Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Political compass for the21st century
#61
(02-07-2019, 09:19 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: Regarding Jefferson:

https://www.amazon.com/Psychology-as-Rel...B003XT60BS

In this book, Paul Vitz discusses the modern "humanistic psychology" and its cult of self-actualisation. He names three sources for this worldview:
  • Feuerbach (a German philosopher who inspired Carl Marx)
  • the American Revolution with its slogan, "don't tread on me". (edited)
  • some varieties of liberal protestantism which did away with the idea of original sin

There is no question that the corrosive countercultural ideas of 1960s and 70s were inspired by this radical individualism fashionable among intellectuals, rather than by Marxism which is after all a collectivistic, working-class ideology. Actual Marxist regimes can be very tough on drugs, sexuality, religion, etc.

To be more exact: within the American Revolution, there seems to have been a proto-Democrat current led by Jefferson, and proto-Republican current led by Alexander Hamilton. I argue that the counterculturals are among the heirs of the Jeffersonian current.
I tend to dissent on knocking countercultural ideas of the 1960s and 70s as corrosive. Without endorsing all its activities and impacts, and not myself being dependent on its drugs, I submit that it was primarily liberating and empowering.

Self-actualization is not a cult, but a valuable project more significant than most projects people engage in today. It's primary influences are not primarily radical individualism, but the depth psychology of Jung, Reich, Maslow, and Fritz Perls, along with their preceding influences in turn. Some valuable info may be posted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt_therapy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-actualization
https://www.verywellmind.com/characteris...le-2795963

An important point in gestalt therapy, is recognizing that there's no self without the other; "I-Thou" as Martin Buber put it.

It is much more significant to rely on facts, rather than prejudices and your own resentments to get a good picture of movements within society and their supposed place on a chart.

There is a Jeffersonian current to the sixties counter-culture, as signified by the name of its leading rock band. But others charge that it is communist and Marxist. It is more properly seen as a synthesis of the two. The counterculture releases creativity and imagination and questions authority, and is individualist in that sense. But it also creates communes and upholds togetherness in love-ins and mutual aid at free stores and coops. 

It creates local economies that are independent of the large corporate structure and perhaps without the commercial monetary system, but relies on people joining together in joint local enterprises. It is not a working class ideology, and doesn't want to herd people into state-owned factories, but is also oriented away from corporate market capitalism and market/money/property values and seeks a lifestyle, values-scale and economy not dependent on the commercial corporate market orientation of capitalism.

A cliffnotes summary:
https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides...-the-1960s
Another summary more extensive:
https://resources.saylor.org/wwwresource...ulture.pdf
In the decade after 1965, radicals responded to the alienating features of America’s technocratic society by developing alternative cultures that emphasized authenticity, individualism, and community.
http://oxfordre.com/americanhistory/view...9175-e-392
A Reality Trip on the Freaks: A Historiography of the Counter-Culture
see pages 20-26:
http://humboldt-dspace.calstate.edu/bits...sequence=1
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#62
(02-07-2019, 04:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I tend to dissent on knocking countercultural ideas of the 1960s and 70s as corrosive. Without endorsing all its activities and impacts, and not myself being dependent on its drugs, I submit that it was primarily liberating and empowering. 
This is an often misunderstood issue with the hippie culture of the last 2T.  Yes, it had many hedonistic features that tend to brand it as that and that alone, but it was also more.  We're moving into uncharted territory with work possibly disappearing as a source of personal relevance.  Some of that was explored in the 2T in the form of non-Western religion and philosophy.  It never got resolved then, but its a good template for the next time it gets addressed.  
Western culture is based on the work ethic.  How does that get reset if work becomes a luxury?
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#63
(02-08-2019, 11:56 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(02-07-2019, 04:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I tend to dissent on knocking countercultural ideas of the 1960s and 70s as corrosive. Without endorsing all its activities and impacts, and not myself being dependent on its drugs, I submit that it was primarily liberating and empowering. 
This is an often misunderstood issue with the hippie culture of the last 2T.  Yes, it had many hedonistic features that tend to brand it as that and that alone, but it was also more.  We're moving into uncharted territory with work possibly disappearing as a source of personal relevance.  Some of that was explored in the 2T in the form of non-Western religion and philosophy.  It never got resolved then, but its a good template for the next time it gets addressed.  
Western culture is based on the work ethic.  How does that get reset if work becomes a luxury?

