I Hubot

The goal of all organic life is to become completely and wholly whatever one is. A seedling becomes a sprout, a cub, a sapling, a heifer or whatever it is on its individual path to maturity, eventually becoming the actual cow or bull, or flower; regardless of the stage it was in, it always was at least the potentiality of its cowness, its flowerness. So it is too with homo sapiens, with one notable difference: Humans have the ability to subvert the natural process of actualization, with the aid of their programmable super computers.

1. Everyone is on a path of actualization. In the organic way, a child becomes the teen, becomes the adult, and the elder. The brain, however, an infinite mchine of variation, can be programmed in a myriad of ways that may not
2. Psycho/self actualization in humans is the process of becoming ?% conscious: that is, when one has freed oneself from the constraints of early programming, peer pressure, and basic needs.
3. Hubots - human beings who are motivated by anything other than consciousness. Until one has individuated, or at least, differentiated, one may be subject to motivations the which of one has not conscious control. One is not actualized while one is subject to unconscious motivations.
4. Self-transcendence - Viktor Frankl later added Self-transcendence
5. Sexual Competition: Sexual selection, a concept introduced by Charles Darwin in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, is a significant element of his theory of natural selection. The sexual form of selection
   

   “

   ... depends, not on a struggle for existence, but on a struggle between the males for possession of the females; the result is not death to the unsuccessful competitor, but few or no offspring.[1]

   ”

   “	... when the males and females of any animal have the same general habits ... but differ in structure, colour, or ornament, such differences have been mainly caused by sexual selection.[2]

1. Sexual Completion: my subjective opinion on this that in human men, the desire for orgasm is the driving force that keeps the human world going round. There may be a psychological or evolutionary drive here, but the simple act of having the male orgasm is the prime motivator. That some men are driven by a need to prove their potency is one thing; the orgasm is another beast entirely. The stronger the drive, the more children that may be produced.
6. Maslow thinks some people are driven by 'being' needs as oppossed to others who are driven by 'deficiency' needs, i.e. food, water, sex etc. 
1. I think all people can be psychologically held back on their path of self actualization by overriding psychological forces, such as early programing which does not allow the psyche to develop into its natural state.
7. Complexes fit in here somehow. The autonomous systems is a complex. It has an agenda: to keep the machine running in spite of anything that may threaten is extinction, short of the actual extinction.
8. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs makes basic assumption of human nature, such as:

Notes: 

A review of Maslow's: Toward a Psychology of Being, starting with the first essay: Towards a Psychology of Health. Below is a list of Maslow's basic assumptions of human nature. I am, by way of validating my experiences, past and present with these assumptions, validating his hypothesis of self actualization. 

Basic Assumptions (pgs 3-4)

