Subject:
|
Re: Hey Pyramid Guy!!!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 6 Aug 2004 20:12:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1043 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
i got into a few conversations about co-dependant relationships with people
in the past, and looking at this hierarchy, looks like it plays into the
whole co-dependant thing--why would you put the emotional bonding with
others before, or as a ‘bigger, lower foundation piece’ than your own sense
of self--self esteem.
|
If you consider basic friendships as meeting the requirement for that tier, it
really throws a different spin on that than if you consider it as only referring
to dating-or-higher relationships. There have been studies showing that even
having just one good friend can have a significant positive impact on your
health, both physical and mental. The surprising thing was that these studies
have also shown that it doesn’t matter so much that you be able to personally
interact with that person (i.e. in the same room), as long as you have some
means of interacting with them. It could be online chat, phone conversations,
or even pen-pal letter exchanges, as long as you have a strong connection to
that person.
| |
I mean, if you are secure with who you are in the world, wouldn’t that then
lead to a better, more meaningful and balanced relationship with someone
else? Wouldn’t having a secure sense of self invariably lead to a better
relationships with others? Wouldn’t getting your bonding and emotional
stability from a relationship with others before your self esteem inherently
lead to co-dependant relationships?
|
Self-actualization is not simply a matter of being secure in your sense of self.
It was defined more in terms of total enlightenment, where you understand your
true potential as an individual, and can actually invest time and energy into
realizing that potential. His later
8-tier triangle
splits the fifth level up into four new levels (Cognitive, Aesthetic,
Self-Actualization, and Self-Transcendence).
It’s more a matter of psychological philosophy than provable fact, though, since
you can find many individuals and even whole cultures that break away from that
pattern. Many monk sects saw seclusion from the world as a necessary sacrifice
for achieving enlightenment, which, in its extreme forms, pretty much bypasses
the third tier. There are individuals who have pointedly chosen to live a
homeless life, which arguably breaks from the second tier (though one could
argue that if you’re comfortable sleeping on the street, that your security
“concerns” have been met, even if you are not living a very secure lifestyle).
Also, the expanded pyramid suggests that it’s impossible to devote yourself to
charitable purposes unless you’ve managed to hammer the rest of your life into
shape beforehand, even though many people probably find charitable works to be
an effective means of getting their minds off of how screwed up their own lives
are.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Hey Pyramid Guy!!!
|
| So there's this Maslow guy who talked about the 5 tiers of basic needs-- physiological needs - food, water, secure place to sleep, etc safety needs - won't get eaten, stabbed, whatever love and affection - emotional bonding with others esteem - (...) (20 years ago, 6-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
