                    10.  MASLOW'S THEORY OF HUMAN MOTIVATION.
        
             Maslow (1970) formulated a positive theory of motivation
        that he believed would satisfy the theoretical demands listed in
        the 16 principles listed above.  Most of his work resulted
        directly from clinical experience.  He believed his theory was
        founded in the functionalist tradition of Dewey and James, and
        was fused with the holism of Wertheimer, Goldstein, Gestalt
        Therapy, the dynamicism of Freud, Fromm, Horney, Reich, Jung, and
        Adler.  He labeled this integration or synthesis a "holistic-
        dynamic theory."
        
             Physiological Needs
        
             Most motivation theories begin with the physiological
        drives.  Recent research makes it necessary to revise traditional
        notions about needs: first, the development of the concept of
        homeostasis, and second, the finding that appetites (preferential
        choices among foods) are a fairly efficient indication of actual
        needs or lacks in the body.  
        
             Homeostasis refers to the body's automatic efforts to
        maintain a constant or normal state of the blood stream.  Cannon
        (1932) described this process for (1) the water content of the
        blood, (2) salt content, (3)sugar content, (4) protein content,
        (5) fat content, (6) calcium content, (7) oxygen content, (8)
        constant hydrogen-ion level (acid base balance), and (9) constant
        temperature of the blood.  
        
             Young (1948; 1941) summarized the work on appetite and its
        relation to body needs.  He theorized that if the body lacks some
        chemical, the individual will tend to develop a specific appetite
        or partial hunger for that missing food element.  It is
        impossible to make any list of fundamental physiological needs
        for they can come to almost any number one might wish, depending
        on the degree of specificity of description.  What this means is
        that the person missing everything in life in an extreme fashion
        will most likely be motivated to satisfy physiological needs
        rather than any others.  If a person is lacking food, safety,
        love, and esteem, he would hunger for food more strongly than for
        anything else.  For the person who is extremely or dangerously
        hungry, no other interests exist but food.  He dreams food,
        remembers food, perceives food, and wants only food.  All other
        drives are stifled, including sex, and a pure hunger drive
        exists.  
        
             One peculiar characteristic of the human organism is that
        when it is dominated by a certain need, its whole philosophy of
        the future tends also to change.  Utopia for the chronically
        hungry man would be a place where there is plenty of food.  Life
        itself tends to be defined in terms of eating.  Anything else in
        life is unimportant.  Freedom, love, community feeling, respect,
        philosophy, may all seem useless since they fail to fill the
        stomach.  The average American citizen is experiencing appetite
        rather than hunger when he says, "I am hungry."  He may
        experience sheer life-and-death hunger only by accident and then
        only a few times throughout his entire life.  
        
             Maslow (1970) maintained that "it is quite true that man
        lives by bread alone - when there is no bread."  But what happens
        to man's desires when there is plenty of bread and when his belly
        is filled?  It is then that other higher needs emerge and these,
        rather than physiological hungers, dominate the organism.  When
        these are satisfied, again new and still higher needs emerge, and
        so on.  This is what Maslow meant when he wrote that human needs
        are organized into a hierarchy of "relative prepotency."
        
             In his theory, gratification is as important as deprivation. 
        Once a need is met, the organism is released from the domination
        of physiological needs, thus, permitting the emergence of other
        more social goals.  A want that is satisfied is no longer a want. 
        Maslow hypothesized that in individuals in whom a certain need
        has always been satisfied are best equipped to tolerate
        deprivation of that need in the future.  Those who have been
        deprived in the past will react differently to current
        satisfactions than the those who have never been deprived.
        
              Safety Needs
        
             Once physiological needs are gratified, then there emerges a
        new set of needs which Maslow (1970) categorized as safety needs:
        security; stability; dependency; protection; freedom from fear,
        from anxiety and chaos; need for structure, order, law, limits;
        strength in the protector.  A man whose hunger is satisfied but
        feels unsafe, if it is extreme and chronic enough, may be
        characterized as living almost for safety alone.  
        
             The average child, and less obviously, the average adult
        generally prefers a safe, orderly, predictable, lawful, organized
        world which he can count on and in which unexpected,
        unmanageable, chaotic, or other dangerous things do not happen,
        and in which he has powerful parents or protectors who shield him
        from harm.  The healthy and fortunate adult in American society
        is largely satisfied in his safety needs.  The peaceful, smoothly
        running, stable, good society ordinarily makes its members feel
        safe enough from wild animals, extremes of temperature, criminal
        assault, murder, chaos, and tyranny.  When Maslow first proposed
        his theory in 1954 and the revised work in 1970, crime in
        American streets was largely confined to certain areas.  In the
        past five years, the safety need is becoming more of an issue. 
        As of January 12, 1994, 12 murders were committed in Washington,
        D.C., our nation's capital, in the first 12 days of the new year. 
        Violence in our neighborhoods, communities, and cities will
        surely become a major safety issue if it continues to proliferate
        in the last six years of this decade.
        
             Other aspects of the attempt to seek safety and stability in
        the world are seen in the very common preference for familiar
        rather than unfamiliar things, or for the known rather than the
        unknown (Maslow, 1937).  The tendency to use religion or
        philosophy to organize the universe and man into it in some sort
        of coherent, meaningful whole is motivated by the safety need. 
        The need for safety is an active and dominant mobilizer of the
        human's resources only in real emergencies.  Some neurotic adults
        are like unsafe children in their desire for safety.  The
        neurotic individual may be described with great usefulness as a
        grown-up person who retains his childhood attitudes toward the
        world.  A neurotic adult behaves as if he were actually afraid of
        being spanked, or denied his mother's approval, or having his
        food taken away from him.  His childish attitudes of fear and
        threat reaction to the dangerous world go underground.  Untouched
        by the growing up and learning processes, this individual can be
        affected by any stimulus that feels threatening (Horney, 1937).
        
             The neurosis in which the search for safety takes its
        clearest form is in the compulsive-obsessive.  These individuals
        try frantically to order and stabilize the world so that no
        unmanageable, unexpected, or unfamiliar dangers will ever appear. 
        They develop all sorts of ceremonials, rules, and formulas so
        that every possible contingency may be provided for and so that
        no new contingencies may appear.  They are like brain-injured
        cases who manage to maintain equilibrium by avoiding everything
        unfamiliar and strange and by ordering their restricted world in
        such a neat, disciplined fashion that everything in the world can
        be counted on (Goldstein, 1939).  
        
             The safety needs can become very urgent on the social scene
        whenever there are real threats to law and order, to the
        authority of society.  The conditions in many cities today (1994)
        with the exponential increase in violent crime has caused the
        issue of gun access and gun control to become an extremely heated
        debate.  Though most Americans will never be violently assaulted
        due to the sheer odds, many people feel the compulsion to arm
        themselves with handguns and assault weapons capable of
        discharging 15-30 rounds of ammunition semi-automatically. 
        Domestic violence in families significantly increased in the last
        decade.  This, coupled with the rise in street crime, makes the
        issue of safety a compelling one for many Americans.  The threat
        of chaos, or of nihilism, can be expected in many human beings to
        produce a regression from any higher needs to the more prepotent
        safety needs.  
        
             A common reaction in such situations is the acceptance of a
        dictatorship or of a military style rule.  With the breakup of
        the Soviet Block Nations and the movement toward a free economy
        system in Russia, a concomitant rise in crime is occurring.  On
        NBC News (January 12, 1994), Tom Brokaw, reporting from Moscow,
        profiled the rapid development of a "Russian Mafia" which
        accounted for over 200 murders in that city in the past year
        alone.  At the same time, there is a rising debate over the
        necessity to return to the old ways, the old Bolshevik controls,
        in order to stem the tide of violence and crime in the new
        Russia.  
        
             All human beings respond to danger with realistic regression
        to the safety need level, and will prepare to defend themselves
        in any manner that seems necessary to thwart the danger.  Turning
        the cheek may be biblically correct, but in reality, "Do unto
        others first before they do unto you" rules the street corner
        today.  Most people living near the edge of the safety line, are
        disturbed by threats to legality, and to the representatives of
        the law who seem to be incapable of protecting them from harm.
        
             The Belongingness and Love Needs
        
             Once physiological and safety needs are met, there emerges
        the need for belongingness, love, and affection.  The cycle of
        needs satisfaction repeats itself, and this new need becomes the
        epicenter of his life.  A human being will feel the absence of
        friends, or wife or children.  He will hunger for affectionate
        relationships with people in general, and for a place in his
        group or family.  He will feel the pangs of loneliness, of
        ostracism, of rejection, of friendliness, of rootlessness
        (Maslow, 1959).
        
             There is little scientific information about the
        belongingness need, although there is a common theme in novels,
        poems, plays, and autobiographies.  From these, we know in a
        general way the destructive effects on children of moving too
        often, of disorientation, of the general over-mobility that is
        forced by industrialization, of being without roots, or of
        despising one's roots, one's origins, one's group, of being torn
        from one's home and family friends and neighbors (Maslow, 1970). 
        
             We still underplay the deep importance of the neighborhood,
        of one's territory, of one's clan, of one's own kind.  In
        Ardrey's (1966) Territorial Imperative, with great poignancy and
        conviction, he described the need for the individual to belong to
        something, to someone, our deep animal tendency to herd.  
        
             In our society, the thwarting of the belongingness and love
        needs is found in the core cases of maladjustment and severe
        pathology.  Love and affection are looked upon with ambivalence
        and are sometimes hedged about with many restrictions and
        inhibitions.  Many clinical studies have assessed this need, and
        like Suttie (1935) concluded that within our culture there exists
        a "taboo on tenderness."
        