Indeed, as specifically addressed in this post on the new thread.
http://generational-theory.com/forum/thr...l#pid41374
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#64
(02-08-2019, 01:17 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(02-08-2019, 11:56 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(02-07-2019, 04:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I tend to dissent on knocking countercultural ideas of the 1960s and 70s as corrosive. Without endorsing all its activities and impacts, and not myself being dependent on its drugs, I submit that it was primarily liberating and empowering. 
This is an often misunderstood issue with the hippie culture of the last 2T.  Yes, it had many hedonistic features that tend to brand it as that and that alone, but it was also more.  We're moving into uncharted territory with work possibly disappearing as a source of personal relevance.  Some of that was explored in the 2T in the form of non-Western religion and philosophy.  It never got resolved then, but its a good template for the next time it gets addressed.  
Western culture is based on the work ethic.  How does that get reset if work becomes a luxury?

Indeed, as specifically addressed in this post on the new thread.
http://generational-theory.com/forum/thr...l#pid41374
Those were the best times to be alive if you were a single person. A time when most of us were feeling impatient, wanting to get out and explore someplace new. 
Certainly not the case today. Most of us are waaaay more cautious, and in many ways it seems as though sex itself has been given a bad name. Seems strange that almost no one seems to me nostalgic for those freer, more swinging times. I would go back to those days in a heartbeat.
Reply
#65
(02-08-2019, 04:09 PM)beechnut79 Wrote:
(02-08-2019, 01:17 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(02-08-2019, 11:56 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(02-07-2019, 04:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I tend to dissent on knocking countercultural ideas of the 1960s and 70s as corrosive. Without endorsing all its activities and impacts, and not myself being dependent on its drugs, I submit that it was primarily liberating and empowering. 
This is an often misunderstood issue with the hippie culture of the last 2T.  Yes, it had many hedonistic features that tend to brand it as that and that alone, but it was also more.  We're moving into uncharted territory with work possibly disappearing as a source of personal relevance.  Some of that was explored in the 2T in the form of non-Western religion and philosophy.  It never got resolved then, but its a good template for the next time it gets addressed.  
Western culture is based on the work ethic.  How does that get reset if work becomes a luxury?

Indeed, as specifically addressed in this post on the new thread.
http://generational-theory.com/forum/thr...l#pid41374
Those were the best times to be alive if you were a single person. A time when most of us were feeling impatient, wanting to get out and explore someplace new. 
Certainly not the case today. Most of us are waaaay more cautious, and in many ways it seems as though sex itself has been given a bad name. Seems strange that almost no one seems to me nostalgic for those freer, more swinging times. I would go back to those days in a heartbeat.

Not so great if one really was a child. Much was confusing. Children born out of wedlock had trouble, and there was the damnable epidemic of divorce which few children handled well. It also corresponded with the start of the de-industrialization of America that hit men with few skills hard.

It's best that we are now more cautious about sex (AIDS probably killed the sexual revolution as Jerry Falwell couldn't), and we are no longer so naive about child welfare. As I see it America has been drifting toward the repressive, hierarchical, inequitable, and conformist society antithetical to the Boom Awakening and Consciousness Revolution. We are all expected to be responsible to people exempt from acting responsible to any but themselves.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#66
Self-actualization... what are the actual results of this? Many people even neglected their own families for this during the "Awakening", but was that worth it? I don't think so.
Reply
#67
(02-10-2019, 11:24 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: Self-actualization... what are the actual results of this? Many people even neglected their own families for this during the "Awakening", but was that worth it? I don't think so.



or in a stagnant image:

[Image: maslow-5.jpg]


The most effective way to control people is to put people in fear of the loss of the 'privilege' at the lowest levels possible. At the extreme one has the horrific existence in a Gulag, a Nazi KZ-Lager, or the rubber plantations of King Leopold II of Belgium in his hypocritically-named Congo Free State. Life, including the barest psychological needs, is never certain. At the second level one might be a slave on a plantation who knows that if one does as told and does not try to escape one will not be beaten. Or one is in prison and knows that one gets three hots and a cot but can never feel safe from bigger, tougher crooks than oneself. Or one is homeless and does not know where the next food will come from or where one will get shelter from cold, rain, or wind. Or one has a crisis of health or faces so dangerous a reality as military combat. Or one is an addict in need of a fix.

