what doesn’t kill me, makes me thinner
or: every cancer cure has a silver lining!
I knew, I even signed a paper proving that I was told, that radiation therapy of the abdominal area can cause, among other side effects, also diarrhea.
Which it did. At first only on the treatment free days on weekends giving me a good excuse to skip the mandatory family walks.
The last three treatments were made with higher doses of radiation on smaller surfaces, in order to boost the curative effect. Which I assume they did, but they definitely boosted the side effects as well.
For the last three weeks (two weeks before and one week after finishing the radiation therapy) I have had the worst case of diarrhea in my life. The last three days I have been practically living on crackers, broth and cranberry juice.
However, during the 6 weeks of treatment I lost 12 pounds (5.4 kg) weight, a side effect of the side effect diarrhea, that I don’t mind at all.
The flipside is that the side effects of the therapy should dwindle away in 3-4 weeks after finishing it and I am going to put on weight again, adding to my overweight – if I don’t dwindle away myself in the process. Which would be too much loss of weight, even if my body mass index had turned into ideal.
Which I hope it won’t since my last motto is: better overweight in the bed than ideal weight in the casket.
I am planning on a wild experiment today: to gormandize a whole boiled potato and a whole grated apple today, on top of the beef broth and cranberry juice liberally served by my wife. It will have a win-win outcome: if I can hold them, I will keep, or, maybe even slightly increase my weight while definitely increasing my energy and pleasure levels. If I can’t: I will improve my body mass index.
If this isn’t positive thinking, I don’t know what is.
Does Having Needs Mean We’re Needy? (PP14)
Here’s sequel 14 my Epicurean Happiness Guidance “From Pain to Pleasure: The Proven Pathway to Happiness” (Part 4 of Chapter 2: NEEDS)
Does Having Needs Mean We’re Needy?
The answer to that important question is an emphatic “yes and no” (maybe we should make that “not necessarily”). Stay with me here.
Yes, because having needs is a human condition. We’re all needy, otherwise:
- The Beatles wouldn’t have written “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.”
- Dr. Phil would still be Mr. Phil and Oprah would still be reporting the evening news in Nashville.
- Dr. Spock’s Baby Book would still be a twinkle in his eye.
- And Abe and Manny wouldn’t have spent so much time studying human needs and creating diagrams to explain them to us regular people.
- and at the same time-
Not necessarily, if we’re using the prevalent definition of needy. Today’s popular culture has given the word a negative and narrow connotation. Many of us would run screaming into the night from a potential partner in an intimate relationship if our inner bloodhound detected a scent of near-desperation — unless, of course, the potential runner has a need to be a rescuer, in which case she may have just met the man of her dreams.
To read my complete Epicurean Happiness Guidance “From Pain to Pleasure: The Proven Pathway to Happiness” go to http://stressfreedomguide.com/
So Who’s Right: Maslow or Max-Neef? (PP13)
Here’s sequel 13 my Epicurean Happiness Guidance “From Pain to Pleasure: The Proven Pathway to Happiness”
So Who’s Right: Maslow or Max-Neef?
Even though their representations do not appear to jibe, the differences are largely semantic. In truth, both theories are quite similar. This is my attempt to illustrate the equivalencies of the needs identified by Maslow, starting at the base of his pyramid, and Max-Neef, with his fundamental needs axis and no hierarchy:
|
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs |
Max-Neef’s Table of Fundamental Human Needs |
|
Base level: Physiological
|
Subsistence
Protection |
|
Level 2: Safety
|
Subsistence
Protection |
|
Level 3: Love/belonging
|
Participation
Affection Understanding |
| Level 4: Esteem
|
Creation
Leisure Identity Freedom |
|
The top: Self-actualization
|
Optimal quality of life
|
I hope the comparison helps to eliminate any confusion about “who thinks what and why, and how can two people come up with such different theories, so whom do we believe anyway?”
If all of this is as clear as pea soup on a foggy day in London, relax. It’ll be bouillon in Baja after we’ve covered the Satisfiers module.
To read my complete Epicurean Happiness Guidance “From Pain to Pleasure: The Proven Pathway to Happiness” go to http://stressfreedomguide.com/
Max-Neef’s Fundamental Human Needs (PP12)
Here’s sequel 12 my Epicurean Happiness Guidance “From Pain to Pleasure: The Proven Pathway to Happiness” (Part 2 of Chapter 2: NEEDS)
NEEDS (2)
Max-Neef’s Fundamental Human Needs
Manfred Max-Neef is the Chilean economist whose particular interest is in the struggle of Third World countries to survive and thrive. His research on a diversity of cultures led him to create the Max-Neef Model of Human-Scale Development, which includes a matrix on which he identifies fundamental needs on one axis and satisfiers of these needs on the other axis, satisfiers relating to personal qualities (how to be), mechanisms (what to have), actions (what to do), and settings (where to do it).
