Various Levels of Transcendence/Self-Actualization

Henry Ford falls short of self-actualization. Don't use him as an example. Truly self-actualized people are more like another Henry, one Henry David Thoreau. Most who transcend are apolitical and independent-minded, like that Henry. They are very willing to face hard, unrelenting truths, but they tend to be extremely soft-spoken. If you press them a bit, they may politely discuss their wide-open, carefully formulated views of the difficult truths, but if you get bored, stop listening, and start talking over them, they'll stop explaining.

Then they will do what you refuse to do: They will listen to you courteously and smile and nod and wait for you to finish. They won't respond to any harsh religious or political dogma you care to spout at them. They have no interest in dogma. If you likewise show no interest for their thoughts, they will just want you to be finished so they can get back to being the people they are.

Some say Lincoln was self-actualized. I say he had his moments. He might have transcended privately, but publicly, he tried every way possible to deal with the Civil War on a "basic" level, putting off the higher principles as long as he could. One of his transcendental moments was when he delivered the Gettysburg Address. Another was when he signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

Most self-actualized people are not at all famous. Our culture overlooks them. We value people who demonstrate mastery over the "basics" of life ("cash-first"). People who rise beyond the "basics" to deal with higher realities are thought to be strange, and most often, they are ignored, as Thoreau was ignored until long after he died. Then came a broad rediscovery of his legacy, at which time people began to understand his brilliance.

Times have changed. Now, those who transcend "basic" culture can receive the credit they deserve in their lifetimes, not that they always do. But at least, even we, who value "cash first," have begun to understand the true nature of the transcended individual. We can even sense which ones are more self-actualized than others.

Who are they? More tomorrow.

Identifying the Famous (or Infamous) Self-Actualized (or Nearly Self-Actualized) Individual

To help kids understand self-actualization, we must find examples of people who have attained that level of consciousness. Then our students can examine them. Historical figures are good of course, but we have to be extremely selective. Not every famous person of the past who is credited with revolutionary ideas was a self-actualized person. Not every successful person is "self-actualized," (least of all business moguls). Also, it is a horrible idea to select religious leaders. Many Christians see Buddha as a soul in hell. Many Muslims believe Christians are members of the rabble known as "infidels."

Religious leaders are, in fact, pretty good examples of "self-actualized" individuals. But they're buried in modern religion, and the topic of modern religion is a minefield. Best to stay clear.

I believe self-actualization can be a momentary, "peak" experience. Maslow defines it as the "highest" level of human needs. I therefore propose a synonym for "self-actualization": "transcendence," which literally means the state or condition of having "risen above." I will use both terms interchangeably.

I believe a person can, in a flash of brilliant transcendence, obtain credit for some magnificent advancement without fully deserving the label of "self-actualization." A perfect example is Henry Ford, who exerted tremendous influence, with all its favorable and unfavorable results, on American culture when he transformed the auto industry in the early 20th Century. He did indeed have his moments of transcendence, and he was financially rewarded for his insights at those critical times of life, but he wasn't a perfect human being.

Of course, human perfection does not mean the same as self-actualization. In fact, the truly self-actualized person will admit to being imperfect.

But Henry thought he was mighty close to perfection. And with that assumption as his excuse, he intruded on the private lives of his employees, took credit for achievements that were not his (in particular, the creation of the Model A Ford, which was almost entirely his son's idea), and generally imposed his power and influence far beyond the realm of his own expertise and talents in an effort to force people to change.

Sounds to me like Henry Ford's "success" and subsequent head-swollen notions resemble those of a lot of self-righteous business moguls walking around today. He, and the rest of them, are perfect examples of success on the basic level, not self-actualization.

Teaching Self-Actualization Is Difficult

In order to teach self-actualization, we need to teach our kids what's wrong with our society. Of course, we will first teach them to respect the achievements of our community, state, and nation. And we will take every opportunity to make certain they understand the sacrifices Americans have made in the past to protect the freedoms they enjoy today.

But our world and nation are still imperfect, and, much as the founding fathers did prior to the Revolutionary War, we must examine our situation and judge what it might take to move ourselves beyond our current state of bondage on Maslow's "basic" plane. It took a war to move us beyond British rule, another war to get us past enslavement of African-Americans, still others to surmount the imperial threats of World War I and World War II.

