Don't Be a Maslow

Don't pretend to be a self-actualized person. Become one. Quit keeping lists of enemies. Be a teacher. Rise above the fray.

Find someone who truly is self-actualized and learn from that person. Get out and find that person and learn not to be "basic." It is our duty to avoid being caught up in the eco-military-governmental preoccupation rat race for gain and security. It is our duty to get to a place where we can see.

If we can't see, or if we refuse to try, we must remember that it is our duty not to condemn any trains of thought simply because they have a name that you don't like. Even if we're "died in the wool" liberals, and are incapable of removing ourselves from that narrow cell, we cannot, we must not, denigrate conservatives. It is our duty to see the positive contributions of all sorts of thinking.

We must try hard not to be Democrat or Republican, leftist or rightist, conservative or liberal.

We don't dismiss groups as "evil." Communists aren't "evil." Communism is an attempt to make communities work by spreading wealth and prosperity so that all members of them can enjoy it. Communism is an utter failure. There are reasons why it fails. Talk about Communism as a concept with good intentions that is far too easily corruptible to ever be effective, but don't condemn every Communist that ever lived. Our duty is not to dismiss human endeavor. Ours is to see it and help kids see it for what it is.

Yes, we live in a great country. But it is great because we are allowed to transcend. Show them how.

Maslow's Basement Is not to Blame (but Maslow Still Sucks)

Maslow was right about one thing: People who remain gratified with mere “secure” and “basic” lives are inferior people indeed. And in all fairness, society's situation is not Maslow’s fault. Although his theory is deeply flawed, he must have had a sense of what it means to rise to where one can see reality for what it is.

But he must not have transcended very much himself. I can't explain it any other way; he obviously failed to perceive the contradiction, that people at both his highest and lowest levels share so many characteristics. The theory is a good one, but it lacks verification.

Maslow sucks because his theory remains nebulous.

Real self-actualization is rare. It is rare because our society blocks thinking. (Perhaps it did with Maslow.) The government stresses party politics, serves entitlements to big money, deprives the less fortunate, and endlessly proclaims that it is impossible to spend too much money on “security,” the absolute upper limit of Maslow's Basement.

Political parties also serve the interests of big money. Big money owns them. They pare decisions down to the essentials of “we against them.” According to the parties, somebody has to lose, and if you're not one of us, you deserve to lose.

Parties worship at the altar of a “Free Market” that constantly seeks superior production of wealth at the absolute lowest cost of labor. Their thinking stops there. Now we are all capable of knowing perfectly well that if the “Free Market” has its way, it finds slave labor, or the closest equivalent, to accomplish its purposes, but that reality is visible only from a higher perspective, and we don't like the view from up there. Politicians certainly don't go there. They too stop thinking when they arrive at security. Theirs is a fear game: “The other party is out to get you. Vote for us,” they advise. Most of the time, their rhetoric remains on the lowest levels: “If we win, you'll get more – more freedom, more equality, more security, more wealth.”

And if you're already truly one of the party, that is, if you already have ample wealth, and if your party “wins,” you do get more.

In the meantime, most of us get fleeced.

Public education has now been taken hostage by the “basic” authorities of government and the “basic” priorities of politics. They keep kids focused on math and reading and discourage enlightened, creative thinking. Politicians, government officials, and most educators prefer not to have their schemes probed by high school and college graduates. The days of student protest are a thing of the sixties; they're over.

To an astonishing degree, kids have complied. They've memorized the mantra: “Stay in school. Graduate. Get high level skills and take an entry level job. Consider yourself lucky. Join a political party – either one, it doesn't matter – Go to work for us, and become a good consumer. Oh, and stay in line, because we, the big corporations, are entitled to our profits, and you, the little guy, must make do with much less.”

It's not a political party that controls power in America. Its not a Constitution or a President or a Congressional body, or even a confused Supreme Court. The Master of Ceremonies in America today is the “basic” thinking behind greed and wealth.

Do people sense a dramatic change coming?

Of course they do. Anyone smart enough to be about half stupid can see that our current condition is untenable. We do not solve problems anymore. We fight over money and power. We're consumed with a desire to accumulate and “secure” wealth. The so-called “gridlock” of government is all due to a failure to rise above that “base” thinking.

It's time for self-actualized teachers to enter this discussion.