             Maslow (1970) stressed that love is not synonymous with sex,
        and sex is a purely physiological need and is multi-determined. 
        He maintained that the tremendous growth in T-groups and other
        personal growth groups and intentional communities may be
        motivated by an unsatisfied hunger for contact, for intimacy, for
        belongingness.  He hypothesized that some proportion of youth
        rebellion groups may be motivated by the profound hunger for
        groupiness.  Spergel and Chance (1991) supported this notion in
        their research on youth gangs in America concluding that
        "belonging to something was better than not belonging to
        anything.  The gang, unlike the modern American family, provides
        support, a sense of community, and basically, protection.  If a
        family or a society cannot satisfy this need, then the gang
        will."  
        
             The Esteem Need
        
             All people need a stable, firmly based, high evaluation of
        themselves.  Self-respect, self-esteem, and the esteem of others
        is necessary for an individual to feel whole.  These needs are
        manifested in a desire for strength, for achievement, for
        adequacy, for mastery and competence, for confidence in the face
        of the challenges of the world.  Satisfaction of the self-esteem
        need leads to a feeling of self-confidence, worth, strength,
        capability, and adequacy, of being useful, and necessary in the
        world (Adler, 1939; 1964).  
        
             Thwarting these needs produces feelings of inferiority, of
        weakness, and of helplessness.  They in turn give rise to either
        basic discouragement or else compensatory or neurotic trends.  An
        appreciation of the necessity of basic self-confidence and an
        understanding of how helpless people are without it can be gained
        from a study of severe traumatic neurosis (Kardiner, 1941).
        
             From the theologians' discussion of pride and hubris, from
        the Frommian theories about the self-perception of untruth to
        one's own nature, from the Rogerian work with self, from
        essayists like Ayn Rand (1943), we learn more and more about the
        dangers of basing self-esteem on the opinions of others rather
        than on real capacity, competence, and adequacy to the task.  The
        most stable and healthy self-esteem is based on deserved respect
        from others rather than on external fame or celebrity and
        unwarranted adulation.  It is helpful to distinguish the actual
        competence and achievement that is based on sheer will power,
        determination and responsibility, from that which comes naturally
        and easily out of one's own true inner nature, one's
        constitution, one's biological fate or destiny, or as Horney
        (1950) put it, "out of the REAL SELF rather than out of the
        idealized pseudo-self.
        
             The Need for Self-Actualization
        
             Even if the first four needs are satisfied, the human being
        will still develop a restlessness, a discontent, unless the
        individual is doing what he, individually, is fitted for.  A
        musician must make music, a teacher teach, a poet write poems, a
        bricklayer lay bricks, if he is to ultimately be at peace with
        himself.  What a man can be, he must be.  He must be true to his
        own nature.  This need Maslow (1954) called self-actualization.
        
             First coined by Goldstein (1940), self-actualization refers
        to a man's desire for self-fulfillment, or to become actualized
        in what he is potentially.  This tendency might be phrased the
        desire to become more and more what one idiosyncratically is, to
        become everything that one is capable of becoming.  What form
        this takes varies from person to person.  The clear emergence of
        these needs usually follows the satisfaction of the
        physiological, safety, love and esteem needs.  Of the five needs
        defined in Maslow's hierarchy, this last one is the most
        difficult to fulfill, and is the most sought after of them all.  
        
             In my work with new employees beginning their work
        experience with the Abraxas Foundation, I find all these needs in
        effect.  Needing to work in order to survive, an individual seeks
        employment with the Foundation.  He applies for a position, is
        interviewed and then returns to his home to wait for a call from
        the director who needs to fill a position.  In the process, he
        may feel unsafe, unwanted, certainly less than self-actualized.  
        Then one day he receives a phone call from the Human Resources
        Director to inform him that he has a position with the Foundation
        and told when to report to work.  At that moment, he feels
        wanted, needed, and self-actualized.  He will be able to provide
        for himself and for his family.  He will be safe from the throes
        of the poverty line.  He will feel this way until he reports for
        his first day of work and begins the new employee orientation
        process.  Everything he knew before, experienced before, believed
        he understood before, is challenged and the momentary elation of
        feeling self-actualized evaporates and he must struggle to adapt
        to a new work environment, a new life situation.  Eventually,
        with guidance and support, with experience, and with a
        significant amount of effort on his part, he will eventually feel
        self-actualized again.  When and how remains within his own
        province.  
        
             It will happen only if the other basic four needs are
        consistently met.  There will be vacillation through time.  Self-
        actualization may come easily to some and more difficultly to
        others.  The human condition is unpredictable.  Events will
        affect the pace at which the individual satisfies the hierarchy
        of needs.  
        
             Preconditions for Basic Need Satisfactions   
        
             Freedom of speech, freedom to do as one pleases, freedom to
        investigate and seek information, freedom to defend oneself,
        justice, fairness, honesty, and orderliness, when thwarted, will
        result in the individual's reacting as if threatened.  The
        individual will defend these freedoms because without them the
        basic satisfactions are quite impossible.
        
             An act is psychologically important if it contributes to the
        satisfaction of basic needs.  A similar statement may be made for
        the various defense or coping mechanisms.  Some are directly
        related to the protection or attainment of the basic needs. 
        Others are only weakly related.  Any danger to the more basic
        defense mechanisms is more threatening than danger to less basic
        defenses.  
             Motivation to Know and Understand
        
             Maslow (1970) maintained that the reason we know little
        about the cognitive impulses that motivate human beings is that
        they are not important in the clinic.  The exciting and
        mysterious symptoms found in the classical neuroses are lacking
        here.  Consequently, we find little on the subject in the
        writings of the great inventors of psychotherapy and
        psychodynamics, Freud, Adler, Jung, etc.
        
             Among the academics, Murphy (1958), Wertheimer (1959), and
        Asch (1952) treated the problem of motivation.  Acquiring
        knowledge and systematizing the universe have been considered
        techniques for the achievement of basic safety in the world, or
        for the intelligent man, expressions of self-actualization. 
        Though their formulations may be useful, they did not formulate
        any definitive answers to the questions as to the motivational
        role of curiosity, learning, philosophizing, experimenting, etc.
        in the human being.  
        
             Beyond these negative determinants for acquiring knowledge,
        there are some reasonable grounds for postulating positive
        impulses to satisfy curiosity, to know, to explain, and to
        understand (Maslow, 1968).  Maslow listed the following
        conditions under which positive impulses lead to a measure of
        self-actualization:
             1.   Something like human curiosity can easily be observed
                  in animals.  Monkeys will pick things apart, will poke
                  their fingers into holes, will explore all sorts of
                  situations where it is improbable that hunger, fear,
                  sex, comfort, status, etc. are involved.  Harlow's
                  (1950) experiments amply demonstrated this.
             2.   The history of mankind supplies us with a satisfactory
                  number of instances in which man looked for facts and
                  created explanations in the face of the greatest
                  danger, even to life itself (Maslow, 1957).  
             3.   Studies of psychologically healthy people indicate that
                  they are attracted to the mysterious, to the unknown,
                  to the chaotic, unorganized, and unexplained.  This
                  seems to be an attractiveness.  These areas are in
                  themselves and of their own right interesting.  The
                  contrasting reaction to the well know is one of boredom
                  (Maslow, 1957).
             4.   It may be valid to extrapolate from the
                  psychopathological.  The compulsive-obsessive neurotic,
                  Goldstein's brain-injured soldiers, Maier's (1939)
                  fixated rats, all show a compulsive and anxious
                  clinging to the familiar and a dread of the unfamiliar,
                  anarchic, the unexpected, the un-domesticated.  There
                  are some phenomena that may turn out to nullify this
                  possibility.  Among those forced unconventionality, a
                  chronic rebellion against any authority whatsoever,
                  Bohemianism, the desire to shock and to startle, all of
                  which may be found in certain neurotic individuals, as
                  well as in the process of de-acculturation.
             5.   The needs to know and to understand are seen in late
                  infancy and childhood, perhaps even more strongly than
                  in adulthood.  This seems to be a spontaneous product
                  of maturation rather than learning.  Children do not
                  have to be taught to be curious.  But they may be
                  taught, as by institutionalization, not to be curious
                  (Goldfarb, 1945).
             6.   Finally, the gratification of the cognitive impulses is
                  subjectively satisfying and yields to end-experiences. 
                  Though this aspect of insight and understanding has
                  been neglected in favor of achieved results, learning
                  remains true to insight and is usually a bright, happy,
                  emotional spot in a person's life.  Perhaps, it can
                  even be viewed as a high spot in the life span (Maslow,
                  1969).
        
             The Aesthetic Needs
        
             Aesthetic needs are the least researched of all human needs. 
        Maslow (1967) was convinced that, from his clinical observations,
        some individuals truly possess an aesthetic need.  "They get sick
        from ugliness," he wrote, "and are cured by beautiful
        surroundings.  They crave actively, and their cravings can be
        satisfied only by beauty" (p. 93).  It is seen almost universally
        in healthy children.  Evidence of aesthetic need impulse is found
        in every culture and in every age as far back as the cave man.
        
             Overlapping aesthetic needs with conative and cognitive
        needs makes it difficult to separate them.  The needs for order,
        for symmetry, for closure, for completion of the act, for system,
        and for structure may be indiscriminately assigned to either
        cognitive, conative, or aesthetic, or even to neurotic needs. 
        Maslow asked, "what does it mean when a man feels a strong
        conscious impulse to straighten the crookedly hung picture on the
        wall?"  Is it conative, cognitive, or aesthetic?  This is a
        research question which still needs to be asked and studied in
        much greater detail to determine which is the most accurate one.
        
