> the untouched wounding eventually comes through and takes its toll if it stays unaddressed

This nails it, and I think a lot about this in the context of the very public cases of "unicorn" CEO falls-from-grace in recent years.

> That doesn't mean that we don't want to to continue having a meaningful contribution to the world, but the sense of ego-striving that is often just a mask for our wounds can gently fall away and allow us to walk through life a little more freely.

Very nicely put, many thanks.

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.

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.

Ron's second law: the hardest part of getting what you want is figuring out what it is.

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 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).

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?