Isn't this just essentially just a reflection of maslow’s hierarchy of needs? I mean, everybody has their demons, and the founder of the billion dollar company has the time and resources to face those demons by receiving top quality professional assistance, leading him/her closer to some kind of self-actualization. Whereas a large majority of the population (even in developed nations) are still struggling on much lower levels of the hierarchy, such as fulfilling their "safety needs" (e.g. employment, health, etc).
I would therefore argue that the "untouched wounding" remains buried for most people because they are never in a position to address it, and the "ego-striving" remains essential part of their survival toolkit. There is simply no "salvation" in this regard for most people and it's quite sad.
No. Emotional healing became my top priority when I was effectively broke and homeless. I mean, I was crashing at my parents and friends’ places, but it was a profoundly miserable (and low-Maslow) state of existence.
Founders of break-out successful companies don’t just voluntarily embark on emotional healing practices once they reach the pinnacle of business success. They generally do that when they suffer a humiliating fall from grace. E.g., Early-career Steve Jobs and Jack Dorsey.
Also, Maslow’s model isn’t really broadly accepted in mainstream psychology, certainly not in any linear sense.
There are a lot of rich people out there who have all of their Maslovian needs met but who are absolutely miserable. What happens is that they never really figured out what they wanted out of life, they just assumed that having money would allow them to get it, and they'd figure it out later. But then they get money, realize that they are still miserable (because they still don't really know what they want) and then sink into deep existential despair because if you have a billion dollars and you're still unhappy, now what the fuck do you do?
Ron's second law: the hardest part of getting what you want is figuring out what it is.
I tried to be clear that I wasn’t “homeless” in the sense of living on the street.
I just couldn’t make rent (ironically I had to Airbnb out my room) or easily afford food/bills, so needed to sleep at parents’/friends’ houses for a while as I worked to get back on my feet.
Plenty of people go through this, due to a business/career/relationship breakdown, and recover to a good life, and it’s very common for people to start focusing on their emotional/spiritual wellbeing when they hit rock bottom (e.g., join 12-step programs, counseling etc).
People who are chronically homeless are in a different category, but it’s widely accepted that chronic homelessness is usually linked to mental illness and/or addiction (which is a form/symptom of mental illness after all).
I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about how outcomes for chronically homeless people could be improved if they had access to the kinds of support and healing techniques I’ve used. Given the opportunity, I’d be very willing to support research into this in the future.
Invoking concepts like “survivorship bias” is unhelpful in a discussion like this; my story is obviously anecdotal, not an academic paper or claim of scientific evidence. But that aside, “survivorship bias” in this context would require the existence of a whole lot of people who attempted the same approach to emotional healing that I did but failed to improve their lives, and there’s no evidence for this.
I couldn’t disagree more. I think free healthcare, aides for rents, food, etc. when you can’t afford it should be a human right. Some people manage more than others, and we just blame this on mental illness.
> Some people manage more than others, and we just blame this on mental illness
I agree, but I don't accept that this has to be immutable, and it would be a very bleak world/future if it did.
Rather than a world in which a class of people just has to accept a disempowered existence with basic services and resources provided, I hope for a world where effectively everyone can have agency over their own life, and aspire to good health, good relationships, and a reasonable level of material wealth.
That hope is part of what keeps me determined to explore the possibilities in this field; to see what kinds of improvements I can attain in my own life, then think about how these approaches could benefit others, including those who are currently written off as "mentally ill" (which I have been at certain times in my life).
I think I understand what you mean with that and agree with it in principle.
However you should keep in mind that you are a person with a "business mindset".
There is plenty of people out there who may well have something valuable to contribute to this world, but have no chance of getting an economic return out of that. This can be due to a lack of economic mindset/understanding/education or also just due to the type of value one is able to provide not fitting any monetization model.
I believe that a modern society can and should afford to relieve their members from existential fear related to biological needs. That is not about taking away aspiration and agency.
The combination "something valuable to contribute to this world" and "have no chance of getting an economic return out of that" sounds like a market failure, and something that could/should be fixed, both for the benefit of the individual and for society.
There are indigenous Australians in remote communities, who grew up and remain living in cultures that have little familiarity with modern commerce, but who produce artworks that sell for thousands of dollars on international markets. The proceeds are invested back into those communities for their future benefit. This happens because systems have been established to make it happen.
So I'm not convinced that there is an immutable state in which a certain class of people, while providing valuable contributions to society, cannot reap any economic benefit or improve their own lot in life.
Can you describe an example of this situation that you've observed?
... in other words: based on personal observation, I believe that the correlation of personal wealth and value contributed to society is not strong enough (which doesn't mean there's none) to justify making one's existence dependent on it - in a sophisticated society which could easily afford otherwise.
To add to this, when your ego mind drivers lead you to success giving you potentially unlimited resources - money and time, it is easier to maintain coping mechanisms of distraction - unless there's some traumatic or stressful enough event that "cracks" someone, causing an impetus and necessity to explore change.
Western philosophy starting from Ancient Greeks has offered a variety of coherent life philosophies that both help with untouched wounding and ego-striving. The books provide cheap and accessible salvation which is just not in demand by most people and it is quite sad.
I would therefore argue that the "untouched wounding" remains buried for most people because they are never in a position to address it, and the "ego-striving" remains essential part of their survival toolkit. There is simply no "salvation" in this regard for most people and it's quite sad.