@Anniemae I'd bring dessert, and booze!

Love it!

Such a badass.

I’ve also experienced ecstatic states while alone in wild places - nature provides the ‘others’ I suppose. But that ‘something greater than the sum of its parts’ Yes!

no we don't. i know a hell of a lot of people who do not seek self-actualization or anything but a place to sleep and something to eat, or a better life for their kids, or money, or power. we do not all seek the same thing. we really don't. stinky metaphor. not every metaphor rings true.

g

@genessa I did address the fact that absolute statements can’t be made for everyone and the rest of that is Maslows hierarchy of needs interrupting. Of course if you don’t have food or shelter those are top priorities first for survival. Once survival needs have been met we seek social acceptance and self actualization, freedom, purpose with our careers and mindsets. And yeah there are always exceptions to everything but generally even the most antisocial among us still ultimately find their purpose through others or a higher context than themselves. There’s a reason every culture has one or multiple customs of getting caught up in a flow with one another through song or dance, drums, chants, psychedelics, meditation, yoga, all of them lead to the same flow state of mind. And there’s a word for that kind of bliss in just about every culture I know of.

Even misery loves company. When you’re in prison with the worst off of humanity, the biggest punishment they can give you is isolation. That speaks to the deep human need for connection for all of us whether we want to admit it or not. We are highly socialized animals that depend on numbers to survive. I can imagine almost no one except narcissists, sociopaths and chemically damaged people find satisfying meaning purely in their own self absorption.

@Wurlitzer i see you are defining self-actualization rather broadly. your premise is that we need each other, which is correct, but that is certainly not the definition of self-actualization!

g

@genessa “the realization or fulfillment of one's talents and potentialities, especially considered as a drive or need present in everyone.” Are there any talents or potentialities of practical significance at all if anyone were in a vacuum unto themselves? None of it matters at all except in relation to others.

@Wurlitzer that much is true enough. i still say not everyone seeks self-actualization, especially on a conscious level.

g

@genessa well no not always actively and consciously of course I grant you that; like you said some of us don’t have the luxury of philosophical introspection when we can’t afford basic essentials and education. If everyone could put their finger on it and knew what it would take to find fulfillment I think we could almost all find that’s it though. And of course there are infinite paths to finding that out, which is what I think is the root of what the OP and similar quotes, most religions and philosophies are ideally trying to get at.

I gotta correct my insistence that this only happens through connecting with other people actually; the other notable exception is through connecting with nature. Same water, different river. Still a major path to feeling less separated from the world and more apart of something greater. I think most of us need more of both nature and community but some perfectly fine people definitely like more of one than the other.

Showing that he think different.

nobody called this poster stupid. as for words, they have meanings we AGREE upon, not that we as individuals assign them. we would not be able to communicate if we didn't agree at least upon basic meanings. it doesn't matter, either, what side of the road we drive on, except insofar as we agree all to do it the same way so we don't all kill each other and ourselves. the poster can call anything god he wants, but he then cannot reasonably expect everyone to understand or agree with what he is saying if he calls (for example) potato chips god, right? or entropy. or death. they are not gods unless you redefine god, and if everyone does that, goodie, we're driving all over the lawn. people say "oh it's just semantics." semantics exist for a reason! but one word nobody used here (except you and one person describing religious fantasies, not the poster) is "stupid." is it suddenly not possible to disagree with what anyone says? well, i DO disagree with what the poster quotes ali as having said, and i didn't call anyone stupid, either.

g