Laughter of Despair

Why is talk between two self-actualized people punctuated with so many chuckles, smiles, and perhaps guffaws?

Because Maslow sucks. Significant numbers of those who are truly self-actualized look like a gang of drunks. They gather in bars as though their only goal in life is to become intoxicated.

They laugh, ridiculing the ignorance of a “basic” society, but they also know well how serious things are. Theirs is the laughter of despair. They who rise above easily arrive at agreement about why the current situation doesn’t work, and why even a phantasmagoric, seemingly “off-the-wall” solution would work out far better. Their sad conclusion goes unsaid, but it is mutually understood: The current “system,” if you’re going to call it that, doesn’t work. We need a revolutionary approach, but it cannot be driven by the corrupt “values” of an entrenched wealthy class. And sadly, that corrupt class, blind to their own errors, currently holds most of the power in this country.

When it becomes obvious that a willy-nilly distribution of cash among the poor would stimulate the economy far more effectively than plans implemented over the past decade, it is clear that we need drastic change in this country, nothing short of a revolution, not a violent one, no, but a dramatic change, not by Democratic leaders, no, they’re too rich; not by Republican leaders, no, they’re much too rich; not by Liberals, no, they’re Liberal because they’re rich; not by Conservatives, no, they’re rich because they’re Conservative; not by rich people, but not necessarily by the poor either.

The self-actualized provide truth and proofs, but Democrats will only accept the parts that reinforce the Democratic mindset; Republicans will only accept the parts that reinforce the Republican mindset; Liberals will …

You get the idea. And all members of all groups, religious, civic, political, or anything else, will grab onto what they can use and they will return to their groups, where they can gather sound bites and talking points to reinforce one another’s fears so that they can reject the other, more uncomfortable truths offered by the transcendent individuals.

What is to be done?

Conversation in a Bar Concludes

Sorry. Meant to have this in yesterday, but got busy with life.

OK. So, last time, we were listening to a self-actualized conversation overheard in a bar. It sounds like two absolutely insane people are talking. These two transcendent individuals are considering a bizarre proposal. We don’t have all the details, but we can draw some inferences about the “plan” from their conversation so far. It goes like this:

Gather all the money accumulated in tax cuts (as part of the “economic stimulus” program) from the wealthy people (those who make perhaps a million dollars or more per year, for example) over the past ten or twelve years. Distribute that money to the poor and destitute in the country.

Next, gather all of the “entitlements” received by those officially defined as “impoverished” by the federal government over the same period, and distribute those funds, in the form of food stamps, to the rich.

What would happen next? Well! Let’s listen to what these two self-actualized people think:

Says one of the transcended individuals to the other, “There’d be some weird stuff happening, but businesses would still profit from the financial stimulus; in fact, they’d probably profit more, because nearly every penny of that money given to the poor would go directly into circulation. People would be spending more immediately, and probably borrowing more too, except after the near-crash, lenders would be a lot more careful about who got loans, of course. Big investors would continue getting dividends from their stocks, and their banking interests would collect interest payments. The money would go “bottom up,” so people in debt would be able to pay their debts. The whole system would get that money injected directly into the arteries of commerce if you gave it to the poor first."

Replies the other, "But the wealthy would get their hands on it somehow. The bank profits and dividends and sales of inflated stocks, all of that would still go to vacations in Switzerland or overseas somewhere else, and they'd put the rest into tax shelters, just like they do now."

"I know. But the money would trickle clear through the entire system, at least one time, if you gave the cash to the poor people first. You don't stimulate the economy by giving rich people tax breaks and letting them put that money into tax shelters right away! They're not going to invest in America’s economy if the economy doesn't give them a return. They'll invest in China or somewhere else to earn a fast buck. That doesn't help us."

“You know, you’re right about that!”

[Many chuckles, pause for reflection, sipping beer, looks of mutual appreciation, more laughter, but quiet laughter, tinged with a note of deep sadness. Strange, strange laughter from these two.]

Of course, the talk will go on, but that’s enough for now to make some observations: Notice all of the truth permeating this exchange? When you hear two people talking crazy like this and in the process, producing so many powerful truths, you’re listening to a self-actualized conversation.

