Maslow's Peak Experience
I was just watching "Heroes" and I noticed that Skylar said something about "Maslow's Peak Experience". Although this is a VERY fictional TV show, I was intrigued nonetheless. I went on a reading spree at this point and came across this article describing the phenomenon. After reading about what peak experiences are, I was even more intrigued. I didn't know that there was any type of theories pertaining to peak experiences other than just general psychology (peak experiences set a reference point for evaluating other experiences, etc). I read the Wikipedia entry for Maslow and read a little about the hierarchy of needs, which is very much interesting in its own right, but something about Maslow's work on peak experiences was very attracting. I went on to read a little of Religions, Values, and Peak Experiences by Maslow himself. I ended up jumping to the third section about the "core religious" and "transcendent" experiences. Quite the read, I would encourage you to take a look into this, especially if you feel that you have HAD a peak experience.
I feel that the reason I was so interested in this whole ordeal was that I feel that I have had a mystical peak experience, and I really had no way of relating it to 'real' life in any shape or form. My opinion on the matter was that most everyone was CAPABLE of having a peak experience, but was unsure as to why 'peakers' seemed to be in the minority. In any case, I'm sure any of my thoughts on the matter are somewhat restatements of the above reading in some shape or form, so if interested, you should have a read. I definitely want a response if you feel that you've had a peak experience or have an opinion on the topic.
I feel that the reason I was so interested in this whole ordeal was that I feel that I have had a mystical peak experience, and I really had no way of relating it to 'real' life in any shape or form. My opinion on the matter was that most everyone was CAPABLE of having a peak experience, but was unsure as to why 'peakers' seemed to be in the minority. In any case, I'm sure any of my thoughts on the matter are somewhat restatements of the above reading in some shape or form, so if interested, you should have a read. I definitely want a response if you feel that you've had a peak experience or have an opinion on the topic.
Labels: Maslow, peak experience
Posted at
10:10 PM
9 Comments:
I read through the articles, and just tried to form an opinion about everything.
Maslow separated peak experiences w/ plateau experiences, which was smart... ...Because I think I've had the plateau experience. The reason I think that is because I don't really remember it. All I know is that it was a spiritual sort of thing, at a church function of some type. And actually, there's a church summer camp that Em and I have both been to, where everyone talks about the week as being on a "spiritual high." I thought that was interesting, cuz it's like having a week-long plateau experience.
"Individuals most likely to have peak experiences are self-actualized, mature, healthy, and self-fulfilled."
...I can deff understand why lots of people don't have peak experiences. People today seem immature, confused, and/or depressed a lot of the time. Either that, or they feel self-fulfilled in the first place and don't have the capacity to even imagine a peak experience.
"instead of being temporarily self absorbed and inwardly searching, he may become simply a selfish person, seeking his own personal salvation, trying to get into "heaven" even if other people can't"
I have actually noticed this in other people. ...A lot. That's sort-of what I like about christianity, because you're required to be 'inwardly searching' and simultaneously be selfless; so you find your own personal salvation and help others find theirs too. :)
Am I way off w/ this topic? It's just that I've never heard of peak experiences before; only spiritual highs. It's pretty impressive, to me, that anyone can have a peak experience w/out relating it to anything religious. That really shows your maturity and insight.
I really don't think he meant that this was an "either or" type of relationship between peak and plateau experience. The way I interpreted it, was that the peak experience was a brief, yet climatic experience in which everything kind of "came together" in a sense. The plateau experience was more of a rising to a new level of understanding through a long process of learning/studying etc.
I took it as no one HAD to have a peak experience or plateau experience. Everyone was capable, but not required. This is what differentiated between the 'peakers' and the non-peakers.
After re-reading your post, I might have misunderstood what you were saying. If so, no offense intended ;)
One thing that I found intriguing is the fact that you mentioned a reason why you like Christianity. What is it about preconceived religion that you feel makes it a better choice than to adopt certain views from it, rather than becoming a practicing member? I have a very personal set of beliefs, and I would feel VERY inhibited by adopting a religion such as Christianity. Even Buddhism would seem restrictive in some cases. I have many spiritual thoughts that pop into my head at some time or another. If I was to be a member of said religion, what are these thoughts? Are these thoughts wrong because that do not fit the religion I CHOSE? I feel that you might have a better grip on how a more conformist spiritual view is, and I would be interested to know your thoughts.
yeah... About the whole religion thing.
I like how you have your own set of beliefs. So then you know that you believe something by choice and not because you feel like you're required to.
For me, I went through a confusion/doubtful stage of my life a couple years ago, and I haven't really recovered. I still consider myself a Christian, but I'm on the very edge (like, almost falling off) of the religion.