1. We have, each of us, an essential biology based inner nature, which is to some degree 'natural,' intrinsic, given, and in a certain limited sense, unchangeable, or, at least, unchanging. I think this has to do with Jung's perception, and mine, of libido. This is the life force that we all are, and that connects us to the universe. This is what I got in touch with when I took on RLE and especially, when I changed my name to nanci blu, this name embodying both the frisson I felt and feel when considering all things frilly, and the fear my precious biker/loner persona felt when confronted with the gay label. It is my belief that at this time, i came into touch with my libido, my inner self that is connected to the 'now.' 
2. Each person's inner naure is in  part unique to himself and in part species-wide. ala Jung again and parallel to the collective consciousness. Also, as unique to zee self, that is where I run up against this feminine identity attachment I feel is mine. Not that I feel I, or anyone else for that matter, is either feminine or masculine, but rather that we inhabit our sexual context, and that is, or has been, almost impossible for most to separate themselves from. That I identify with the feminine rather than the masculine doesn't make me so much female as it does make me sensitive, emotional, gentle, i,e, all those attributes that in my society are identified as femanine, but in another species, say a praying mantis, might be something else entirely. 
3. It is possible to study this inner nature scientifically and to discover what it is like (not invent, but discover). For me, this what has happened. I have been discovering all of this since 1989, and have recently come to the juncture of individuation and self actualization, as far as I can tell.  Most of what I read that connects to this is more of validation and vocabulary than it is of anything else.
4. This inner nature, as much as we know of it so far, seems not to be intrinsically or primarily or necessarily evil. The basic needs (for life, for safety and security, for belongingness and affection, for respect and self-respect, and for self-actualization), the basic human emotions and the basic human capacities are on their face either neutral, pre-moral or positively 'good.' Destructiveness, sadism, cruelty, malice, etc., seem so far to be not intrinsic but rather they seem to be violent reactions against frustration of our intrinsic needs, emotions and capacities. Anger is in itself not evil, nor is fear, laziness, or even ingorance. Of course, these can and do lead to evil behaviour, but they needn't. (the thing i, and some others i assume, have difficulty with here is the sometimes difficulty in separating the behaviour from the individual. Also, I do find that whereas once I was self-destructive and isolated, I am now the opposite, and am indeed, kind, and good. I spent fifty years of my life reacting to the circumstances of my youth. This is, happily, no longer the case). This result is not intrinsically necessary. Human nature is not nearly as bad as it has been thought to be. In fact, it can be said that the possibilities of human nature have customarily been sold short. And not only cut short, but consciously maligned, as in the doctrine of original sin. This is a pernicious and self serving lie, set up by the sanctimonious to manipulate the masses, and possibly one of the greatest evils ever done in the world, considering how many people and how many negative and destructive situations it has ultimately been at the root of. 
5. Since this inner nature is good or neutral rather than bad, it is best to bring it out and to encourage it rather than to suppress it. If it is permitted to guide our life, we grow healthy, fruitful, and happy. Thus is the context of my life at this time, having finally emerged from the state of reactive unhappiness that was my lot post-alienation from my parents.
6. If this essential core of hte person is denied or suppressed, one gets sick sometimes in obvious ways, sometimes in subtle ways, sometimes immediately, sometimes later. My way was manic depression. 
7. This inner nature, is not strong and overpowering and unmistakable like the instincts of animals. It is weak and delicate and subtle and easily overcome by habit, cultural pressure, and wrong attitudes towards it. I would amend to say that once one becomes aware of this inner nature, and connected to it, that there is no personal force stronger. Anyone not operating from this base of self is by definition weaker, having no solid foundation for what they present. Witness the Christ myth. He was conquered physically, but never could they have taken away from him what he was. That is an impossibility, as once one accepts what one is, there is no going back, and the world be damned.
8. Even though weak, it rarely disappears in the normal person-perhaps not even in the sick person. Even though denied, it persists, underground forever pressing for actualization. I would say never. It is always there, for it is at least part of whatever it is that is the life force in all of us, flora and fauna alike. 
9. Somehow, these conclusions must all be articulated with the necessity of discipline, deprivation, frustration, pain, and tragedy. To the extent that these experiences reveal and foster and fulfil our inner nature, to that extent they are desirable experiences. It is increasingly clear that these experiences have something to do with a sense of achievement and ego strength and therefore with the sense of healthy self-esteem and self-confidence. The person who hasn't conquered, withstood and overcome continues to feel doubtful that he could. This is true not only for external dangers; it holds also for the ability to control and to delay one's own impulses, and therefore to be unafraid of them. Not really sure about this. For me, the change started to come when I gave it all up, and faced my own demise, real time. After that, after a long period of... gestation perhaps, I started to come around, with no prerequisites, and to a new sense of identity. I did, however, face a rather substantial fear down, twice as a matter of fact, and I do consider these integral to my actualization. I would also add to this Alice Miller's list of the basic rights of children, and to that I would add that given the basic assumptions above, in that no child is evil, that any treatment of children not consistent with the above leads to 

• One of the premises of this book is that it is easier to work towards a healthy psychological state, a personal growth model, instead of trying to undo a 'sick' one.We see this today in the move towards positive role and healthy educational models. 

• pg 7, p2 - "In essence, I am deliberately rejecting our present easy distinction between sickness and health, at least as far as surface symptoms are concerned. Does sickness mean having symptoms? I maintain now that sickness might consist of not having symptoms when you should. Does health mean being symptom-free? I deny it. Which of the Nazis at Auschwitz or Dachau were healthy? Those with stricken conscience or those with a nice, clear, happy conscience? Was it possible for a profoundly human person not to feel conflict, suffering, depression, rage, etc?" and... pg 8, p2 - Clearly what will be called personality problems depends on who is doing the calling. The slave owner? The dictator? The patriarchal father? The husband who wants his wife to remain a child? It seems quite clear that the personality problems may sometimes be found to be protests against the crushing of one's psychological bones, of one's true inner nature. What is sick then is not to protest while this crime is being committed. And I am sorry to report my impression that most people do not protest under such treatment. They take it and pay years later, in neurotic and psychosomatic symptoms of various kinds, or perhaps in some cases never being aware that they are sick, that they have missed true happiness, true fulfilment of promise, a rich emotional life, and a serene, fruitful old age, that they have never known how wonderful it is to be creative, to react aesthetically, to find life thrilling.   In my own  words, having symptoms of depression for instance is not illness: it is a symptom of another issue that needs to be resolved. Just as one would not prescribe pain killers to cure a broken leg, one should not prescribe anti depressants to 'cure' depression. This actually goes deeper as some would argue that one has to give the 'health consumer' medication to 'calm them down' or stabilize them. I would argue that even then, and perhaps more so, we need deal with them on their own terms, not ours. Medicating them just buries the issue deeper and deeper. The argument is specious, based on 'practicalities' and such, staffing issues and such, and not on the best interests of the health seeker. Which points to another issue: jobs. Not enough of them. And why do we not have jobs for people to do these things, instead of trying to patch people up so that they can join the lists of the unemployed? And so, who is sick here, the one with the presenting symptoms, or those who prop up a sick and destructive status quo?