To Tech or Not To Tech: Hiking the Appalachian Trail

It’s hard to believe that it’s only been 1 month since my last post. It feels like the last time I wrote something was ages ago. In March, I said that I intended on writing something once a week, but I suppose having an infant, moving, and preparing to start a new job have made that a little harder than I imagined. Nonetheless, I stole away some time today to write about technology and the Appalachian Trail (AT).

A few summers ago (actually, now that I think about it, it was 6 years ago), I had the good fortune to spend some time hiking on the Appalachian Trail. It was my first time on an extended hike and I really enjoyed it. While on the hike, I learned that the trail spans 14 states including the beginning/end in Maine/Georgia. Many folks try to hike the whole thing in a summer. Lots succeed, but many more give up. When I hiked part of the AT in 2008, technology wasn’t as advanced as it is today (obviously), but I was wondering how I might want to approach this subject when I decide to hike the AT again.

This thought was sparked by a post in Scientific American bemoaning the use of technology on the trail. I can see where she’s coming from — for sure. Most people decide to go into nature to get away from technology. She also makes some good points as to how technology can help in an emergency (read: bear eats pack).

I think if I were to hike the AT tomorrow, I might bring along a MacBook Air — for the sole purpose of writing. That is, I’d intend to do like David Roberts did and take a hiatus from social media (which for me, mainly means Twitter). I say intend because I’ve learned that making hard-and-fast rules can sometimes make things more difficult to uphold. I suppose I could not get some sort of data plan and therefore it would be quite difficult to check things like Twitter.

When I do decide to hike the whole of the AT (sometime in the next 30 years), our relationship to technology may be very different. Maybe Google Glass (or an iteration thereof) might be more user-friendly. Maybe it’ll be ingrained in the way we live our days like smartphones have become. Maybe there’ll be something after Google Glass and something beyond the impending smartwatches. Regardless of how technology evolves, we’ll always be left with the choice: to tech or not to tech.

Belongingness & Transcendence: Transcendence and Belongingness, Part 3

In the first post in this series, we explored Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. In the second post, we looked at belongingness, transpersonal psychology, and transpersonal experiences. In this — the last — post, we’ll tie everything together in a section on belongingness & transcendence, followed by the conclusion.

~

Belongingness and Transcendence

In this section, we will explore some of the experiences of transcendence that relate specifically to belongingness. We will do this by reviewing a series of examples of transcendence. In the first example, Maslow (1968) refers to transcendence as transcending the ego or the self. Specifically, Maslow (1968) stated “The phrase ‘being in harmony with nature’ implies this ability to yield, to be receptive to, or respond to, to live with extra-psychic reality as if one belonged with it, or were in harmony with it” (p. 58). Meaning, if one transcended one’s ego, one would not only feel a sense of belongingness with the people around one’s self, but one would also feel a sense of belongingness with nature. In this example, we can see how there is a transpersonal element within belongingness.

In another example of transcendence, Maslow (1968) refers to love being a kind of transcendence. Specifically, this refers to love for one’s child or for one’s friend (Maslow, 1968). According to Maslow (1968), “This can also be expressed intrapsychically, phenomenologically, as experiencing one’s self to be one of the band of brothers, to belong to the human species” (p. 59). Meaning, when one experiences a state of transcendence by way of loving one’s child or one’s friend, there is possibility that they are experiencing a state of belongingness with all of humanity. This state of belongingness is possible by one’s state of transcendence. Just as in the first example, this example also shows us how belongingness has a transpersonal element to it.

In an additional example of transcendence, Maslow (1968) refers to a “special phenomenological state in which the person somehow perceives the whole cosmos or at least the unity and integration of it and of everything in it, including his Self” (pp. 63-64). In this example, not only does the person feel connected to all human species, but to the whole of the universe. “He then feels as if he belongs by right in the cosmos” (Maslow, 1968, p. 64). This is an example of transcendence leading to a sense of belongingness. The belongingness feeling is attained once the person has transcended. This is another example showing us transpersonal elements within belongingness.

