Larry Mullins

January 12, 2013

A VICTORIOUS LIFE on EARTH

“Today, like every other day we wake up empty and frightened. Don’t open the door to the study and begin reading. Take down a musical instrument. Let the beauty we love be what we do. There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground.”
RUMI

The brilliant poet suggests a way to fill the void we feel each day. I personally hate that vacuous feeling. But, I do not have a musical instrument. How do I fill the inner void with beauty? I recall other great words: “Without vision, the people perish.” It seems to me vision–the consciousness of possibilities–is the answer. But also, without faith in that vision, the people still perish. So my daily problem seems to be: First the vision. Next, impregnable faith in that vision.

This begs two questions. What will the vision look like? And, how to I kindle the mustard seed of faith necessary to ignite that vision with passionate meaning and purpose?

What is my ultimate vision? What is my legacy to be? How do I want people to remember me? The clearer, more vivid, more charged this vision is, the more replete it will fill the emptiness. And if we add this infallible mantra, we can attain, or begin to attain, the consciousness of a victorious life on earth:

“The consciousness of a victorious human life on earth is born of that creature faith which dares to challenge each recurring episode of existence when confronted with the awful spectacle of human limitations, by the unfailing declaration: Even if I cannot do this, there lives in me one who can and will do it, a part of the Father-Absolute of the universe of universes. And that is ‘the victory which overcomes the world, even your faith.’”

The Urantia Book

LARRY MULLINS

February 6, 2010

Is Christopher Hitchens Right? Does Religion Really Poison Everything?

With many preconceptions and reservations, I recently sat down to read Christopher Hitchens’s book: god is not Great … How Religion Poisons Everything. (He deliberately did not capitalize God.) What a provocative, nasty title, I thought. Obviously this was yet another mean-spirited rant by an atheist.

I did not find what I expected. In fact, after reading his introduction to the book, I actually acquired some affection for Hitchens. Unfortunately, he did fail to define religion. (My dictionary offers six different definitions.) He thus was able to lump numerous straw men (formal religious dogma that few people really believe) together with a few serious questions that are asked and investigated by religionists. This shotgun approach permitted him to lament a host of religious evils and excesses that no sane mortal supports, while attempting a mass annihilation of every aspect of human belief in a higher power.
The bottom line seems to be that Hitchens does not believe that religion is a legitimate discipline. Much as did Ayn Rand, he seems to hold that the questions asked by theologians and philosophers can be more effectively answered by science.
Were it not for one endearing passage in the introduction to his book, these logic-tight barriers would render hopeless the rational joining of an issue about higher universe realities with Hitchens. When all seemed beyond redemption, he embraced MetaValues. He did so in a profound and moving way. Hitchens told the story of the funeral of his father. It took place in a historic chapel in England, overlooking Portsmouth. Hitchens spoke from the pulpit and gave a reading from the Bible. Quoting Paul, he said:
“Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report: if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.”
Then Hitchens explained why he selected this passage:
“I chose this because of its haunting and elusive character, which will be with me at the last hour, for its essentially secular injunction, and because it shone out from the wasteland of rant and complaint and nonsense and bullying which surrounds it.”
For precisely the same reasons, I chose this passage from Hitchens’s own wasteland of rant, etc. Yet perhaps the most important questions to answer are these: Why does this passage shine out for both an atheist and a believer? How is it that people of radically different persuasions and cultures share the same MetaValues of Truth, Beauty, and Goodness? Wrapped up in the answer to these questions is perhaps the twentieth century’s most important scientific discovery about the nature of human beings.
Abraham Maslow believed that values should not be the exclusive domain of religionists. He advocated a science of values. Yet he also grasped that MetaValues transcend the disciplines of science, theology, and philosophy. Unlike Rand or Hitchens, Maslow understood that science does not have all the answers. Science can tell us much about material reality, or what is. Science can even suggest possibilities, what could be. But the poet or the religionist offers a vision for us of what ought to be. And science without values builds bigger bombs and more efficient gas chambers. Dr. Maslow fought hard to break down the barriers between science and religion:
“I [have] pointed out that both orthodox science and orthodox religion have been institutionalized and frozen into a mutually excluding dichotomy. This separation into Aristotelian a and not-a has been almost perfect … Every question, every answer, every method, every jurisdiction, every task has been assigned to either one or the other, with practically no overlaps. One consequence is that they are both pathologized, split into sickness, ripped apart into a crippled half-science and a crippled half-religion.”
Unfortunately, Maslow was never able to distill his ideas for mainstream readers; he wrote almost exclusively for his peers. The world is the poorer for this, because Maslow uncovered truths about the human condition that are tremendously uplifting and inspiring—and are easily within the understanding of nearly every person on the planet. With the publication of The MetaValues Breakthrough, nearly four decades after Maslow’s death, individuals at last have a program that shows them how to put these truths to work in their lives.
The MetaValues Breakthrough provides tested and proven techniques for capturing inspiring visions of things that ought to be and actualizing them into realities. True stories illustrate how ordinary people connected with Truth, Beauty, and Goodness and transformed their unfinished lives from meaningless—or even tragic—to magnificent and unforgettable. Regardless of your age or circumstances, you too can use MetaValues to elevate your life and the lives of those around you to another level.
Larry Mullins

January 4, 2010

Should Values be the Exclusive Domain of Religion?

