27 July 2011
24 July 2011
Maslow and Beyond the Beast
For long time I have been thinking about hinting here also at a basic understanding model which actually helps to put many things I write about here, into a clearer perspective. I am talking about
'Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs'.
As you can search yourself for websites and even literature referring to it, I will just link to a site that keeps the issue somewhat clear and unpretentious, just to give an idea about it:
(with thanks referring to www.businessballs.com/leadership/management » maslow's hierarchy of needs)
It is worth for each of us to find out, each for him or herself, what we are and where we stand.
Many of the topics I work out myself are in the end fittable into the Hierarchy of Needs, as it directly mirrors what older texts call 'the reptile/dragon' (which came out of the water, and here they are so in compliance with what science understands today that it is each time amazing) and the 'beast/wild animal', a next step in evolution which reaches in its needs unto level 4 of the original 5 level pyramid as above. As I came in contact with this kind of models at quite an early stage in life, many of my further thoughts take such findings into account and always compare how and where new pieves of the information puzzle fit.
Another further development of the model (this here just exemplary not representatively found at Future Hi), indicates a
The breaks above now have been added by me - as it is the interesting part to see in daily real life, where people get stuck. Seems there are some bridges that are more hard for humans to take. The site cites, totally in accordance to what I also see - namely that at this stage the jump seems to be undoable for many:
We may become aware that especially in a society as we live in, we are continuously reminded and pressed into a scheme of functioning as happy comsumers on exactly levels 1-4.
By playing with our fears and directing our reptilish greeds to certain kind of behaviour, some people enjoy taking over a role of power (level 4) and put themselves over others whom they can easily direct and steer with the scheme of human's reptile and animal evolutionary programs.
Additionally, I hope that you now see that what I referred to in my last post about 'love', is also reflected here:
'Love' is mostly clearly misinterpreted, either because people don't know better or by purpose, and what people call 'love' is in fact is a level 3 need (original scheme) - the group feeling. The group shelters the individual and keeps itself together though nothing of this must have to do with 'love' as a non-needy feeling.
Therefore, it is really up to us to open our own eyes and see ourselves what we follow and hold before ourselves as illusions. If we believe we have found love in the fulfillment of just animal needs, we will namely never find love because we do not look out for love, go into the world and find it. If we make ourselves believe we are happy because our animal needs are basically fulfilled, we do not give ourselves the chance to find out and become what we really are and make ourselves happy. The most unhappy people live in the finest clothes, with the most of material goods and do have worldly power.
And care: No one tells you to abandon our animal(s). It is only to know about them and see them as what they simply are. As also they want to be recognized and be acknowledged part of us. Then, they also do not need to go out for destruction and keep us from further de-velopment, from our inner e-volution.
Just as what they are they are good and there is nothing wrong about that. As long as our selves have the power by knowing our selves.
The animals in us can be great helpers even, to understand much more about ourselves. We all have the animals in us - in our cells, in our information. Just how should we deny what we are and what we are connected to:
Happy without illusions.
Yours,
Lyn
'Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs'.
As you can search yourself for websites and even literature referring to it, I will just link to a site that keeps the issue somewhat clear and unpretentious, just to give an idea about it:
(with thanks referring to www.businessballs.com/leadership/management » maslow's hierarchy of needs)
It is worth for each of us to find out, each for him or herself, what we are and where we stand.
Many of the topics I work out myself are in the end fittable into the Hierarchy of Needs, as it directly mirrors what older texts call 'the reptile/dragon' (which came out of the water, and here they are so in compliance with what science understands today that it is each time amazing) and the 'beast/wild animal', a next step in evolution which reaches in its needs unto level 4 of the original 5 level pyramid as above. As I came in contact with this kind of models at quite an early stage in life, many of my further thoughts take such findings into account and always compare how and where new pieves of the information puzzle fit.
Another further development of the model (this here just exemplary not representatively found at Future Hi), indicates a
'1990's adapted Hierarchy of Needs including Transcendence needs'
1. Biological and Physiological needs - air, food, drink, shelter, warmth, sex, sleep, etc.
2. Safety needs - protection from elements, security, order, law, limits, stability, etc.
3. Belongingness and Love needs - work group, family, affection, relationships, etc.
4. Esteem needs - self-esteem, achievement, mastery, independence, status, dominance, prestige, managerial responsibility, etc.
5. Cognitive needs - knowledge, meaning, etc.
6. Aesthetic needs - appreciation and search for beauty, balance, form, etc.
7. Self-Actualisation needs - realising personal potential, self-fulfillment, seeking personal growth and peak experiences.