The most effective to get the most out of people for as little as possible is to keep them at the first two levels. Anything that one gets, even if it is an enumerated right or a basic assumption in life is a privilege to be earned through suffering and fear. People driven to those low levels from above can easily give up hope. One is obliged to work as hard as possible just to survive -- and one's work might be the crass indulgence of some ostentatious elites.

Love and belonging are essential to feeling good about oneself. At this point one probably has some modicum of economic security. It helps to be in a place that one happens to like to a certain level. If you pity yourself for being in a dreary hick town or a slum, you might find it hard to love people. Do you like the people that you are around? if not, then you are in trouble. You are probably not in poverty, although you may be close -- or be poor by the local standard.

At the fourth level you are able to make choices between good things -- between a showy car and an investment, between a tract house or a Victorian in some places, having a great job at CDE Corporation or at FGH Corporation, getting a PhD or an MBA... corporate law or politics. Getting to this level is a choice for few people, and going beyond it is a rarity.

At the top we have the apices of human achievement. All is genuine. One is not supremely successful at one aspect of life and a failure at others. Maslow made clear that such people as Vincent van Gogh and Richard Wagner were miserable people despite their achievements. I could say the same of gangsters like Capone and Gotti or tyrants like Ceausescu and Idi Amin. Maybe religious ecstasy might bring one to the top as one transcends personal needs.

I'll say it here -- Donald Trump is too much of a fake and a a fraud to be anywhere near self-actualization.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#68
(02-10-2019, 11:24 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: Self-actualization... what are the actual results of this? Many people even neglected their own families for this during the "Awakening", but was that worth it? I don't think so.

It definitely was worth it, while what is not worth it, is the forgetting, ignoring and condemning of it. We lose all the value of cultural and spiritual enrichment if we junk it just because some people neglected their families. Some people have higher priorities than raising children. That brought some problems for some Gen Xers, no doubt. But many Gen Xers turned out well enough with the self-reliance that their "neglect" brought them, even if their own neglect of their recent past has debased the culture. The shallowness and divisiveness of our culture today, it's capture by market values and religious-right mania, is due to the fact that self-actualization, human potential and counter-culture did not reach far enough, and was not seen as it really was and was suppressed or resented. 

Gen Xers who resent their childhood forget that dysfunctional families and mistreatment of children were the norm in ALL the preceding years of American history, and as far back as you can take it. No-one really had it any better; certainly not Boomers, and it was even worse for their predecessors. What was realized in the sixties was just how dysfunctional our families were, and some human potential therapies came out of the era that addressed this, as well as experiments with alternative kinds of families.

The counter-culture and other sixties trends such as the riots and watergate did contribute to decline in respect for authority, which has it down sides, especially in the drug culture, which declined more recently, and since has risen again in a very-debased and market-driven form.

The biggest problem for Gen X and Millennial children was the triumph of market values which, contrary to what some people say, was not brought about by the counter-culture, but by the reaction to it; especially the political reaction to the 60s/70s reform movements which threatened the power of the market values culture. They fought back and instituted trickle-down libertarian-free-market economics and neo-liberalism, and THIS is what has crippled our children, having dried up economic opportunities for them. Unfortunately, Gen Xers grew up under Reagan, and thus have largely supported neo-liberalism, even though it is really the cause of their problems more than the awakeners who neglected their families.

There is no other means than an Awakening to lift up our USA culture, rather than continue its current fall into debasement and madness. To recover any value in our culture at all, we must recover our historical awareness of the times when we reached higher. That means the best achievements and awakenings that have happened in many eras of our past, including previous 4Ts as well as 2Ts-- the social moments that are also (when we do our best) extended to some extent in the following 1Ts and 3Ts.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#69
It is difficult to self-actualize when the premises of the heirs, executives, and shysters (Donald Trump is all three) are that for people other than themselves, that even survival is a privilege. Our economic system has as its predicate that all must compete for everything that the elites choose not to arrogate for themselves.