From the Preface of The MetaValues Breakthrough:

Abraham Maslow believed that values should not be the exclusive domain of religionists. He advocated a science of values. Yet he also grasped that MetaValues transcend the disciplines of science, theology, and philosophy. Unlike Rand or Hitchens, Maslow understood that science does not have all the answers. Science can tell us much about material reality, or what is. Science can even suggest possibilities, what could be. But the poet or the religionist offers a vision for us of what ought to be. And science without values builds bigger bombs and more efficient gas chambers. Dr. Maslow fought hard to break down the barriers between science and religion:
“I [have] pointed out that both orthodox science and orthodox religion have been institutionalized and frozen into a mutually excluding dichotomy. This separation into Aristotelian a and not-a has been almost perfect … Every question, every answer, every method, every jurisdiction, every task has been assigned to either one or the other, with practically no overlaps. One consequence is that they are both pathologized, split into sickness, ripped apart into a crippled half-science and a crippled half-religion.”
Unfortunately, Maslow was never able to distill his ideas for mainstream readers; he wrote almost exclusively for his peers. The world is the poorer for this, because Maslow uncovered truths about the human condition that are tremendously uplifting and inspiring—and are easily within the understanding of nearly every person on the planet. With this book, nearly four decades after Maslow’s death, individuals at last have a program that shows them how to put these truths to work in their lives.

From Chapter Eight of The MetaValues Breakthrough:
Dr. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs has now been around so long that it is a yawner for most students in Psychology 101. Although important progress has been made by many pioneers, the great new frontier of the human mind -the summit of the pyramid- has not yet been fully explored. There is no recognized science of values. And the vast majority of humankind still actualize only a small fraction of their potentials. The time has come to propose a new model of humankind that is based upon Maslow’s metamotivation theory- a model that better embraces the farther reaches of what a human being could become.

Larry Mullins

January 1, 2010

The Peak Experience and Self-Actualizing1

My personal journey began with a Peak Experience. However, I was to learn that such experiences may redirect lives, but they soon fade away. What is needed is a way of life in which the elusive process of self-actualization becomes an experience-able reality for the average person. I am now convinced that there are no super people who live at sustained peak levels of consciousness that are unattainable by the “ordinary” person. The MetaValues Breakthrough lifts the lid from human potential as never before. Virtually any normal person can access the inexhaustible power of MetaValues. Knowing how to do this, aspiring actualizers no longer need to be helpless victims of the volatile ebb and flow of human motivation. Even a meaningless life of stultifying boredom can be dramatically converted into a quest toward actualizing some personal mission—a worthy vision or dream—something that is not yet a material reality, but ought to be. The MetaValues Breakthrough is not a self-help book, but rather a MetaValues-help book. My premise is not that we can lift ourselves, but rather that we can be lifted.

November 26, 2009

TRUTH, BEAUTY and GOODNESS

The MetaValues® that will Inspire the Leaders
Who Will Change the World

“The world is in a crisis of values.
And we are all called to leadership, all of us, to meet this challenge.
For the first time in the history of civilization, large numbers of us can choose to answer this call. To do this successfully, we must understand the power of the primary MetaValues that govern the universe:
Truth, Beauty and Goodness.

Because when our successes allure us towards arrogance,
Truth cautions and reminds us of our limitations.

When self-interest compresses our perception of reality,
Beauty reminds us of the richness and diversity of the world we live in.

And when power corrupts and does injury,
Goodness cleanses and heals.

For it is the MetaValues of Truth, Beauty and Goodness
that will inspire us to lead with confidence and love,
and will best serve as the touchstones
for our philosophies, our choices, and our actions.”
LARRY MULLINS
www.MetaValues.net

July 28, 2009

RESPONSE TO ANIL

Good day Anil. Let me preface my remarks with a disclaimer. I know Western thinkers generally embrace models such as Maslow’s pyramid. However, when discussing a model, such as the pyramid, we must keep in mind that it is an imaginary concept that we are imposing upon reality. It makes us more comfortable, but it does not really exist.