But it doesn't always take a war. Sometimes, disciplined changes of policies and laws can ease racial tensions, stop abuse by monopolies, grant rights to those who deserve them, and end suffering. No political party has ever sought to make life better for all people. Political parties are designed to cater to the demands of its constituents. The great solutions, whether they came down to war or policy changes, were made with compromise and in spite of politics, at least for a brief moment.

If we want our "basic" society to ascend to higher levels, we must ask our students to ascend beyond political thinking. I'm not talking about rejecting the past; I'm talking about accepting the past for what it is, respecting the good that has come of it, and seeking ways to improve ourselves. It takes self-actualization to see what others don't, and it takes courage to challenge one's community, state, and nation to do better. Certainly, politics must be acknowledged, but it's easier to hide in a political party than to speak the truth, so politics must be studied, identified for exactly the thing it is, and then set aside in order to rise above it.

We Are a Basic Society

The truth is, a society that values people according to Maslow's higher levels of thinking will not have vagrants or homeless people in it. But we don't live in a society that values and nurtures people. We live in a society that nurtures and serves and worships a "free" economy, meaning, the "economy" itself is free, not us. To prosper, our economy is constantly in search of the most labor for the smallest wage, in other words, slave labor. We are all enslaved, to some extent. The modern form of enslavement is debt. (You can find more about that in my other blog.)

This is a "cash first" society. In such a "basic" environment, the majority of us do not "follow the bliss" of self-actualization. Instead, we will take cash first. To legitimize our "cash first" lifestyles, most of us participate in politics of one sort or another, or we refuse to participate ourselves, and simply become members of political parties. They serve us by transmogrifying our animal desires, stacking them on top of vague "principles" that seem to justify their presence in government policy, and dress them up to make us all look like an enlightened people. All government policies have "basic" needs at their roots.

Political parties provide us a refuge, a place to go when some strange, self-actualized person comes along and confronts us with the truth that our way of dealing with the abstract but extremely vital realities of life is grossly lacking. It makes us feel uncomfortable when they do that, so we retreat from truth and seek approval of others in our party. If we don't believe in political parties, we find some other group to which we feel we can belong. If everyone in our group accepts the fact that we all lack clarity and content together, but we're still doing the best we can, we don't look so bad.

Most of us certainly do want some of the "higher" life experiences in Maslow's scheme: love, acceptance, understanding, and all the rest of those mid-level "higher" but not "highest" goals. The easiest way to convince those in our various groups that we are worthy of having their love, acceptance, and understanding, is to obtain money and impress them with possessions. So our lives become this strange treadmill of working, spending, gathering possessions, and putting on a show.

The economy remains "free" to trample us constantly and persuades us to gravitate toward the basic level. We need food and money, and more money, and things we can buy with money and more things and more money. And we want approval and friends who have money, and we want more money, and we want to be safe, and we want to keep our money safe. And oh, my! We so appreciate the value of security! And the lack of it strikes fear in us, and we are highly motivated by fear and a political party that can protect us and our money and our property from fear and insecurity.

And that's our life, and that's what makes us rich and "filthy." We tend to be gluttons for a "basic" mode of life. We all want to be more wealthy, more basic, and not more self-actualized. Political parties exist to defend the "basic" interests.

You want more argumentation on that front? Go look for it in my other blog. I need to find my way back to education for now.

Maslow's Security and Levels Below: The Realm of Politics

Money! There's your answer! That's what brings us bliss! The real key to all happiness is money! Money means food, drink, and possessions, three-dimensional objects that serve our animal needs and desires. Money is very basic.

When you consider our society, you have to forget Maslow's lofty goal of self-actualization. Society is basic. It limits us to making choices on that rudimentary level. The upper limit of our society is security. It's the highest priority of our government. Look at the money we spend on defense. Look at how often we make decisions based on what we fear. How high up are those behaviors on the almighty hierarchy?

When we respond to Maslow's inventory questions, most of us just lie our way up. We already know the "right" answers, and instead of being truthful, we make the choices that make us look good. To create the impression that we care about higher things in life, we cheat. We do it on Maslow's inventory, and we do it all the time in real life.

"Do you care about other less fortunate people?"

Here's the lie: "Why yes, I do care, very much."

Ha! Here's the justification for the lie: "But I care more that they become self-sufficient, like me."

In our society, here's the "basic" truth: "I take care of myself and mine. The next person has to do the same. Care for yourself! Shave and shower! Get a job!"