Many people seem to have no affiliation to anything. People are often mobile as a term of survival, so that they can develop no sense of community. Communities with stable populations, like wrecked small towns have no leadership. Scout troops, fraternal lodges, PTAs, and even bowling leagues seem to be on the fade. Unions? Don't even think about one if you want to work!

We get to compete to drive down wages and bid up rent.

There have been times when America had ethnic and religious pariahs that Americans ganged up on as if an act of civic duty. Maybe that is gone. But do we have anything left?

Sometimes, people must rebuild or replace institutions from nothing. Every man for himself, the ethos of the 3T that we have, brings no delight. We all compete, and even the winners of the mandatory competition may not like the prize.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#70
As for Maslow's silly old pyramid: there were many people willing to sacrifice physical survival for idealistic values. I think it's enough to debunk this geekery.
Reply
#71
(02-11-2019, 04:40 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: As for Maslow's silly old pyramid: there were many people willing to sacrifice physical survival for idealistic values. I think it's enough to debunk this geekery.

Well, nice try! But I think your debunk falls just a bit short.

Those who can sacrifice have psychologically reached a high level on the pyramid, partly because they had already achieved satisfaction of those physical needs, so they can make that sacrifice because they have those higher values.

But a good point might be that we in prosperous countries overestimate the degree of satisfaction for basic needs that is necessary before becoming aware of higher values. Lacking basic needs can be an impediment, but many poorer people are happier without the pressure to satisfy more and more material needs that we are brainwashed to believe we need in a materialistic culture. Many people throughout history have pursued higher idealistic values without having the level of material well-being that prosperous people have today.

The question might be, why do we in a nation like the USA and some other anglo and industrialized nations today still obsess with the desire to be as greedy as we can be for mere basic needs, and don't look higher?

In any case, even if Maslow's theory is not correct on all points, this does not debunk the contention that the ideal of self-actualization is worthwhile, contrary to what someone said above.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#72
(02-11-2019, 04:40 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: As for Maslow's silly old pyramid: there were many people willing to sacrifice physical survival for idealistic values. I think it's enough to debunk this geekery.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs encompasses much of human experience. Imagine yourself as a diver, and shipwreck treasure of great value is within an easy dive. If you recover it you solve all the economic problems that you can ever have. The problem is that between your boat and the treasure is...


[Image: 220px-Avispa_marina_cropped.png]


some of the deadliest stingers (box jellies) in the sea. If you find the shipwreck treasure and encounter these you might not survive to enjoy the proceeds of the treasure that you find, and the pain will resemble being burned alive from inside. You might better return some other time, as in a season in which the stingers have moved on.

It is possible to cheat, but it is rarely successful. A gangster may live far better, at least materially, than an honest laborer, but the honest laborer has at the least no need to concern himself with law enforcement that wishes to put an end to a criminal enterprise such as dealing drugs or labor racketeering -- or with the desire of a rival thug eliminating one so that the rival can enhance his 'market share'.

The worst people of all time have exploited, abused, and humiliated others by keeping people at the lowest levels -- in fear of death or excruciating pain, perhaps working them to exhaustion on starvation rations. It is possible to get the highest level of profit share out of an economy if one reduces people to zeks or slaves. it is also unspeakable.

The only successful cheat that I can imagine is religious ecstasy, as illustrated with those doomed Christians awaiting the lions in Quo Vadis?
In view of what those early Christians believed, that they would go directly to Heaven soon after the lions severed their spinal cords with those horrific fangs, it is easy to see how no other misery in This World could matter -- as it would all come to an end. In some cultures, reciting either the shahada or the Shema Yisrael  might be what one expects.

Still, poverty, loneliness, subjection, and addiction are miserable. Whitney Houston may have been the most successful female singer in her time, but with her cocaine habit she could certainly not self-actualize. Someone like John Gotti could spend enviably by the standards of the honest laborers in his world... but in the end, the Feds got him and put an end to his compromise between ethical vileness and a hollow material success.

