Response to Maslow's...

Question:1 Is Yankelovich a communist?

Question 2: It seems as thought the text is a somewhat makeshift "manual" on human existence within societal boundaries? Is the author somehow describing how Maslow is characterizing a "model" human being thatofwhich we live by?

Question 3: The way Maslow describes the failure to move through deeper levels of internal development as resulting in guilt? Does this make living as a human more of a "chore" in regards to our inner psyche? In other words, does the mere existence of our "self" mandate a duty to put together the prenatally broken puzzle pieces together throughout our lifetime?

Response:

The way i see it, Yankelvich conveys two different types of ideas. These ideas more or less describe theories on the purpose of humanity's existence.....well at least the fullfillment; however i feel that that is a redundant correction of my own mistake. If we can assume that the purpose of life is to be happy and fullfilled then there requires no correction to the that being the purpose (at least the tangible one) of existence. So in analyzing and laying out the foundations and depths of Maslow's philosophies, Yankelvich, is essentially expressing his concerns about Maslow's self-actualization.

My questions and comments don't exactly meet the intellectuality of his abstractions mainly because I don't feel that I'm that capable of providing a relevant discussion based on this text- it's some pretty deep stuff. But either way,  have some things to say.

What I think Yankelvich failed to mention is how (pulling away from the abstraction) this applies to societal class stratification. When speaking about things like this, class stratification is always a hot topic. Maslow's hierarchy implies such a topic. According to him, one can not achieve self actualization if one is preoccupied with the "lower-order" vitals required for survival. What caught my attention here is, how many times have we heard that the brightest and wisest people we know are ones that struggled the most. I know this isn't consistent with Maslow's self-actualization (wisdom and experience being different than inner discovery and fulfillment). Either way that's besides the point. Straying away from digressing, I'd like to point out that Maslow's hierarchy reiterates and enforces classism. To say that one must not be preoccupied with the struggles of survival in order to attain self-actualization implies the separation between the affluent and the unfortunate. Not to mention that "affluence" is a necessity to achieve this optimizing "self."Yankelvich says it himself. Maslow's idea presupposes the idea of progressing through economic stages in a "materlistic age."

So in all this....is Maslow indirectly implying that there be a model human being? A person that everyone should strive to be? How does uniqueness and invididualism fit into this theory. Well it's confusing when is say it like that so let me break it down.

We have a way that Maslow says we are supposed to strive to live by. By doing this, this deep internal inner self disovery, expression of self, autonomy, we can be a fully maximized version of a human being. I don't doubt that he would even add that this human being is capable of anything.
SO- if everyone were to do this, and do it successfully, what would we have? A huge society of narcissistic human beings? What happens when every person in the world solves their inner conflicts independently and internally. How isolated would we become. It's almost like the stronger the connection we make with ourselves, the weaker the connection we will make with others. And that's something I don't think anyone would want to happen.

On a side note, I do agree that we are "selfs" both within our body and protuding outward. I mean this in the sense that, assuming all humans are pieces of a collective consciousness, we are all a piece of that puzzle.

A good analogy for this is: Let's assume (if there is a god) that god took all the matter in the world and let it break into a million pieces. All these pieces are part of the this big ball of matter that once was whole. But somehow, each piece because a separate and individual entity of its own. If a cell from your body was put into a petri dish would you point at it and say that that is you? Probably not, you would say it's a part of me. So with that being said, we are all (according to the supposed theory) part of a collective consciousness.

The reason i bring this up is because Maslow's theory implies superiority. Those who reach self-actualization are better than those who don't. Especially when he says we feel "guilty" for not doing it. So i must argue against that with my aforementioned analogy.

The way Yankelvich describes Maslow's "perfect human being" sounds like a different species. Can't we all unblock our emotions to people other than therapists? Can't we all think introspectively? Can't we all be spontaneous, autonomous, natural and creative and yet be confused, broken, and incomplete individuals?

So i want to end on that note with this question.

Does Maslow think that dropping out from the larger society to attain a higher position of existence whereby not caring separates the composition of their consciousness from the rest of us?