Damn it Feels Good to be a Gangsta

[7Wannabe5]

Kind of like if you are a less than popular nerd who grows up in a small town where Cliff, the quarterback of the football team has already actualized at age 17, then you come back for your reunion 20 years later and you feel much more successful and self-actualized than Cliff, who from your perspective peaked out at age 17, but you don't realize that within the context of that small town, the quarterback is still the quarterback, and he is still hooking up with Suzy even though she is nominally married to never-coming-out-of-the-closet Steve whose Dad owns the car dealership, recently divorced Rochelle in the back room of her real estate office on Oak Street, and even Doug's baby sister who was still in pig-tails when you packed up and left with your one way ticket to another ladder.

[Ego]

To be clear, I don't think that primitive people are cognizant of some primitive form of Maslow's Hierarchy and consciously climbing through the levels of the hierarchy. I think they exist in an environment where actualization is an automatic state.

I don't know. It sounds a little too naturalistic fallacy-ish to me, but I could be wrong.

We spent some time out on the borders of Namibia and Botswana where the hunter-gather !Kung people live. I came away with the impression that there was a lot of bullying going on and a lot of crab mentality. The story of the guy from "The Gods Must Be Crazy" is interesting. The movie is a must-see. In Tanzania/Kenya the rites of passage for the Maasai are brutal. If a young man fails, they spend life shunned by their community.

[Jin+Guice]

@7: Exactly.

@Ego: I have no idea nor will I ever know if I'm right or not. My impression is the crab mentality is part of what keeps H/G people equal. I think the relevant questions are: Did they seem to feel conflicted over what to do? Did they seem to experience alienation? Did they seem to experience inequality? Did they seem to live in an environmentally unsustainable way?

Again, if they don't do these things, that doesn't mean they are better or that they solved our problems, it's just that they don't have them.

When you reach integration on the differentiate/ integrate framework, it's sort of like having your cake and eating it too, or in this case, having your penicillin and knowing what you want to do too.

There are plenty of people who also theorize that the separation is too great and what is lost can never be regained. If animistic people spend their whole lives actualized and we have to exhibit some combo of work/ luck to get there at some point in our lives, we'll never truly know what it's like. The question that is interesting to me is what happens as we spend more and more time actualized and approach an actualized state, while having all of the differentiated tools and options of modernity? What happens if more and more people do this? I can merely speculate.

[7Wannabe5]

In Tanzania/Kenya the rites of passage for the Maasai are brutal. If a young man fails, they spend life shunned by their community.

Yes, because as in my example with Cliff the quarterback, for the median human male actualization requires either the acquisition of 1.8 "wives" or in monogamous setting, a "wife" who is 1.8X better than him, so in order for the math to work there must be some mechanism of exclusion for some males in order for some other males to achieve bare actualization. This problem is made worse at Modernity and beyond due to the fact that many females are also thrust into submissive male roles by corporate uber-lords, so the total amount of feminine energy freely available in society is reduced. I have suggested that the practice of polyamory may go some way towards remediating this, but there are also difficulties with this solution.

[Jin+Guice]

Needs and Actualization, A Technical Note

In this post I explore the "hierarchy of needs," with "actualization" placed above all other rungs (except "transcendence"). I specifically address whether or not I think all "lower-level" needs have to be satisfied in order to actualize.

Maslow never formulated the needs "hierarchy" into a pyramid, though the pyramid is directly derived from his work.

We can never be totally satiated in any need area forever. Viewed from this angle, the hierarchy breaks down. Needs feedback into each other, where fulfilling our physiological or aesthetic needs also raise our esteem. Raising our esteem raises our social value, which makes meeting social needs easier. Improving in any one need area is likely to create positive feedback, increasing the likelihood that we can meet other needs.

However, I think the hierarchy does exist over one specific period of time. That period is the moment.

Define a moment as the smallest unit of human attention. The conscious human mind can only pay attention to one thing at a time. If one of our lower-level needs is not being met, our attention will be diverted.

Physiological needs divert our attention with a biological signal. This signal is an unpleasant sensory signal, known as "pain." Pain can be ignored by the conscious mind, it can choose to focus on a mental or emotional task instead of physical pain or a mental task instead of emotional pain. As the need becomes more and more dire for survival, pain will increase until we can't ignore it. Further, mental and emotional energy will decrease in times of physical discomfort and mental energy will decrease in times of emotional discomfort.

