Skip to content

Book ABC of awareness

Pages from the book “ABC of Awareness”

The hierarchy in personal objectives

  At the start of this treatise we considered the needs of humankind and during this we referred particularly to the hierar­chy in human needs using the example of the Maslow theory: At the lowest level were the existential needs of a person and at the highest level the achievement of a state of lasting happiness, self-realization, salvation of the soul, harmony within oneself or whatever we like to call this state. On the basis of these needs the human being sets his own personal goals according to this theory. If for example his existence is assured, he attempts to realize the needs of the next highest level of hierarchy by setting his goals accordingly. The hierarchy of needs, which we have referred to already many times, therefore corresponds with a similar hierarchy of objectives: Our own goals can also be hierarchically arranged.

In other words: According to the needs which we wish to satisfy, we should select our goals from the corresponding hierarchical level. What sounds so simple and logical is however frequently a cause of disappointment in our personal development: Needs and objectives don’t correspond but often even contradict each other in a flagrant way.

Pursuing different types of objectives

  We can naturally pursue several greater objectives. No one forbids us for example from striving for both great financial wealth as well as from living the basic rights of existence. Whether these two goals are compatible with one another depends on the state of our personal development. The closer we get to the goal of permanent harmony the greater the chance that these two goals are not compatible for us. As we have already emphasized many times, we can select our goals for ourselves, but we also have to live with the consequences. The more incompatible are the goals we pursue the more strictly we have to divide our time and energy. Correspondingly the possible progress becomes fundamentally less with the increasing number of incompatible goals. In extreme cases we divide our energies to such an extent that no progress at all is possible – we stay in one place.

Compatibility of objectives

In the above example we have already indicated that there are many different ways of travelling from Zürich to Warsaw. The closer I get to Warsaw however the more I have to watch out: If for example I take a wrong turning to the east 2 km south of Warsaw, my distance from Warsaw will soon become greater again. I get further from my goal again instead of getting closer to it. Suddenly I am twice the distance from it than I was before!

We therefore distinguish between partial goals, which bring us closer to a goal, and those which take us in another direction. If we aim for a partial goal, which leads us further away from the greater goal, then we are in the process of making a diversion. This still does not mean however that because of this we will not reach the goal.

Partial objectives

  The further we are from a given goal the more abstract this goal appears to us. We can only imagine with relative difficulty what it must be like when the goal is achieved. It is also correspondingly impossible to plan in detail how we wish to achieve this goal. In such cases it makes sense initially to strive for partial goals, which can be brought to reality more quickly and therefore appear to be more practically attainable. These partial goals can lead us like signposts to the greater goal. In doing so it is entirely possible that we do not reach the greater goal by the most direct route but take certain diversions.

We can compare this with travelling to a far-away destination: If I wish to travel by car from Zürich to Warsaw, I first of all establish on an outline map the stopover points of my journey. There are naturally many ways of getting to Warsaw from Zürich by car. Whether I travel via Germany or Austria is thereby not important. I simply decide on a particular route and then set off.

Definition of objectives

  When we talk about an objective or a goal we mean a state which we would like to achieve in the future. The term state is however interpreted here extremely comprehensively, for example to have emigrated within 10 years to a particular country, to have successfully completed a particular educational course, to have a family with children, to gain certain abilities etc.

In terms of pictures we describe an objective as, where we want to be at a particular time. On the other hand the path to this goal, that is how we wish to achieve this goal as well as the necessary negotiations and decisions, is not a component part of the objective itself.

Objectives

  Sooner or later the question arises as to why we «must» influence our subconscious in order to develop permanent harmony within ourselves. Why «must» we ourselves want this development so that it takes place? If this goal is somehow «somewhere» within us then why doesn’t this development automatically take place towards this goal without our having to do anything and without effort!

The answer to these objections can more or less be found in the goal itself: According to the basic rights of existence each living being has the equal right to live here, to develop and to carry out its tasks. Each can decide for himself toward which goal he wants to develop. No one forces us to live the basic rights of existence, or to strive for our own internal perpetual harmony. We can do what we want or not – however we must also live with the consequences of our decisions.

The glasses model – perceptive reality

The nice thing about subjectivity is the possibility of influencing the situation ourselves. If my perception is subjective then I – and I alone – have all the options of influencing or being influenced in a given situation. I alone decide whether I feel that something is good or bad, pleasant or unpleasant, cold or hot, beautiful or ugly!

We do not see our environment and the events around us as «objective» or neutral (perceptive reality). Instead it is rather like looking through a pair of glasses, which determines our interpretation of a picture. I hold these glasses myself in front of my eyes. According to the way these glasses change what is really a neutral picture of an event, the picture makes us feel for example fear, joy, anger or it makes us sad. We feel the picture to be good or bad, negative or positive, meaningful or senseless, dark or light, correct or false.

Objectivity and subjectivity – perceptive reality

Let’s first turn to the question of objectivity: How objective is our perception in reality? A statement is objective if it is neutral and not influenced by prejudices, feelings and interests. An objective statement is consequently independent of the person who makes this statement. The objective statement corresponds with the facts. We often tend to view our own perception of things or events as objectively correct. What others think of the same events or things we frequently categorize as incorrect or subjective (perceptive reality).

A good example is the weather: Two weeks of sunshine, high temperatures and no rain for many people is seen as desirable and good. The farmer however would like some rain in between times because otherwise his fields dry out, older people are not so happy with high air temperatures because it causes breathing difficulties etc. Who is being objective here? Obviously our assessment of the weather depends amongst other things significantly on what we want to do (swimming in an outdoor pool, working in the field, working in an office, travelling, resting etc.), upon our mood and our state of health. Exactly the same weather on a given day gives one person great pleasure and another one annoyance. But even within ourselves the assessment depends strongly on our plans: If we are working in an office three successive days of rain normally would not bother us too much. If however we are on a beach holiday we would want other weather!

Learning thanks to subjective perception (perceptive reality)

We have so far mentioned many times that we are confronted «by life» with situations which permit us to learn the ability to live the basic rights of existence. If for example we are to learn to let things go, then we are constantly put into situa­tions where we have to decide whether we want to cling on to something or let it go. In reality these things could be for example articles, money, dear friends or relations, or the results of current or earlier activities. It is in no way necessary for us to know ourselves on which lesson we are currently working. «Life» already knows!

Training camp

Returning to the question put at the outset as to how the respect for the basic rights of existence can best be learned. Actually we are all ready to practise this – however we are not normally aware of it. Let us therefore consider the development of human beings:

In our everyday life we are confronted with many situations in which we can observe or violate the basic rights of existence and the resulting laws. It is not necessary to look very far for such situations, every action, even every thought offers us this opportunity: What shall we buy, how do we cook, how do we treat our fellow human beings (partner, children, colleagues, boss), how do we treat animals and plants, nature etc.