On the other hand, when discussing immensely complex issues such as human motivation it is helpful to have an idea what conceptual model of the human psyche a particular individual subscribes to. My understanding of one Eastern view is that the essence of a mortal (forgive the brevity and crudeness) could be viewed as concentric circles, with the spiritual essence of the individual in the center, and increasingly grosser levels of matter enveloping it. Freud used a different, more simplistic idea of the ID, the EGO and the SUPER EGO, with no concession to a spiritual component. Maslow himself was a professed atheist, yet he hinted at transcendent qualities in the mortal being, while insisting that such qualities as the highest values were somehow biological in nature. I find neither Maslow or Freud’s models satisfactory, in that they fail to explain transcendent qualities in mortals that appear to impinge upon the materialistic situational field, especially in critical moments. Maslow and Freud also fail to explain the continuity of consciousness that we all experience and sense to be valid. The Eastern model comes close to explaining both phenomenon, but still seemed to fall a bit short.

Victor Frankl offered a much more viable option than any of the three above, in my judgment. He explained his model at length in the book he wrote immediately after his concentration camp experience, “The Unconscious God.” Later this book was republished a few years ago as “Man’s Search for Ultimate Meaning.” (Not to be confused with his “Man’s Search for Meaning.” They are very different.) Frankl believed in two spiritual components are essential parts of mortal being, two “irreducible essences.” One was very similar to the Eastern spiritual essence … the changeless, personal “I am” that is uniquely us, yet part of the ultimate whole. Yet, Frankl declared that this immortal essence “should not be a judge unto itself.” He suggested that a second spiritual essence, objective, impersonal, and transcendent was necessary to guide the mortal. In this way he brushed aside ethical “rules” and declared the second ultimate essence capable of operating infallibly to provide mortal guidance in the present. I found this hybrid model (that is dual components of spiritual influence, one personal and the other objective and impersonal) in only one other place, “The Urantia Book.” This huge and challenging tome claims to be a revelation that synthesizes science, religion and philosophy. I find many useful ideas in it.

With these caveats in mind, I will attempt to offer you a response to your questions.

QUESTION: 1. How does his theory explain Victor Frankl’s case who chose to live at the top of the Maslow’s pyramid even when his most basic needs were not being fulfilled in the Nazi concentration camps. Galileo, Rembrandt, Van Gogh, were poor to the extent that their most basic needs were not being fulfilled when they produced some finest works in their fields contributions that can at least fit in the middle of the pyramid, if not at the highest levels. (By the way does he ever talk about the pyramid in his book. Some people say the concept of pyramid was added later)

Maslow’s model does not really explain instances of spiritual transcendence that makes possible virtual miracles of the human spirit. Unlike many people, I believe the self-actualizing process may engage on any level of the pyramid. I find the pyramid helpful in explaining immature behavior, but once we enter the self-actualizing process material cause and effect is less and less significant. The self-actualizer becomes lost in his or her quest. Ironically, we become more and more our real self as we become less and less concerned with its welfare. Maslow presented his pyramid about In 1943, in a paper that featured his Hierarchy of Human Needs. This would turn out to be the one piece of his work that nearly all his academic peers in psychology enthusiastically embraced. Yet, in my judgment, his later work was much more important.

QUESTION 2. Does a person shift to the next level of hierarchy when his needs in the current level get satisfied substantially or satisfied at least to the most basic level. In case it is substantial, what makes a human decide how much is substantial? How does he know that level has been achieved? Isn’t it something within him that decides it? If that is so how much control he wields in manipulating that feeling?

The different levels are defused, not clearly defined. Moreover, except for very basic needs, an individual does not consciously decide to move to another level. as one moves up the pyramid the “needs” become more like “urges.” If we are hungry, we clearly know it. But if we perceive we are not sufficiently respected, the urge is very subjective. How do we decide the situation of a lack of respect? It may be true, or it may be an immature feeling that is not justified. Therefore, we can hardly consciously decide that this emotional need has been satisfied in the manner a big hamburger satisfies our hunger. Indeed, it is “something in him” (as you say) that may enlighten his perspective of self-worth and appreciation. Virtually every distasteful thing a person does is when he strives to be loved and appreciated long after he should be striving to love and appreciate others.

QUESTION 3. Do we really need to go through these levels first hand or can we by pass them through our mental imagination?

In my judgment we cannot self-actualize in a vacuum. While it is possible to exercise integrity and excellence (truth and beauty) to some degree alone, it is very difficult to manifest goodness without a human relationship of some kind. Imagination is of immense importance to spiritual growth, but nothing can replace the reality of personal experience of human relationships. Personality relationships are ends in themselves, and transcend all other realities we can know as humans.

QUESTION 4. Don’t our actions often stem from the confluence of many needs–a
combination of needs from many levels?

Yes, I agree. And probably the most significant is the presence of a spiritual component in the mortal being.

QUESTION 5. Maslow’s theory tells us how most of us would respond in a certain situation but could we take “what people are likely to do in a certain situation” as “what they ought to be doing”? Our needs should be decided by what most of people may be doing at a certain level of human consciousness or should we see our needs in the context of a possible purpose we have been brought on earth?