8. Transcendence needs - helping others to achieve self actualisation.
Maslow said that needs must be satisfied in the given order. Aims and drive always shift to next higher order needs.'
The breaks above now have been added by me - as it is the interesting part to see in daily real life, where people get stuck. Seems there are some bridges that are more hard for humans to take. The site cites, totally in accordance to what I also see - namely that at this stage the jump seems to be undoable for many:
'Levels 1 to 4 are deficiency motivators; level 5, and by implication 6 to 8, are growth motivators and relatively rarely found. The thwarting of needs is usually a cause of stress, and is particularly so at level 4.'Though, I do NOT agree with the statement that those needs must be satisfied in the given order, maybe because of viewing beyond the borders of just common life as approached in our Western so-called civilizations. It is definitely more than possible that humans easily overcome levels 1-4 and go for 5. Or that they just do it the other way around: Having level 5 in them, they transform the spirit of it on the basic needs.
We may become aware that especially in a society as we live in, we are continuously reminded and pressed into a scheme of functioning as happy comsumers on exactly levels 1-4.
By playing with our fears and directing our reptilish greeds to certain kind of behaviour, some people enjoy taking over a role of power (level 4) and put themselves over others whom they can easily direct and steer with the scheme of human's reptile and animal evolutionary programs.
Additionally, I hope that you now see that what I referred to in my last post about 'love', is also reflected here:
'Love' is mostly clearly misinterpreted, either because people don't know better or by purpose, and what people call 'love' is in fact is a level 3 need (original scheme) - the group feeling. The group shelters the individual and keeps itself together though nothing of this must have to do with 'love' as a non-needy feeling.
Therefore, it is really up to us to open our own eyes and see ourselves what we follow and hold before ourselves as illusions. If we believe we have found love in the fulfillment of just animal needs, we will namely never find love because we do not look out for love, go into the world and find it. If we make ourselves believe we are happy because our animal needs are basically fulfilled, we do not give ourselves the chance to find out and become what we really are and make ourselves happy. The most unhappy people live in the finest clothes, with the most of material goods and do have worldly power.
And care: No one tells you to abandon our animal(s). It is only to know about them and see them as what they simply are. As also they want to be recognized and be acknowledged part of us. Then, they also do not need to go out for destruction and keep us from further de-velopment, from our inner e-volution.
Just as what they are they are good and there is nothing wrong about that. As long as our selves have the power by knowing our selves.
The animals in us can be great helpers even, to understand much more about ourselves. We all have the animals in us - in our cells, in our information. Just how should we deny what we are and what we are connected to:
Happy without illusions.
Yours,
Lyn
14 July 2011
Today: Color Yourself the World
Just color yourself the world beautiful.
Yesterday, I fell once again over the highly interesting perception that people like to see things as they like to see them.
Illusionism in perfection.
If you try to wake up people because you see: the circumstances are not at all as they would like to color them, they start the big attack. It costs the world a lot to deal with the outcome of those illusionists.
Though it would be so easy to see what is there, to see what you have, to see what is lacking, and just do it. Better, of course.
Companies and organizations run risk assessments, business assessments, all kind of assessments ... and none of that would make any sense if people keep on dreaming and dwelling in as they want to see things which has got absolutely nothing to do with what and how things are in fact.
There is spread by some psychologists that being in love resembles the symptoms of a psychosis. In that state we see things from the most positive point of view and leave out seeing what we do not like to see. Now, and I must add this, being in love is certainly something different than loving. When loving, you as well see the little defects and mistakes of your dearests, and still love him or her. Because we all have our little mistakes in some sense even if we always are challenged to do it better. The question is only if these mistakes harm or hurt any one else - or harm or hurt even the person itself.
The psychologists' 'psychosis thesis' is quite nice because if being in love is seen this way, I would always like to be in a psychosis. Especially in a joint psychosis with my dearest when we have switched from the being in love mode to the really loving mode and still enjoy this joint sensation.
What now with all those people who are only in love with themselves?
Well, here we again face the problematic of differing between the 'self' and the 'ego' and using the proper terminology. And as stated before, there is no solution to this dilemma yet as the English language uses 'self' describing a re-flection on the original point. Conclusively, the question (in question) must be: what is the original point? Is it the 'self' - or is it the 'ego'? Then the question sounds already different:
What kind of collective psychosis do we face with all those people who are in love with their egos, and who lack all empathy with any one else?