I still can understand the conformist's view though, in a way. The reason I stuck with Christianity isn't necessarily because its beliefs seemed the most plausible to me. It's because I felt--perhaps wrongly--that I shouldn't leave the CHURCH. At that time, the only good thing that I saw in Christianity was the idea of supporting eachother as a congregation. Even if the beliefs were off, Christians should still have each other, right?
I know this sounds wrong, but it seems like many people in the world can't believe anything unless they have other people, right beside them, believing the same thing. I didn't want to crush others' beliefs, so I just kept egging 'em on. At that time, the only belief I had was that people need each other to survive, emotionally. You've sort-of proven me wrong, by having your own unique philosophy with no one beside you believing the exact same thing. --Which is why I'm still confused ;)
you said something about having thoughts that don't fit perfectly w/ a religion. --And you're talking about agreeing w/ *beliefs* that are basically opposite frm one's religion, right? Hmm dunno. In order to be able to contradict your own religion and believe yourself to be right, you have to firstly not have a strong faith at all. Cuz theoretically, if your faith is strong, you believe things because you trust the validity of the religion. I'd say if you have such thoughts, then as long as you leave that religion, you're on your way to truth or nirvana or enightenment or whatever the ultimate goal is. If you're the sort of person who doesn't need support or fellowship to find the truth, and doesn't feel like offering it, then organized religion is SO not for you that it's obvious.
I'm not anti-religious, and I don't even know exactly what atheist or agnostic is. But I have very few beliefs; and I'm trying to adopt more as I get out of this funk. But as for now, I believe that there is a god, and that people are wrong if they say that being a Christian is the only way to "get to heaven."
I shouldn't have written so much. sorry. ;)
Write as much as you want! I really like reading your thoughts!
It's not that I don't want/like helping people. I just sort of wonder why people need to be a part of something in order to help each other. Why not help the fellow man (or woman ;) ) if he is in need? Why not reach out to the fellow man if you are in need yourself? What is the point of reaching out within the BOUNDS of your own religion. My whole philosophy revolves around being open both as a person and spiritually. I would help a person in need whether they are Christian Muslim, Buddhist, or whatever. I do need help sometimes, I will not deny that. I find my strength within myself. I know I have the power in order to turn my life around 180 if need be. Whether this "power" is actually God, who knows. I just know that it resides within myself. I'm not saying that I never ask for help, it is just more of a secondary action for me if that makes any sense. It's not needed, just helpful.
Bringing this topic full circle, I feel that a LOT of my spiritual beliefs were actualized during that one peak experience ~3 years ago. I stopped being so self destructive, and decided to build myself up instead of tearing myself down. This would seem obvious, but this REALLY woke me up per say.
I have to run, but I wouldn't mind hearing more! Thanks for the interesting conversation :)
Seriously, I think you are right on target though. I'm not saying your beliefs are more right than anyone else's or that your beliefs are kosher with the most accepted religions in the most ways or whatever. ...and I'm also not saying that I'm even correct in saying that about you. I'm just saying that that's what I think. Does that make sense?
My guess is that you're so spiritually/philosophically mature because of your peak experience. ...And because you KNOW that you had that peak experience without the help of any religion. Most people don't reach that level, imo. because to most, the only way to have a peak experience is by being involved in a religion. It seems like most people who have peak experiences attribute it to God; And that strengthens their faith in their religion. You, though, after your peak experience, strengthened your faith in yourself.
And I agree, that ideally, everyone helps everyone else, regardless of religion. I mean, we're all people, right? So what keeps the world from being ideal? Well, lots of factors. Like differing beliefs, and even different goals.
In Sunday school, we're taught that anyone who's not a Christian is wrong. So therefore, "Who wants help from a non-Christian?" Furthermore, the only way Christians can help a non-Christian is by showing him/her Jesus. ...wtf? (jk) ...You said earlier that you DO need help sometimes. But you don't ever want/need to be saved by Jesus, right?
ok, don't worry, NOW I'm totally done. lol
Who or what is Jesus? To me, Jesus was merely a man who was able to tap into the "absolute consciousness". He was pure. Was he the son of god? Not how I see it. He was God. He was extremely in tune with the universe/God, however you want to say it. Was he more 'important' than any other person on the planet? Of course not, he was just AS important than any other person on the planet.
To be saved by Jesus is what? He is second to God, no? So this is merely being saved by God is it not? Why place Jesus on such a high pedestal? Why is he the sole focus of so many beliefs? I read a quote online sometime ago, something along the lines of: "I found my savior several years ago. I look into the mirror." I really feel that this more or less sums up how I feel about the idea of Jesus and a savior. Every man/woman is the son of God. Metaphorically this could mean that we are all in a way a 'Jesus' sort of figure in one way or another. To find your savior and to be more like him everyday, what is this? This is to become one with your TRUE self. This is to manifest in reality the person you are yearning to be, but might not have the strength to do. This is to have the strength to become what you KNOW you can. No regrets, only action.