So what can I say of someone who says "I can make more money dealing drugs" as an alternative to spending a few years working for a near-minimum wage in a fast-food place? Sure, there is more money, and it will all be cash. As such you will be able to spend it recklessly as someone working in a fast-food place can't. Sure, American poverty is unforgiving in recent years -- but at least in a fast-food place one will get to determine what one does best and not so well and find out how to apply oneself elsewhere in which one can specialize in what one does best. The habit of kissing up to anything with two legs is good for getting along in a grossly-inequitable society... and one might makes some friends there. One does not make genuine friends while dealing drugs. If something goes wrong while you deal drugs -- becoming an addict or being killed by a fellow drug-dealer in a turf war, or getting caught by law enforcement and having to start over in an environment that offers less opportunity than a fast-food place for developing individual talent -- the money that one made dealing drugs will not be waiting for you in some trust fund to ease the transition to the world of honest toil for meager income.

I don't want to go into any details, but I am now just on the margin between the level of safety needs and the 'belonging' needs. Having been at a 'higher' level at times, and with no certainty of getting back there (for one thing I am in what I consider a community in which most people think like peasants, to which I can't relate readily -- and I am on the autistic spectrum which makes developing any intimacy difficult for me as doing integral calculus is difficult for most people. I'd rather have the knack for making friends than knowing integral calculus).

I despise a community that has little to offer me but a stereotypical and hypocritical existence while damning me to both a poverty of material life and experience. I hate an economic order whose elites tell the rest of Humanity to suffer so that those elites can indulge themselves lavishly but offer as a shadow of happiness the dubious delight of taking vicarious enjoyment in their ostentatious display. No philosophical or intellectual trick can redeem life in such a situation. Religious ecstasy? I am tempted to recognize God as a sadist, the operator of a world little better than a plantation -- and we are expected to praise Him for that?
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#73
(02-10-2019, 07:28 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(02-10-2019, 11:24 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: Self-actualization... what are the actual results of this? Many people even neglected their own families for this during the "Awakening", but was that worth it? I don't think so.

It definitely was worth it, while what is not worth it, is the forgetting, ignoring and condemning of it. [...] The shallowness and divisiveness of our culture today, it's capture by market values and religious-right mania, is due to the fact that self-actualization, human potential and counter-culture did not reach far enough, and was not seen as it really was and was suppressed or resented.

You're talking like a charlatan. "My snake oil never did anything bad, and if people took it and died, it's because they didn't take enough of it!" Fuck you. Try living on your empty promises and spiritual shit alone. I'll take your money meanwhile, since you pretend you don't need it.
Reply
#74
(02-18-2019, 01:40 PM)Hintergrund Wrote:
(02-10-2019, 07:28 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(02-10-2019, 11:24 AM)Hintergrund Wrote: Self-actualization... what are the actual results of this? Many people even neglected their own families for this during the "Awakening", but was that worth it? I don't think so.

It definitely was worth it, while what is not worth it, is the forgetting, ignoring and condemning of it. [...] The shallowness and divisiveness of our culture today, it's capture by market values and religious-right mania, is due to the fact that self-actualization, human potential and counter-culture did not reach far enough, and was not seen as it really was and was suppressed or resented.

You're talking like a charlatan. "My snake oil never did anything bad, and if people took it and died, it's because they didn't take enough of it!" Fuck you. Try living on your empty promises and spiritual shit alone. I'll take your money meanwhile, since you pretend you don't need it.

You are being impolite. My point of view is a valid one, even if you disagree. The counter culture and self-actualization were the best things ever to happen to this country, bar none. It is sacred to me. It's not snake oil at all. Market values are the worst curse on America. Neo-liberalism is slavery.

It doesn't mean we have to all be hippies all the time and live without money, silly boy. There are a range of values in life. I save my money and use it as needed, and I contribute to charity as I want. And the human potential movement is not drugs. People have the choice of what path they want to follow to spiritual liberation, or to stay a slave. That's their choice. The counter-culture did not force any drugs on anybody, or any prescription of what lifestyle to follow. Drugs were not my path, nor starvation. I was a businessman for many years. If you want to be imprisoned in materialism, that is your choice.