As referred to before in my blogging experiment, the majority of relations, even close and seemingly 'loving' relations, have absolutely nothing to do with love. Love as a term is (mis)used for so many estates that today most people have no clue anymore about what love is at all. They think loving a girlfriend or boyfriend or partner is love, loving a child is love. Loving you dog or cat is love. Yes, it can.
It can be love but is not necessarily love.
The bonding with a child can be love, but also can be only the reptile's program to ensure the species' reproduction.
For example, believing to love a partner can be love but can as well be just be
Well now, color yourself the world.
If you are caught in the believe that reptile love and/ or animal love is real love, you well never go for solution 3. At first, you must learn to see.
If you believe that your organization or company runs fine because
People who did not wish to look at things in time to be able to take appropriate measures in time, do right things in time and before everything turns brittle and attracts the lice (plant lice and sometimes pubics, too) only, never allow themselves the chance to learn about the powers of creation.
We can create our world
so that it shines
from inside and itself.
No ego-self but real self.
Track what and who you are your self.
And then ...
we don't have to color it differently than it is
as as it is,
it is o.k.
Yesterday, I fell once again over the highly interesting perception that people like to see things as they like to see them.
Illusionism in perfection.
If you try to wake up people because you see: the circumstances are not at all as they would like to color them, they start the big attack. It costs the world a lot to deal with the outcome of those illusionists.
Though it would be so easy to see what is there, to see what you have, to see what is lacking, and just do it. Better, of course.
Companies and organizations run risk assessments, business assessments, all kind of assessments ... and none of that would make any sense if people keep on dreaming and dwelling in as they want to see things which has got absolutely nothing to do with what and how things are in fact.
There is spread by some psychologists that being in love resembles the symptoms of a psychosis. In that state we see things from the most positive point of view and leave out seeing what we do not like to see. Now, and I must add this, being in love is certainly something different than loving. When loving, you as well see the little defects and mistakes of your dearests, and still love him or her. Because we all have our little mistakes in some sense even if we always are challenged to do it better. The question is only if these mistakes harm or hurt any one else - or harm or hurt even the person itself.
The psychologists' 'psychosis thesis' is quite nice because if being in love is seen this way, I would always like to be in a psychosis. Especially in a joint psychosis with my dearest when we have switched from the being in love mode to the really loving mode and still enjoy this joint sensation.
What now with all those people who are only in love with themselves?
Well, here we again face the problematic of differing between the 'self' and the 'ego' and using the proper terminology. And as stated before, there is no solution to this dilemma yet as the English language uses 'self' describing a re-flection on the original point. Conclusively, the question (in question) must be: what is the original point? Is it the 'self' - or is it the 'ego'? Then the question sounds already different:
What kind of collective psychosis do we face with all those people who are in love with their egos, and who lack all empathy with any one else?
As referred to before in my blogging experiment, the majority of relations, even close and seemingly 'loving' relations, have absolutely nothing to do with love. Love as a term is (mis)used for so many estates that today most people have no clue anymore about what love is at all. They think loving a girlfriend or boyfriend or partner is love, loving a child is love. Loving you dog or cat is love. Yes, it can.
It can be love but is not necessarily love.
The bonding with a child can be love, but also can be only the reptile's program to ensure the species' reproduction.
For example, believing to love a partner can be love but can as well be just be
- the reptile's program as described above, including breeding, upbringing of offspring and individual survival or
- the stronghold within a group developed to ensure the human species' survival, the funny animal part in us.
Well now, color yourself the world.
If you are caught in the believe that reptile love and/ or animal love is real love, you well never go for solution 3. At first, you must learn to see.
If you believe that your organization or company runs fine because
- the stronghold within it is built on animal bond interrelations like personal networking advantages which even force you more and more to color circumstances and events and persons differently than they are,
- instead of being built on a joint goal and vision and useful purpose of what you all do and work for together,
People who did not wish to look at things in time to be able to take appropriate measures in time, do right things in time and before everything turns brittle and attracts the lice (plant lice and sometimes pubics, too) only, never allow themselves the chance to learn about the powers of creation.
We can create our world so that it shines
from inside and itself.
No ego-self but real self.
Track what and who you are your self.
And then ...
we don't have to color it differently than it is
as as it is,
it is o.k.
12 July 2011
Worth a Look - Interns Anonymous
Found with one of my many job alert newletters:
Just check it out and make up your own opinion at
http://internsanonymous.co.uk/
There would be a lot to contribute to the reality of current work ethics from different sides - and could easily be extended with a sister site like
'temps and contractors anonymous'.
As we cannot deny - some things need a change.