I am not suggesting that such plans as theirs would truly work out. The wealthy have exploited the current flawed system for as many generations as their beloved “free market” has existed. The “free market” has been free to victimize the powerless for so long, that those in power don’t even realize anymore that it’s happening. The wealthy corporate complex simply would not hear of such a scheme as the one concocted by these self-actualized Americans. The wealthy know all about entitlements. They especially know this: If you’re going to stimulate the economy, they, the rich, must get tax cuts first. They know that they are entitled to that money.

But you see, that’s exactly what drives the conversation. That is one of the main tenets behind the theme of the scenario these two transcendent people are producing. To put it simply, rich people who have fleeced the country for profits don’t see truth. They don’t want to look at it. They cannot engage in such a dialogue, even if for one moment. The truth permeates their delusion, pops it like a balloon. It hurts. They simply will not allow themselves to be so treated.

Conversation in a Bar

(Now today's message is a little long, but it has to be that way, so just stay with it and pay attention, OK?)

A bar is a place where strange characters show up. That is one fact nobody will deny. It is the main reason self-actualized people gather there. They know themselves to be strange, and they know that other truly self-actualized humans have a similar awareness of themselves.

So consciously or subconsciously, they go to bars to find each other; it’s as simple as that.

What a transcendent does is, he or she begins frequenting a bar in search of other revolutionary, transcendent minds. When a self-actualized person tells another person his perspective on things, and the other quickly finds another place to sit, the self-actualized individual realizes that he has misjudged the other, and he leaves that one alone.

But the strange people continue searching each other out, and when a self-actualized person discovers one who is willing to listen, the possibility of a genuinely philosophical companionship (not anything resembling an alliance, just a companionship) hangs in the balance.

A conversation occurs. It is a kind of negotiation. The two tentatively admit that they have no conventional position on any political matters; they have very few certainties about what "must" be done about __________ (fill in the blank). All they have is total agreement that the current establishment is deeply flawed, and their only remedies are revolutionary, unusual, wild, and extremely difficult for most people to fathom. Consider this exchange:

"I don't know what all the fuss is about. Democrats want economic stimulus. So do Republicans," says one to the other.

"Yeah. Democrats want poor people to get food stamps and they don’t seem to mind if rich people get tax breaks," replies the other, sipping reflectively on a cheap beer, nodding his head. “And of course, in government, the Democrats are rich themselves. So they don’t mind.”

"Republicans are no different, except they want rich people to get more tax breaks and poor people to get fewer food stamps."

[Chuckle, chuckle, nodding of heads, smiles, sipping of beers, mutual agreement.]

Says one, "Maybe they should experiment; make it so that rich people get the food stamps and poor people get the equivalent of all the tax breaks given out over the past ten years." [Tentative chuckle.]

[Laugh. Quizzical expression, but one obviously meant to encourage elaboration.] "Yeah? That would be different."

[Responding to the encouragement, a bit more bravely now,] "Yeah, but the money would stay right in the country. The poor people would buy booze and drugs and clothes, and the money would go to local businesses and entrepreneurs."

"But a lot of the money would go to criminals and con artists. It might go to illegal drugs, gambling, prostitution - -"

"Rich people buy illegal drugs too, a lot more drugs than the poor. It wouldn't make much difference. Sure, there’d be illegal transactions, but who knows? Maybe there wouldn’t be as many. Poor people need food and clothing. Rich people already have all they need.”

“You know, the really rich already have about everything they need and everything they want, too.”

“Well, of course, and over the past ten or twelve years, if you gave poor people the tax breaks that the rich people got, and gave the rich people food stamps, maybe the rich would’ve spent their food stamp entitlement on drugs just as much as the poor people did, but one thing they wouldn’t do is put it into their Swiss bank accounts!” [Chuckle.]

“Ha! Nope. Swiss banks don’t take food stamps, I don’t believe!” [Laughter.]

“But the rich could probably find more effective ways to buy their drugs with their food stamps! Don’t you think?”

"Hmmm. Now that you mention it, maybe not much else would be different.”

Now, that is one crazy conversation. If you overhear it, try not to disturb it; listen for a little while. Make sure you get all of it before you interrupt. Don’t be rude!

All right. That’s enough for you to think about today. I’ll give you the rest of it tomorrow.

Bars, Politics, and Transcendence

Most people in bars tend to be affiliated with political parties, and even though bar people are inclined to be only loosely affiliated with those parties, their politicized state prevents them from being self-actualized. So most people in bars are not self-actualized.