The truly self-actualized among us tell the truth too, and it can be a bit of a shock, because some of it is going to sound a little like it comes from a Maslow "basic" personality: "Yes, I care, and I believe we have to provide a safety net for the least fortunate and most irresponsible citizens of this country. But let's not give them too much: A little apartment and the bare essentials, a jail cell that they carry the key to, a place where they can go instead of standing next to the on ramp on I-90 with a sign asking for a handout. When the cops see someone like that, they should take him to his cell. We need to provide counseling for such people also, provide choices that force them to clean up and get jobs, and if they have psychological or physical problems, we need to help them get over them so they can start pulling their own weight! And if they can't take care of themselves, and if they need to be institutionalized, well, we need to make sure it happens!"

I would maintain that a vast difference exists between these two positions, but I would also maintain that they both arrive at very similar conclusions. And yes, the "basic" confrontation is brutal. The "self-actualized" approach, however, doesn't exactly present its antithesis. It's certainly no bleeding heart about the plight of the poor and destitute.

I also maintain that Maslow's blunt instrument, his "inventory," based on questions and responses, is utterly incapable of discerning the differences. 

The Bliss of This

So why does Maslow suck?

Well, I'll tell you, but I'm not going to bother putting the whole thought in front of you. I'm just going to throw you a little bone for now. See Cookie over there, on the right? See the love in her eyes as she salivates all over her bone? Cookie is in utter bliss! "Follow your bliss!" said Joseph Campbell. According to him, that is what obtains us happiness and purposeful living.

Maslow expressed the same thought inside-out: If you tell him what gives you bliss, he will tell you what kind of human being you are. I did the inventory, Maslow's, and I came out a basic person, irrevocably inferior, not only to self-actualization, but inferior to esteem, inferior, even, to love. I took another look at the questions. I came out basic again. I cannot honestly answer the inventory questions differently. I cannot!

But I'm not basic. I am driven to deal with abstract matters, such as these very matters about which I am now writing, because the abstractions are vitally important in a nation of communities governed by laws and nurtured by a system of public, free education. I am obsessed with exploration of those inner workings. It gives me bliss to put words together in such a way that they rout out truth.

But Maslow says that counts for nothing. He says I'm basic because of the way I answered the questions! I am motivated by feed and water! I'm no better than Cookie! There's considerable shame in that, you know, being basic. I mean, Good God Almighty! Basic people seek gratification on an animal level! We are driven to have sex, eat, sleep, rid ourselves of waste, and maybe obtain a little security. THAT'S IT!

Strange though, isn't it, that the self-actualized person shares most of the opinions of the "basic" person? The "basic" person doesn't seek approval of others, but the "self-actualized" person doesn't either. He's beyond that. His eyes are on the "higher" prize. He serves only the noblest ideals of human experience. He doesn't go after the approval of others; they follow him.

So sometimes, the "self-actualized" person and the "basic" person behave surprisingly alike. The difference is their personal, private motivations.

The real question to answer is not on Maslow's inventory. The real question is, what brings you bliss?

Maslow Sucks

I'm not sure if other people have this experience, but to me, thoughts are not fragments. They're more like incredibly huge meals. That's why I write so voluminously. You may see a thought as a simple assertion, capable of expression in a hundred words or less. I can hear lots of you crying, "Come on, Wohlsi! Cut to the chase! What's the point?"

I see one well-defined thought as a feast laid before me, and even if I fill my mouth just as full as I possibly can, it will take many, many bites to get it all in. I need to read and understand every morsel to appreciate it.

So that's why I write about Sex in the Classroom in five parts. I just can't get it said any simpler. I mean, who in the world would listen to me if I handed you this:

"The majority of people can't read very well because when they're learning the most essential reading skills of their lives, sex gets in the way and short-circuits their minds."

Who would give me the slightest credence if I said that?

Now, I see lots of people stopping by to check out my blog whenever I add something new, and that's great. Trouble is, not many are reading whole thoughts. They look at my short stuff and go away. I understand, I really do. None of us has time to read all this stuff. Time is like money. It takes an investment of time to read.

Well, let me tell ya, it takes an investment of time to set the table and put a meal on it too.

So OK! Enough for today. Here's a fragment of a thought. See how you like it:

Maslow sucks.

OK. You've read a little over 300 words, about all you'll want for now. See ya.

More later.