Certainly, and certainly very soon.
Not only in words and on paper.
And some things are certainly good as they are.
The job is to sort the ones from the others.
Have a great sunshiny day,
Lyn
Interns Anonymous
We want this website to be a forum for interns to share their experiences and discuss the ethics of unpaid employment. Most importantly, we want this site to be a place where YOU can tell us your story.
Just check it out and make up your own opinion at
http://internsanonymous.co.uk/
There would be a lot to contribute to the reality of current work ethics from different sides - and could easily be extended with a sister site like
'temps and contractors anonymous'.
As we cannot deny - some things need a change.
Certainly, and certainly very soon.
Not only in words and on paper.
And some things are certainly good as they are.
The job is to sort the ones from the others.
Have a great sunshiny day,
Lyn
03 July 2011
Cought in the Boys' Game?
Just having posted the last one and reviewing my blog, I to my shame find that up to know all linked videos refer to male actives.
And I start wondering myself: Where are the girls in that game?
I am a girl (well, more into the direction of a woman but I also like the girls aspects a lot) myself, so how does it come that I myself, having stood in for female power (and general justice) since I can think, revolting harshly and with all personal consequences against patriarchalistic domination, sticking out my neck for women's rights (and childrens') for such a long time, am now only posting findings of obvious male authorship?
Well, one reason can of course be that especially those males I refer to, have much more sides than the classical defintion of 'male' and therefore synchronize with my own frequencies. Personally, I am proud of certainly having many more aspects than the classical (and unfortunately long not overcome) definition of 'female'. This is good, does it show that we all have enough of the other in ourselves and that we in principle could be ready to end that Cold War that men and women are at. Sorry, need to correct (colleft) myself:
The war the present boys and girls are at.
That war in which they daily execute the other, and even if the other is claimed to be the very own partner. They are at war, from morning to evening, and even during night. The weapons are the way you let the other wait, you push him/her away, you deeply disrespect him/her by either rude words or no words at all. The weapons are as extended as the gap of these people to becoming adult is. Unfortunately, they usually are far over 21 and look like mature while by no means they are.
I prefer hanging around with nerds and discussing technical and constructive issues rather than hanging out with females and discussing typical female stuff and doing that weird 'socializing' thing. Sitting with coffee or hanging around in colleagues' doorframes in the mornings and admiring each other's hairdo or so. It's nice if women give each other compliments and support each other. That is a quality and necessity of our social development and evolution. Not nice is if it becomes the only glue that keeps them together and the minute they turn around the girlish grin, begging for sympathy, leaves their faces and you see the true disgust towards the person they have just before smiled at and talked with singing Barbie voices.
Also males celebrate their tea parties. It is just called 'business meetings'.
And also women create their own hierarchical groups. I just feel dislocated in hierarchies, anyway.
I prefer to be a wanderer between the worlds, in all regards.
Women are the most involved in that the games that are played are still going on. Each (local) generation of women have their very own load to shoulder and challenges to meet, and always have there been exceptions to the rule. Mainstream is never the measure. The exceptionals are the ones that change the world. On both sides - the male and the female.
Personally, I had to search for long to find those exceptions but it makes me happy that they exist. They are few though. Some I found through their literature and some, indeed, as living examples in flesh. I would like to thank my sociologist mentor at this point. Though often discredited, threatened and thrown at with dirt, she is a wonderful role model and she had the guts to relevantly break taboos. Thank you here and now, Anita.
I could dwell more in why I call it a 'boys' game' and why it is not at all a 'men's world', as some might like to believe. I will certainly dedicate a complete post to this once and when I am in the mood. Or even more than one as there is so much background to first be clarified until the conclusion becomes evident. That females try to co-play and now try to compete the boys by submitting themselves to those rules, is not especially a sign of their female maturity. Almost all women in power these days are simply women copying the boys' game strategy. Not more not less. With female empowerment this simply has nothing to do. But we need both those qualities to become the ones we are meant to be.
Ah-Ng-Els have neither face nor gender. I guess, it is more by funny tricks of nature that we are given exactly the bodies we are born in. And we can make the most out of it according to the given possibilities.
Unite the qualities.
For instance. Instead of selling the own ones to highest price obtainable we could really come into the grade of evolutionary understanding which made mankind what it became at a point. This world is not about gaining for oneself. It is about gaining all for all. Or loosing all for all. This is what makes us so strong. This is what makes us so weak.
Today a musketeer, tomorrow a smoothly purring cat.
It just depends.
Lyn.
