Monthly Archives: ਅਪ੍ਰੈਲ 2020

Leap of risk

What is the relation between risk and meaning?

Faith and meaning are perhaps more obviously related. Look no further than to religion to see the interplay between these: the faithful life is inherently meaningful.

Leaps of faith involve risk. In life, we are not always 100% certain. These situations especially call for faith–“going for it”, even though we might fail.

Operating under uncertainty is what risk is all about!

Eupsychia and self-actualization

Maslow defined Eupsychia as both a psychologically healthy culture and society.

Would a world of self-actualizers be like this utopia?

In Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment, main character Raskolnikov dreams of a hyper-individualistic culture. In this socioculture (or “culturiety”), each figure pursues their own morality. The dream ends with the collapse of society: it can’t be that everyone is their own ubermensch!

However, Eupsychia would presumably be more collaborative than Raskolnikov’s nightmare. People forge social contracts, defining a common ethics (law) based on intersubjective morality.

Perhaps Eupsychia consists in a kind of self-and-other-actualization. Self-actualization consists in becoming part of something greater than oneself, so perhaps it is sufficient. Still–in considering Nietzsche’s ubermensch who has overcome herd morality, along with Raskolnikov’s transgression–we must be mindful that the self actualizes for another.

SpongeBob and “the new normal”

I fondly recall a SpongeBob SquarePants episode where lead character SpongeBob indulges in becoming “hyper-normal“.

During these uncertain times…how trite! How absolutely boring.

Anyway, don’t become like SpongeBob in this episode–bland, robotic, and uninspiring. Be more like the hero he is: the hard-working, all-friendly, Gary-caring guy we all grew up with and loved.

If we must re-find our normality, then let’s do it in an exciting manner!

Our relation with media

“What constitutes social media?” This was my shower question of the day…

I’ve reflected much lately on my own relation to media. It’s cliché to say that it’s “all around us”. The media writ large usually refers to news outlets and journalism.

However, with the advent of ubiquitous social media–enter YouTube, Facebook and Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn and WordPress–the way we define media has changed. Media now is social not only in a “family all in the room watching TV” sense: it’s grown to include a global community.

But this global community grew from the inventions of radio, TV, and computers in originally local contexts. Naturally, the hardware was built within these, going on to eventually be manufactured and distributed citywide (followed by state-, nation-, and finally world-wide).

So, media is ubiquitous. Social media is especially so given its dissemination across Web channels–from server-to-client-to-server, in a never-ending loop of communication and collaboration.

Technology is the means through which we communicate and interact. It augments our connections, allowing for one person to reach another instantaneously–all from the comfort (hopefully) of wherever we are.

But only about half of the world has access to the internet. This to me seems ideal, lest we risk imposing our lifestyle onto others who may not wish for it.

Let us enjoy what we’ve created. It is truly a marvelous infrastructure!

 

Seto Kaiba and “Mark Eisenberg”

Kaiba from Yu-Gi-Oh! and Zuckerberg from The Social Network both share unyielding dedication to their respective businesses. Kaiba inherits his corporation from Gozaburo Kaiba, his stepfather. Mark built Facebook himself.

What makes these two so intensely focused on their business missions? Pain drives each. Kaiba wants to bury the past. Mark wants to get over his inconsiderate treatment of Erica Albright.

Overcoming the trauma of pain through company-building is what unites the characters Kaiba, and Mark as played by Jesse Eisenberg.

Maslow on humanity and the environment

Self-actualizing people resist enculturation and are independent of their environments.

Taking Maslow’s theory further requires acknowledging the inherent limits of independence. Generally, we are born dependent on caretakers. As we grow older, we become more dependent on society for things like money (to fulfill children’s security needs), respect, and prestige. This comes with independence from our caretakers but dependence on a broader network.

Perhaps curiously, love is prior to self-esteem in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. This suggests that while our need for love is more fundamental, it is also less fulfilling than the need or want for self-esteem.

Love is the bedrock of interdependence. Interdependence follows from independence–independence stems from dependence. Dependence is the root of our needs!

Being independent of the environment does involve transcending it. However–once we have done so–how do we treat the environment? Do we honor it as the substrate for all animals’, including our, existence? Or do we soil the soil we arose from?

The interdependent person accepts their place in our broader ecology. He and she trade strength with the environment equitably.

Self-actualizing collectives form from such individuals. Only these collectives can save Earth…so that they themselves can become worthy of salvation.