Service to others

[AnalyticalEngine]

I've been reading a lot of philosophy/spirituality books lately that deem service to others as the highest value for self-actualization. This seems to be a common theme in a lot of media as well--the idea that you can't just live for yourself; you need to live in service to others.

I'm guessing the reason this crops up a lot is a strong history of Christianity in Western culture. However, it also runs counter to libertarian/individualist philosophy, which states that you should live for your own fulfillment first.

Do any of you have an opinion or philosophy on this topic? Do you deem service to others as the highest philosophical/self-actualization goal? Or do you think finding fulfillment for yourself is the highest goal of self-actualization?

[AxelHeyst]

I note a trap it's possible to fall into: pursuing service to others from a place of desiring self fulfillment. aka doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

My loose stab at your actual question is that it's a false dichotomy based on the illusion of separateness. Perhaps the ultimate goal of self-actualization is to realize that there is no difference, because we're all interconnected/interdependent/One, and so service to others is service to self and service to self is service to others, when done from that place of knowingness. I wonder if the question would even make sense to people from cultures that have a deep paradigm of connection.

[AnalyticalEngine]

Perhaps the ultimate goal of self-actualization is to realize that there is no difference, because we're all interconnected/interdependent/One, and so service to others is service to self and service to self is service to others, when done from that place of knowingness.

I get the feeling that this is what service to others is supposed to mean, especially inside of a spiritual context. I've noticed that a lot of spiritual practices are designed to essentially move you outside of your own ego so that you can more easily realize that state of Oneness or ego transcendence.

I suppose what makes me hesitate about the service to others philosophy is that I could also see it as a way to avoid being yourself (spiritual bypass) or becoming a martyr/codependent.

[DutchGirl]

I also don't think that this is only Christian or western. To the contrary, I think that a lot of other cultures also encourage you to value other people's life as well as your own.

Taking a few steps back, as human beings we are social beings who help each other.

We are not solitary bears. We are not leopards.

Our species has become successful by living together and working together. I think charity is part of our success as a species.

[AxelHeyst]

I suppose what makes me hesitate about the service to others philosophy is that I could also see it as a way to avoid being yourself (spiritual bypass) or becoming a martyr/codependent.

Yep. That's just about the most succinct explanation of my 20s I've found yet. Do not recommend.

[jacob]

They're channeling the Green meme. Cold (collective) color side of the spiral.

The "highest value" goes roughly like this:
Beige: Survival (warm)
Purple: Family/Tradition (cold)
Red: Winning/Losing (warm)
Blue: Faith/Religion (cold)
Orange: Expertise/Achievement (warm)
Green: People/Service (cold)
Yellow: Ideas/Systems (warm)
Turquoise: Being/Patterns (cold)

Back and forth. In the US a lot of these value memes still remain active, the US is blue/orange so politics is a battle between blue traditionalists and green progressives with the orange (corporate/CEO) centrists being caught in the middle, aka culture wars. In [Northern] Europe, it's mostly centered around green/orange with yellow playing as big or rather as little a role as blue, so it's mainly about tensions between the rights of the welfare state vs the rights of individuals and/or the predicament respectively. The difference between blue and green shows up in the approach, compare charity to welfare.

Depending on where this thread goes, it's already heading into either ERE2 or Politics.

[AnalyticalEngine]

@Jacob - That all makes sense. I can also see this as a Kegan3 thing where service to others is used to bring someone up from Kegan2 to Kegan3. At Kegan5, you might run into the "achieve Oneness" aspects of service, whereas Kegan3 is more focused on socializing someone into the group. Not sure if Kegan4 fits into this or if I'm overstretching the metaphor here.

[ertyu]

I'd rather think it's the opposite -- that when one is self-actualized, results that are pro-social emerge naturally for most people. Disregarding corner cases such as sociopath billionaires, cult leaders, and people who are just wired different and were drawn to skinning kitties in second grade, for most, self-actualization involves less neuroticism, fear, and anxiety. One would be less preoccupied with one's own survival or with how one appears to others and would either pursue pro-social behaviors that are fulfilling in and of themselves (due to wiring) or will pursue intellectual etc pursuits that end up having as a by-product the advancement of knowledge, thought, and so on for humanity as a whole (also due to writing).

