In any discussion of human desire, I think it is appropriate, and, from my point of view, essential, that one consider the work of the humanistic psychologists such as Abraham Maslow based, in part, on the work of anthropologists like Ruth Benedict. Maslow's hierarchy of needs posits that if human beings have their basic needs for material comfort (food, warmth, health,etc) satisfied, and their emotional needs for love, emotional support and nurturance and security satisfied, and their basic psychological needs for curiosity, adventure and accomplishment satisfied, then the so-called "being need", or mature needs emerge and these needs are to love and to work.
This can only happen in a society that has the structures to support the best interests of the individual and the group. Another piece of this is that the interests of the individual and the group are not mutually exclusive; in fact, they can be mutually reinforcing and beneficial to and for each other. Ruth Benedict's work supplied evidence that societies range on a continuum of those that pit individuals against each other to societies that support structures that insure that both individuals and groups are satisfied most fully by supporting each other; that working in one's own interests is, at one and the same time, working in the interests of the group and of others; in such societies when an individual works in her/his own best interests, s/he simultaneously works in the best interests of the group and vice versa. The problem, of course, is that, the societies Benedict described that have structures like this were quite small and homogeneous and we don't know how to create those social structures in modern societies. I know some may say that it may not be possible to do that. However, what those studies show is that it is possible for humans to have societies like this. If human competitive and destructive behavior were instinctive and biologically determined, those kinds of societies would not be possible and they did exist as Benedict showed. She called them synergistic societies. Just some food for thought. Selma Singer ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 8:33 PM Subject: Re: Name Dropping (was RANT - and Greedy and Lazy) > At 07:54 AM 3/12/2002 +0000, Keith Hudson wrote: > >Hi Harry, > > > >I'm just about to push off on a short holiday break and have just had > >sufficient time to read Ray's and your postings this morning. > > > >I just want to make a brief point that has been prompted in my mind since > >writing to Ray yesterday regarding Megaliths. > > > >Your two self-evident truths are: > > > >1. People's desires are unlimited > >2. People seek to satisfy their desires with the least exertion > > > >What about adding a third? > > > >3. People have a curiosity beyond present needs for survival > > > >It could be said that many animals also have a sense of curiosity in that > >they explore their environment rather widely in order to assess any future > >dangers. But then your two axioms could also reasonably be applied to > >animals and are therefore not exclusive to man. > > Not really, Keith. > > Our ability to sustain ourselves rests squarely on our ability to reason. > Unlike other animals, we don't rely on instincts. (Ashley Montague says we > have no instincts, and maybe he's right.) Biological response (instinct) is > the perfect reaction to a stimulus. It keeps animals alive - until > conditions change, whereupon it can lead to their demise. > > We rely on reason - on making the right choices. When conditions change we > change our choices. (Actually Desmond Morris once told me that our > advantage rested squarely on effective genitalia - but what does he know?) > > As we rely on making the right choices, our reasoning processes had better > be even more effective than our private parts. > > Desires change and what we do today may not be what we do tomorrow. With > animals, what they do today will be what they do tomorrow. I ask students > how well does Man reason? My answer is pretty well (or we would not have > survived). > > >It could also be said that my third axiom is but a sub-set of your first. > >But some have a curiosity and need for explanation beyond any present > >desires that they can conceptualise. > > > >It could also be said that my third axiom lies beyond the field of > >Political Economy. But a sense of curiosity (and explanatory leaps of > >imagination therefrom) are also the cause of innovation. Many innovations > >are the result of your second axiom, but then many innovations come out of > >the blue. > > Which perhaps relates to the second assumption. Certainly, curiosity must > be a survival skill. Otherwise, the curious would be long gone. > > >(A good example of this is Clarke's notion of geostationary > >satellites for which there was no possible use at the time he proposed it. > >If he had patented that idea then he would probably be by far the richest > >man in the world right now. [And this is why I am opposed to intellectual > >copyright and patent law -- it devalues the really big ideas of mankind.] ) > > Clarke wrote that in 1945 when he discussed the trajectories of rockets in > orbit. > > I met him only once that I can recall, at the White Hart pub - I think in > North London. > > Most of my early philosophy was derived from the conjectures of those early > science fiction writers. In London it was coffee with John Wyndham (Day of > the Triffids). He never paid. > > In New York, a bunch would play poker at Harry Gold's place. He was editor > of Galaxy - a very good magazine. > > In Los Angeles, I knew a number of Science Fiction writers. I did a good > radio panel critique at Forest Ackerman's mansion and SciFi Museum with > writers Fritz Leiber (Conjure Wife), Robert Block (Psycho), Ray Bradbury > (Martian Chronicles), and Ackerman. > > The subjects? - the first "Planet of the Apes" and "2001 - A Space > Odyssey". I got them all tickets to the special screening of the Space > Odyssey and there was much to say. For a change, I said little as these > veterans went to work on the two films. (They approved.) > > What was there about these writers that affected me so? Probably, that they > were all writing about people, societies, worlds, that didn't exist. > Everything they wrote about was imaginary. Yet, the best of them mostly > wrote out of what we know now. They would simply extend and broaden it. > > And every one of them had great curiosity about the present and future. > > However, I don't think we need add it to our assumptions. But, what it does > do is introduce another facet of Man's behavior. > > Hey! Maybe he isn't so difficult to understand and so unpredictable as we > thought. > > That's not a bad way to start a study. > > Harry > > > ****************************** > Harry Pollard > Henry George School of LA > Box 655 > Tujunga CA 91042 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Tel: (818) 352-4141 > Fax: (818) 353-2242 > ******************************* > > >
