An Addition to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

     This entry is all about potential.  I read a very interesting story by some rogue philosopher who dramatized a meeting with "God".  The whole thing is about the vast potential of a species when they manipulate their environment.  Those who simply adapt, the articule explains, are merely surviving and not aspiring to be something greater.  The paper talks about "we" a lot.  I'm not the biggest group person - in the sense that I, at THIS moment, value the individual more than I do the system in which he finds himself.  A collective, though, is a very comforting concept as it infers a certain amount of security with a group of people who exist for, or are merely operating at this time toward, a certain goal.  With these two things in mind - the ultimate potential and the collective - I propose a change to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
     Originally, Maslow's pyramid looks like this:

 But I think that a small change can be made in order to show the philosopher's point.
     If we assume that Maslow's original model is correct (though I'm pretty sure that quantitative research is inconclusive on that point), when we're assuming that these needs are met from the foundation to the top, with it being stated fact that one cannot achieve self-actualization without their physiological needs met.  So, if we also assume that ultimate potential is met by these individuals becoming part of a combined collective, would it not be appropriate to place an attachment onto the top of the pyramid?
     Before I draw the graphic, I would like to mention that, so far, I have not come up with sections for the additional attachment.  Here it is:

     I think that this picture accurately portrays the fact that the "collective" is based on the individual.  Without an individual, nothing would get done - innovation, invention, or ground-breaking creative research would not occur, ultimately stagnating the species and leading them to a quiet extinction.  Because such a hive mindset would come from individuals from this model, it actually bases off of the idea of self-actualization.  That being said, would this ever happen?  Probably not.  In order for such a theory to occur, there would have to be a mass of self-actualized individuals who would life society to heights not before experienced.  Because there aren't many self-actualized individuals (and by all accounts, self-actualized people would probably not have the interest for such an over-all regime shift).
     Perhaps, due to that last parenthetical phrase, I should define my own definition of self-actualized.  For me, a self-actualized individual exhibits, obviously, none of the needs/has his needs fulfilled.  He understands himself, or at least has the potential to fully understand his own actions, emotions, and thoughts due to a lack of background noise.  It occurs to me that everything from Maslow's Hierarchy is external to the individual.  Everything on that model can be done to him, be accepted by him without necessary intrinsic thought or action.  It almost seems that this model allows thought only when a person meets the self-actualized level.  Does this mean that one out of a thousand people can truly think for themselves?

Measure of Investment

     I think it is important, when defining yourself and your place in a relationship, to figure out the correct measure of investment.  I, as a person, am amazingly scared of losing myself in the "us."  When I look around at the other couples, it seems there are three kinds of relationships that have to do with this "measure of investment":

1. Inaction through Fear - I think that there are many that feel that entering a relationship will end with a total eclipse of their own personality - a loss of self into the other.  These are the individuals that either enter no relationship with others or constantly push others away in order to deter such a possibility from occurring.  I think that everyone has a friend who enters many relationships only to spurn the other and complain about intimacy.  These are the people who, in an attempt to gain nothing from other, invest nothing themselves.  Perhaps the relationship is just as unwanted from the "other's" side due to this level of inaction and fear of amoebic possession.
2. Total Takeover - The other end of the spectrum finds another who is so into the relationship that he is willing to either totally give up his identity to the other or have himself integrated into more of a collective (a la Borg).  There is a certain sense of safety that comes with any collective (political party, religion, etc.), but this type of investment leaves nothing in its wake.  Whereas the individual was once a distinct spirit, his status changes to one who requires permission for the simplest thing.  Could it be that these individuals have so little separate personality to begin with, that to sacrifice it was an easy and relatively unmolesting process?
3. Healthy Investment - Luckily, there are those who can find a happy medium between these two extremes.  These people find time to be themselves, but have the ability to relate to another in a semi-collective way.  But how is such a thing possible?  Surely it is easier to operate at an extreme, adhering to a simple black/white set of rules, rather than juggling distinct responsibilities of both camps without gaining fear of integration or need for over-investment.  One of these individuals how to make constant overt and covert decisions at every single turn in order to keep their identity intact as individual/related.

   

     This Venn diagram shows my current thoughts on a healthy relationship.  The people in this relationship are heterosexual only because it is what I have personally experienced.  This shows the people as having issues that they deal with.  A nod to existential psychotherapy is here because I believe that we all do die a lone and must deal with the majority of our issues alone, as well.  That being said, some are very much a responsibility of both people and should thus be decided together.  But, as said, the majority of issues are singular as can be seen by the amount of space outside of the "united issues" field.  While it may seem rather callous that I mentioned that most decisions should be made by the individual, that does not mean that the other should not be concerned with personally-made decisions.  A net of "care" is around each person.  This, however, does NOT mean that outrageous inquiries shoudl be made into personal decisions.  Trust is key here.  

Musings on Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Theory and Other

     People change due to what is around them and can, in turn, change the things around them.  I like the diagram of Bronfenbrenner's theory because it helps me realize that we are a product of everything around us, but that we have the ability to alter our surroundings.  That being said, I do not believe that anyone has the ability to change anyone else.  Any intra-personal change that can be made must happen due to a choice from the individual.  When therapists talk to clients, the client must make a conscious choice to do something.  Even listening in the first place denotes a level of sub-conscious choice either in response to the person or his/her message.

     If the client makes a conscious choice to deny the message, then the therapist can do nothing for them . . . except appeal to their subconscious.  I don't know how to define the subconscious . . . perhaps the base of what makes us human . . . desire, passion, humor, sadness.  Emotion.  Perhaps the problem, when someone shuts down from help, is that they don't feel close to the therapist.  Perhaps its their relative positions; perhaps race; perhaps any number of things.  That is somewhat immaterial.  Appealing to their emotions can get you past that.  Tell a joke.  Be funny.  Disclose (carefully).  At that point it may be possible to bypass their conscious and talk to their feelings.  This process would probably take quite a few sessions, but it is a start.  

First Entry

     I'm starting to understand more and more that 1) all psychotherapy is actually no more than individualized applied philosophy, 2) studying and, dare I say it, understanding psychotherapy is a slippery slope (akin to "understanding" quantum physics), and 3) there is no way that anyone studying therapy cannot change or expect no change to occur.
     I understand that therapy is derived, at its roots, from both ancient and modern philosophers.  Sure, Socrates was a philosopher, but I find the chance scarce that anyone could masterfully argue that Rogers, Ellis, or Freud didn't work in the same vein.  My reading into each author's work forces not only queries specific to technique and therapeutic intent, but also those general, unanswerable questions about life, the universe, and everything.
     It is this study and self-questioning that leads me to sit in my recliner in the twilight of the evening, understanding nothing.  This lack of understanding, or, better put, this surplus of questions with a marked deficit in answers pushes me forward to study more in the vain hope that I will find these answers.  Is it all for naught?  I'm not even at the end of my theoretical quest (will I ever be?) and already I know that it will be worth it.  This is one of the many situations in life where the journey is much more worthwhile than the goal.
     Already, even in my relative infancy in this program, I have found my place along the theoretical spectrum, my temperament, and my view of the outside world changing.  I firmly believe that program, more specifically, as class such as this requires introspection and personal change.  Without this flexibility, how am I to effect real change in anyone else's life?  To not be altered or to not be open to being altered by such an experience is akin to an unforgivable sin in this course of study.
     I'd like to end this entry with one thought:  When I was little, my parents told me to always be positive.  I don't believe this is possible.  When I was in college, my instructors told me to always be skeptical.  I don't believe this to be healthy.  Now I believe that it's enough to always be thoughtful.