[chenda]

I was musing on how to carbon neutralise my high consumption past, or at least reduce it. Like planting lots of trees.

But perhaps that's a selfish, to neutralise my sense of guilt with no meaningful perpetual benefit to other humans.

[jacob]

@Jacob - That all makes sense. I can also see this as a Kegan3 thing where service to others is used to bring someone up from Kegan2 to Kegan3. At Kegan5, you might run into the "achieve Oneness" aspects of service, whereas Kegan3 is more focused on socializing someone into the group. Not sure if Kegan4 fits into this or if I'm overstretching the metaphor here.

Actually, I'd like to revise my list. It's more

Blue: Religion/Service
Green: People/Welfare

To wit, traditionalists in the US often talk about the importance of service. I don't recall ever hearing [service being admired] in the Nordics or even in progressive circles in the US. Instead the focus is on including people into the group. There are no standards applied. All warm bodies are welcome. All the cold colors do demand subjecting the individual to the standards of the group. Service is essentially a way of channeling Red into more constructive purposes. Instead of me-me-me and "I do what I want" these energies are channeled into serving a hierarchy---something greater than the "winning individual or clan". Whereas Welfare is channeling Orange into being less selfish, taking responsibility and picking up the pieces of unfettered individualistic drive in the "productive sense" (as opposed to the "warrior sense").

Frankly, I too see cold/collective colors being more attracted to/by odd Kegan numbers; warm to the even numbers. The Kegan levels themselves is a progression of deconstruction/reconstruction along a social dimension.

[AnalyticalEngine]

I'm noticing three distinct definitions of service based on this discussion:

1. Kegan3 - This seems to be the traditionalist religious version of service(?). This is the notion that we are a social species and therefore need to serve the social good of the group. Service at this level seems to exist to reign in selfish or antisocial tendencies of people coming out of Kegan2. Ie, "if you stop doing drugs and go serve the homeless soup, you will find fulfillment." I notice that this definition of service seems to be pretty concrete. It's literal charity or good works.

However, I feel like this form of service has the potential for abuse if a "lose/win" attitude is cultivated about it. That is, you are told to stop taking care of your own needs in service to others. This is also where potential codependency comes in. It's a risk generally of Kegan3 to lose yourself in the group, and I see service being an avenue that could occur under.

2. Kegan4 - In order to get out of the codependency trap, the individual switches from a "lose/win" to "win/win" version of service. I believe this is what @ertyu is referring to. You're no longer focused on "service" but on activities that enrich both you and other people. Ie, if I create a great business or impressive book, I am enriched through the process of creation, and the world is enriched by my creation. This is also what I meant by the "libertarian" (term used loosely) definition of service.

However, this version of service is still ego-centric, and that can be isolating because you've drawn this hard boundary between yourself and the rest of the world. When you start to run into the ego-centric limits of Kegan4 service, you may try to integrate with the Other again and begin a transition to Kegan5 service.

3. Kegan5 - I have a tendency to conflate Kegan5 with spiritual enlightenment, so my understanding may be off base here, but service under Kegan5 seems to be taking the Kegan4 approach and more formally integrating it with the world around you. That is, you realize that you're not really as separate from the world and other people as you once thought, so you start to focus on enriching the world/others instead of yourself as a path to ego transcendence. Ie, this is the Oneness path. Service in this sense helps you connect with the whole. I think a difference between this and Kegan3 is that Kegan5 service is a lot more abstract. You're not focused on serving in the soup kitchen so much as connecting with the broader patterns that govern the universe.

@Jacob has a good point here that progressive circles tend to focus on inclusion and I never hear service mentioned. You might get something like "mutual aid" or "crisis assistance," but it's very rarely "service." It makes me wonder if "service" as a word got dropped from the progressive zeitgeist and got replaced by another value that serves the same social function.