The whole literal idea of Jesus really seems quite outlandish. Why place so much emphasis on Jesus? He was a human, just like us. God was a part of him, just like us. Why make an idol out of him? Because the Bible says to? Please enlighten, I really never understood this concept to any sort of degree. It always seemed so alien to me.
PS: You're not done already are you? :(
Sunday school was an interesting time. I remember when we had to draw a picture of 'God' the way that we pictured him. Everyone drew pictures of an old man in the clouds, you know the deal. I knew exactly what the 'teacher' was looking for. But what was the point in drawing something just to please him? I ended up drawing a picture of a person resembling the devil as a pseudo-joke. The teacher was not laughing. He took it very seriously and did not even talk about it. After class was dismissed, he had a talk with my parents about how I might need help or something might be wrong with me. He did not even think to ask why I drew the picture the way I did. He had already made up his mind that the idea of God was not to be questioned.
This made me think. Why not talk about the way God "looks" even at a young age? This activity of drawing was merely a "draw what you know you should" activity, and I knew it. I wanted confrontation. I wanted an explanation. I sure as hell was getting nothing but lies and deceit from my parents. Of course I knew God didn't look like how I drew him. I also knew he didn't look like an old man in the clouds, so what was the big deal anyway? Both concepts were equally insane.
AARRGG the Jesus issue! ok so ONLY because you asked ;)
(As if I know more than you do on this subject. psht)
Jesus Jesus. Well, you pretty much already explained him. You said he was a human, and that he isn't just the son of God; he IS God. (John ch1) ...Christians wouldn't argue with you there. They wouldn't even argue with the fact that we should all strive to be Christ-like.
So the question at hand is: Why is Jesus viewed as better than his followers?
For me, I can't answer that becaue I agree with you that there may not be a real, correct answer.
I can try to define the Christian answer though...
Jesus is placed on a pedestal because he was sent by God to be an example to the people. So basically if God hadn't sent him to earth, then history wouldn't be able to document the *perfect* being. It's not like Jesus was born as a typical human and then proved himself to be holy; the Bible says that Jesus was BORN holy and was destined to stay that way. Jesus was the only human in the history of the world who was "free of sin." Everyone else, we're all sinners... too bad; we can't escape that label. But hey, at least we can walk w/ Jesus and try our hardest to be like him, rite? :-/
Okay, here's a metaphor from John ch15: "I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener... You are the branches... No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine... This is my Father's glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples." So that's the difference between Jesus and the generic person seeking enlightenment. The fact is that Jesus never even started out as a branch, he was always the strong vine foundation ...and he couldn't be cut off like the branches could. Heck, he wasn't even required to bear fruit. But his job was taking care of all the branches and accounting for them.
Christians feel that Jesus, rather than oneself, is the savior because they have to be saved by something bigger than themselves. The philosophy is, "how can I lead myself to the truth -by myself-, when Jesus has already laid a clear path to it?" ..."Why go through the trouble of being your own savior? Jesus has already volunteered to be, to make our lives easier."
The following is an clip from an article written by Steven Kotler entitled Extreme States.
0ver the past 10 years a number of different scientists, including neurologist James Austin from the University of Colorado, neuroscientist Andrew Newberg, and the late athropologist and psychiatrist Eugene D'Aquili from the Univerity of Pennsylvania, have done SPECT (single photon emission computed tomography) scans of the brains of Buddhists during meditation and of Franciscan nuns during prayer. They found a marked decrease in activity in the parietal lobes, an area in the upper rear of the brain. This region helps us orient ourselves in space; it allows us to judge angles and curves and distances and to know Where the self ends and the rest of the world begins. People who suffer injuries in this area have great difficulties navigating life's simplest landscapes. Sitting down on a couch, for example, becomes a task of Herculean impossibility because they are unsure where their own legs end and the sofa begins. The SPECT scans indicated that meditation temporarily blocks the processing of sensory information within both parietal lobes.
When that happens, as Newberg and D'Aquili point out in their book Why God Won't Go Away, "the brain would have no choice but to perceive that the self is endless and intimately interwoven with everyone and everything the mind senses. And this perception would feel utterly and unquestionably real." They use the brain-scan findings to explain the interconnected cosmic unity that the Buddhists experienced, but the results could also explain what Morse calls the "universal, unifying thread of love" that people with near-death experience consistently reported.
The studies confirm that these experiences are as real as any others, because our involvement with the rest of the universe is mediated by our brains.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home