             Maslow (1970) contended that the hierarchy of needs is not
        nearly so rigid as he may have implied earlier.  Most people seem
        to have these basic needs in about the order that has been
        indicated.  There are a number of exceptions:
             1.   For some people, self-esteem seems to be more important
                  than love.  This common reversal in the hierarchy is
                  usually due to the development of the notion that the
                  person who is most likely to be loved is a strong or
                  powerful person, one who inspires respect or fear and
                  who is self-confident or aggressive.
             2.   There are other innately creative people in whom the
                  drive to creativeness seems to be more important than
                  any other counterdeterminant.  This creativeness
                  appears not as self-actualization released by basic
                  satisfaction, but in spite of a lack of it.
             3.   In certain people the level of aspiration may be
                  permanently deadened or lowered.  The less prepotent
                  goals may simply be lost, and may disappear forever so
                  that the person who has experienced life at a very low
                  level never experiences self-actualization.
             4.   The so-called psychopathic personality is another
                  example of permanent loss of the love needs.  These are
                  people who have been starved for love in the earliest
                  months of their lives and have simply lost forever the
                  desire and the ability to give and to receive
                  affection.
             5.   Another cause of reversal of the hierarchy is that when
                  a need has been satisfied for a long time, this need
                  may be underevaluated.  People who have never
                  experienced chronic hunger are apt to underestimate its
                  effects and to look upon food as a rather unimportant
                  thing.  Thus a man who has given up his job rather than
                  lose his self-respect, and who then starves six months
                  or so, may be willing to take his job back even at the
                  price of losing his self-respect.
             6.   Another partial explanation of apparent reversals is
                  seen in the fact that we have been talking about the
                  hierarchy of prepotency in terms of consciously felt
                  wants or desires rather than of behavior.  Looking at
                  behavior itself may give us the wrong impression. 
                  Looking at behavior itself may give us the wrong
                  impression.  What we have claimed is that the person
                  will want the more basic of two needs when deprived in
                  both.  There is no necessary implication here that he
                  will act upon his desires (Maslow, 1970, pp. 52-53).  
        
             Multiple Determinants of Behavior
        
             Not all behavior is determined by basic needs.  Maslow
        (1970) contended that not all behavior is motivated.  There are
        many determinants of behavior other than motives.  One other
        important class of determinants is the external field.  Behavior
        may be determined completely by the external field, or even by
        specific, isolated, external stimuli, as in association of ideas,
        or certain conditioned reflexes.  Secondly, some behavior is
        highly motivated and other behavior is only weakly motivated. 
        Some is not motivated at all.  Another important point is that
        there is a basic difference between expressive and coping
        behavior.  An expressive behavior does not try to do anything; it
        is simply a reflection of the personality.  A stupid man behaves
        stupidly, not because he wants to, but simply because he is what
        he is.  The random movements of a healthy child, the smile on the
        face of a happy man even when he is alone, the springiness of the
        healthy man's walk, and the erectness of his carriage are other
        examples of expressive, nonfunctional behavior.  The style in
        which a man carries out almost all his behavior, motivated as
        well as unmotivated, is often most expressive (Allport & Vernon,
        1933; Wolff, 1943).
        
             The chief principle of organization in human motivational
        life is the arrangement of basic needs in a hierarchy of less or
        greater priority or potency.  The chief dynamic principle
        animating this organization is the emergence in the healthy
        person of less potent needs upon gratification of the more potent
        ones.  The physiological needs, when unsatisfied, dominate the
        organism, pressing all capacities into their service and
        organizing these capacities so that they may be most efficient in
        this service.  Relative gratification submerges them and allows
        the next higher set of needs in the hierarchy to emerge,
        dominate, and organize the personality, so that instead of being
        hunger obsessed, it now becomes safety obsessed.  The principle
        is the same for the other set needs in the hierarchy, for
        instance, love, esteem, and self-actualization (Maslow, 1935).
        
             Learning and Basic Need Gratification
        
             In general gratification theory, any loss of appetite after
        satiation, the change in quantity of type and defensiveness after
        safety need gratification demonstrate:
             1.   disappearance with increased exercise, and 
             2.   disappearance with increased reward (Maslow, 1959, p.
                  145).
        
             The task of need gratification is almost entirely limited to
        intrinsically appropriate satisfiers.  There can be no casual and
        arbitrary choice, except for nonbasic needs.  For the love-
        hungry, there is only one genuine, long-run satisfier, honest and
        satisfying affection.  For the sex-starved, food-starved, or
        water-starved person, only sex, food, or water will ultimately
        serve.  This is the sort of intrinsic appropriateness stressed by
        Werthheimer (1959), Kohler (1938), and other Gestalt
        psychologists, such as Asch, Arnheim, Katona, as a central
        concept in all fields of psychology.  
        
             Even in Gestalt learning theory character traits are not
        considered to be wholly learned.  This theory is too limited in
        its rationalistic stress on the cognition of intrinsic motivation
        in the outside world.  A stronger tie to the conative and
        affective processes within a person than is afforded either by
        associative or Gestalt learning is needed (Lewin, 1935).
        
             What can be described as character or intrinsic learning
        takes place at its centering point changes in the character
        structure rather than in behavior.  Among its many components are
        the:
             1.   educative effects of unique (non-repetitive) and of
                  profound personal experiences;
             2.   affective changes produced by repetitive experiences;
             3.   conative changes produced by gratification-frustration
                  experiences; 
             4.   broad attitudinal, expectational, or even philosophical
                  changes produced by certain types of early experience;
                  and,
             5.   determination by constitution of the variation in
                  selective assimilation of any experience by the
                  organism (Levy, 1934, pp. 203-234).
        
             Such considerations point to a closer relationship between
        the concepts of learning and character formation.  It may be
        productive to define paradigmatic learning as change in personal
        development, in character, structure, as movement toward self-
        actualization, and beyond (Maslow, 1969a; Maslow, 1969b; Maslow,
        1969c). 
        
             The Concept of Gratification Health
        
             If person A lived for several weeks in a dangerous jungle
        where he has managed to stay alive by finding occasional food and
        water, he would be fulfilling survival needs.  Person B not only
        stays alive but also has a rifle and a hidden cave with a
        closable entrance.  Person C has all these and two more men with
        him as well. Person D has the food, the gun, the allies, the
        cave, and in addition, has with him his best-loved friend. 
        Finally, Person E has all these and in addition is the well-
        respected leader of his band.  We may call these men,
        respectively, the merely surviving, the safe, the belonging, the
        loved, and the respected.
             
             This is not only a series of increasing basic need
        gratifications, but is a series of increasing degrees of
        psychological health (Erikson, 1959; Freud, 1920).  A man who is
        safe, belongs, and is loved will be healthier than a man who is
        safe and belongs, but who feels rejected and unloved.  If he wins
        respect and admiration, and develops self-respect, then he is
        still more healthy, self-actualizing, and fully human.
        
             Basic need gratification is positively correlated with the
        degree of psychological health.  Gratification theory would
        suggest that such a correlation of basic needs and good health
        exists synergistically (Maslow, 1969).  It is a general clinical
        finding that the human being, when fed steady doses of safety,
        love, respect, he or she works better, perceives more
        efficiently, uses intelligence more fully, thinks to correct
        conclusions more often, digests food more efficiently, and is
        less subject to various diseases (p. 92).    
        
             The study of the self-actualizing man indicates the special
        status of basic human needs.  On the satisfaction of these needs
        is the healthy life based.  Self-actualizing individuals are
        readily seen to be impulse-accepting as the instinct hypothesis
        would demand rather than impulse-rejecting or repressing (p. 93).
        
             The basic needs arrange themselves in a definite hierarchy
        on the basis of the principle of relative potency.  The safety
        need is stronger than the love need because it dominates the
        organism in various ways when both needs are frustrated.  The
        physiological needs are stronger then the safety needs, which are
        stronger than the love needs, which are stronger than the esteem
        needs, which are stronger than those needs called, the need for
        self-actualization.  
             Maslow (1970) presented the following continuum to explain
        this hierarchical structure:
             1.   The higher need is a later phyletic or evolutionary
                  development.
             2.   Higher needs are later ontogenetic developments.
             3.   The higher the need the less imperative it is for sheer
                  survival, the longer gratification can be postponed,
                  and the easier it is for the need to disappear
                  permanently.
             4.   Living at the higher need level means greater
                  biological efficiency, greater longevity, less disease,
                  better sleep, appetite, etc.
             5.   Higher needs are less urgent subjectively.
             6.   Higher need gratification produce more desirable
                  subjective results, i.e., more profound happiness,
                  serenity, and richness of the inner life.  
             7.   Pursuit and gratification of higher needs represent a
                  general healthy trend away from psychopathology.
             8.   The higher needs have more preconditions.
             9.   Higher needs require better outside conditions to make
                  them possible. 
             10.  A greater value is usually placed upon the higher need
                  than upon the lower by those who have been gratified in
                  both.
             11.  The higher the need level, the wider is the circle of
                  love identification, the greater is the number of
                  people love-identified with, and the greater is the
                  average degree of love identification.
             12.  The pursuit and the gratification of the higher needs
                  have desirable civic and social consequences.
             13.  Satisfaction of higher needs is closer to self-
                  actualization than is lower-need satisfaction.
             14.  The pursuit and gratification of the higher needs leads
                  to greater, stronger, and truer individualism.
             15.  The higher the need level the easier and more effective
                  psychotherapy can be: at the lowest need levels it is
                  of hardly any avail.  
             16.  The lower needs are far more localized, more tangible,
                  and more limited than the higher needs (p. 100).
        
             The recognition that man's best impulses are appreciably
        intrinsic and have tremendous implication for motivational
        theory.  It means that it is no longer necessary or desirable to
        deduce values by logic or to try to read them off from
        authorities or revelations.  Human nature carries within itself
        the answer to the questions, how can I be good; how can I be
        fruitful?  The human organism tells us what it needs, and
        thereby, what it values, by sickening when deprived of these
        values and by growing when not deprived.  
        