In the next example of transcendence, Maslow (1968) refers to one transcending “individual difference in a very specific sense” (p. 64). Maslow (1968) stated that “the highest attitude to have toward individual differences is to be aware of them, to accept them, but also to enjoy them and finally to be profoundly grateful for them” (p. 64). This is, yet another way of attaining a sense of belongingness through transcendence. According to Maslow (1968), “Rising above them [individual differences] in the recognition of the essential commonness and mutual belongingness and identification with all kinds of people in ultimate humanness or species-hood” (p. 64). This illustrates another potential way of attaining belongingness by transcending individual differences.

In this section, we have seen that there are transpersonal elements to belongingness. Specifically, we have seen that there is an aspect of transcendence to belongingness. We have seen examples of how transcendence is present in belongingness by way of four separate examples. In the first example, we saw that one could transcend one’s ego or self to attain a feeling of being one with nature and feel a sense of belongingness with everything. In the second example, we saw that one could transcend by way of loving one’s child or one’s friend and in turn, feeling a sense of belongingness with all of humanity. In the third example, we saw that one could transcend to the point that one attains a feeling of oneness with the cosmos or the universe and in turn, feels a sense of belongingness with the whole of the universe. In the fourth example, we saw that one could transcend the individual differences between people to feel a sense of belongingness with all kinds of people.

Conclusion

In this paper, there was a brief description of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. There was an explanation of each of the needs of the hierarchy: physiological, safety, love, esteem, and self-actualization. There was an expanded description of one of the components within love needs – belongingness. There was a brief explanation of transpersonal psychology followed by a description of a transpersonal experience, specifically, transcendence. There were then connections made between transcendence and belongingness to illustrate that there are transpersonal elements to belongingness. This was demonstrated by using examples of transcendence and belongingness.

~

References

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation, Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529.

Hartelius, G., Caplan, M., & Rardin, M. A. (2007). Transpersonal psychology: Defining the past, diving the future. The Humanistic Psychologist, 35(2), 1-26.

Hastings, A. (1999). Transpersonal psychology: The fourth force. In D. Moss (Ed.), Humanistic and transpersonal psychology: A historical and biographical sourcebook (pp. 192-208). Westport, CN: Greenwood Press.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396.

Maslow, A. H. (1969). Various meanings of transcendence. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 1(1), 56-66.

~

If you liked this paper/series, you might want to check out some of the other papers/series I’ve posted.

 

Every Child is Gifted: Why Nurturing is so Important

I came across an op-ed in the NYT from September arguing that, in America, there is too much focus on raising the floor (of education) and not enough focus on raising the ceiling. Meaning, there’s more focus on bringing up the “weaker” kids and not much focus on the “stronger” kids. I was fortunate enough to be born and raised in the Greater Toronto Area, so during my formative years, I was in school in Ontario (Canadian education, from what I remember, is known for being better than American education).

The op-ed goes on to describe how it is for those young students who are really smart, but because they go to public school, are prevented from getting the kind of education that will challenge/inspire them. Again, I didn’t do my K-12 education the US, so all I’ve got to go on is what I’ve heard/read. I do remember seeing Waiting for Superman and that painted a rather dire picture for some States).

The op-ed’s main thesis is that there needs to be a focus on these high-potential kids. Because their parents didn’t have the funds to afford private education doesn’t mean they should be prevented from getting a solid education.

I think that’s an argument that most people would agree with — to some extent. I’d like to make a different point, though.

It might seem a bit clichéd to say that, “every child is gifted,” but this is something that I truly believe. How? We are all gifted in a different way. Some folks may be more talented in kinesthetic activities and some may be more talented in musical activities. I certainly think that we all have the capacity to develop these talents, but I also think that some folks are born with a predisposition to certain talents. (I don’t know that I agree with it fully, but Gardner’s multiple intelligences is a good starter for what I’m talking about.)

So, if we’ve got all of these predispositions to talents, how come they don’t necessarily show up? Well, I would argue that it’s nurturing. Parenting is a monumental responsibility. Caring for and nurturing a little being is one of the noblest things one can do. I won’t go too deep into parenting philosophy in this post, but suffice to say, I think a great deal of responsibility falls on the parents to nurture those talents within their kids (major caveat: like there are predispositions to talents, I don’t doubt that there are also predispositions to “non”-talents that might make nurturing a bit more difficult). I’m not here to criticize how some people parent, but I do want to emphasize that all children are talented. It may just take a little extra effort to ferret out those talents, if the child had not been nurtured in a way that allows the child to be comfortable/confident in those talents.