I propose that the hierarchy only exists in the time frame of the moment. If actualization means that all of our needs are fulfilled, then we can only be actualized in the moment. So while some people may spend relatively little time actualized, others may spend a great deal more time actualized. At some point, enough time spent actualizing would make someone an "actualizer," a possibly different type of person from a "non-actualizer."

[thef0x]

I like your definition, useful. Actualization is a perfect harmony of needs that are fulfilled.

IMO, transcendence is acceptance of what is (all the needs that pull us) and non-attachment toward actualization (achieving a perfect harmony of needs).

I wonder if transcendence is in some ways easier to achieve than actualization; sort of it's own separate thing. And I wonder which state of being provides more equanimity.

[jacob]

And I wonder which state of being provides more equanimity.

Both nihilism ("lol nothing matters") and unity ("whoa everything matters equally") seem to approach this state from opposite ends.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying here but maybe not.

[thef0x]

Both nihilism ("lol nothing matters") and unity ("whoa everything matters equally") seem to approach this state [equanimity] from opposite ends.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying here but maybe not.

IDK if you are oversimplifying. I think you're pointing to the "final form of integration" that is transcendence.

This is why meditation advice can sound very paradoxical and contradictory, as internalizing these two polar opposites seems impossible at first glace.

In meditation-speak, my own words here, one way to express the integration of acceptance and non-attachment is to say "consciousness has immense weight, even if you need not bare it" <-- perhaps too figurative.

I'm not sure how to integrate nihilism and unity but maybe a similar phrasing: "everything matters equally but you need not bare it" .

I'm also veering off course via metaphor here as consciousness != the needs hierarchy/complex. But as J+G points out, when constricting time to The Moment, maybe the needs complex looks an awful lot like direct consciousness.

Lots of ways to approach these ~definitions. The game of philosophy at play!

[7Wannabe5]

I wonder whether you are confusing the necessary precursors for actualization with actualization itself? Generally, "actualization" is understood as "the realization or fulfillment of one's talents and potentialities." For example, I somewhat self-actualized as a bibliophile who has a bit of an entrepreneurial edge by starting and running my own used book business, although I might have found more conventional success employed in a corporate office space as an actuary.

I mean, you could almost correlate likelihood of "self-actualization" with "patent applications accepted" across time and space, and either of these could be fairly well represented by a function of MHC level and Affluence. Then to get to Self-Transcendence, you could just include some universal measure of moral functioning. I don't think Maslow was concerned with passive self-transcendence towards Que sera sera or the guy who parks his BMW at the local Buddhist center.

[OutOfTheBlue]

@thef0x
FWIW, I tried to address "transcendence" in some posts and offer some pointers (and not from a Buddhist perspective as I see you're kind of doing here), but then didn't push my elaboration further, up thread, page 38-39. See if that's helpful on this.

Will probably pick up this discussion in another more suitable place, maybe starting a new journal at some point.

Transcendence isn't the right word IMO, or rather it doesn't tell the full story. It's both transcendence and immanence. Inclusive transcendence. Duality within unity. Their living reconciliation in a synthesis beyond polarities.

As for its relation to actualization, let's say it's not the culmination of a path, an achievement or anything, but a beginning maybe. Hence my invitation to not leave it out of sight out of mind until some indeterminate point in the future.

It's not something divorced from (everyday) life. It's at the heart of it.

---

About Jacob's quip, it's not just oversimplification, it's a dismissive meme.

[Biscuits and Gravy]

I'm not sure how to integrate nihilism and unity but maybe a similar phrasing: "everything matters equally but you need not bare it" .

Pedantic aside, it’s fun to consider this sentence in the way you meant it (bear/tolerate) and the way you wrote it (bare/uncover).

[jacob]

About Jacob's quip, it's not just oversimplification, it's a dismissive meme.

Okay, I admit that was a meme-worthy cheapshot, but I do think there's some truth to it. Lemmesplain.

I think we're conflating several different directions of human development. This is partly because the population of highly (overly? specialized?) developed humans is small and more than one direction is often developed simultaneously. This leads to correlations and perceived causations even when they're not there.

This is why I appreciate Hanzi Freihnachts distinction between "stage" and "state".