In his later writings Dr. Maslow expressed the existence of two components that determine the behavior of self-actualizers. These remarkable human being are the flowers of humankind, only one percent of the population. The first component or attitude Maslow detected was the fact that all self-actualizers are committed to a mission (or purpose, as you describe it) larger and more important than self. The second component (which I call his lost discovery) was the self-actualizers passionate love for. and expression of, the MetaValues of truth, beauty and goodness, which in synthesis manifest as love. Self-actualizers become channels for the ultimate values and express them in their lives. Although Maslow believed MetaValues are biologically based, while I believe they come from our Creator.

I hope this is helpful.

Larry Mullins

July 15, 2009

George Orwell And The “If Only” Delusion

George Orwell observed that: “Nearly all creators of utopia have resembled the man who has a toothache, and therefore thinks happiness consists in not having a toothache.” Many gurus subsist on the “If Only” Delusion. People come to believe that “if only” they had this or that thing, or if only they could lose fifty pounds, or if only they could win the lottery they could be happy. But we know that once the blocks to self-actualization are removed, we are at a starting point. Real happiness consists, according Tony Robbins, not in getting what you want but rather in becoming all that you can be. And the message of The MetaValues Breakthrough is that we all have a magnificent gift to give that no one else can give. Most of us never learn to unwrap this gift. When we do, then all else will be added. Check out “Ask Not what the Universe can do for You, Ask what You can do for the Universe,” at http://metavalues.net/video/1.htm.

July 14, 2009

Self-Actualizing is about Forgetting Self

Maslow has been unjustly blamed by some for fostering a “me generation” of ego-centered narcissism. These cults seem to form around gurus, or ultra-energetic motivators who leap upon a stage and assure their adoring flock that they, too, can be “great.” It is professed that if one can only become fearless enough, free enough, brilliant enough, and can visualize success vividly enough, one can find happiness. The failure of the “ME” philosophy has now become as obvious as the insolvency of the Freudian “ethic.” Yet, in the face of our disillusioning role models, unhappy celebrities, and the continuous unraveling of the lives of rich and famous personalities, many aggressive would-be “achievers” persevere in worshiping the gods of power, narcissism, and fame — and to “keep score” with money and material possessions.
Maslow taught something quite different. The process of Self-Actualization often fosters the peak experience, or “flow.” At these moments of highest actualization there is a self-transcendence, a self-forgetfulness. One becomes completely involved with service to humankind.

July 3, 2009

Why do People in the Wilderness Die?

A billionaire, a playboy and a technician were lost in the wilderness. The billionaire, in the movie “The Edge,” was depicted by Anthony Hopkins. He told his fearful companions: “People die in the wilderness from shame. They are ashamed to be lost, afraid and confused. They wonder: how did I get here? Why can’t I find my way? So they fail to do the one thing that can save them. They fail to think.” The movie was perhaps an allegory that Abraham Maslow would have appreciated. When he began his studies, Maslow accepted the conventional wisdom that it is natural for most people in our culture to feel unwarranted guilt, crippling shame, and stressful anxiety. As he studied Self-Actualizers, though, he detected that they were relatively free of this baggage. Over time, they developed an attitude of impregnable self-respect. This self-respect was not overbearing or narcissistic, but rather balanced by an equal degree of respect for other people. How does such extraordinary self-respect evolve? In the MetaValues Breakthrough you will learn that one of the untold parts of the “secret,” is to restore the natural, innocent self-respect we had as children while also increasing, to an equal degree, the respect we have for other people. Check out this free, short video: http://metavalues.net/video/2.htm.

June 19, 2009

Is there really a secret?

Is there really a “secret”?
Does it REALLY Work?
The answer will surprise you …
With the publication of The MetaValues Breakthrough, Larry Mullins sweeps aside the idea that Self-Actualization is a process for the favored few. In this remarkable book Larry integrates Maslow’s concepts with the latest advancements and has created, according to one psychologist, “the most advanced framework ever written for achieving lasting peace, joy, and optimum actualization of potential.”
The MetaValues Breakthrough is not science …
The MetaValues Breakthrough is not Religion …
The MetaValues Breakthrough is not Philosophy …
The MetaValues Breakthrough is not “new age” …
The MetaValues Breakthrough is rather a synthesis of the most powerful ideas of science, religion and philosophy.
You have, right now, access to exactly the same core of power, energy, and inspiration that sustains the top one percent of achievers, the fortunate few, the Self-Actualizers. Starting today you can set into motion the process for creating a new life based upon all that is True, Beautiful and Good. To learn more watch the free videos at www.MetaValues.net . There is no opt-in information required. Just enjoy!

Older Posts »