> It's not strictly necessary to fulfill one level before achieving something on the next one either. The idea is that it's easier to go higher when you've already filled-out the stuff below.
This is literally the definition of pseudoscience. If it can't be replicated, it's not science. If it can't fit within the bounds of the scientific method, it's not fact, it's wishful thinking. Statements like "it's a map not a territory" and it "varies...between people" is indoctrination, not education. You'll hear exactly the same statements and circular reasoning come out of cults and religious institutions.
> You may have a very low need for personal safety so that it is satisfied, but those are so far apart you're unlikely to reach self-actualization if your safety needs are not met.
Ghandi did not have personal safety, but he was certainly self-actualized. Nelson Mandela spent his life in prison, and yet raised an entire country to a higher level of consciousness. Some of the greatest scientists, leaders, and artists in history were the most persecuted. But today, in the 21st century, we live in the safest time in history, with the least struggles in history, the most abundance, and what do we have? Millions of people with depression and mental illness, who are the farthest thing from being self-actualized. From this the only conclusion I can come to is that people like Abraham Maslow were quacks, trying to rationalize their own ego, and don't deserve any place in modern academia.
>> Ghandi did not have personal safety, but he was certainly self-actualized.
His need for personal safety was low and probably satisfied.
>> Nelson Mandela spent his life in prison, and yet raised an entire country to a higher level of consciousness.
"higher level of consciousness" sounds like that pseudo-science stuff you don't like.
>> Some of the greatest scientists, leaders, and artists in history were the most persecuted. But today, in the 21st century, we live in the safest time in history, with the least struggles in history, the most abundance, and what do we have? Millions of people with depression and mental illness, who are the farthest thing from being self-actualized.
And? One might conclude that overcoming adversity is a solid path to self-actualized, even though - again - you think that whole concept is pseudo-science ;-)
This is literally the definition of pseudoscience. If it can't be replicated, it's not science. If it can't fit within the bounds of the scientific method, it's not fact, it's wishful thinking. Statements like "it's a map not a territory" and it "varies...between people" is indoctrination, not education. You'll hear exactly the same statements and circular reasoning come out of cults and religious institutions.
> You may have a very low need for personal safety so that it is satisfied, but those are so far apart you're unlikely to reach self-actualization if your safety needs are not met.
Ghandi did not have personal safety, but he was certainly self-actualized. Nelson Mandela spent his life in prison, and yet raised an entire country to a higher level of consciousness. Some of the greatest scientists, leaders, and artists in history were the most persecuted. But today, in the 21st century, we live in the safest time in history, with the least struggles in history, the most abundance, and what do we have? Millions of people with depression and mental illness, who are the farthest thing from being self-actualized. From this the only conclusion I can come to is that people like Abraham Maslow were quacks, trying to rationalize their own ego, and don't deserve any place in modern academia.