             Healthy People and the Condition of Self-Actualization.
        
             Healthy people can accept their own human nature with all
        its shortcomings, discrepancies, and variations from the ideal. 
        They accept themselves without chagrin or complaint, or even
        without thinking about the matter very much.  They can take the
        foibles, sins, goods and evils of human nature in the same
        unquestioning spirit with which they accept the characteristics
        of nature.  Their eyes see what is before them without being
        strained through spectacles of various sorts to distort or shape
        or color the reality (Bergson, 1944).
        
             What healthy people do feel guilty about are the
        discrepancies between what is and what might very well be or
        ought to be.  They do not feel bad or guilty about:
             1.   Improbable shortcomings, e.g., laziness,
                  thoughtlessness, loss of temper, hurting others;
             2.   Stubborn remnants of psychological ill health, e.g.,
                  prejudice, jealousy, envy;
             3.   Habits, which, though relatively independent of
                  character structure, may yet be very strong, or 
             4.   Shortcomings of the species or of the culture or of the
                  group with which they identified themselves (Adler,
                  1939; Bergson, 1944; Horney, 1950).
        
             Self-actualizing people can all be described as relatively
        spontaneous in behavior and in their inner life, thoughts, and
        impulses.  Their behavior is marked by simplicity and
        naturalness, and by a lack of artificiality or straining for
        effect.  Their unconventionality is not superficial but essential
        and internal.  Recognizing that the world of people in which they
        live could not understand or accept this, and since they wish no
        hurt to come to others, they will go through the ceremonies and
        rituals of convention with a good-humored shrug and with the best
        possible grace.  It is not that they lack conventionality, but
        that it fits like a cloak that rests very lightly upon their
        shoulders and they can easily cast it aside thus not permitting
        it to hamper them.  This inner attitude can be seen in moments
        when they become fully absorbed in something that is close to one
        of their main interests.  They can easily drop off all sorts of
        rules of behavior to which at other times they conform.  It is as
        if they make a conscious effort to be conventional, as if they
        were conventional voluntarily and by design.  They are often the
        most ethical of people even though their ethics are not
        necessarily the same as those of the people around them.  Since
        they are alienated from ordinary conventions and from ordinarily
        accepted hypocrisies, lies, and inconsistencies of social life,
        they sometimes feel like spies or aliens in a foreign land, and
        sometimes behave so.  Sometimes they let themselves go
        deliberately, out of momentary irritation with customary rigidity
        or with conventional blindness.  When trying to teach someone
        something, they may sometimes find emotions bubbling up from
        within them that are so pleasant or even ecstatic that it seems
        almost sacrilegious to suppress them.  They are not anxious,
        guilty, or ashamed of the impression that they make on the
        onlooker.  They claim that they usually behave in a conventional
        manner because no great issues are involved or because they know
        people will be hurt or embarrassed by any other kind of behavior. 
        Their ease of penetration to reality, their closer approach to an
        animal-like or childlike acceptance and spontaneity imply a
        superior awareness of their own impulses, desires, opinions, and
        subjective reactions in general (Fromm, 1947; Rand, 1943; Reik,
        1943).
        
             Fromm (1941) found that there was a profound difference
        between self-actualizing people and others; namely, that the
        motivational life of self-actualizing people is not only
        quantitatively but also qualitatively different from that of
        ordinary people.  He constructed a different psychology of
        motivation for self-actualizing people, and called it
        metamotivation or growth motivation, rather than deficiency
        motivation.  He found that they do not strive in the ordinary
        sense, but rather develop beyond the normal.  They attempt to
        grow to perfection and to develop more and more fully in their
        own style.  The motivation of ordinary men is a striving for the
        basic need gratifications that they lack.  Self-actualizing
        people lack none of these gratifications, and yet they have
        impulses.  They work, they try, and they are ambitious, even
        though in an unusual sense.  For them, motivation is just
        character growth, character expression, maturation, and
        development, or self-actualization.  
        
             Self-actualized people are generally focused on problems
        outside themselves.  They are problem centered rather than ego
        centered.  They generally are not problems for themselves and are
        not much concerned about themselves as contrasted with ordinary
        introspectiveness that is finds in insecure people.  They
        customarily have some mission in life, some task to fulfill, some
        problem outside themselves which enlists much of their energies
        (Buhler & Mussarik, 1968; Frankl, 1969).  They seem never to get
        so close to the trees that they cannot see the forest.  They work
        within a framework of values that are broad and not petty,
        universal and not local, and view life in terms of a century
        rather than the moment.  This impression of being above small
        things, of having a larger horizon, a wider breadth of vision, of
        living in the widest frame of reference is of the utmost social
        interpersonal importance.  
        
             A unique characteristic of self-actualized people is that
        they can be solitary without harm to themselves and without
        discomfort.  It seems true that for almost all that they
        positively like solitude and privacy to a definitely greater
        degree than the average person.  They can remain above the
        battle, unruffled and undisturbed by that which produces turmoil
        in others.  They retain their dignity even in undignified
        surroundings and situations.  In general, they are more objective
        than average people.  They possess the ability to concentrate to
        a greater degree than ordinary people.  This intense
        concentration sometimes produces a by-product called absent-
        mindedness, and the ability to forget and to be oblivious of
        their surroundings.  Physiologically, they sleep soundly, have an
        undisturbed appetite, are able to smile and laugh through a
        period of problems, worry, and responsibility.  In their silent
        moments, they pray and are spiritually alive.  Self-actualizing
        people do not need others in the ordinary sense of the word. 
        Thus, it is easily interpreted by "normal" people as coldness,
        snobbishness, lack of affection, unfriendliness, or even
        hostility.  They are autonomous, self-disciplined, deciding
        agents rather than pawns in the game of life.  Self-actualizing
        people have more "free will" and are less "determined" than
        average people are.  They are the leaders of the Democratic self-
        choice society because they are self-movers, self-deciders, self-
        choosers who make up their own minds without needing the support
        or the permission of others (Asch, 1956; McClelland, 1961;
        McClelland, 1964; McClelland & Winter, 1969).    
        
             Since they are propelled by growth motivation rather than by
        deficiency motivation, self-actualizing people are not dependent
        for their main satisfactions on the real world, other people, the
        culture, or on extrinsic satisfactions.  They are dependent for
        their own development and continued growth on their own
        potentialities and latent resources.  Being independent of the
        environment means a relative stability in the face of hard
        knocks, blows, deprivations, frustrations, and set-backs.  They
        maintain their relative serenity in the midst of circumstances
        that would drive other people to suicide.  Deficiency-motivated
        people must have other people available, since most of their main
        need gratifications (love, safety, respect, prestige,
        belongingness) come only from other human beings.  Growth-
        motivated people actually become hampered by other people.  Their
        determinants for satisfaction and the good life are inner-
        individual and not social.  They are strong enough to be
        independent of the opinions of other people, or even their
        affection.  They value less the honors, rewards, status,
        popularity, prestige, and the love they can bestow, than self-
        development and inner growth (Huxley, 1955; Northrop, 1947; Rand,
        1943; Rogers, 1961).
        
             Self-actualizing people possess the wonderful capacity to
        appreciate the basics of life, with awe, pleasure, wonder, and
        even ecstasy, however stale these experiences may become to
        others.  Wilson (1969) called this, worship of the "newness of
        simple things."  For such people, any sunset may be beautiful as
        the first one, any flower as breath-taking as another even after
        they have seen a million flowers.  They remain convinced of their
        luck in marriage thirty years after their marriage ceremony.  For
        such people, even the casual workday and moment-to-moment
        business can be thrilling.  These intense feelings do not come
        all the time, but at the most unexpected moments.  They may cross
        a river on the ferry ten times and on the eleventh crossing
        experience the feelings, reactions to beauty, and excitement as
        when they rode the ferry for the very first time (Eastman, 1928). 
        It may be that this acute richness of subjective experience is an
        aspect of closeness of relationship to the concrete and fresh. 
        Staleness of experience is a consequence of ticketing off a rich
        perception into one or another category as it proves to be no
        longer advantageous, or useful, or threatening, or otherwise,
        ego-involved (Bergson, 1944).  Herzberg's (1966) studies of
        "hygiene" factors in industry, Wilson's observations on the St.
        Neot's margin (1967; 1969) and Maslow's (1965) study of "low
        grumbles, high grumbles, and metagrumbles" all show that life
        could be vastly improved if people could count their own
        blessings as self-actualizing people can and do, and if they can
        retain their constant sense of good fortune and gratitude for it.
        
             The subjective expressions that James (1943) called "mystic
        experiences" are common for self-actualized people.  These are
        the same feelings of limitless horizons opening up to the vision,
        of being simultaneously more powerful, of the great ecstacy and
        wonder and awe, of the loss of time and space, and finally, the
        conviction that something extremely important and valuable has
        happened so that people are transformed and strengthened even in
        their daily life by such experiences.  Many current psychologists
        call these "peak experiences."  The acute mystic or peak
        experience is a tremendous intensification of any of those in
        which there is loss of self or transcendence of it like problem
        centering, intense concentration, mega-behavior and other intense
        sensuous experiences (Benedict, 1970).  Nonspeaking self-
        actualizers tend to be practical, effective people, mesomorphs
        living in the world and doing very well in it.  Peakers seem to
        live in the realm of Being; of poetry, esthetics; symbols;
        transcendence; "religion" of the mystical, personal,
        noninstitutional sort; and of end-experiences (Laski, 1962;
        Maslow, 1964; Maslow, 1968; Maslow, 1962, Maslow, 1969).     
        