But even so, many of them are looking for something better, although some are unaware of that motivation most of the time. A few will even admit that they recognize the shortcomings and absolute corruption of all politics, even theirs. They sense a certainty that politics makes us all inferior, even as they submit to its demands.

A small number of self-actualized among the bar crowd have risen beyond and openly voice their disapproval of politics. They're not living for votes or for the opportunity to vote. They have many casual friends and acquaintances, but they are not driven by friendship or social factors. They are driven by a personal appreciation for truth, and it is extremely difficult for them to find others interested in the same, but sooner or later, if they show up at a bar and seek each other out, they will find one another.

Here, in the stink and noise and the mess, they sense the presence of self-actualization. Here, among the various lonely, depressed, joyous, loud, and outrageous people, they find some who are looking for better company, and they find one another, and they gather.

They are a very small crowd, but they are persistent. They are among the "regulars." Oddly enough, one of the principal reasons they go to the bar is because they seek truth and excellence in one another. They go to the bar as others go to church, to bolster their faith. More explicitly, they go to follow their bliss, and it is not in the alcohol that they find bliss; theirs is the bliss of communicating with others who are self-actualized. Oh, they may have a beer or two, or even more. They may get a little too much alcohol now and then. But among their crowd, that doesn't happen often; the companionship is the important thing.

They talk of the strangest matters. They talk of what they are reading and the messages that the authors seem to be expressing through their work. They even see serious themes in some works of popular fiction. They discuss history, mathematics, literature, music, various forms of art, and other academic topics. When they discuss politics, they talk of it as a phenomenon, just another thing to be observed and studied, certainly not their answer to the great questions of life. They discuss very seriously the way society has politicized history and has failed to learn by it. They both talk and listen intently to one another. Watch for that little crowd next time you go into a bar.

Kids in Bars? No!

Wait now. I'm not suggesting that we send our students to bars. I'm saying we find self-actualized people and learn from them, no matter where we find them. They can show us how to teach people to rise above the fray.

But we don't have clubs or churches established for those who transcend. We have groups for the civic minded, the religiously pious, the religiously devout, the religiously scatterbrained, the very smart, the red-haired, and nearly every sort of human being you could imagine. But we have no place for those who transcend the principles, laws, customs, and standards of their culture. However, it just happens that self-actualized people do show up in bars.

Kids won't find many self-actualized people among their classmates. That state of mind is very much an adult perspective on the world, and that perspective today is rare.

Schools don't have much room for revolutionary thinkers. The few self-actualized students in attendance cannot be too insistent about confronting fraud with truth, particularly when the fraud is school policy. It's simply not allowed. And teachers, you even have to be careful how you present revolutionary themes as they arise in literature. If they breach the hot topics of the time, you need to maintain that you are only presenting the possibilities raised by the author, and you must refrain, even if you don't want to, from editorializing based on your own views. You must tread very carefully in schools.

But bars are places where you can find self-actualized people who do not wish to become immersed in the political machinery that squashes most of us into a "basic" lifestyle. I am certainly not suggesting that all people who gather in bars are self-actualized. But a surprisingly large portion of them come to bars seeking out the company of others of their kind, and the local bar is one of the few places we can find each other nowadays.

What? Did I just suggest I am self-actualized? Sorry. Didn't mean it. What I meant is, when I have a moment of self-actualization, or when I'm seeking to experience one, I will go down to the local bar and meet up with some friends I know who are definitely self-actualized.

What to Look for in a Self-Actualized Person

Not all characteristics of self-actualized people can be observed, but some of these can:

People who are truly self-actualized are quite often single. Some are divorced, but many have been single for life, for obvious reasons. The married among them will usually be found alone when you meet and identify them for who they are. Relationships are important to the self-actualized, but not as important as their life's purpose, to know and understand life from the highest levels of human experience. Now we are getting to the second level of identifying characteristics. To probe this deeply, you will probably have to eavesdrop on conversations or participate in some with them:

The most highly self-actualized read voraciously. They work just hard enough so that they can go to the library often and keep informed. They watch television, but not too much; they like science and history channels. They are constantly searching to know more.