Tradishnul famla valyas? They are not for everyone. Take your religious right nostrum and shove it.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#75
I question the notion that the counter-culture was composed of people who neglected their families. For one thing, most hippies were under 30 years old, and probably didn't have children or married partners. Some of them formed communes in which children were looked after by everyone there. They engaged in free love because they could. Later, many settled down. The birth control pill made freer sex out of wedlock more possible. This pill was not the result of the self-actualization movement.

Self-actualization does not mean neglect of families. As I already mentioned, a lot of therapists during the Awakening helped to cure the results of oppression within families, and thus healed family relationships. Virginia Satir and John Bradshaw are examples. A self-actualized person has awakened and developed themselves into a full human being, and that certainly involves being able to care about and for others.

Gen Xers gained a lot because they were neglected. They became excellent survivalists and independent, self-reliant people. The Awakening era saw a rise in divorces and single-parent families, which was the main reason for this neglect. There were latchkey kids, which was also the result of more women working. Single-parent families was not necessarily a good thing, for many children. I remember Bradshaw said it wasn't. But it was a general trend of the time, and it was not a direct result of the counter-culture or the self-actualization concept. But the general trend of the Awakening was for more freedom in lifestyle, including freedom from marriages that were not happy or supportive for women's aspirations (e.g. The Feminine Mystique), and divorce laws were weakened. So the trend of those times did create more neglect of children. But people who just wanted more freedom were not necessarily self-actualizing people.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#76
(02-18-2019, 11:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I question the notion that the counter-culture was composed of people who neglected their families. For one thing, most hippies were under 30 years old, and probably didn't have children or married partners. Some of them formed communes in which children were looked after by everyone there. They engaged in free love because they could. Later, many settled down. The birth control pill made freer sex out of wedlock more possible. This pill was not the result of the self-actualization movement.

...if they did not have children, or at least put off child-bearing and child-raising until they were through with the counter-culture. The party is over, at least for women, once they have children. If a man has any character, then the party is over for him.

Quote:Self-actualization does not mean neglect of families. As I already mentioned, a lot of therapists during the Awakening helped to cure the results of oppression within families, and thus healed family relationships. Virginia Satir and John Bradshaw are examples. A self-actualized person has awakened and developed themselves into a full human being, and that certainly involves being able to care about and for others.

If self-actualization means consummate achievement, then... maybe a creative person can create a solid economic basis for the economic reality for his family, and often one far more satisfying than that that an assembly-line worker can get. (I have seen studies of the reality on an assembly line, and self-actualization is impossible. The work is numbing boredom with no room for expressions of individuality.

Quote:Gen Xers gained a lot because they were neglected. They became excellent survivalists and independent, self-reliant people. The Awakening era saw a rise in divorces and single-parent families, which was the main reason for this neglect. There were latchkey kids, which was also the result of more women working. Single-parent families was not necessarily a good thing, for many children. I remember Bradshaw said it wasn't. But it was a general trend of the time, and it was not a direct result of the counter-culture or the self-actualization concept. But the general trend of the Awakening was for more freedom in lifestyle, including freedom from marriages that were not happy or supportive for women's aspirations (e.g. The Feminine Mystique), and divorce laws were weakened. So the trend of those times did create more neglect of children. But people who just wanted more freedom were not necessarily self-actualizing people.

Because Generation X, if middle-class, was still living in the post-WWII economic milieu, a working mother was giving her kids privacy. Did the kids use the privacy for their own efforts to reach for the stars, did they simply get too big a dose of TV programming made for adult interest, or did they simply abuse the unsupervised time?  Chores are fine: mowing grass,doing dishes, and washing clothes was my way to make a contribution. I cannot say the same of the tougher urban areas, where kids had practically no privacy.

Getting stoned was obviously not self-actualization.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#77
(02-18-2019, 11:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I question the notion that the counter-culture was composed of people who neglected their families. For one thing, most hippies were under 30 years old, and probably didn't have children or married partners. Some of them formed communes in which children were looked after by everyone there. They engaged in free love because they could. Later, many settled down. The birth control pill made freer sex out of wedlock more possible. This pill was not the result of the self-actualization movement.

