Is the average self-actualized person who's living an optimal life happier than Tate?

[Shawn Philips]

23 hours ago, Yarco said:

He's still further up on Maslow's Pyramid than most people here on the forum. No point worrying about self-actualization until you've got a solid foundation of Esteem + Love and Belonging down, which Tate does.

Make sure you're not lying to yourself and thinking you're self-actualizing when really you're still at the "getting your shit together" stage.

Lots of people here can't even get laid or afford to pay for a date. They'd be way happier if they switched places with someone like Andrew Tate or Dan Bilzerian, at least in the short term.

Even once they get bored and realize their life is ultimately empty and meaningless... they still have the resources to go to the best meditation retreats and hire the best life coaches. Imagine just being able to call up Tony Robbins or Eckhart Tolle and pay them a million dollars to talk to you. When it's time for them to self-actualize (if they ever decide they want to), they'll still reach the finish line before ordinary people struggling with meditation and taking notes.

Maslow's Pyramid is not the same for everybody. A monk who lives in isolation searching enlightenment can skip the social/belonging/steem bullshit, simply because he doesnt have these needs. 

Yet Tate is just masking his self-steem issues with a egomaniac macho attitude. He has a balding big ears complex. Like Bilzerian have a short manlet complex. When you live from social media you have lots of created needs.

[Carl-Richard]

31 minutes ago, Shawn Philips said:

Maslow's Pyramid is not the same for everybody. A monk who lives in isolation searching enlightenment can skip the social/belonging/steem bullshit, simply because he doesnt have these needs. 

Nope. You have literal brain areas dedicated to these things. If your brain is not well-integrated across hierarchies and lateralization, that's when you get inner conflict (what Freud called neurosis: conflict between different psychic structures). All psychological problems show some kind failure of integration of different brain areas. Plato put this as the man taming the lion and the lion taming the monster. The man is the neocortex (self-actualization/esteem needs), the lion is the limbic system (social/belonging needs), and the monster is the basal ganglia or the reptilian brain (safety and physiological needs). For Plato, Freud, Maslow, neuroscience, etc.; health, functionality and wisdom means your psychological structures are well-integrated. Spiritual bypassing, which is what you're advocating for, is one trap that hinders this process.

Edited October 23, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[StarStruck]

Removed

Edited October 23, 2022 by StarStruck

[hyruga]

15 hours ago, KH2 said:

It's not really about the money or lack thereof, it's about the end results of what those money can buy. Most people actually just want freedom and being able to choose what they want to do with their life, but capitalistic system forces you to slave your life away with the promise of "maybe, one day you'll have that freedom". This is the biggest issue I feel, and there are no obvious solutions.

When you're poor, you can still go live a simple natural lifestyle and be a lot more free than a middle class slave. It's about freedom at the end of the day.

Tate is very persuasive but he may not always be right.

Well some people may buy into his concept of freedom. Other people can derive joy from other ways. Some people derive joy from working very hard in the job and getting good results for the company, some people prefer to serve God 24/7 and thus help more people. By doing all these, some people lost their 'freedom' but they can still be joyful.

[Shawn Philips]

3 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Nope. You have literal brain areas dedicated to these things. If your brain is not well-integrated across hierarchies and lateralization, that's when you get inner conflict (what Freud called neurosis: conflict between different psychic structures). All psychological problems show some kind failure of integration of different brain areas. Plato put this as the man taming the lion and the lion taming the monster. The man is the neocortex (self-actualization/esteem needs), the lion is the limbic system (social/belonging needs), and the monster is the basal ganglia or the reptilian brain (safety and physiological needs). For Plato, Freud, Maslow, neuroscience, etc.; health, functionality and wisdom means your psychological structures are well-integrated. Spiritual bypassing, which is what you're advocating for, is one trap that hinders this process.

So why so many ascets and mystics who retreated from mundane distractions got success? Which conflict would you get if you ignore non-essential needs if you do'nt give a fk about them? 

[Carl-Richard]

6 hours ago, Shawn Philips said:

So why so many ascets and mystics who retreated from mundane distractions got success? Which conflict would you get if you ignore non-essential needs if you do'nt give a fk about them? 

Let's say you have a baby. If you deprive it of food and general safety, it will die. If you deprive it of love and care, it will not develop its higher mental functions. As it develops those higher mental functions, it develops an identity and the need to be acknowledged and treated in accordance with how they see themselves. And only after that, the desire to maximize one's potential arises. Even the mystic who goes into the woods must have had to develop all these things, or else they wouldn't have that drive.

Whether or not you're lacking in lower needs is up to you to find out, but if you know you're lacking in the lower needs, you should not try to skip them.

Edited October 23, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[spiritual memes]

Serotonin wise, yes, dopamine wise, no.

[Roy]

I mean 9/10 people will be "happy" if they are materially well off and don't have to worry about resources. However it doesn't mean you will be fulfilled or deeply satisfied. In fact all the money in the world can't guarantee happiness. Nothing (No thing) can.

Existence is far too magical and elegant to be insulted by reducing it to any equation.

[thepixelmonk]

8 minutes ago, Roy said:

I mean 9/10 people will be "happy" if they are materially well off and don't have to worry about resources. However it doesn't mean you will be fulfilled or deeply satisfied. In fact all the money in the world can't guarantee happiness. Nothing (No thing) can.

Existence is far too magical and elegant to be insulted by reducing it to any equation.

Pretty much this. Well said.

[Jacob Morres]

If he's actually self actualized and not a theory junkie, then yes 

Theory junkies may not have any of maslows hierarchy filled up 

Edited October 25, 2022 by Jacob Morres

[StarStruck]

Happiness and wealth are symbols of success. 

Success, wealth and happiness is the effect of being on your shit. 

Being on your shit is the cause of happiness. In other words: people who are truly happy, enjoy the journey more than the destination. 

Because our eventual destination is death. It is stupid to chase it because when you are there it is the end. 

Edited October 25, 2022 by StarStruck

[Danioover9000]

   What are your thoughts about this video? True or false?

 

[Shawn Philips]

On 23/10/2022 at 5:44 PM, Carl-Richard said:

Let's say you have a baby. If you deprive it of food and general safety, it will die. If you deprive it of love and care, it will not develop its higher mental functions. As it develops those higher mental functions, it develops an identity and the need to be acknowledged and treated in accordance with how they see themselves. And only after that, the desire to maximize one's potential arises. Even the mystic who goes into the woods must have had to develop all these things, or else they wouldn't have that drive.

Whether or not you're lacking in lower needs is up to you to find out, but if you know you're lacking in the lower needs, you should not try to skip them.

Let's say you have an imaginary dog, you take it to the park to socialize with other dogs because it's good for its mental health. One day you realize there's no dog, it was just a creation of your own mind. Would you keep going to the park to satisfy its needs? Obviously no. The ego is like this dog, just a mental created entity.

We cannot neglect bodily needs because is the tool for our consciousness to navigate and operate in this material 3dimensional realm, but I firmly believe we can ignore ego derived needs like the need of social recognition, status, belonging to a grup, tribality IF we are convinced that we are not the ego.

Edited October 25, 2022 by Shawn Philips