             Gemeinschaftsgefuhl, a word invented by Adler (1939)
        described the flavor of feelings for mankind expressed by self-
        actualizing people.  They hold for human beings a deep feeling of
        identification, sympathy, and affection in spite of occasional
        anger, impatience, or disgust for certain human foibles.  They
        possess a genuine desire to help the human race.  They conduct
        their lives as if they were all members of a single family. 
        Self-actualizing people are different from others in thought,
        impulse, behavior, and emotion.  In basic ways, they are like
        aliens in a strange land.  Few people understand them, however
        much they are like by others.  They are often saddened,
        exasperated, and even enraged by the shortcomings of the average
        person.  The knowledge that they can do many things better than
        the average person, that they can see things others cannot, that
        the truth is so clear to them and for most it is veiled and
        hidden, is what Adler called the "older-brotherly attitude."
        
             Self-actualizing people maintain deeper and more profound
        interpersonal relations than other adults.  They are capable of
        more fusion, greater love, more perfect identification, more
        obliteration of the ego boundaries than other people would
        consider possible.  A downside to this is that self-actualizing
        people have deep ties with few individuals.  Their circle of
        friends is small.  The ones that they love profoundly are few in
        number.  They have an especially tender love for children and are
        easily touched by them.  In a real sense, they have compassion
        for all mankind.  This love is not indiscriminate.  They can and
        do speak realistically and harshly of those who deserve it, and
        especially of those who are hypocritical, pretentious, pompous,
        or self-inflated.  The briefest possible description is to say
        that their hostile reactions to others are deserved, and for the
        good of the person attacked or for someone else's good.  Fromm
        (1964) maintained that hostility is not character based, but is
        reactive or situational.  Self-actualized people are not
        susceptible to this human foible.
        
             In the deepest sense, self-actualizing people are democratic
        people.  They are friendly with anyone of suitable character
        regardless of class, education, political belief, race, or color. 
        They are often not even aware of these differences which are for
        the average person so obvious and important.  They find it
        possible to learn from anybody who has something to teach them,
        no matter what other characteristics the others may have.  In
        this learning relationship, they do not try to maintain any
        outward dignity or to maintain status or age prestige.  They are
        quite aware of how little they know in comparison with what could
        be known and what is known by others.  It is possible for them to
        be honestly respectful and even humble before people who can
        teach them something that they do not know or who have a skill
        they do not possess.  Most profound, is their desire to give a
        certain amount of respect to any human being just because he is a
        human individual.  They are more than less likely to
        counterattack against evil people and their behaviors.  Lastly,
        they are far less ambivalent, confused, or weak-willed about
        their own anger than average people are (Fromm, 1964).
        
             In daily living, they demonstrate less chaos and confusion
        in knowing the difference between right and wrong.  They are
        strongly ethical, and have definite moral standards.  Their
        notions about right and wrong, good and evil, are often not
        conventional ones.  Levy (1951) pointed out that a few centuries
        ago, these people would have been described as "men who walk in
        the path of God or as godly men."  A few say that they believe in
        God, but describe this God more as a metaphysical concept than as
        a personal figure.  Self-actualizing people behave as though
        means and ends are clearly distinguishable.  Generally, they are
        fixed on ends.  They make the situation more complex because they
        regard ends themselves as the many experiences and activities
        that they are.  It is possible for them to make out of the most
        trivial and routine activity an intrinsically enjoyable game or
        dance or play.  Wertheimer (1961) pointed out that most children
        are so creative that they can transform hackneyed routine,
        mechanical, and rote experiences as in experiments, transporting
        books from one set of shelves to another, into a structured and
        amusing game of a sort by doing this according to a certain
        system or with a certain rhythm.  
        
             Self-actualized people possess a sense of humor that is not
        ordinary.  They do not consider funny what the average person
        finds humorous.  They do not laugh at others possibly hurting
        them, nor do they laugh at a smutty joke.  They consider humor to
        be closely allied to philosophy, and generally poke fun at human
        beings at large when they are foolish, or forget their place in
        the universe as being abysmally insignificant.  Lincoln's humor
        serves as an example for them in that his jokes never hurt
        anyone.  They may be said to be less humorous than the average in
        the population.  The average person might consider them to be
        rather on the sober or even serious side.  Their humor can be
        pervasive, and includes the human situation, human pride,
        seriousness, busy-ness, bustle, ambition, striving and planning. 
        This attitude rubs off on professional work itself, which in a
        certain sense is also play, and which, though taken seriously, is
        also taken lightly (Maslow, 1969).  
        
             More than any other characteristic, self-actualized people
        are creative.  There is no exception.  Each one shows in one way
        or another a special kind of creativeness or originality or
        inventiveness.  It is not the genius or special-talent
        creativeness of the Mozart type.  Geniuses display a creativity
        that is not easily understood.  The creativeness of self-
        actualized people seems most like the naive and universal
        creativeness of unspoiled children.  Santayana (1946) called this
        the "second naivete."  This creativeness does not appear in the
        usual forms of writing books, composing music, or producing
        artistic objects, but is rather much more humble.  It is a
        special type of creativity, being an expression of a healthy
        personality and is projected out into the world in whatever
        activity the person engages in.  They become creative shoemakers,
        carpenters, and clerks.  This creativity is manifested in a
        greater freshness, penetration, and efficiency of perception than
        the average person.  These people are less inhibited,
        constricted, bound, enculturated than their peers.  Likewise,
        they are more spontaneous, natural, and human.  If there were no
        choking forces in our society, we might expect that all human
        beings would demonstrate this special type of creativeness
        (Anderson, 1959; Maslow, 1958).
        
             Self-actualizing people are not well adjusted in the naive
        sense of approval of and identification with the culture.  They
        get along with the culture in various ways, and all of them may
        be said to resist enculturation and maintain a certain inner
        detachment from the culture in which they are immersed (Maslow,
        1968).  
        
             Reisman (1950) pointed out their resistance to enculturation
        is a complex issue to unravel.  He proposed the following notions
        as possible explanations for this phenomena:
             1.   All these people fall within the limits of apparent
                  conventionality in choice of clothes, of language, of
                  food, of ways of doing things in our culture.  And yet
                  they are not really conventional, certainly not in the
                  fashionable, chic, or smart ways.
             2.   None of these people can be called authority rebels in
                  the adolescent or irresponsible sense.  They show no
                  active impatience or moment-to-moment, chronic, long-
                  term discontent with the culture or preoccupation with
                  changing it quickly.  They often show bursts of
                  indignation with injustice.  When quick change is
                  possible or when resolution and courage are needed, it
                  is present in these people.  
             3.   An inner feeling of detachment from the culture is not
                  necessarily conscious but is displayed by almost all,
                  particularly in discussions of the American culture as
                  a whole.  They are certainly very different from the
                  ordinary sort person who passively yields to cultural
                  shaping displayed for instance by the ethnocentric
                  subjects of the many studies of authoritarian
                  personalities.  Detachment from the culture is probably
                  reflected in self-actualizing subjects' isolation from
                  people and their liking for privacy, which has been
                  described as less important than the average person's
                  need for the familiar and customary.  
             4.   They are autonomous, ruled by laws of their own
                  character rather than by the rules of society.  It is
                  in this sense that they are not merely Americans, but
                  to a greater degree than others, members at large of
                  the human race (p. 33-34).
        
             Reisman asked this question: Is it possible to be a good or
        healthy man in an imperfect culture?  He concluded, that yes, it
        was possible.  These people manage to get along by a complex
        combination of inner autonomy and outer acceptance that is
        possible only so long as the culture remains tolerant of this
        kind of detached withholding from complete cultural
        identification.  This is not ideal health.  The imperfect society
        forces inhibitions and restraints on these people.  Since few
        people can attain health in our culture, those who do attain it
        are lonely for their own kind (Dembo, 1961).   
        
             Self-actualized people possess a wish for perfection and
        sometimes, their guilt or shame about shortcomings are projected
        upon various kinds of people from whom the average man demands
        much more than they themselves give.  They are equipped with
        silly, wasteful, and thoughtless habits.  They can be boring and
        irritating.  They are not free from all superficial vanities,
        pride, partiality to their own productions, family, friends, and
        children.  Temper outbursts are possible.  They are also capable
        of an extraordinary and unexpected ruthlessness.  Since they are
        very strong people, this makes it possible for them to display
        surgical coldness when this is called for beyond the power of the
        average man.  In their concentration, in their fascinated
        interest, in their intense concentration on some phenomenon or
        question, they may become absent-minded or humorless and forget
        their ordinary social politeness.  Even their kindness can lead
        them into mistakes.  Finally, they are not free of guilt,
        anxiety, sadness, self-castigation, internal strife, and
        conflict.  What Maslow (1970) concluded from this analysis was
        that "there are no perfect human beings.  To avoid
        disillusionment with human nature, we must first give up our
        illusions about it" (p. 144).
        
             A firm foundation for a value system is automatically
        furnished to self-actualized people by their acceptance of the
        nature of the self, of human nature, of social life and the
        nature of physical reality.  This foundation is supplied to all
        self-actualized people by their intrinsic dynamics.  Among these
        are: 
             1.   Their peculiar comfortable relationships with reality;
             2.   Their Gemeinschaftsgefuhl;
             3.   Their basically satisfied condition from which flow, as
                  epiphenomena, various consequences of surplus, of
                  wealth, overflowing abundance;
             4.   Their characteristically discriminating relations to
                  means and ends (Maslow, 1957).
        
             The uppermost portion of the value system of the self-
        actualized person is entirely unique and character-structure
        expressive.  Self-actualization is actualization of a self, and
        no two selves are altogether alike.  There is only one Renoir,
        one Brahms, one Spinoza, one John Doe.  Though self-actualized
        individuals have much in common, each is unmistakenly unique. 
        They are more completely individual than any group yet described. 
        They are closer to both humanhood and to their unique
        individuality.  
        
