Wisdom’s creativeness

Creativity is other:

Not the shadow;

Anima–or, animus

Is it chaos embodied?

The strength of a virtue!

Creativity belongs to Sophia.

From Frankl, to Maslow, to Heidegger…

Frankl’s “paradoxical intention” can be paraphrased as follows: let the fulfillment of second-order desires (e.g., accruing wealth) follow only from meaningful living.

This is consistent with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, which places self-actualization atop a pyramid of lower-level “deficiency needs” (D-needs). It also follows from his Theory Z–once people achieve a sufficient level of economic security, this theory goes, humans will search for more in life.

What will human persons seek? Specifically, what do human persons aim for (paradoxically or not) once they self-actualize?

Human persons will self-transcend.

Maslow viewed self-actualization and peak experiencing as overlapping more often than not. “B-values”–i.e., Being-values–partially comprise the peak experience.

Environment-transcendence is one out of 14 total B-values. Self-actualization partially involves resistance to enculturation, as well as independence from one’s environment.

While typing and reading about Being and the environment, we could propose the following construct: “being-with-nature”. Being-with-nature follows linguistically from Heidegger’s “being-with-others”, or mitsein in German.

Do we save the natural environment by transcending it or being with it? Is such transcendence not also a being-with? A hierarchical relation is still a relation. Once we add the horizontal, egalitarian level to this, we need to either separate environment-transcendence from being-with-nature or fuse them in some novel way.

Accommodating hierarchy and “heterarchy” as proposed above leads us to a holarchic approach. The holarchic approach fuses these perspectives or approaches.

Thus–holarchically-speaking–we may speak of being-with-natural environment-transcendence!

Of course, before transcending the environment, one should transcend oneself. Maslow wrote that the acceptance of self, of others and nature is a self-actualizing characteristic. Perhaps his order here was deliberate?

Capitalism and socialism: The third way

This called-for “third economic way” has been a subconscious interest of mine since watching Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Peterson debate last year. I recently came across the question again, this time in the context of global sustainability.

I view the United States as a historically capitalistic nation with socialistic checks-and-balances. This transcends anti-socialist rhetoric (for example, Trump’s) in at least one instance: the welfare state’s continuation from the 20th century.

I’m a firm believer in progress adding–not detracting–from what has been accomplished prior. I view the U.S.’s recognition of our economy’s downturns and their causes to be an excellent case-in-point for how the world will establish the most balanced economic system to date.

Does the above mean socialism will rise further in my country? Maybe. But, it likely won’t (and, in my view, shouldn’t) replace capitalistic ventures. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is bad for family business!