Here, "stage" relates to depth of task analysis. In other words how deeply and widely do people objectively think about a problem. Are they able to form connections between issues that others don't see? To which degree are people able to abstract? And abstract their abstractions? This correlates somewhat with measured IQ but not entirely as IQ to a large degree measures speed of thinking (g factor) but deliberately ignores the education/mental knowledge and thinking habits that mental "stage" relies on. For example, "stage" also determines the complexity and size of one's "theory of mind" and this determines to which degree someone is able to hold other perspectives ("more than one side without getting confused") or juggle multiple perspectives at the same time (Kegan ...).
Doing this requires knowledge and experience. It is not something that is innate to the brain. "Stage" is trainable and indeed requires training, whereas IQ only receives a small benefit from practising. It is quite possible to have a high IQ and a low or medium level of "stage". It's quite rare to have a high "stage" and a low or medium level of IQ, since higher "stages" do require increasingly more mental effort.

On the other hand, "state" refers to subjective well-being. This ranges from terror/despair to anxiety to "meh, okay" to joy to Maslow's "peak experiences" to "oceanic sentiments". Some humans have different set points than others and some humans (bipolar?) have greater variability than others.

In my opinion, Maslow, being one of the first to explore this, tends to conflate stage and state, effectively putting them on the same 1D-scale. IOW, assuming that high stage = high state simply because this is or was often observed when he collected his data points.

As such we get the "non-pyramid"-pyramid of

food, shelter
safety
belonging/esteem
self-actualization
self-transcendence

The stage-direction of self-transcendence contains concepts that are bigger than the ego. This is actually pretty common (not uncommon) these days. Think concepts like nationalism or environmentalism both of which puts something that is vastly bigger than the ego before the ego. (Of course both of these concepts can be and are pursued for egotistical reasons like "winning medals" or "protesting together".)

Whereas the state-direction of self-transcendence relates more to becoming aware of the ego (witnessing) and ultimately dabbling with the perception of reality itself (immanence). These are often called "high states" because they can be experienced as blissful. However, if they are experienced as scary, then the described experience matches those of depersonalization disorder (ego-transcendence) and derealization disorder (reality-transcendence or immanence) very accurately. As such, if we were to adopt to "computer model" of the human brain, self-transcendence of the state-kind does not imply having created a larger mental construct (in the stage sense) but rather having reached a point of control where the underlying mental hardware can be influenced.

In other words, while high-stage is dealing with high-level programming (C++ applications), high-state is dealing with low-level programming (assembler code of the brain's BIOS).

To wit, the ego itself apparently resides somewhere in the top surface of the meeting between the brain's hemispheres(*). This can be externally manipulated with magnetic fields allowing everybody to get detached from their sense of self and have an out of body experience. Alternatively, they can spend many years meditating for an equivalent technology-free experience.

(*) Very interesting implications for phenomena like schizophrenia and the bicameral mind.

Likewise, our perception of reality is neurologically based on short-term memory being able to construct and synchronize the various sensory inputs we get from eyes, ears, ... that is, keep them ordered so that what the eyes see at t=0 is ordered before what the eyes sees at t=dt and t=dt+dt ... and construct an aggregate understanding of "what is experienced right now". Insofar this ordering becomes scrambled (also possible), perception of reality breaks down: Vision appears luminous. One sees halos around things. ... basically a "wilder" BIOS/temporal version of how vision gets blurry if sufficiently drunk because the brain can no longer spatially control the eyes' focus. This experience is also available by technological means. Alternatively, "drunk vision" can also be achieved manually simply by "spacing out" one's eyes and focusing on some indeterminate point. No mantra needed.

Note that higher stage people are likely better able to climb this (non-)pyramid. Better thinking => better ability to find food or build/buy a shelter. And so on. Thus more likely to become focused on the latter half of Maslow which is more state focused.

Whereas lower stage people are less likely to resolve some of more complex issues like esteem or even safety and paying the rent and so should not be focused on high-state pursuits like trying to perceive the existence of and/or even achieve control over their mental BIOS.

However, returning to my memetastic dismissal, this is where I think Maslow is wrong or maybe---since Maslow didn't create Maslow's pyramid---that our interpretation of Maslow is incomplete.

Given how concepts like state and stage and their respective ranges are better understood and more importantly better scaffolded today than 50-75 years ago, people who are high-stage are not necessarily high-state. Conversely, people who are high-state are not necessarily high-stage. My quip was directed at the many high-state people who do not appear to be any higher-stage than the low-state nihilists.