             In conclusion, what has been considered in the past to be
        polarities or opposites or dichotomies were so only in less
        healthy people.  In healthy people, these dichotomies were
        resolved, the polarities disappeared, and many opposites thought
        to be intrinsic merged with each other to form unities (Chenault,
        1969). 
        
             The dichotomy between selfishness and unselfishness
        disappears altogether in healthy people because every act is both
        selfish and unselfish (Maslow, 1964).  They are simultaneously
        very spiritual and very pagan and sensual even to the point where
        sexuality becomes a path to the spiritual and "religious."  Duty
        cannot be contrasted with pleasure nor work with play when duty
        is pleasure, when work is play, and the person doing his duty and
        being virtuous is seeking his pleasure and being happy.  
        
             Healthy people are so different from average ones, not only
        in degree but in kind as well, that they generate two very
        different kinds of psychology.  Maslow (1970) contended that "it
        becomes more and more clear that the study of crippled, stunted,
        immature, and unhealthy specimens can yield only a cripple
        psychology and a cripple philosophy, and the study of self-
        actualizing people must be the basis for a more universal science
        of psychology" (p. 180).
        
             Reik (1957) defined love as the absence of anxiety.  This is
        seen with exceptional clearness in healthy individuals.  They
        tend to be more spontaneous, less defensive, less role conscious
        and strive for intimate relationships.  There is less of a
        tendency to put the best foot forward in a healthy love
        relationship.  In self-actualizing people the quality of the love
        and sex satisfactions may both improve with the length of the
        relationship.  Generally, self-actualizing love is in part the
        absence of defenses, and an increase in spontaneity and in
        honesty.  The more a healthy person gets to know the person of
        the opposite sex, the better he or she will like what is seen.  
        
             One of the deepest satisfactions coming from the healthy
        love relationship is that it permits the greatest spontaneity,
        the greatest naturalness, the greatest dropping of defenses and
        protection against threat.  Rogers (1951) described this
        relationship in this way: "Love has here its deepest and most
        general meaning, and that is of being deeply understood and
        deeply accepted....We can love a person only to the extent that
        we are not threatened by him; we can love only if his reactions
        to us, or to those things which affect us, are understandable to
        us....Thus, if a person is hostile toward me, and I can see
        nothing in him at the moment except the hostility, I am quite
        sure that I will react in a defensive way to the hostility" (p.
        159).
        
             Meninger (1942) described the reverse side of the coin. 
        "Love is impaired less by the feeling that we are not appreciated
        than by a dread, more or less dimly felt by everyone, lest others
        see through our masks, the masks of repression that have been
        forced upon us by convention and culture.  It is this that leads
        us to shun intimacy, to maintain friendships on a superficial
        level, to underestimate and fail to appreciate others lest they
        come to appreciate us too well" (p. 22).  
        
             Self-actualized people were loved and were loving, and are
        loved and are loving.  Psychological health comes from being
        loved rather than from being deprived of love.  They now love and
        are loved.  They have the power to love and the ability to be
        loved.  Though Meninger (1942) made the very acute statement that
        human beings want to love each other but just don't know how to
        go about it, this is not true for healthy people.  They know how
        to love, and can do so freely and easily and naturally and
        without getting wound up in conflicts or threats or inhibitions.
        
             Sex and love are more perfectly fused with each other in
        healthy people.  Although it may be true that these are separate
        concepts, and although no purpose would be served in confusing
        them with each other unnecessarily, still it must be reported
        that in the life of healthy people, they tend to become joined
        and merged with each other (Reik, 1957; Suttie, 1935). 
        
             In self-actualizing people the orgasm is simultaneously more
        important and less important than in average people.  It is often
        a profound and almost mystical experience, and yet the absence of
        sexuality is more easily tolerated by these people.  This is not
        a paradox or contradiction.  It follows from dynamic motivation
        theory.  Loving at a higher need level makes the lower needs and
        their frustrations and satisfactions less important, less
        central, more easily neglected.  Schwartz (1951) wrote, "Although
        totally different in nature, sexual impulse, and love are
        dependent on and complementary to each other.  In a perfect,
        fully mature human being only this inseparable fusion of sexual
        impulse and love exists.  This is the fundamental principle of
        any psychology of sex.  If there be anyone capable of
        experiencing the purely physical gratification of sex, he or she
        is sexually subnormal (immature or otherwise)" (p. 21).  
        
             Sexual pleasure in self-actualized people may be very
        intense or not intense at all.  This conflicts with the romantic
        attitude that love is divine rapture, a transport from the
        diurnal, a mystical experience.  These people do not live on the
        heights, but usually at a more average level of intensity.  Self-
        actualizing love demonstrates many of the characteristics of
        self-actualization in general.  The acceptance of sexuality is
        the main basis for the intense enjoyment that these people find
        in it (Maslow, 1970).  
        
             This notion supports D'Arcy's (1947) thesis that erotic and
        agapean love are basically different but merge in the best
        people, those that are self-actualized.  In healthy people the
        dichotomies are resolved, and the individual becomes both active
        and passive, both selfish and unselfish, both masculine and
        feminine, both self-interested and self-effacing.  D'Arcy
        acknowledged that this occurs though with extreme rarity.   
        
             How does self-actualized love manifest itself in the loving
        couple?  The ordinary way in which this need shows itself to the
        eyes of the world is in terms of taking on responsibility, of
        care, of concern for another person.  The loving husband can get
        as much pleasure from his wife's pleasure as he can from his own. 
        The loving mother would rather cough herself than hear her child
        cough.  An illness in the good, self-actualized loving couple, is
        an illness of the couple rather than a misfortune of one of the
        pair.  If the relationship is a very good one, the sick or weak
        one can throw himself upon the care of the protectiveness of the
        loving partner with the same abandonment and lack of threat and
        lack of self-consciousness that a child shows in falling asleep
        in his parent's arms.  In less healthy couples, the illness
        strains the relationship (Maslow, 1970).  
        
             Overstreet (1949) stated, "The love of a person implies, not
        the possession of that person, but the affirmation of that
        person.  It means granting him, gladly, the full right of his
        unique manhood" (p. 103).  The self-actualized man or woman does
        not pretend to own the other person.  The converse is quite true. 
        To own would deny the individual his or her right to be, to
        become self-actualized.  There is no need to own someone else. 
        This would imply a prepotent need that was not fulfilled.  Self-
        actualized love is the highest form of love because it is the
        free-flowing giving of one person to another without
        reservations, without pretense, without objections.  In this type
        of relationship, one individual affirms the others individuality,
        the eagerness for a growth experience for the other, the
        essential respect for his or her individuality and unique
        personality.  The self-actualizing person will not casually use
        another or control him or disregard his wishes (p. 104).  
        
             Admiration and love in self-actualizing people are most of
        the time undemanding of rewards and conducive to no purposes, and
        are experienced in Northrop's (1946) Eastern sense, concretely
        and richly, for their own sake (Allport, 1961). 
        
             It seems healthy people fall in love the way one reacts to
        one's first appreciative perception of great music: one is awed
        and overwhelmed by it and loves it.  Horney (1950) defined
        unerotic love in terms of regarding others as ends in themselves
        rather than means to ends.  The consequent reaction is to enjoy,
        to admire, to be delighted, to contemplate and appreciate, rather
        than to use.  St. Bernard said it very aptly: "Love seeks no
        cause beyond itself and no limit; it is its own fruit, its own
        enjoyment.  I love because I love; I love in order that I may
        love..." (Allport, 1947).  
        
             Horney (1950) maintained that self-actualizers have no
        serious deficiencies to make up and must be looked upon as freed
        for growth, maturation, development, for the fulfillment and
        actualization of their highest individual and species nature.  A
        paradox seems to be created by the fact that self-actualized
        people maintain a degree of individuality, of detachment, and
        autonomy that seems at first glance to be incompatible with the
        kind of identification and love described above.  The fact is
        that self-actualizing people are simultaneously the most
        individualistic and the most altruistic and social and loving of
        all human beings.  They can be extremely close to one another and
        yet go apart when necessary without collapsing.  They do not
        cling to one another.  Throughout the most intense and ecstatic
        love affairs, these people remain themselves, and remain
        ultimately, the masters of their own souls.  They live by their
        own standards even though enjoying each other intensely (p. 154). 
         
        
             Cognition and Self-Actualization.  
        
             Habits are at once necessary and dangerous, useful and
        harmful.  They save us time, effort, and thought, but at a big
        expense.  They are the prime weapon of adaptation and yet they
        hinder adaptation.  They are problem solutions and yet in the
        long run they are the antonyms of fresh, creative thinking, of
        solutions to new problems.  They tend to replace in a lazy way,
        true, fresh, attending, perceiving, learning, and thinking
        (Argyris, 1962).  The four factors mentioned--natural laziness or
        simian reluctance, fondness for assimilating the new to the old,
        tradition and success--have contributed to keep our thought
        undeveloped.  The periods of intense intellectual ferment and
        tradition-shattering thinking have been extraordinarily rare
        within the historical period.  The thinking of Plato and
        Aristotle sufficed from the Greek times to the Renaissance, and
        the thinking of Galileo and Descartes at the Renaissance
        furnished natural science with a stock of fundamental notions
        that have needed little revision until recent times.  Thus,
        during the most of the intervening times, thinking has chiefly
        been a process of working out bad habits (p. 32).  
        
             Self-actualized people do not use habits because they are
        lazy.  Their use is to simplify life so that more important
        activities can be undertaken.  When a person cannot find his
        socks and shoes because they are hidden someplace in the room, it
        behooves him to establish some habits which will make life more
        efficient.  This habit-making activity can be as simple as this,
        or more elaborate, depending upon the action the person needs to
        perform.  Self-actualized people avoid habitualizing their
        thinking in order to avoid placing themselves into a closet which
        doesn't have any light in it and eventually no way out.  They
        prefer to leave their lives, their activities, their cognitive
        processes open-ended (deBono, 1985).  
        
