Añadido: May 12, 2008
De: Loreleila
Duración: 8:30
For more info on Maslows heirarchy of needs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs
Categoría: Education
Tags: heirarchy individuality loreleila maslow me self
Rating: 5.00 (13 ratings) Visto: 444' favoriteCount='4 Comentarios: 35
Loreleila Says:
May 13, 2008 - 'they would be separate entities completely but they would be fundamentally the same' And it is that sameness they both have I would call 'I'.
Loreleila Says:
May 13, 2008 - Hmm, it doesn't seem abstract to me, it has structure and measurable aspects, but it's not physically quantifiable, so sure, abstract in that way. Nor am I sure Nick's view could ever be described as holistic, with it being so mechanical. By it's nature it excludes, thus is the antithesis of holistic.
Loreleila Says:
May 13, 2008 - Thanks. I think you're probably right, but to examine something you don't believe exists with that very thing writes a certain catch 22 into the equation.
mistersyvak Says:
May 13, 2008 - God! Jesus! Zoraster! Aphrodite! "I" just wanted to impose some random theism in here for no apparent reason. :)
Loreleila Says:
May 13, 2008 - Fabulous. \o/ Thank goodness for some free will, without endless explanation or examination for existance thereof. I like you, if you actually exist that is.
lapislazuline Says:
May 13, 2008 - in that case you would merely be a machine souless and devoid of independent thought living in a static environment never making any mistakes....like an insurance salesman! ;)
Dadalama Says:
May 13, 2008 - I see :)
theoriginalanomaly Says:
May 13, 2008 - Logic and I's divide... so you can never get to the bottom of it. But you went very deep. That was a very simple and beautiful explanation. If you are ever going to believe anything, it is best to believe in that which matters most, oneSELF.
LoveCraken Says:
May 13, 2008 - I do. Painfully so.
Signofthedollar Says:
May 13, 2008 - And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who grant them joy and peace and pride. This god, this one word: I. Ayn Rand, ANTHEM
Loreleila Says:
May 13, 2008 - I fail to see the pertinence. Sorry.
Loreleila Says:
May 13, 2008 - Thank you, and yes, I agree, there is no getting to the bottom of it. Perhaps that is part of the joy of it.
DefaultPosition Says:
May 13, 2008 - Biological theories hinge upon the concept of self-interest and "I". It is crucial for an understanding of evolution.
Loreleila Says:
May 13, 2008 - No, they are evidence of the existance of Satan. :P
mistersyvak Says:
May 14, 2008 - It is interesting. The "self" or the "I" could be termed as the individual awareness which is cognizant of the various mental states (not necessarily synonymous with brain states) - whether conscious or subconscious. Just a thought....I think. :)
DefaultPosition Says:
May 14, 2008 - I mean the self-interest of genes, which lead to altruistic individuals.
Loreleila Says:
May 14, 2008 - I think every system examining humanity, in whatever way, attempts to exclude the self at its peril.
Loreleila Says:
May 14, 2008 - Absolutely. Trying to articulate all this is fraught with potential omissions, things 'I' haven't 'thought' of. Arrgghh! :P
cardellacole1 Says:
May 14, 2008 - excelent video
Loreleila Says:
May 14, 2008 - Thank you. :)
vwpeace Says:
May 14, 2008 - good video iam not religious in any form but believe historical written words in religious books have educational meaning, so when eve eat from the apple tree she and adam were removed from garden of eden "utopia" because they discovered they were naked "ego" which would lead me think only without ego which is enduced by the media what to wear how to speak and think which i like all do we will have our utopia, so I for me is when everyone has no malice/race/religion and I becomes us thanks
Loreleila Says:
May 14, 2008 - Well expressed, and thank you too. There is so much symbolism in these texts, things to learn, as long as we don't cling slavishly to certain interpretations, as the only ones who have it 'right', or see it all as historical fact. 'I for me is when everyone has no malice/race/religion and I becomes us' Beautiful. True. :)
urquiza78 Says:
May 20, 2008 - Nick has a selfish point in the same way that Maslow did, what is different however is not only obvious but exclusively explained. What i feel we all forget at one time or another is that we all once dwelled within the cellar of Maslows creation, but again, the choice of creation was his own. It is ultimately the shape or form he she or we applies, which determines. The choice is yours, but 'I would like to agree' hmm maybe.
urquiza78 Says:
May 20, 2008 - There is a dance which should visually make sense to an onlooker, and we can plainly see from the fringe that it isnt just an I, but the vision and title may suggest so. It explains so much so that one cannot help but guess so.
Dadalama Says:
May 13, 2008 - yeah it can't be tested. that's why it's a belief. :P perhaps she would... I would say they would be separate entities completely but they would be fundamentally the same.