A person who has achieved a state of control over the oceanic experience does not seem to offer any insight into the metacrisis or the polycrisis. Sure, they'll have a wonderful personal experience, but as far as the rest of the world is concerned, all I can say is "well, good for them, but ..." The only difference in applicability (stage-level comprehension) is that they're more pleasant to be around than the low-state (disagreeable and anxious) nihilists. Other than that, though, it's not helping or making a difference beyond serving as some kind of soma that at least doesn't make the meta-problems worse.

Being a high-stage, mid-state (low variability) person myself, it's quite possible that I'm simply taking a stand where I sit, believing that the solution is "more complexity" and increasing the stage-level of humanity.

The opposite point, which I think is what J+G is pursuing is that the meta-problems are more due to humans suffering from low-states and thus engaging in all kinds of destructive mischief to compensate. E.g. buying new shoes because they don't feel loved or because they have low self-esteem.

In summary, I actually think it's best to abandon Maslow's 1D in favor of 2D in order to avoid "one-size fits all" recommendations. Someone who is high-stage/low-state need a different "prescription" than someone who is low-stage/high-state. Indeed, since most are in the middle, a 3x3 field would be a natural starting point. (Except that's a level of complication that's already beyond the stage of the average human.)

[J_]

.

Being a high-stage, mid-state (low variability) person myself, it's quite possible that I'm simply taking a stand where I sit, believing that the solution is "more complexity" and increasing the stage-level of humanity.

This is exactly the message of the Hanzi Freinacht book “ the Listening Society” In the Nordic Ideology part he works it further out. Very inspiring.

[jacob]

@J_ - Wait what? I thought Hanzi advocated for increasing the general state-level of the population by e.g. adding mandatory "mindfulness"-lessons to the school curriculum. Whereas my perhaps (likely mistaken) take is that the problem is not too much sadness in the world but too much stupidity (=here defined as an inability to consider/process/foresee the consequences of one's actions in both time and space).

[7Wannabe5]

Well, I thought Hanzi's take was that stage level increases would be great/ideal, but slow and/or less likely. whereas state level increases could be more readily addressed. For example, to the extent that relative status relates to happiness, humans are happier if there is a broad economic middle class as was the case in the U.S. in my childhood. So, those at higher stage levels can contribute through engaging the maturity to play more positive sum games.

[J_]

@7W5: yes that helps and that advises Hanzi too.

Jacob is about the most ideal person to help us to be a listening society. Just as he describes himself ( here above) and what he does with his blog and even more with this ere forum. As @guitarplayer mentions recently: the ere-book author gives many possibilties to reach ànd freedom to live ànd a more environmentaly aware society.
By a wise decision (jacob + we) avoid the next step: to go in more political fields.

The next Hanzi book of nordic ideology is enough general to discuss here too, to my opinion. Because it entails a way of inclusion of all (political) stands.

[7Wannabe5]

@J-

Yes, I agree that it is usually most efficient to focus on doing no harm prior to attempting much good, and simple service in one's own community focused on Level Blue tasks, as with first approaching basic skills such as cooking or small repairs at the household level, may provide the most appropriate entry point for comprehending the outlook across the spectrum of value-memes associated with various political stands. For example, there may be disagreement at a higher level about the ultimate fate of undocumented immigrant children, but few would object to a volunteer teaching those currently residing in her neighborhood basic mathematics in the meanwhile. Think about the possible outcomes if each highly competent early retired individual dedicated just one half day/week to lifting a disadvantaged child towards the middle class or revitalizing and maintaining a portion of the natural or community commons!

[OutOfTheBlue]

@Jacob, it was worth calling out a perceived "memtastic dismissal" to get such elaborate response and perspective instead. Thank you!

I agree there is a risk of conflation in this discussion.

The "state"/"stage" distinction seems quite useful in that regard and in a certain way summarizes various similar distinctions that can be seen in other models that are wielded around here (such as Wilber's "waking up" vs "growing up", etc.). [Note: But please let's refrain from digressing much into model minutiae discussions!]

I think it is also fair to critique Maslow's model linearity (even if the pyramidal interpretation is not his) and call for a more nuanced and multidimensional approach.

