I have recently found it more and more useful to differentiate between two kinds (or better, degrees) of self-actualizing people, those who were clearly healthy, but with little or no experiences of transcendence, and those in whom transcendent experiencing was important and even central…...... [Transcenders] may be said to be much more often aware of the realm of Being (B-realm and B-cognition), to be living at the level of Being… to have unitive consciousness and “plateau experience”"
The transcendence is from the material and personal worlds into a greater Beingness.
Is there then a greater objectiveness available in the B-realm?
Post by Abraham Maslow on Jul 5, 2013 21:54:38 GMT 9.5
For self-transcendence to have a meaningful object, one must identify with a greater reality that encompasses one's self, such as humanity or all life.
For self-transcendence to have a meaningful object...
I rather think that transcendence (in Maslow's context) takes us beyond objects - into the B-field.
Motivation transcendence to a dedication to humanity or life does not require supernatural entities.
Too often pretended spirituality veils vanity and a disdain for humanity.
For Maslow God was a reification of the good, the true and the beautiful within us all.
To Maslow, God means pure cosmic beauty, truth, and goodness. A God that we can properly be in awe of, identify with, and serve. God, "is getting reborn, redefined" (Maslow, 1979, p. 524; quoted by Fuller, 1994). The transcendent or transhuman or godlike "is no longer dead," but alive "within human beings" (Maslow, 1979, p. 524; quoted by Fuller, 1994). Maslow states that, humans have an absolute need for something bigger and higher than themselves.
Is there then a greater objectiveness available in the B-realm?
It is difficult to assess the B-field consciousness of transcending self-actualisers from the realm of matter but Maslow's 24 characteristics may provide a starting point.
>There is nothing Maslow says that requires supernaturalism.
Of course not. There is nothing supernatural about the Beingness Field, it is just outside the conscious perception of many humans - as is the infrared.
Even the most rational of us would admit there is much the humans cannot see. Who then will deny that life might exist where humans have no sight?
Even the most rational of us would admit there is much the humans cannot see. Who then will deny that life might exist where humans have no sight?
Indeed Paul. The obvious examples are of animals, birds, bees, even sea creatures, that can see things like infrared, untraviolet, etc. Obviously tested for humans with flowers and special lenses. There is much hidden to human sight that is in the visual range of many other animals that we share this planet with.
A Simple Man, who tried and failed to reilluminate this planet.
Slogging Scotsman Ma’at Ankh Re
Who am I trying to kid for I can’t even resolve family darkness. Whoever is next to step up, please do.
This leads us to the question of whether the common form of human objectiveness is based on visual perception in a very small subset of the measurable spectrum.
Even the most rational of us would admit there is much the humans cannot see. Who then will deny that life might exist where humans have no sight?
Indeed Paul. The obvious examples are of animals, birds, bees, even sea creatures, that can see things like infrared, untraviolet, etc. Obviously tested for humans with flowers and special lenses. There is much hidden to human sight that is in the visual range of many other animals that we share this planet with.
I couldn't agree more. Where are we when we observe heat rising from a hot object or the etheric substance (is that the right term) visible sometimes on the surface of the skin. What is the "jello" we feel when pressing hands together, but not quite touching? We feel it but don't see it.
The creatures found in the boiling cauldrons of Yosemite Park were invisible until recently, as were the life forms surrounding the hot smoke pipes in the deepest oceans. Is there any difference between that kind of life on earth and those found in subtler realms of reality? Perhaps only in the area of consciousness.
For self-transcendence to have a meaningful object, one must identify with a greater reality that encompasses one's self, such as humanity or all life.
Thank you, guys, for introducing the rest of us to the work of A. Maslow. I've heard the name but never knew anything about his work. Reading self-transcendence proved to be a self-revealing experience. Some of us are like the Biblical Adam, where by applying names to things we somehow gain control over it, understand its nature. After studying this article I claim the name of transcender. How many of us can identify with the term as defined by this article?
>When he to whom a person speaks does not understand, and he who speaks does not understand himself, that is metaphysics
Of course it helps to:
- speak the same language - have a common set of assumptions about Existence - be mentally compatible (not antagonistic) - be prepared to learn new realities - be master of one's own thoughts.
Oh dear!
Words of wisdom, Paul, and helpful advise. Perhaps that sign should be figuratively posted over the mailbox for the forum. It reminds me of the acclamation many LDH lodges brought over into English from the French working: Liberty - Equality - Fraternity * * * If it's good enough for the French, it's certainly good enough for us!