             Thinking is the technique through which human beings create
        something new.  This implies that thinking must be revolutionary
        in the sense of occasionally conflicting with what has already
        been concluded.  If it conflicts with the intellectual "status
        quo" it is then the opposite of habit, or memory, or what the
        person has already learned.  By definition, it contradicts what
        habits produce for us; namely, orderliness, efficiency, and
        maintenance of the status quo.  True, free thinking breaks our
        habits, our patterns of living, our cultural taboos.  Creative
        thinking is exemplified by boldness, daring, and courage.  No
        creative thinking activity of mankind ever involved the warming
        up of yesterday's leftovers (deBono, 1987).  
        
             There is then a certain contrast between classifying
        experiences and appreciating them, between using them and
        enjoying them, between cognizing them in one way and creatively
        using them in another.  All writers on the mystic and religious
        experiences emphasized this as few technical psychologists have. 
        Huxley (1944) said: "As the individual grows up, his knowledge
        becomes more conceptual and systematic in form, and its factual,
        utilitarian content is enormously increased.  But these gains are
        offset by a certain deterioration in the quality of immediate
        apprehension, a blunting and a loss of intuitive power" (p. vii).
        
             Unless the individual can break away from fossilizing his
        thinking, he will be subject to: 1) having only stereotypical
        problems or in failing to perceive new ones; (2) using only
        stereotyped and rote habits and techniques for solving these
        problems; (3) having in advance of all life's problems, sets of
        ready made, cut and dried solutions and answers.  These three
        tendencies add up to an almost complete guarantee against
        creativeness and inventiveness (Argyris, 1965).  "The essence of
        life," he wrote, "is to be found in the frustrations of
        established order.  The Universe refuses the deadening influence
        of complete conformity.  And yet in its refusal, it passes toward
        novel order as a primary requisite for important experience.  We
        have to explain the aim at forms of order, and the aim at novelty
        of order, and the measure of success, and the measure of failure"
        (p. 119).  
        
             This is not to say that holistic thinking is not used in
        creative thinking.  It is, and the point is that it is used only
        in a different way.  This results in intrinsic learning and the
        person becomes the person he or she is to become potentially
        (Maslow, 1946).  The bold thinker must be able to break the
        "Einstellung," to be able to be free of the past, of habit,
        expectation, learning, custom, and convention, and to be free of
        anxiety whenever venturing out of the safe and familiar harbor
        (Rand, 1943).
        
             Self-actualized people avoid such rubrics, such
        stereotypical thinking.  Their desire is to be free of
        convention, of the common, ordinary, mundane, rhetorically
        backward.  They choose to live on the edge, making up the rules
        of life as they go along.  As Picasso said, "Every act of
        creation is first, an act of destruction."  It is not that they
        want to "burn the mother down," but they want to experience some
        new and wondrous ways of living their lives.  They maximize their
        potential by asking, "What is it that I want to achieve?  How can
        I achieve it?" Then they go about the business of achieving what
        they want to without worrying about the conventions of society. 
        This is not a simple undertaking.  All civilizations, societies,
        communities, families, and friends, conspire to stop this
        process.  What appears to be new, exciting, and different,
        frightens even the most foresighted individuals in society.  The
        die is cast.  The battle lines are often drawn.  If the person
        wants to pursue his or her self-actualization, then there will
        need to be a break with tradition, habit, habitualizing thinking. 
        People who walk beyond the sidewalk of society without regard for
        conventional wisdom and thinking and can accept the "slings and
        arrows" of outrageous public opinion, will succeed in their own
        unique and inimitable way.  Their motivation is to fulfill the
        highest of human needs.  They refuse to accept less because to do
        so is to limit them.  Contrary to common sense, they function
        beyond the realm of what is common, maintaining that common sense
        is not very common for if it were so prevalent, it would be
        possessed by more people.  They eventually succeed in their own
        way, much like James Joyce (1950) did when he completed
        Finnegan's Wake, a novel few understood but all admired.  They
        speak poetically of the future, and live their daily lives
        walking to the beat of pentameters and not hollow footsteps. 
        Theirs is a noble, yet divergent existence beyond reasonability.
        
             Occidental Purposefulness and Oriental Beingness.
        
             Western culture rests on the Judao-Christian theology.  The
        United States particularly is dominated by the Puritan Work Ethic
        which stresses work, struggle, striving, soberness, earnestness,
        and above all, purposefulness (Allport, 1933).  American
        psychology is overpragmatic, over-Puritan, and overpurposeful. 
        From the point of view of values, there is a preoccupation with
        means to the exclusion of concern with ends.  The culmination of
        this perspective may be found in explicit form in Dewey's Theory
        of Valuation (1939) in which the possibility of ends is in effect
        denied; they are themselves only means to other means, to other
        means..., etc.  In his later writings, Dewey did accept the
        existence of ends.  
        
             Causality theory is a suitable tool for the life of
        achievement and technological accomplishment, but is completely
        useless for the life that stresses intensive perfection,
        aesthetic experience, contemplation of ultimate values,
        enjoyment, meditativeness, connoisseurship, and self-
        actualization.  
        
             Motivation is not synonymous with determination.  Although
        it was Freud (1920) who originally confounded the two concepts,
        his mistake has been so widely followed by psychoanalysts that
        they now automatically look for motives only no matter what
        change occurs.  
        
             The study of self-actualizing people makes it clear there is
        a necessity for distinguishing between their motivational life
        and that of more average people.  They clearly live a self-
        fulfilling, value-enjoying, self-perfecting life, rather than
        seeking for the basic need gratification that the average citizen
        lacks.  Self-actualization is the coming to full development and
        actuality of the potentialities of the organism, and is more akin
        to growth and maturation than it is to habit formation or
        association via reward.  Behavior is means rather than end. 
        Behavior gets things done in the world.  Ends are frequently
        subjective experiences of satisfaction.  Without reference to the
        fact that most instrumental behaviors have human worth only
        because they bring about these subjective end-experiences, the
        behavior itself often becomes scientifically senseless (Young,
        1941).  Behaviorism may be understood better if it is seen as one
        cultural expression of the general Puritan striving and achieving
        point of view already mentioned.  This implies that to its
        various other failings must now be added ethnocentrism.
        
             The creation of art may be relatively motivated when its
        seeks to communicate, to arouse emotion, to show, to do something
        to another person, or it may be relatively unmotivated when it is
        expressive rather than communicative, intrapersonal rather than
        interpersonal.  What is important for the sophisticated person is
        the question of the aesthetic experience.  It is so rich and
        valuable an experience for so many people that they will simply
        scorn or sneer at any psychological that denies or neglects it. 
        Even the aesthetic perception may be seen as relatively
        unmotivated by comparison with ordinary cognitions.  
        
             A useful jumping-off point for thinking about just being, is
        the analysis of the concept of waiting.  For instance, the cat in
        the sun does not wait any more than a tree waits.  Waiting
        implies wasted, unappreciated time that is empty of significance
        for the organism.  It is a by-product of a too exclusively means-
        oriented attitude toward life.  It is seen as a stupid,
        inefficient, wasteful response.  Travel is an excellent example
        of the way in which a piece of time can be either enjoyed as an
        end experience or completely wasted.  Education is another
        instance, as are interpersonal relations in general.  
        
             There is an old Taoist belief that says, "Sit still long
        enough in one place and the whole world will pass you by." 
        Imagine the Average American standing still long enough to even
        let his family pass him by.  No, we are not prone to standing,
        sitting, or even walking slowly from one point to another.  Our
        crowded freeways are an example of this (Ironically, the question
        is, why do we call them freeways?).  For the use-oriented,
        purposeful, need-reducing kind of person time is wasted that
        achieves nothing and serves no purpose.  In Tao belief, "Time you
        enjoy wasting is not wasted time."  And, "Some things that are
        not necessary may yet be essential."  An excellent illustration
        of the way American culture is unable to take its end experiences
        straight may be seen in strolling, canoeing, golfing, and other
        pastimes.  These activities are extolled because they get people
        into the open, close to nature, out into the sunshine, or into
        beautiful surroundings.  In essence, these are ways in which what
        should be unmotivated end activities and end experiences are
        thrown into a purposeful, achieving, pragmatic framework in order
        to appease the Occidental conscience.  Imagine any ardent golfer
        not keeping score or talking about his round after it is over. 
        He will replay the entire experience, analyze every shot, and
        delimit the game into a scientific exercise.  This is the
        American way.  It is also anti-self-actualizing.
        
             The mystic experience, the experience of awe, of delight, of
        wonder, of mystery, and of admiration are all subjectively rich
        experiences of the same passive, aesthetic ones that beat their
        way in upon the organism, flooding it as music does.  These are
        end experiences, ultimate rather than instrumental, changing the
        outside world not at all.  All this is true for leisure as well
        if properly defined (Pieper, 1964).
        
             As for the basic life pleasure, any ailing or dyspeptic or
        nauseated person can testify to the reality of that most ultimate
        biological pleasure that is an automatic, unsought for,
        unmotivated by-product of being, fully alive and healthy.        
        
             In self-actualized people, the truth is simply perceived
        without effort, rather than struggled for or sought after.  The
        fact that in most experiments, motivation of some sort is
        necessary before problems can be solved.  This might be a
        function of the triviality or arbitrariness of the problems
        rather than proof that all thinking must be motivated.  In the
        good life lived by healthy people, thinking, like perceiving, is
        spontaneous and passive reception or production.  It is
        unmotivated, effortless.  It is a happy expression of the nature
        and existence of the organism.  They let things happen rather
        than make them happen, like the flower makes perfume or the tree
        makes an apple.
        