One upshot of Maslow's inspirational model is that it allowed J+G (along with his own intuitive-reflective mix and match approach) to work his way bottom-up (instead of top-down). But there are limits to this [approach and model], limits that I believe become more apparent when trying to tackle the "higher levels" of [self-]]actualization" and "[self-]transcendence".

In a way, as applicable to this discussion, there is distinguishing "stage-transcendence" and "state-transcendence", not conflating both.

***

Up-thread, I too (but maybe not so clearly) advocated for the need to redefine actualization (and particularly) transcendence, beyond Maslow. And to decouple (at least to some extent) growth through various developmental stages with "state-transcendence" or awakening if you will.

As a psychologist, Maslow (and others) in a way psychologizes transcendence, presenting it as the pinnacle of a developmental process of actualization but, while there is some correlation, it is not necessarily a matter of psychology. This is (partly) where the conflation occurs, between waking up and growing up, state and stage.

However, I believe that while a certain distinction is indeed useful, this particular formulation of the distinction can also be misleading. Your interpretation also seems to lean more heavily toward "stage", subtly or not so subtly devaluating "state" in the way both are described.

***

To explain my perspective further, let's see if we can explore (again), for the discussion's sake, a different paradigm, besides the "computer model" used above and the current understanding of what is happening at the physical/observable level. That of a consciousness-first approach.

For that, without invalidating anything, we just start by returning to (the primacy of) subjectivity. But primacy in what way? I hope it will become clearer as we go:

In my experience, there is one "thing" that is not a thing. That defies objectivation, interpretation, conceptualization. It is my own subjectivity [Here, I am not talking about the ego or limited sense of self, which is identified with particular objects, aspects, contents of my experience, not with subjectivity/the fact of experiencing itself]. And that subjectivity is not grasped in the same way I grasp an object of perception/experience. There is no need for an interface or any mediation whatsoever, to see "it". In fact, the only way to "see" it is to be it. There is total immediacy. Consciousness comes with self-reflectivity as its inseparable essence.
You cannot see that-which-sees as an object, in the same way you cannot find where space is. But that subjectivity is not just like limitless, yet inert space. And it is not simply a detached witness either (although it does not depend on anything else, while everything else depends on it). It is a living, perpetually arising, dynamic act. It illuminates itself as it manifests the world of its (your) experience.

Conceptualization itself is such an act, a manifestation of consciousness, not the other way around.
You said "The stage-direction of self-transcendence contains concepts that are bigger than the ego." Well, here, consciousness is (even) beyond what is graspable by the mind, by concept(s).

Let's call that "total subjectivity", or Self.

And that total subjectivity is not a state in the way described above. It is not a "temporary condition of consciousness", whether that is a fleeting feeling/emotion, a trancient subjective experience (as all are), peak or otherwise. It is [the fact of] consciousness/awareness itself. And it is the "natural state" that threads through all particular experiences/states, including waking, dreaming and deep sleep or so-called "unconsciousness". Much like the sky: clouds cannot make it disappear, on the contrary, they can only appear in it.

Under this understanding, that natural state, that total subjectivity is not something that needs to be found, because it cannot be lost. Except in the sense of it not being recognized for "what" it is. Which of course makes all the difference.

But, in a fundamental way, it is accessible to anyone, because that's what they fundamentally are.

"Even the dull-witted know it,
Even water-bearers perceive it."

Now, what one could call "the dream of separation" is what most people's usually experience, most of the time. And another word for separation is differentiation.

That total subjectivity, that natural state I talk about, is undifferentiated, yet can take on differentiation/limitation without itself becoming limited. Consciousness is that freedom.

To see differentiation is to adopt a certain mode of seeing. It is to see through a certain filter (for example, that filter that allows one to see a "tree"). This differentiation is based on an act of delimitation and exclusion ("tree" vs "not tree", "true" vs "not true", etc.).

Differentiation is very useful for everyday life. The problem (if there is one) is only when you are stuck with that view, especially when that means you can't even see from different, or wider perspectives. For someone who has seen through it, though, (maybe past an initial adjustment period) it doesn't mean that they cannot use differentiation whenever it is called for. In fact, that's the highlight: they (can) see/experience differentiation within the context of a wider unity/undifferenciation.

So, separation, differentiation stems from unity. Hence, to "see" unity does not entail getting something you don't have, just losing a certain form of misunderstanding/illusion/conditioning.

And "awakening" is not an experience, but a shift in the mode of experiencing, which can become "abiding", in other words, your default (but not the only) mode.

