I am poor. I'd rather be rich.
hectically Rich and responsible or serenely poor.
- Thread starter think
- Start date
I have often thought about giving plenty away if I did find myself in possession of a vast quantity of money. Of course, the first thing would be to solve the current problems I have (problems that one could even argue occur precisely because of the lifestyle I lead), and the second thing would be to put the rest that's merely lying around to better use and for more deserving people.
Given the choice, I'd rather have something than nothing. Realistically, I'd rather have enough to get by than be obscenely affluent - a sort of middle ground. [I know my place - someone] But over and above all of that, I'd rather there be happiness for myself and the people I love than unhappiness.
Still a mythological journey though; in fact the most profound and vital one. Death doesn't negate the journey, it makes it. Immortality would reduce the importance of the journey aspect to life.
Using the Maslow definition, self-actualisation implicitly requires a large amount of money in our society, as money buys safety/security (a lower level on the hierarchy). Self-actualisation cannot be possible while someone has to work for a living, as opposed to working for interest/pleasure. Work ethic is our society's way of morally justifying this "working for a living" stage of life.
Liberty from having to work for a living permits focus on self-actualisation instead. True self-actualisation is impossible (it's closer to divinity than humanity; which is why death is such an important task), but while lower levels of the hierarchy remain wanting, they are a distraction from self-actualisation.
While someone lacks sufficient resources to truly be able to choose between working or not working, claims of working because of enjoying their work ring somewhat false as they're not really at liberty to make that decision and do not possess all the facts to make an informed decision. That makes the stated enjoyment more likely to be a ego defence mechanism. Put another way, I've yet to meet someone genuinely content with all aspects of their paid employment.
I would argue that a key task is deciding what resources are sufficient to your life goals, acquiring those as quickly and efficiently as possible, and then moving on, thus maximising life potential for happiness. This is of course an iterative process, but short of godhood and its perfect foresight, what else to do...?
What most people do in their working lives is fritter away energy and time on tasks that are irrelevant to their happiness and they do so because of work ethic. At the same time, they waste money on temporary gratifications that do not make a long term difference to their lives. They have not really decided what resources they require, how they will achieve them, and therefore - to use Maslow's model - they remain stuck on lower levels. They merely do tasks.
I think the strict hierarchy of needs that Maslow uses is an oversimplification.
I remember some time ago we were talking about security, and how striving to increase security is not always an optimal effort because the cost can end up outweighing what has been gained. Perfect security is not the goal, and likewise, the security level of the pyramid doesn't need to be perfect before we shift our focus to the higher levels.
Is it reasonably to suppose that all four of the lower levels are like this? Where the level boundaries are blurry, and where subjective satisfaction rather than objective perfection is what matters?
Furthermore, I feel we can be agile in focussing our energies up or down the pyramid as our circumstances change. And for how long does one need to feel secure in one level before moving to the next level? A month? A day? A few minutes??
How permanent does self-actualisation have to be in order to be valid?
For example, at the present time, I feel comfortable enough with all four base levels, that I'm choosing to engage in this dialogue with you because it is internally rewarding. And to me this is an intelligent discussion which could be considered reasonably high skill, and it is reasonably challenging to debate with yourself.
Even if all four base levels were perfectly and eternally satisfied, would I choose to be doing something fundamentally different to what I'm doing at the present time? I have no reason to think so.
I've only recently learned of autotelism that I mentioned above, but from the wikipedia description at least, I would say that it describes me moderately well, about 75% if I am to put a figure to it.
If we take a look at Maslow's key words and phrases for self actualization, we have:
I think that's a fair description of me too, and it describes the sort of activities I gravitate into, and the general areas in life my life in which I find happiness.
I remember some time ago we were talking about security, and how striving to increase security is not always an optimal effort because the cost can end up outweighing what has been gained. Perfect security is not the goal, and likewise, the security level of the pyramid doesn't need to be perfect before we shift our focus to the higher levels.
Is it reasonably to suppose that all four of the lower levels are like this? Where the level boundaries are blurry, and where subjective satisfaction rather than objective perfection is what matters?
Furthermore, I feel we can be agile in focussing our energies up or down the pyramid as our circumstances change. And for how long does one need to feel secure in one level before moving to the next level? A month? A day? A few minutes??
How permanent does self-actualisation have to be in order to be valid?
For example, at the present time, I feel comfortable enough with all four base levels, that I'm choosing to engage in this dialogue with you because it is internally rewarding. And to me this is an intelligent discussion which could be considered reasonably high skill, and it is reasonably challenging to debate with yourself.
Even if all four base levels were perfectly and eternally satisfied, would I choose to be doing something fundamentally different to what I'm doing at the present time? I have no reason to think so.
I've only recently learned of autotelism that I mentioned above, but from the wikipedia description at least, I would say that it describes me moderately well, about 75% if I am to put a figure to it.
If we take a look at Maslow's key words and phrases for self actualization, we have:
Maslow said:
I think that's a fair description of me too, and it describes the sort of activities I gravitate into, and the general areas in life my life in which I find happiness.
Categorical conventionalizations.
Anyway, the thread title is a good example of a false dichotomy.
^ I think that was the first thing I posted in this thread. 
Well, yes, because it's a model, not a truth. My own theoretical objections to it are that it's entirely built upon a very narrow social premise (it's ethnocentrically extremely Western Libertarian Capitalist). Now that premise happens to suit my own sociopolitical prejudices, so I like it, but it's still highly prejudiced against other societal models.
That rather hits upon why I'm rather sceptical of anyone - myself included - who flatters themselves at times by thinking they're close to self-actualisation. I don't think it's possible; the highest any human can practically reach is the penultimate level focusing on internal worth, esteem and respect.