And I start wondering myself: Where are the girls in that game?
I am a girl (well, more into the direction of a woman but I also like the girls aspects a lot) myself, so how does it come that I myself, having stood in for female power (and general justice) since I can think, revolting harshly and with all personal consequences against patriarchalistic domination, sticking out my neck for women's rights (and childrens') for such a long time, am now only posting findings of obvious male authorship?
Well, one reason can of course be that especially those males I refer to, have much more sides than the classical defintion of 'male' and therefore synchronize with my own frequencies. Personally, I am proud of certainly having many more aspects than the classical (and unfortunately long not overcome) definition of 'female'. This is good, does it show that we all have enough of the other in ourselves and that we in principle could be ready to end that Cold War that men and women are at. Sorry, need to correct (colleft) myself:
The war the present boys and girls are at.
That war in which they daily execute the other, and even if the other is claimed to be the very own partner. They are at war, from morning to evening, and even during night. The weapons are the way you let the other wait, you push him/her away, you deeply disrespect him/her by either rude words or no words at all. The weapons are as extended as the gap of these people to becoming adult is. Unfortunately, they usually are far over 21 and look like mature while by no means they are.
I prefer hanging around with nerds and discussing technical and constructive issues rather than hanging out with females and discussing typical female stuff and doing that weird 'socializing' thing. Sitting with coffee or hanging around in colleagues' doorframes in the mornings and admiring each other's hairdo or so. It's nice if women give each other compliments and support each other. That is a quality and necessity of our social development and evolution. Not nice is if it becomes the only glue that keeps them together and the minute they turn around the girlish grin, begging for sympathy, leaves their faces and you see the true disgust towards the person they have just before smiled at and talked with singing Barbie voices.
Also males celebrate their tea parties. It is just called 'business meetings'.
And also women create their own hierarchical groups. I just feel dislocated in hierarchies, anyway.
I prefer to be a wanderer between the worlds, in all regards.
Women are the most involved in that the games that are played are still going on. Each (local) generation of women have their very own load to shoulder and challenges to meet, and always have there been exceptions to the rule. Mainstream is never the measure. The exceptionals are the ones that change the world. On both sides - the male and the female.
Personally, I had to search for long to find those exceptions but it makes me happy that they exist. They are few though. Some I found through their literature and some, indeed, as living examples in flesh. I would like to thank my sociologist mentor at this point. Though often discredited, threatened and thrown at with dirt, she is a wonderful role model and she had the guts to relevantly break taboos. Thank you here and now, Anita.
I could dwell more in why I call it a 'boys' game' and why it is not at all a 'men's world', as some might like to believe. I will certainly dedicate a complete post to this once and when I am in the mood. Or even more than one as there is so much background to first be clarified until the conclusion becomes evident. That females try to co-play and now try to compete the boys by submitting themselves to those rules, is not especially a sign of their female maturity. Almost all women in power these days are simply women copying the boys' game strategy. Not more not less. With female empowerment this simply has nothing to do. But we need both those qualities to become the ones we are meant to be.
Ah-Ng-Els have neither face nor gender. I guess, it is more by funny tricks of nature that we are given exactly the bodies we are born in. And we can make the most out of it according to the given possibilities.
Unite the qualities.
For instance. Instead of selling the own ones to highest price obtainable we could really come into the grade of evolutionary understanding which made mankind what it became at a point. This world is not about gaining for oneself. It is about gaining all for all. Or loosing all for all. This is what makes us so strong. This is what makes us so weak.
Today a musketeer, tomorrow a smoothly purring cat.
It just depends.
Lyn.
Natural Supernatural (Extended Mind)
Another brilliant compilation.
Please, again and as usual, trace yourself and reconciliate with what you know.
Still wondering how and why the goat succeeds in being ranked highest in this blog - there certainly must be something about it.
At least I am quite sure that Administrators won't understand the talk as given with the video above.
Have some nice Sunday afternoon extensions,
Lyn
Please, again and as usual, trace yourself and reconciliate with what you know.
Still wondering how and why the goat succeeds in being ranked highest in this blog - there certainly must be something about it.
At least I am quite sure that Administrators won't understand the talk as given with the video above.
Have some nice Sunday afternoon extensions,
Lyn
02 July 2011
Watching the World ... Change
Thank you,
Mr. Assange.
I agree that this acknowledgement is more than deserved:
If the systems and organisms would have their own cleaning mechanism, like our inborn systems have, they would clean themselves. Unfortunately, they mostly dwell in weird perceptions. Just hope that one day this will be over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)