We tend to identify with particular aspects of our experience, our body, our mind/personality, our various roles and identities and mistake it for the Self. That is the ego. It is like a self-referential image making magnet, a fluctuating (and frankly quite fragile) partial self, probably born out of the intuition of that deeper "I", but also partly clouding it, what with all its striving, resisting, grasping or rejecting.

That ego/mind, that limited identification, acts like a filter. Although it does not itself produce that contraction. It is itself part of that.

You said: "The stage-direction of self-transcendence contains concepts that are bigger than the ego. This is actually pretty common (not uncommon) these days. Think concepts like nationalism or environmentalism both of which puts something that is vastly bigger than the ego before the ego. (Of course both of these concepts can be and are pursued for egotistical reasons like medals or "marching together".)"

That is where it gets interesting.

As I shared upthread, one (and often first) aspect of "awakening" could be described thus:

Waking up out of the socially constructed self: that is, out of the belief that your thoughts, memories, self-images, or 'stories' define, delimit or describe you. In other words, waking up out of the dream that the contents of thought have anything to do with who (or what) you fundamentally are. This entails seeing clearly that there is no ostensive referent to the ‘I’ thought — that is, seeing that that concept ‘I’ doesn't actually point to anything but a fabricated, ill-defined, nebulous and contradictory self-image; a thought or idea of 'me' that sits on top of, and veils, your deeper being. (Though 'I' can also refer to pure being, that's not how most people use the word.)

This aspect does not necessarily entail unitive consciousness.

But it does seem to fall closer to stage than state, right?

Anyway, maybe you now see what I mean when I say that the state/stage distinction, in the way its been formulated, could be misleading. At least from this perspective.

Where things get even muddier, is when "liberation" is brought in to the mix. Because some of the traditions that speak about these things, are not only talking about "awakening", but also embodied liberation. But that might be for another post, another time. As well as other points I haven't addressed…

From the above, it would be a mistake to interpret that I am advocating that "that's the one and only way folks, and everyone should do it". Far from it. All the roads lead to Rome.

[thef0x]

I really enjoyed your response, OutOfTheBlue, specifically about the dissolution of the primacy of the self. Clearly you've studied Buddhism but wondering if you have you read about phenomenology? I think you might find some of the thinkers in that school interesting.

That total subjectivity, that natural state I talk about, is undifferentiated, yet can take on differentiation/limitation without itself becoming limited. Consciousness is that freedom.

To see differentiation is to adopt a certain mode of seeing. It is to see through a certain filter (for example, that filter that allows one to see a "tree"). This differentiation is based on an act of delimitation and exclusion ("tree" vs "not tree", "true" vs "not true", etc.).

Differentiation is very useful for everyday life. The problem (if there is one) is only when you are stuck with that view, especially when that means you can't even see from different, or wider perspectives. For someone who has seen through it, though, (maybe past an initial adjustment period) it doesn't mean that they cannot use differentiation whenever it is called for. In fact, that's the highlight: they (can) see/experience differentiation within the context of a wider unity/undifferenciation.

So, separation, differentiation stems from unity. Hence, to "see" unity does not entail getting something you don't have, just losing a certain form of misunderstanding/illusion/conditioning.

I do wonder if unity vs differentiation is an accurate framing in how you've construed it. Consciousness is unitary <-- first order truth. Differentiation, the self, etc occur within consciousness as patterns / qualia <-- second order truth. Consciousness being unitary is unrelated to the qualia of differentiation; contrasting them is a category error, no?

To discuss if first order consciousness is unitary or differentiated, we'd get more into what Jacob is talking about with time, neurology, and perception. One thought experiment in this vein is to ask: does consciousness stop / start when we're under anesthesia?

Taking the second order view, unity vs differentiation could be pondered with questions like "is it possible to have a completely self-less experience of the world? & for how long?"

Elsewhere, Jacob discussed a bit about if it could be possible to live in a state of second-order undifferentiated experience:

I recently read https://www.amazon.com/Collision-Infini ... 1884997279 which is an autobiography of someone who achieved a "unitive mind stage". This is normally considered the highest stage of human ego development, but something in the book left me wondering about the philosophical implications. At some point, the author sees a psychiatrist who diagnoses her experience as depersonalization disorder and possibly derealization disorder. Reading up on those two, they do indeed sound very much like pretty much any description of the unitive mind I've ever come across. Depersonalization corresponds to "cosmic consciousness" (aka witnessing) while derealization corresponds to "god consciousness" (being one with The One in the Plotinus sense). ....

