Far Out

I made a typo, and I just corrected it. The sentence you quoted should have said: >Maslow's goal of self actualization wasn't was something which almost nobody could reasonably be expected to achieve.

I don't see how believing you are already self actualized is a prerequisite for becoming self actualized.

If you flow like water, you'll just be a puddle. People are complex, both internally and in their relationships with each other and the world around them.

All water always follows the same simple rules, and has no control over the rules it follows. It is passive, and it requires energy from an external source to move from a resting state.

People follow complex behaviors (which they seemingly are able to control) and interact with the world in a myriad of ways. They can harvest potential energy, and use it to change their circumstances.

It's bad to be too preoccupied with the past or future, or with things you can't control. But a Buddhist who stayed living entirely in the moment would starve to death; they most definitely are attached to their traditions, amongst other things; and if transcendence was attainable by the masses, then no other religion would exist.

I think the point of the original article was that Maslow's goal of self actualization wasn't was something which almost nobody could reasonably be expected to achieve.

It went on to support the idea that something akin to a person's resilience may be a better measure for how successful their life has been.

Buddhism's goal of transcendence (or whatever the correct term is) is also something out of the question for most people, even if they haven't "been taught from birth and socially conditioned into limbic capitalism to be a worker and to desire and consume".

Like Malsow's Hierarchy, Buddhism has some valuable insights into the human condition. However (following the same logic which the article applied to Maslow's Hierarchy), many people may be better served by a different way of measuring their success.

Edit: wrong word in first sentence

Thank you for the clarification, u/Melodic_Meringue_506. You obviously understand Buddhism better than I do.

My assumption was that Buddhist desire didn't apply to biologically reflexive wants, such as thirst caused by dehydration -- so hope for a drink of water was a desire resulting from suffering, not vice versa.

I think your introduction of the concept of connection is what had been missing, since the first post in this subthread of the main thread. It clarifies the semantics of the of Buddhist concepts regarding hope, and seems better than using desire, in this context.

Obviously, my gut level understand isn't very good. I take Buddhism lightly, because, like Maslow's Hierarchy (the subject of this post), it seems like the goal is not relative to most people's life.

At less aspirational levels, I think both ideologies offer good advice, as long as you don't focus on the basically unattainable pinnacle. Many other philosophies offer similar advice without beating you over the head with such a big carrot.

Is there something similar to hope, which people who are able to practice Buddhism (at the gut level) can use to bolster their resilience, without fostering attachment?

Buddhism, as I understand it, considers suffering to be the inevitable result of desire. However, the Buddhist definition of desire may be more restrictive than the more broad or fundamental concepts of desire (thirst, hunger, warmth, etc), and refer to desires for things which exceed a person's basic needs.

Meanwhile, I think a person can have hope based on a desire that preceded their suffering (like a climber in your summit fever analogy), or they might just be trying to meet their basic needs for survival, which is suffering that has preceded their desire.

I'm not sure how hope relates to Buddhism, but in my mind, hope is tangential to desire and suffering, rather than the result or cause of them.

At the end of the day, it may boil down to semantics, because hope, suffering, and desire, can all be interpreted and connected in so many different ways.

Without knowing what you've been through, I can only speculate that you also have a strong sense of perseverance.

I think perseverance overlaps with hope, with hope focusing on achieving a desired outcome, and perseverance focusing on avoiding an unwanted outcome.

They aren't mutually exclusive, they just allow you to view your challenges from different perspectives.

Either way, blessing and/or curse, hope itself doesn't deliver the victory or the final blow. It only affects us and how we see our plight, the circumstances we face aren't directly modified by our hope.

e.g. The mountain doesn't say to itself "These climbers are genuinely hopeful. I'll hold off on the next storm, so they can summit."

Really, the important concept is that a person's triumphs over adversity is a valid way to measure their success.

What problems they faced, and the ways they overcame them, are all wrapped up together. There are too many variables to claim that a single quality is always the most important one.

Sometimes is the key, regarding this.

There's healthy hope and unhealthy hope.

I think it is more that hope can be used by people to avoid having to accept something.

Plenty of people lean on hope and positivity as ways to absolve themselves from putting effort into resolving the problems they face.

Just as the crises which Bollnow refers to can't be fabricated, hope isn't something which can be faked. Meanwhile, grace, by its very nature, results from behaving intentionally.

I think grace is a better frame of mind for people who are in a crisis to aim for.

It's more fun to drive a slow car fast, than a fast car slow.

Huh? You'll have to explain what you mean, it doesn't make any sense.

I think you're wrong.

The Real Minimum Wage Keeps Getting Smaller. Here’s Why

How grocery purchasing power has changed in the U.S.

For most U.S. workers, real wages have barely budged in decades

> other costs where higher in the past though, housing , food, communication, transportation everything else was more expensive.

You implied things were less affordable in the past, but when compared to typical wages in the past, that isn't true.

Spending power is the combination of consumer prices and consumer income; it reflects what people can afford instead of simply looking at how much they earn or how much things cost.

College is much less affordable now than it has been in the past.

That's the point: you "expect" the benefits of our civilized society without understanding or supporting what makes those benefits possible.

And old farts have been saying colleges are "state of the art technology infused booze cruise clubs" since the 1960s. It wasn't true then, and it is still just an egocentric lie.

You can whattabout all day long. The big picture is that, overall, wages vs purchasing power hasn't increased.

https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/

Sorry, I hastily pasted the wrong link. This one goes into some more depth:

https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/

Combine the above info, which shows that "housing , food, communication, transportation everything else" actually wasn't more less expensive with the following info (which is seven years old, but the trend hasn't changed), and you'll see that college tuition increases are far from offset by a lower cost of living:

https://archive.attn.com/stories/19/paying-college-1978-vs-paying-college-2014

Edit: a word

Let Me Google That For You...

Yeah, because domestic flights and international phone calls are major expenses for most US citizens.

By the way, your first link point to a chart which shows that "Total food budget share increased from 9.4 percent of disposable income to 10.3 percent in 2021"

https://perc.tamu.edu/PERC-Blog/PERC-Blog/Inflation-and-Falling-Purchasing-Power-Wages-Aren%E2%80%99

You're using your individual experience to refute the difficulties which the entire current college age generation is facing, and you're stereotyping "this generation" based on a subset of its members who either don't see the point in trying to get a degree, or who don't have the skills/support/resources to get one.

This is a great way to stroke your own ego, but doesn't do much for resolving the problems we face as a society and a nation. Who are you to say what "this generation" thinks? This isn't about you.