Maslow describes self-actualisation in almost transcendental terms (the descriptive terms you quoted are part of that). Self-actualisation is something objectively different to the normal human experience.
Self-actualisation itself must be binary and permanent, because it requires a full achievement of potential (the other levels are temporal, and so, variable). I personally equate it to godhood because of this; it implies complete objectivity, which is impossible without complete knowledge, and impossible without knowledge of what is real and what is not, something that cannot occur because human understanding is limited by human perception. But being unable to reach it doesn't mean it's a pointless goal.
It's very worthy to strive towards, but I think that's only because it makes achieveing the esteem level much more practical. Most people are so mired on the lower levels, that the very act of looking upwards would improve their lives. In fact, most people won't reach the penultimate level for more than brief periods, so the practicalities or not of self-actualisation really are irrelevant.
Well, yes, because it's a model, not a truth. My own theoretical objections to it are that it's entirely built upon a very narrow social premise (it's ethnocentrically extremely Western Libertarian Capitalist). Now that premise happens to suit my own sociopolitical prejudices, so I like it, but it's still highly prejudiced against other societal models.
That rather hits upon why I'm rather sceptical of anyone - myself included - who flatters themselves at times by thinking they're close to self-actualisation. I don't think it's possible; the highest any human can practically reach is the penultimate level focusing on internal worth, esteem and respect.
Maslow describes self-actualisation in almost transcendental terms (the descriptive terms you quoted are part of that). Self-actualisation is something objectively different to the normal human experience.
Self-actualisation itself must be binary and permanent, because it requires a full achievement of potential (the other levels are temporal, and so, variable). I personally equate it to godhood because of this; it implies complete objectivity, which is impossible without complete knowledge, and impossible without knowledge of what is real and what is not, something that cannot occur because human understanding is limited by human perception. But being unable to reach it doesn't mean it's a pointless goal.
It's very worthy to strive towards, but I think that's only because it makes achieveing the esteem level much more practical. Most people are so mired on the lower levels, that the very act of looking upwards would improve their lives. In fact, most people won't reach the penultimate level for more than brief periods, so the practicalities or not of self-actualisation really are irrelevant.
Well, if I were independently wealthy, I'd keep busy writing, drawing, playing around with photography and filmmaking, and otherwise being creative. But given my track record at making money from my creations, that's the equivalent of volunteer work.I'd love to be rich. There would be a lot I could accomplish, from supporting charities to sponsoring the arts; but I'd settle for being just rich enough to survive without working.
I'm with you, but I think you'd be like me in that you'd be off doing voluntary work as you don't strike me as the type who can sit around eating bonbons and watching Oprah all day.
Thank goodness I have no sense of direction.
Well I interpret Maslow differently. The way I see it is there are these five levels where we can focus our mental energy, and it's a case of being sufficiently satisfied with all four of the lower levels that we can spend our time focusing on the top level.
Whereas I think you see the boundaries as being more important than the levels themselves. You recognise the completion of a level, and hitting the boundary, rather than the experience of being within a level.
To me, there is no meaning in completing the highest level, as completion is only a means to an end in terms of where we next focus our mental energies.
When at the top level, there is no higher level, so there is no other place to focus mental energy, so there can be no sense of completing it and moving on.
So in my interpretation, self-actualisation is existing within the higher level, rather than seeing it's completion.
And I guess that our difference in interpretations harks back to your INTJ personality contrasting with my personality (which you believe is INTP).
Thinking about that, self-actualisation and autotelism seem closer aligned with P than with J, and we only have to look at Maslow's and Wikipedia's keywords to see that they overlap with the keywords for P rather than the keywords for J. Creativity and Spontaneity and Curiosity are the most P-like words, which very much apply to me.
We might even go as far as suggesting that the intellectual pragmatism of INTJ is incompatible with self-actualisation, as it isn't comfortable with 'having a purpose in and not apart from itself'.
/edit
Similarly, the idea of 'reaching one's potential' I don't see as tackling some hypothetical final hurdle, rather I see 'potential' rather like I see 'fitness' in that it is a state of being, describing where our mental energy is being focused, ie towards morality, creativity, perpetual self challenge, being internally driven, etc. Autotelism describes a personality framework that is best aligned with reaching one's potential.
Last edited:
What an interesting way to interpret the hierarchy, and you're quite correct to highlight the difference of our interpretations.
I would find it intensely frustrating to the point of it being unsatisfactory to be content with "living within a level", to use your phrase, which is why I do not equate attaining self-actualisation with remaining human but a more metaphysical/transcendental task that awaits completion in another existence. It's a useful ego defence mechanism against being unable to be divine in this life, something I view as the ultimate destiny/goal. So, by intellectually postponing that ultimate task to beyond this life, I can be content with living within a level, in a way that I would not otherwise.
The real-world result is the same as your approach, but the mechanism is almost a polar opposite with your mirror-image psychic rationalisations for the reality of human imperfection. A case of convergent evolution from very different origin points. Intriguing. This has potent explanatory power in aiding the process in others, and underscores the need the need to appreciate someone's starting point when devising solutions. Nice one.
So am I to understand that you, Holdfast, see self-actualization as a goal and you, Jadzia see it as a state of being?
If I'm understanding correctly, then I must agree with Jadzia; the goal, for me, would be to reach that state only so I could be in that state in perpetuity.
If I'm understanding correctly, then I must agree with Jadzia; the goal, for me, would be to reach that state only so I could be in that state in perpetuity.
J
Jetfire
Guest
I just want a million dollars! 
Lets call a spade a spade...being poor SUCKS! There is nothing wrong with being wealthy.
Lets call a spade a spade...being poor SUCKS! There is nothing wrong with being wealthy.