I hope my comments are well received because I think you're onto something here and perhaps I'm being nitpicky or just misunderstanding you (likely).

\\

I think your use of "awakening" is a better description of what I've called transcendence, so thanks for that. Transcendence means to move beyond, but as you note, grasping the ontology of consciousness is really to return to the fact of the infinite unity of happening, first-order consciousness itself. One isn't moving beyond but returning to what is always there with a more serious gaze. This is another paradox / strangeness about meditation: you're not discovering something new but actually attending to what has always been there, even when unattended.

This process of returning to is challenging and fickle*. That is why we call it meditation practice.

* I think this says something interesting about the nature of second order qualia: the self-full-ness and differentiated appearances within consciousness are default for us as humans, obviously advantageous for replication / evolutionary fitness. Extrapolating further based on the evolutionary line, I'm led to believe that all animals experience a self, with the qualia of reflection upon the self being on a scale, not a binary switch. Meditation is uniquely human, though. Grasping the ontology of consciousness requires second order self-consciousness, and thus differentiation, simultaneously creating its own problem (the 'work' of meditation being hard) and solution (second order self-consciousness that can grok first-order consciousness). So many (perhaps false?) paradoxes.

\\

J+G, thx for letting us stomp in the mud on your thread; obv your posts are rousing.

[Jin+Guice]

I like your definition, useful. Actualization is a perfect harmony of needs that are fulfilled.

Thanks

Generally, "actualization" is understood as "the realization or fulfillment of one's talents and potentialities."

I specifically defined it as "knowing what you want to do at all times." I realize this is not the Maslow definition. I'm co-opting Maslow because he has a state called "self-actualization" and WL8 is called "actualization."

To be clear I'm interested in what I think is meant by WL8 actualization and not Maslow's actualization and my original reason for inquiry was starting to build skillz at WL6, then finding the need for a system at WL7 and then trying to find an organizing principle for that system and going "fuck I have no idea why I do anything" and then interpreting WL8 as figuring out why I do anything.

Here's the WL 8 summary from the wiki which ties this together nicely:

"Actualizers have internalized systems thinking to the point of unconscious competence. The remaining systems focus is on closing the loops and reducing waste, as the major forms of capital are freely available (within reason). As such, money becomes more and more irrelevant in that its main use is in buying off head/poll taxes or costs that are impossible to escape or incorporate into the system. Since the system now meets all the lower needs and wants (shelter, food, transport, stuff) without much effort and attention, the focus switches to maximizing the person's potential as a human being on a full time basis by increasing capital in the form of skills and access."

This does also make mention of "maximizing the person's potential as a human being on a full time basis." How does one know they are maximizing their potential though? My theory is this is achieved by knowing what one wants to do at all times and then doing it. If you are aligned in purpose, then there will be no internal resistance. How to overcome internal resistance? My theory is you do this by satisfying all levels of needs in Maslow's Hierarchy.

Or, as the wiki says, "Since the system now meets all lower needs and wants without much effort and attention, the focus switches..." In other words meeting the pre-reqs frees up attention to fulfill your potential. I'm going a step further and supposing that meeting all of the Maslow lower level needs (which include not only shelter, food, transport and stuff, but also esteem, loving and belonging, aesthetic and cognitive needs) will also reveal what potential needs to be fulfilled to you, which I think is the hardest part to figure out once you accept the abundance of the modern world.

This effectively removes all impediments to fulfilling your purpose. In a way these are the pre-reqs, but if one has identified how to fulfill their potential and removed all impediments to fulfilling their potential then what is stopping one from fulfilling their potential?

To bring this down to more pragmatic ERE terms, you have the resources and the time, the only thing stopping you is you, so remove that impediment and...


To use your example:

For example, I somewhat self-actualized as a bibliophile who has a bit of an entrepreneurial edge by starting and running my own used book business,

How do you know you somewhat self-actualized = somewhat "fulfilled your potential as a human being." It seems that this definition can only come from you and you can only be sure if you had no misalignment (doubt) in yourself.



@transcendence discussion: I have no idea wtf y'all are talking about but I appreciate y'all talking about it. Please carry on as you wish.