Transcended individuals tend to be poor or middle class in today's "cash-first" society. Generally speaking, a state of self-actualization and one of wealth-consciousness repel each other. Rich people know how to work the system they're in. They don't want to think about improving a scheme they've mastered. Their preoccupation (working a flawed but advantageous system) binds them to base purposes.

Those who have transcended are non-violent. When you get close to a person who shows promise of being self-actualized and discover that she or he is violent, you're probably wise not to continue probing.

Can rich people be self-actualized?

Of course they can. Just don't look for them among the wealthiest class. Don't go to fancy upscale lounges trying to find them. You're better off walking into a common bar.

Have You Had Your Moments?

Trouble with being self-actualized is, you don't always know you're there until someone else tells you. But if you do know before someone else tells you, that is self-actualization!

So I create these online products. Here's a comment someone left at my online store. This one is made in regard to my quizzes on To Kill a Mockingbird. (Go and see for yourself, if you'd like):

This is perfect! The sections are broken up just as I would have done it myself and the questions are straightforward enough for me to hold students accountable for their outside of class reading so that we can dig deeper during class discussions. Thank you!
http://www.teacherspayteachers.com/Product/To-Kill-a-Mockingbird-Six-Reading-Quizzes-Answer-Keys

If you go to the product listing and click "Ratings and Comments," you'll find it.

Here's another comment on my Julius Caesar study guides:

Excellent! I have used this in regular, honors, and inclusion classes. Works wonderfully!
http://www.teacherspayteachers.com/Product/Julius-Caesar-Unit-80-plus-Pages-Answer-Keys-Hardcore-Common-Core

Yesterday the Ravens beat the Forty-Niners in a Super Bowl. Are the Ravens self-actualized, or does it take a trophy and a championship ring to make them feel self-actualized?

In the case of my educational materials, I knew they would work. I knew something was perfect about them. I had my moments. And I have new moments of self-actualization whenever I do a close reading of a great piece of literature. I can sense it happening to me.

I sell those products. That's "basic"! The money helps to pay my bills!

But the moment I uncover something I've never seen before in a great story, or rediscover something that I knew was somewhere in there, but was unable to find while talking to my students in class one day, that moment, of getting the knowledge and ascending the proof of that knowledge, and formulating questions that will give students that same ride, is transformative, transcendent, and yes, self-actualizing.

The sale of the product? The comments of my customers? Well, they're extremely gratifying! It reinforces what I knew was true, that this product has merit, that no one has put together anything quite like this before.

Did the Ravens do something transcendent? Did the Forty-Niners?

Both teams had their moments, but certain individual members of each team experienced a tremendous exhilaration the moment they first knew, while practicing that aspect of their game, that this would work! They didn't experience it for the first time during the game. Their greatest knowing happened during football practice! I coached football for over twenty years. I know the feeling. As a player, as a coach, you know when you've found something that will work!

Those that were surprised and delighted that a strategy worked during the game are not self-actualized. That is not self-actualization, not the score afterward, not the trophies or the money, but the knowledge, during preparations, that this will work.

Strange People

Most famous human beings are not self-actualized. Most self-actualized human beings are not famous.

Maslow misses the point severely. Achievements alone matter for nothing. Having enough cash to wait it out until the next paycheck is a need thrust upon us by a very "basic" American society. We can't ignore that concern. When we turn to his "inventory," we either answer honestly and look "basic," or we lie our way up his pyramid.

A different inventory would be more helpful, if it could be devised. It would focus upon what one wishes to do and hopes to achieve in life. That's what matters most of all.

The greater modern folk heroes, whether they're "cash-first," "self-actualized" or "briefly transcended," illustrate the differences between those who are momentarily inspired and then decide to rejoin their "basic" culture, and those others who are considered "odd" because they truly do "march to the beat of a different drummer," living for extended periods of their lives, or for the most important moment of their lives, in a transcended state, aware of truths others cannot yet see.

The self-actualized, because they are ahead of their time, are unusual and extremely rare. It's difficult for "basic" people to engage in frank conversations with them. They who rise above "stick out" in various ways, as "odd" creatures, particularly in "cash-first" cultures like ours. The brightest among them realize how unusual they are, and they conceal their motivations, making it surprisingly difficult to identify their self-actualized state of mind and soul.