             Normally Healthy People and Their Values.
        
             Drucker (1939) presented the thesis that western Europe,
        since the beginning of Christianity, was dominated by four
        successive ideas regarding how individual happiness and welfare
        were achieved.  Each of these held up a certain type of man as
        ideal, and assumed that if only this ideal were followed,
        individual happiness and welfare would result.  
             1.   Middle Ages:        Spiritual man.
             2.   Renaissance:        Intellectual man.
             3.   Capitalism:              Economic man.
             4.   Fascism:            Heroic man.
        
             Drucker maintained that all these concepts have failed and
        are now giving way to the fifth concept, psychologically,
        healthy, or "natural" man.  What will this new man, woman, child
        be like?  The following describe this individual:
             1.   Humans possess an essentially, individual nature; some
                  skeleton of psychological structure that may be treated
                  analogously with physical nature; some needs,
                  capacities, and tendencies that are in part genetically
                  based; some basic needs are on their face good or
                  neutral rather than evil.
             2.   Full health and normal, desirable development consist
                  in actualizing this nature, in fulfilling these
                  potentialities, and in developing into maturity along
                  the lines that this hidden, covert, dimly seen
                  essential nature dictates, growing from within rather
                  than being shaped from without.
             3.   Most psychopathology results from the denial or the
                  frustration or the twisting of man's essential nature
                  (p. 124).
        
             Drucker's contention was similar to Aristotle's that the
        "good life consists in living in accordance with the true nature
        of man."  Maslow (1970) contended that Aristotle did not know
        enough about the true nature of man to propose this.  All that
        Aristotle could do in describing this essential nature was to
        look around him and observe people, and build a picture of the
        good man in his own culture and in that particular period of
        time.  His work lacked external validity.  The essential
        difference between the Aristotelian Theory and the modern
        conceptions of Goldstein, Fromm, Horney, Rogers, Buhler, May,
        Grof, Dabrowski, Murray, Sutich, Bugental, Allport, Frankl,
        Murphy, Maslow, Robbins, and others is that we can seen not only
        the surface, not only the actualities, but the potentialities as
        well.  Modern psychologists can better understand what lies
        hidden in man, what lies suppressed, neglected, and unseen.  They
        can further judge the possibilities, the potentialities, and the
        highest possible achievements available to humans.  Maslow (1970)
        concluded that, "history has practically always sold human nature
        short" (p. 271).
        
             Current thinking regarding normal human development accepts
        that self-realization cannot be attained by intellect or
        rationality alone.  Aristotle maintained that reason the highest
        quality in humans.  Now, rationality, along with emotionality,
        and the conative, wishing, and driving side of human nature are
        all present in the healthy, normal, human being.  Fromm (1947)
        said, "Reason has become a guard set to watch its prisoner, human
        nature, and thus both sides of human nature, reason, and emotion,
        were crippled as captives."  The realization of self occurs with
        acts of thinking as well as the active expression of emotional
        and instinctual capacities as well.  
        
             Maslow (1970) contended:
        
                     WHAT WE CAN BE = WHAT WE OUGHT TO BE.  
        
             To be empirical, the "ought" is out of place.  What ought a
        cat to become?  The answer to this question is ludicrous for the
        cat.  Likewise, it is for the human being as well.  In a single
        moment of time, it is possible to distinguish between what a
        human is and what he or she could be.  Humans are comprised of
        layers of behaviors, attitudes, beliefs, thoughts, emotions, and
        all coexist, even though they may contradict each other at any
        given time.  Understanding and accepting that an individual may
        behave badly and may yet be loving deep down inside provides the
        individual with hope for improvement in the species of mankind.  
        
             Man's inherent design or inner nature are his anatomy and
        physiology, and also his most basic needs, yearnings, and
        psychological capacities.  This inner nature is usually not
        obvious and easily seen, but is hidden and unfilled, weak rather
        than strong.  Maslow (1970) maintained that four separate lines
        of evidence existed to support this position.  
             1.   Frustration of these needs and capacities is psychopathogenic;
             2.   Their gratification is healthy-character-fostering as
                  neurotic need gratifications are not; 
             3.   They spontaneously show themselves as choices under
                  free conditions;
             4.   They can be directly studied in relatively healthy
                  people (p. 274).
        
             Giving gratification to neurotic needs does not breed health
        as does gratification of basic inherent needs.  Giving a power
        hungry neurotic power seeker all the power he wants does not make
        him less neurotic, nor is it possible to satisfy his neurotic
        need for power.  However much he is fed he still remains hungry. 
        It makes little difference for ultimate health whether a neurotic
        need be gratified or frustrated.  It is different with basic
        needs like safety and love.  Their gratification breeds health,
        their satiation is possible, their frustration does breed
        sickness (Maslow, 1965).  
        
             Practically all healthy adults have led loving lives.  They
        love and are loved.  As adults, they are now loving people. 
        Finally, they need love less than the average person, apparently
        because they already have enough.  Just as an organism needs salt
        in order to attain health and avoid illness, so to does it need
        love for the same reason.  The organism is so designed that it
        needs salt, and love, in the same way an automobile is designed
        that it needs gas and oil (p. 296).  
        
             Healthy adults, in a psychological utopia, would tend to be
        more Taoistic, nonintrusive, and basic need-gratifying.  They
        would be far less controlling, violent, contemptuous, or
        overbearing than humans are in general.  Under such conditions,
        the deepest layers of human nature would emerge with ease. 
        Inquiry into the effect of culture on health indicates that
        individuals can be healthier than the culture in which they grow
        and live.  This is possible because of the ability of the healthy
        human being to be detached from his or her surroundings, which is
        to say that humans live by inner laws rather than by outer
        pressures (p. 298).  
        
             Healthy individuals are not usually externally visible. 
        They are not marked off by unusual clothes, or manners, or
        behavior.  It is an inner freedom that they have.  They are
        independent of the approval and disapproval from other people,
        and seek self-approval instead.  Tolerance and freedom of taste
        and opinion seem to be the key necessities (p. 280).  
        
             The neglect of higher needs and neglect of the differences
        between lower and higher needs dooms people to disappointment
        when wanting continues even after a need is gratified.  In the
        healthy person, gratification produces no cessation of desire,
        but after a temporary period of contentment, substitution of
        higher desires and higher frustration levels along with the same
        old restlessness and dissatisfaction.  
        
             Sex is customarily discussed as if it were a problem.  The
        preoccupation with the dangers of sex has obscured the obvious
        that it can be or should be a very enjoyable pastime and possibly
        also very profoundly therapeutic and educational one (p. 286).  
        
             Thinking in the healthiest people is not of the Dewey type,
        stimulated by some upsetting problem or nuisance, and
        disappearing when the problem is solved.  It is spontaneous,
        sportive, and pleasurable, and is often emitted or produced
        without effort.  Thinking is not always directed, organized,
        motivated, or goal-bent.  Fantasy, dreaming, symbolism,
        unconscious thinking, infantile, emotional, thinking,
        psychoanalytic free association, are all productive in their own
        way.  Healthy people come to many of their conclusions and
        decisions with the aid of their own innate common sense.
        
             The behavior of a healthy person is less determined by
        anxiety, fear, insecurity, guilt, shame, and more by truth,
        logic, justice, reality, fairness, fitness, beauty, rightness,
        and morals.  The subject for a positive psychology is the study
        of psychological health, aesthetic health, value health, physical
        health, and the like.  What produces the socially desirable
        characteristics of kindliness, social conscience, helpfulness,
        neighborliness, identification, tolerance, friendliness, desire
        for justice, righteous indignation?  The taste, values,
        attitudes, and the choices of self-actualizing people are to a
        great extent on an intrinsic and reality-determined basis, rather
        than on a relative and extrinsic basis.  They live within stable
        system of values and not a robot world of limited values or none
        at all.  Frustration level and frustration tolerance may be
        higher in self-actualized people (p. 293).
        
             Maslow prompted psychologists in the last half of the 20th
        Century to consider new and better ways to view human beings, and
        especially, human motivation.  His hierarchy is well-known. 
        People in casual conversation talk about fulfilling their needs,
        and becoming self-actualized.  Just as Freud's work precipitated
        a flurry of work by his followers, Maslow's hypotheses also
        caused psychologists to use his work as a springboard to new and
        unique explanations for what motivates people.  But unlike Freud,
        his work created the proliferation of self-help programs that
        sprung up in the past thirty years.  What made his work exciting
        to many followers was his emphasis on the positive, forward-
        thinking approach to viewing human beings.  He eschewed neuroses,
        and promoted healthy living, healthy human behaviors, attitudes,
        and beliefs.       
        
             Up until Darwin, the major forces thought to cause
        behavioral arousal, direction, and persistence were seen to be
        physical for the animal and both physical and spiritual for the
        human being.  This division stemmed from a number of
        philosophical and theological considerations developed over a
        period of more than two thousand years.  The understanding of the
        motivational processes of animals could be done in a mechanistic
        fashion.  The motivational process of the human was controlled by
        his physiological needs and desires, his knowledge, and his will. 
        The conscious, human will served to balance and control
        gluttonous, physical, and sexual desires of the body.  
        
             Maslow's contribution to the inquiry into what motivates
        human beings was moving away from animal experimentation and
        moving toward the observation of healthy, self-actualized
        individuals in an attempt to observe directly what
        characteristics make them so unique.  He made startling
        discoveries that made the world of psychology and sociology dig
        deeper into the nature of man and his motives.  Until his
        theories were published in 1954, most motivational theories were
        limited to causal relationships with little validity in the real
        world.  Maslow admitted that his work lacked some clinical and
        experimental validity, and yet he did not foresee any difficulty
        in translating his theories.  
        
             More research needs to be conducted into Maslow's theories
        in order to further validate them.  