Self-actualization does not mean neglect of families. As I already mentioned, a lot of therapists during the Awakening helped to cure the results of oppression within families, and thus healed family relationships. Virginia Satir and John Bradshaw are examples. A self-actualized person has awakened and developed themselves into a full human being, and that certainly involves being able to care about and for others.

Gen Xers gained a lot because they were neglected. They became excellent survivalists and independent, self-reliant people. The Awakening era saw a rise in divorces and single-parent families, which was the main reason for this neglect. There were latchkey kids, which was also the result of more women working. Single-parent families was not necessarily a good thing, for many children. I remember Bradshaw said it wasn't. But it was a general trend of the time, and it was not a direct result of the counter-culture or the self-actualization concept. But the general trend of the Awakening was for more freedom in lifestyle, including freedom from marriages that were not happy or supportive for women's aspirations (e.g. The Feminine Mystique), and divorce laws were weakened. So the trend of those times did create more neglect of children. But people who just wanted more freedom were not necessarily self-actualizing people.

Come on Eric.  The idea that the hyper individualism that was the underlayment of the hippie movement didn't contribute to the social disintegration of the last 50+ years is simply unbelievable.  Does that make the counter culture liable for all the ills?  Of course not.  The worst damage occurred in the shadows as the counter culture played the role of bright-shiny-object.  The PTB, including most of the tech entrepreneurs, laser focused on capturing everything in sight, while the culture fretted over sex, drugs and rock and roll.  That doesn't let the counter culturists off the hook though.  Self defeating self absorption is still a big negative.  

We all need to do a little penance -- some more than others.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#78
(02-19-2019, 11:11 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(02-18-2019, 11:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I question the notion that the counter-culture was composed of people who neglected their families. For one thing, most hippies were under 30 years old, and probably didn't have children or married partners. Some of them formed communes in which children were looked after by everyone there. They engaged in free love because they could. Later, many settled down. The birth control pill made freer sex out of wedlock more possible. This pill was not the result of the self-actualization movement.

Self-actualization does not mean neglect of families. As I already mentioned, a lot of therapists during the Awakening helped to cure the results of oppression within families, and thus healed family relationships. Virginia Satir and John Bradshaw are examples. A self-actualized person has awakened and developed themselves into a full human being, and that certainly involves being able to care about and for others.

Gen Xers gained a lot because they were neglected. They became excellent survivalists and independent, self-reliant people. The Awakening era saw a rise in divorces and single-parent families, which was the main reason for this neglect. There were latchkey kids, which was also the result of more women working. Single-parent families was not necessarily a good thing, for many children. I remember Bradshaw said it wasn't. But it was a general trend of the time, and it was not a direct result of the counter-culture or the self-actualization concept. But the general trend of the Awakening was for more freedom in lifestyle, including freedom from marriages that were not happy or supportive for women's aspirations (e.g. The Feminine Mystique), and divorce laws were weakened. So the trend of those times did create more neglect of children. But people who just wanted more freedom were not necessarily self-actualizing people.

Come on Eric.  The idea that the hyper individualism that was the underlayment of the hippie movement didn't contribute to the social disintegration of the last 50+ years is simply unbelievable.  Does that make the counter culture liable for all the ills?  Of course not.  The worst damage occurred in the shadows as the counter culture played the role of bright-shiny-object.  The PTB, including most of the tech entrepreneurs, laser focused on capturing everything in sight, while the culture fretted over sex, drugs and rock and roll.  That doesn't let the counter culturists off the hook though.  Self defeating self absorption is still a big negative.  

We all need to do a little penance -- some more than others.

I'm sure. I won't deny there was a general trend of desires for more freedom in lifestyles. But the self-actualization concept and the human potential movements were not self-defeating self-absorption. My points still stand, I think. I would not agree that the hippies were self-absorbed or hyper-individualists; they were about "come on people now, smile on your brother, everybody get together, try to love one another right now." Hyper individualism that contributed to social disintegration is primarily the responsibility of the neo-liberals, a totally different philosophy and much more political. Of course these neo-liberal tycoons turn everything into a commercial profit-making meme, so some of that occurred with the counter-culture's mainstreamed influence, as well as anything else people might find attractive.