Unlike Maslow, Max-Neef does not believe that human needs must be satisfied in sequential order. The matrix tells us, for example, that to fulfill our need to create, to express ourselves through sculpture, for instance, the qualities we would ideally possess are a fertile imagination so that we are fluent with ideas, curiosity about the best materials and methods, the boldness it takes to create something unique, and the autonomy to make our own decisions and act independent of others’ opinions and suggestions. We would also have abilities, talents, skills and knowledge of techniques, i.e., mechanisms. Our actions may be to interpret, design, plan and experiment with materials. Working among like-minded artists and having the motivation of an upcoming show or sale where our efforts may earn appreciation and accolades, maybe even a few bucks, foster an ideal milieu for our artistic growth, that is, conditions, surroundings and settings. Max-Neef would tell us that there are no significant obstacles between us and the masterpiece of our dreams.
It may be useful to note that Max-Neef draws a careful distinction between needs and satisfiers. For example, he does not consider food and shelter to be needs, but satisfiers of the fundamental need for subsistence. Likewise, he considers education, investigation, stimulation and meditation as satisfiers of the need for understanding.
He considers fundamental human needs to be universal, that is, the same in all cultures throughout the ages; and satisfiers to vary among cultures and times.
Max-Neef notes that while only a few of the needs he describes require material means to be fulfilled, we in industrialized countries attempt to satisfy them all through material means. But by the time you’ve completed this e-guide, you won’t anymore, because (knock on wood) you’ll have discovered why that doesn’t work out so well.
See also:
http://www.rainforestinfo.org.au/background/maxneef.htm
To read my complete Epicurean Happiness Guidance “From Pain to Pleasure: The Proven Pathway to Happiness” go to http://stressfreedomguide.com/
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (pp11)
Here’s sequel 11 of my Epicurean Happiness Guidance “From Pain to Pleasure: The Proven Pathway to Happiness” (Part 1 of Chapter 2: NEEDS)
NEEDS (1)
If someone asked you to list some fundamental human needs, what would you say? Something like food, clothing and shelter, or maybe food, shelter and sex? And who could argue with those? Okay, so maybe one of your kids would curl up and die without a cell phone to text message about 25 of his closest friends. But what really is a need? Is your young text-messager way off base? Maybe, maybe not. By the time you reach the end of this section, you will be better able to judge.
For the purposes of this section, we’ll define need this way:
NEED: a condition requiring relief; anything that is necessary but lacking
But that doesn’t mean everything beyond the most fundamental necessities is non-essential, that is, a frivolous want or desire. A psychologist from Brooklyn and an economist from Valparaiso (Chile, that is) have devoted much of their professional lives researching what people need. Although their methodology and final work products are different, their conclusions are very similar.
MASLOW’S HIERARCHY OF NEEDS
Abraham Maslow was a psychologist from New York who died quite young in 1970. His life’s work was the creation of a pyramid of human needs. At the base of the pyramid are the fundamental physiological (“primitive”) needs such as nutrition, oxygen, excretion, affection, sex and sleep; but then he goes on to describe several more kinds of needs: the need for shelter and safety of oneself, family, property and health; followed by the need for love and belonging, which includes family, intimacy, affiliations and friendship; and esteem, including recognition, attention, self-esteem, confidence, independence, and giving and receiving respect.
Maslow considered the fulfillment of each of these categories of needs to be essential for survival. In fact, he believed that when these needs are unmet, one can’t devote one’s energy toward the final challenge — self-actualization, i.e., achievement of one’s potential. The lucky ones who achieve this level are by no means perfect; they are as flawed as the rest of us. The difference is they are not dogged by neuroses or psychoses or other mental disorders. They are, well, solid. They are authentic. After considerable research and interviews, Maslow inducted Abe Lincoln, Aldous Huxley, Eleanor Roosevelt, Jane Adams, Albert Schweitzer and a host of others into his own private Self-Actualizers Hall of Fame.
Maslow called his pyramid a hierarchy of needs , because he believed that each successively higher level of needs could only be achieved successfully if needs at the previous level were fulfilled. Incidentally, much of today’s management theory of human motivation is based on Maslow’s hierarchy. (I know, not where you work. Their theories are from the Pleistocene era, right?) For example, good management recognizes that employees want respect and recognition, a chance to participate in appropriate decision-making, opportunities for professional growth, and time off for personal reasons.
To read my complete Epicurean Happiness Guidance “From Pain to Pleasure: The Proven Pathway to Happiness” go to http://stressfreedomguide.com/
FREE Report about stress
Download instantly your copy!