[Neurons] 2008 Meta Reflections #53

[Dr. Hall]

From:  L. Michael Hall

Dec. 1, 2008

Meta Reflection #53

 

 

MODELING MEANING

IN ITS DIMENSIONS

 

                        

I mentioned in the last Meta Reflection that recently re-read Viktor
Frankl's book, The Unheard Cry for Meaning on Logotherapy.  In that work
Frankl writes that as the struggle for survival subsides as we learn skills
for surviving and surviving well, and as the standard of living goes up all
around the world, the question emerges, "Survival for what?"

"Ever more people today have the means to live, but no meaning to live for."
(p. 21)

"Consider today's society; it gratifies and satisfies virtually every
need-except for one, the need for meaning!"

 

One way that we use the term "meaning" is in terms of meaningfulness.  Is
life itself meaningful?  Is your life meaningful?  Frankl writes about the
existential emptiness and vacuum in so many people- a vacuum that they try
to fill us by making something "the meaning of life" at a lower level in the
hierarchy of needs (Maslow), a level that cannot operate as "the meaning of
life."  Then commenting that "Man does not live by welfare alone," Frankl
explores some of the substitutes for ultimate meaning, that is, the meaning
of life: conformity, authority, traditions.  He could have listed many other
things that we see people substituting for true meaningfulness: drugs,
fashion, sex, money, consumption, fame, popularity, etc.

 

What are you living for?  Where do you search for the meaning of life?  What
is the focus of your search, the heart and soul of what you are living for?
Frankl writes:

"If we are to bring out the human potential at its best, we must first
believe in its existence and presence." (p. 30)

 

Do you?  Do you believe in human potential at its best?  Frankl, coming out
of the time when Psychoanalysis and Behaviorism dominated in the field of
psychology (in fact, he started out as a Psychoanalyst and valued the
contributions of both disciplines) argued that both missed meaning and human
potential and not only missed it, but both also had a tendency to defend
against such.  With Psychoanalysis, he said they view the highest and best
in humans, the authentic and genuine, as "defense mechanisms"-denials,
justifications, explanations.  And with Behaviorism, he said they view the
same as merely "conditioned responses."  Neither saw or believed in human
potential at its best.

 

So against that Frankl wrote that believing in human potential and the
highest possibilities was an important first step.       

 

Once we believe in that possibility, the next step is the task of unleashing
those possibilities in human nature.  So how are we to do that?  For that
Frankl primarily talked about answering in and with one's life the questions
that Life asks of us.  He says that life questions each of us.  We are
questioned by circumstances, events, people, and situations.  We are
questioned about our heart, our understanding, our character.  We are
questioned about our gifts-what are we equipped to do?  We are questioned
about our relationships-who do we encounter and how do we respond in that
encounter?   We are also questioned by unchangeable events-how will we
respond?  How will we change ourselves, our attitudes, our heart so that we
are changed by the experience?

 

It is in these ways that we begin to detach from ourselves and to transcend
ourselves and to live for something bigger and other than ourselves.  And
for Frankl this was the path for a meaningful and happy life.  Quoting
Albert Einstein, he included this:

"The man who regards his life as meaningless is not merely unhappy but
hardly fit for life." (p. 34)

 

In addition to this first use of the word "meaning," we can use it in
another very different sense.  I've been using the word meaning as purpose
and reason and have been talking about "the meaning of life," about
meaningfulness, and about living for a purpose.  A second use of the word
meaning is in the sense of a construct, as cognition, and as understanding.
"What do you mean by that word?"  "What does X mean to you?"

 

Maslow recognized the first usage of meaning and so put meaning in the
Being-dimension of self-actualization, but he did not recognize the second
usage of meaning.  It is that second usage that I've put inside the
Hierarchy of Needs which is the key factor that conditions our impulses,
drives, and needs.  We experience those biological impulses as filtered and
conditioned by our meanings, that is, by our beliefs, understandings,
memories (history), permissions and taboos, etc.

 

With these two dimensions of meaning, we can now understand that Maslow used
meaning in the first sense but not in the second.  That's why, in
Neuro-Semantics, as we use meaning in both of these ways we are now able to
take the Hierarchy of Needs to the next level of development.  And that
enables us to integrate it with the Self-Actualization Quadrants which
allows us to effectively unleash human possibilities.

 

 

 




 

 

L.  Michael Hall, Ph.D.

International Society of Neuro-Semantics

Meta-Coach Training System

P.O. Box 8

Clifton, CO.  81520 USA

1 970-523-7877

1 970-523-5790 fax

     www.neurosemantics.com 

      www.neuro-semantics-trainings.com 

      www.self-actualizing.org

      www.meta-coaching.org

      www.ns-video.com 

 

The International Egroup for Neuro-Semantics is Neurons.  Sign up for Free
subscription on www.neurosemantics.com -- Meta Reflection articles sent out
every Monday.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://eight.pairlist.net/pipermail/neurons/attachments/20081201/92d2ea7e/attachment.htm>