And I still think most of the desire for more freedom in lifestyle was a good thing; it just needs to be more responsible than it was then.

The "Awakening" required "penance" too, from the uptight and restricted, repressed, socially-determined, violent, conformist, ignorant, narrow-minded, disconnected way we lived and perceived. Of course, the racists, materialists, and what not still need that awakening; a lot of us still need a LOT of Awakening, me included. It all depends on how you talk about it, perhaps.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#79
(02-19-2019, 04:19 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(02-18-2019, 11:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I question the notion that the counter-culture was composed of people who neglected their families. For one thing, most hippies were under 30 years old, and probably didn't have children or married partners. Some of them formed communes in which children were looked after by everyone there. They engaged in free love because they could. Later, many settled down. The birth control pill made freer sex out of wedlock more possible. This pill was not the result of the self-actualization movement.

...if they did not have children, or at least put off child-bearing and child-raising until they were through with the counter-culture. The party is over, at least for women, once they have children. If a man has any character, then the party is over for him.

I wouldn't want to put it like that; I'd put it in a more positive way: more responsibilities have begun.

Quote:
Quote:Self-actualization does not mean neglect of families. As I already mentioned, a lot of therapists during the Awakening helped to cure the results of oppression within families, and thus healed family relationships. Virginia Satir and John Bradshaw are examples. A self-actualized person has awakened and developed themselves into a full human being, and that certainly involves being able to care about and for others.

If self-actualization means consummate achievement, then... maybe a creative person can create a solid economic basis for the economic reality for his family, and often one far more satisfying than that that an assembly-line worker can get. (I have seen studies of the reality on an assembly line, and self-actualization is impossible. The work is numbing boredom with no room for expressions of individuality.

Right

Quote:
Quote:Gen Xers gained a lot because they were neglected. They became excellent survivalists and independent, self-reliant people. The Awakening era saw a rise in divorces and single-parent families, which was the main reason for this neglect. There were latchkey kids, which was also the result of more women working. Single-parent families was not necessarily a good thing, for many children. I remember Bradshaw said it wasn't. But it was a general trend of the time, and it was not a direct result of the counter-culture or the self-actualization concept. But the general trend of the Awakening was for more freedom in lifestyle, including freedom from marriages that were not happy or supportive for women's aspirations (e.g. The Feminine Mystique), and divorce laws were weakened. So the trend of those times did create more neglect of children. But people who just wanted more freedom were not necessarily self-actualizing people.

Getting stoned was obviously not self-actualization.

Not unless it opens the doors of perception, which can then be followed up by a sincere quest on the path toward genuine self-actualization, if the user is so inclined.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#80
(02-19-2019, 03:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I'm sure. I won't deny there was a general trend of desires for more freedom in lifestyles. But the self-actualization concept and the human potential movements were not self-defeating self-absorption. My points still stand, I think. I would not agree that the hippies were self-absorbed or hyper-individualists; they were about "come on people now, smile on your brother, everybody get together, try to love one another right now." Hyper individualism that contributed to social disintegration is primarily the responsibility of the neo-liberals, a totally different philosophy and much more political. Of course these neo-liberal tycoons turn everything into a commercial profit-making meme, so some of that occurred with the counter-culture's mainstreamed influence, as well as anything else people might find attractive.

And I still think most of the desire for more freedom in lifestyle was a good thing; it just needs to be more responsible than it was then.

Hippies made a total mosh out of the commune idea, at least all the ones I ran into in my youth.  It was mostly oblivious behavior, but it was still toxic.  All the meditation and drugs tended to create inward focus.  It's hard to be communal under those circumstances.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Comprehensive Political Cycle Theory jleagans 15 1,086 03-19-2019, 09:57 AM
Last Post: Marypoza
  How Birth Year Influences Political Views Dan '82 12 5,644 05-21-2016, 09:27 AM
Last Post: Mikebert
  Where to post political topics Webmaster 0 2,043 05-06-2016, 01:15 PM
Last Post: Webmaster

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)