Does/can this person really exist?

Read this article and share your thoughts. Do you think the person described can exist naturally without the aid of brain augmentation (neural implants, superdrugs) or genetic modification? Or is he/she just an ideal superhuman from a fictional utopian world?

http://www.tribalmessenger.org/headlines/maslow-self-actualized-traits.htm

 

I'm sure such a person has and can exist in a sober state without any physiological changes.

I think it's about being self aware. Take this part for example;

If a person lives always desiring fulfillment, they live in conflict because what they desire is not currently what is. To want to become what we can potentially be creates conflict between what we are now and what we could be. One ignores what is because they are focused on what could be. Such a person would not be self-actualized because they would not be self aware, nor aware of what is. Their focus is on what is not.

If one lives without the conflict of desire and potential they are free to just be, to be aware. In my opinion such a person as that would be self-fulfilled, content with what is.

 

I am absolutely sure it is possible to be a self actualized person. I don't want to say anymore until I've re-read the piece and given it some more thought on a deeper level.

 

aside from the fact i believe maslow spouted garbage, it must ascertain

an idealistic person is hardly perfect. our flaws are what make us human and ultimately personable.

 

An idealistic person, whether one can exist or not, would be a falsity.

It would be a person comprised of ideals. Ideals are comprised of desire, they are not comprised of truth, nor of what is. Desire creates conflict. Conflict creates a lack of self awareness. How can one be self actualized if they are not self aware?

 

i can't agree with you there. but only because i don't have an opinion

i think it's all bullshit.

 

i changed the word "idealistic" to "ideal" because i wanted to clarify that i was asking whether or not the person in the article is just an ideal fantasy person, not whether the person him/herself is idealistic in personality.

however, i think i understand your point lunarverse, and it is definitely one to consider

 

the only problem with his point is the lack of emphasis on anything which is 'real', otherwise it's wordy, but good.

ideals may never be met, because we may never accept full awareness, but achieving something for a moment

creating a masterpiece, let's say

that will fill a person with a sense of actualisation, one they will have just until the next painting comes along. it's a self fulfilling prophecy.

basically, self actualisation can be so, but it's not sustainable. it's in essence, motivational, which is what maslow was referring to ultimately.

 

An idea or an ideal are both based on the past. They're based on events, decisions, feelings, thoughts, desires, etc. An idea is a perspective, an ideal is a quality that is thought to be better than other qualities.

Neither one is based on what is, now. An idea is based on the past and is irrelevant to now. An ideal is a quality comprised of desire. The desire to be better, or different, or best.

One can only be self actualized when they are self aware. Self awareness comes from being free from desire, ideas, ideals, qualities and concepts.

 

I don't agree.

One can be self actualized when they are self aware. The reason one isn't satisfied eternally after creating a masterpiece is because that happiness is vanity. It is not a real happiness, it is fleeting. The moment that masterpiece no longer stimulates, the feeling of pride goes away.

Motivation is desire, desire is conflict because it contrasts what we wish with what actually is.

 

I think the term was self-actualized, not idealistic.

As matter, we possess three properties, absorbency, reflectivity, and polarity.

I don't know if self actualized is a meaningful description. All animals eat. And as far as I know no one can exist without some energetic exchange.

 

well, there we go then. you do agree after all

i never once confessed to what a person felt after they reach 'self actualisation', just said that they did.

 

that's a basic need.

 

The version of self actualization you speak of is not entirely accurate in my opinion. Self actualization can and has existed in individuals. It comes from peace and contentment of being self aware. That peace and contentment is not fleeting, it is eternal.

That is desire and motivation, not self actualization.

 

sounds like a bunch of hippie shit to me

and to a lesser degree, what maslow considered our 'safety'.

http://images.wikia.com/psychology/images/c/c3/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs.png

 

it's a motivation theory.

 

It sounds strange because it clashes with your current ideas and beliefs. Regardless of what I or anyone else says if you are self aware you will be self actualized.


There is a difference between self actualization and self satisfaction.

 

Then we are basically dependent on a favorable environment, which is why I wonder whether "self-actualized" is a meaningful term.

 

i was on about what you said, not me

there may be a difference, but lest not forget

- this is maslow's theory, not ours
- a theory is a theory because it has no proven correct answer.

but i stand by that fact that happiness in body is much lower down in his alleged 'pyramid of needs'. that's why i hate his theory, because it defines an order of fulfillment. plus, each person is different.

i had to write a thesis on it last year, it blows big time.

i'm off to circuits now, anyways.

 

Hence "self actualization" comes from being "self aware". It does not come from ideas, theories or desires.