[HN Gopher] The missing apex of Maslow's hierarchy: self-transce...
___________________________________________________________________
The missing apex of Maslow's hierarchy: self-transcendence
Author : arizen
Score : 37 points
Date : 2024-01-28 17:40 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (bigthink.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (bigthink.com)
| ada1981 wrote:
| It was never a hierarchy though, that was someone later who
| misrepresented his work and that version was popularized.
| henry2023 wrote:
| Here is the original work[1]. And not only the hierarchy is
| never mentioned. Also, the whole publication is just an essay
| that lacks any kind or form of research.
|
| [1] https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Maslow/motivation.htm
| mhb wrote:
| > And not only the hierarchy is never mentioned
|
| That's absurd. The entire essay describes the hierarchy.
| throwaway18536 wrote:
| The whole essay talks about various hierarchies, literally
| the defining theme is hierarchy of motivation
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| Thank you for the link, but I'm curious why you didn't read
| it yourself before you made your assertion?
|
| "But what happens to man's desires when there is plenty of
| bread and when his belly is chronically filled?
|
| At once other (and 'higher') needs emerge and these, rather
| than physiological hungers, dominate the organism. And when
| these in turn are satisfied, again new (and still 'higher')
| needs emerge and so on. This is what we mean by saying that
| the basic human needs are organized into a hierarchy of
| relative prepotency. "
| layer8 wrote:
| He never represented it as a pyramid, but he clearly
| described it as a hierarchy.
| laurex wrote:
| Worth reading for historical context on Maslow and his re-
| interpretation of an existing framing
| https://www.resilience.org/stories/2021-06-18/the-blackfoot-...
| illuminant wrote:
| Behold, the lightning is the ascendency of Man.
|
| - Zarathustra
| Y_Y wrote:
| "Why did the ghost cry: 'It is time! It is the highest time!'
|
| For WHAT is it then--the highest time?"--
|
| Thus spake Zarathustra.
| freitzkriesler2 wrote:
| I too want to ascend like Daniel Jackson.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| The recent post about Pong reminded me of Oma and Anubis locked
| in eternal battle. Lots of Stargate on the brain around here
| today.
| jakubmazanec wrote:
| Maslow's hierarchy is irrelevant today; even 50 years ago (!) the
| research found it's not a very good theory [1].
|
| [1]
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/003050...
| Loughla wrote:
| I feel like any research into this would be purely
| hypothetical? How would you even test that?
| smitty1e wrote:
| Maslow seems to have re-invented the Tripartite Soul[1].
|
| Transcendence is what one obtains via the community of faith.
|
| The materialists will reject this answer, yet fall short of
| offering an explanation for life beside "bag of electric meat".
|
| The idea that existence must fall entirely within the scope of
| human existenceis the bugaboo.
|
| [1]
| https://www.classicalstuff.net/episodes-1/2017/10/31/episode...
| patcon wrote:
| I don't think I'm a materialist, but I downvoted you because
| "bag of electric meat" just radiates a silly smugness that
| overrides whatever other value your comment offered. Can't say
| why others might be downvoting though
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| I actually like "bag of electric meat", but as it's
| redundant, I prefer "ugly bag of mostly water".
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| The recognition of emergent properties can exist even in
| materialism. Reducing to a sum-of-parts with "bag of electric
| meat" is essentially a strawman ad hominem.
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| > _Maslow felt we needed to transcend thoughts of ourselves as
| islands. We had to see ourselves as part of the broader universe
| to develop the common priorities that can allow humankind to
| survive as a species._
|
| If you'd prefer the 19th century's expression of this ideal to
| the 20th's, see
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humboldtian_model_of_higher_ed...
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| Don't people transcend themselves at all levels of Maslow's
| hierarchy? E.g. when starving people portion out food among
| themselves instead of hoarding it.
| CrypticShift wrote:
| Good Point.
|
| Even animals "self-trancend" for their family/herd. it is
| instinctual.
|
| Most Humans "self-trancend" for their tribe/nation. it is
| emotional (+ instinctual).
|
| But it is not really "self-transcendence" as posited here:
| universal and mindful (to not say "intellectual").
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| This doesn't belong at the top of such a pyramid as it too
| has debased forms (e.g. paternalism or savior complexes). And
| more importantly has a focus on each of the levels, with some
| people transcending to meet physiological needs of all,
| others safety needs of all, yet others focusing on belong or
| esteem needs, and other trying to enable people to self-
| actualize or transcend.
|
| Self-transcendence is on the side of the hierarchy of needs,
| though admittedly a person isn't going to be very good at
| self-transcendence if they are starving or aren't educated. I
| think this drive of self-transcendence guides many people
| whenever they are at the various levels. Though admittedly
| some people get all the way through a Ph.D. without really
| having a sense of meaning or purpose, I think this kind of
| trajectory is in the minority and most of us mix it up a bit.
| roenxi wrote:
| It isn't possible to exist as an ego without some form of
| spiritual belief. Existing as some sort of 'happy' ego, insofar
| as that is possible, requires that to be developed. Even if it is
| as simple as we float along responding to instincts - sometimes
| we have to make choices about what instincts to enable and to
| make such a decision we need faith-based assumptions.
|
| If a model like Maslow's hierarchy is useful, it is reasonable to
| add in a spiritual layer. However, anything related to faith is
| automatically controversial.
|
| ---
|
| This comment does not assume an organised religion is involved.
| herval wrote:
| Why not? Why would one require faith at all to define
| themselves in life?
| neilv wrote:
| > _At the end, she came away convinced that the most serious
| problems facing humanity aren't technical: Although engineering
| our way out of trouble is possible, it can't happen until we
| transcend ourselves, seeing beyond our own individual well-being
| to the needs of us all._
|
| Hasn't this been obvious and practiced in various ways by
| many/most people, for millennia?
|
| Are they talking about something different?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-01-28 23:01 UTC)