-06 02:21:01

Re: Self-actualization

#11 09-07-06 03:18:28

Re: Self-actualization

#12 12-07-06 14:49:57

Re: Self-actualization

#13 12-07-06 14:52:21

Re: Self-actualization

#14 12-07-06 15:04:54

Re: Self-actualization

#15 12-07-06 15:05:58

Re: Self-actualization

#16 13-07-06 07:28:55

Re: Self-actualization

#17 13-07-06 17:17:29

Re: Self-actualization

#18 13-07-06 20:04:23

Re: Self-actualization

#19 14-07-06 14:46:02

Re: Self-actualization

Board footer