Obviously, not every "odd" person is self-actualized. Unlike many "odd" people, transcendent individuals are hardly ever uncivil. They are not destitute. They are not vagrants. They work for a living (but they don't work for the same reasons you and I work). They don't put themselves into a frenzy about making money. They have no desire to be rich. They're extremely intelligent and naturally philosophical about life. After you gain their confidence and show them that you are out for further enlightenment rather than confrontation (for the moment, at least), they'll say, "OK, if that's what you want, I'll tell how I feel. I had an experience, and it deeply affected me, and most people don't agree with me, but here's how I see it ..."

When you get an opportunity to listen to a person speak to you in this way, take advantage of it. You will be hearing a self-actualized perspective on some matter, and you would be wise to put aside all your prejudices long enough to open your mind and strive to understand. Most likely, you will be lifted out of yourself to see the universe in a different light, making you feel quite uncomfortable. But let it happen. It will be an important learning moment in your life.

In order to identify them, it is important to recognize common traits of the self-actualized. However, enlightened souls are not the only people to display these characteristics. In fact, some mighty dangerous people share them. Nevertheless, you can look for the self-actualized by observing some patterns.

Was Dr. Martin Luther King Self-Actualized?

You need to look at the famous poor to find the best examples of self-actualized individuals. Mother Theresa certainly transcended. Many refer to Ghandi as the example Mother Theresa emulated. They were indeed self-actualized; no leaders have surpassed them.

A more familiar figure is Dr. Martin Luther King, who became hero to certain people and villain to others, depending upon the prejudices of those in judgment. Although remembered as self-actualized, he was not transcendent throughout his life. You can sense by his story that he was never wildly enthusiastic about becoming another victim of non-violence in the struggle for equal rights.

More than just a little reluctantly at first, but then, examining his heart, and with stunning courage, he took leadership for a cause, not because it was his cause only, but because others so badly needed him to go ahead and visit "the Mountaintop, ... and [see] the promised land" they had all worked so long and hard to find.

Yes, he was self-actualized, and fully so, right there at the end of his life. Admire Dr. King, and admire all those who took a beating, or multiple beatings, for your sake and for mine. Admire them for their decision to rise above and lift this country out of its "basic" madness of that time.

Now, who will step forward to take the beatings for America's current state of "basic" madness?

Were the Computer Geniuses Self-Actualized?

Contrast William Gates and Steve Jobs. The "basic" culture was unable to understand them. But they created magnificent tools that embraced and brought the future to everyone.

Were they self-actualized? No. They were like Lincoln. They had their moments.

Those early, revolutionary days of computers passed, and Gates retreated from a transcended state to remain as he is now, just another one of the generally famous "rich people." I realize how poorly you may regard the phrase, "just another one" as it applies to Gates, particularly if you share "basic" American values, but please hear me out.

Bill was inspired, once. The inspiration catapulted him to greatness and made him a celebrity. Then he became another Henry Ford, another business mogul. On Bill's behalf, he's got a lot going for him, what with his charities and his attempts to advance mankind. He seems to be expressing needs for "higher" things, but even they make him look and drive more like a Ford than a transcendentalist, at least for now. Maybe a greater Gates legacy will blossom someday.

Jobs was obviously different. At first glance, one might suppose him to be truly self-actualized. He kept innovating and thinking ahead constantly, at times appearing to be inventing standards for himself that others could not comprehend. He occasionally seemed to behave a little like Henry Ford as well, but he never could quite rejoin and "fit in" with the establishment.

Although he spent lots of time with the "rich people" crowd, Jobs kept finding his way back to the extraordinary person he was and doing the things he was good at. Again and again, he demonstrated an awareness that went beyond insight and rose to the level of visionary. He developed solutions to problems people didn't even have yet, but soon would have. One might say he invented both the problems and the solutions.

But Jobs wavered. He seemed lucidly transcendent about half the time and in pursuit of wealth ("basic" American success) the other half. He was an exceptional mogul. If any "cash-first" guy could have risen above "cash-first," he might have. He just didn't. He enjoyed many moments of transcendental thinking. All of us can perceive this fact. The difference between Jobs and Gates wasn't how much money they made, or even the sort of products they dreamed up, really. It was their motivation. Jobs was perhaps nearer to real self-actualization.

In the end, however, neither one of them actually rose far above Maslow's (and America's) "basic" level.