To quote Maslow:

“I have recently found it more and more useful to differentiate between two kinds of self-actualizing people, those who were clearly healthy, but with little or no experiences of transcendence, and those in whom transcendent experiencing was important and even central… It is unfortunate that I can no longer be theoretically neat at this level. I find not only self-actualizing persons who transcend, but also non-healthy people, non-self-actualizers who have important transcendent experiences. It seems to me that I have found some degree of transcendence in many people other than self-actualizing ones as I have defined this term…”

This is precisely the place in which Maslow’s theory can be extended to Dabrowski’s. These “transcendent experiences” likely correspond to Dabrowski’s crises. The pre-actualization crises are already explained by Dabrowski’s levels II-IV of disintegration. However, if we synthesize the two concepts, Dabrowski claims the final crisis propels an individual to self-actualization, which is characterized by inner harmony, but Maslow claims that further transcendent experiences exist!

So which is right? Well, probably both, in different senses. Dabrowski’s “level 5” is a state in which one’s behavior is completely self-constructed (based on “the third factor”, which is an individual’s drive towards growth and autonomy), which should bring about an internal peace. However, it is the nature of humans (especially those characterized by a “drive towards growth”) to continuously strive for better situations, and thus such value systems will change with time, to be replaced by value systems that the individual considers “higher” as his or her perspective, knowledge, and self-expectations shift! (It is worth noting that we avoid infinite recursion because the “meta-values” are responses to internal or external circumstances embedded within the value system itself; there is no such thing as a separate “meta-value”, which would require a “meta-meta-value”, and that a “meta-meta-meta value”, …).

Thus, we have a level 6 state, Meta-Integration, in which the value system itself becomes subject to an individual’s scrutiny. This state is likely the final resting point of the fully actualized psyche, but only because it is iterative: it represents a “punctuated equilibrium” of peaceful periods followed by intense and quite deliberately guided revisions (which are, in a sense, rapidly occurring re-disintegrations) due to rapid changes in one’s underlying values brought about by what Maslow calls “transcendent experiences”.

We can theoretically call self-scrutiny the “fourth factor”, but it’s more like an inwardly-turned version of the third. Still, the step from being certain in one’s value systems (though a healthier condition than relying upon society or self-benefit to justify one’s behaviors) to devising value systems that are internally consistent and stable, yet flexible as the individual gains new knowledge and experience is clearly a healthy one: we can never acquire the sum total of the world’s knowledge or experience, so absolute rigidity is pathological. Dabrowski himself was the one who stated that healthy people must accept the world as it is, and it is not rigid.

The step from Level 5 to Level 6 is huge, however, perhaps even to the extent of the step from Level 1 to Level 2, as it requires abandoning stability. However, it is necessary to fully achieve one’s potential, rather than to simply act as the image of one particular basis of values, even one that was self-chosen, because values are fluid. It represents the extension of one’s moral reasoning from synchronic to diachronic, as one can now envision a direction or change in a value system, and thus an internally driven future expectation. Though (barely) expressible in Maslow’s theory through his addition of “transcendent events”, this is impossible to describe in Dabrowski’s theory as Dabrowski stated it.

So how can we summarize this?

• Secondary Integration represents a point of stability, but people operating at Level 5, though “self-actualized”, do not have the ability to effectively question their own value systems as new internal or external circumstances compel them to.
• The initial crisis that forces a person to adopt a new set of values does not represent negative adjustment unless it indicates a regression to social or self-driven values (the first or second factors). If the revision to one’s value system is conscious and directed, it represents a higher level of self-actualization rather than a lower one, which we call Level 6 – “Meta-Integration”.
• Paradoxically, this state is not as stable as Level 5, as it undergoes rapid periods of change coincident with Maslow’s “Transcendent Events”. When not undergoing these changes, it is at least as stable as Level 5, as one’s behavior is not only consistent with one’s value system, but one’s value system is consistent with one’s circumstances and expectations.
• Because this can happen many times, it likely represents the final state of the psyche. Thus, even a self-actualized person must undergo crises from time-to-time; the highest state of consciousness is still directed by the presence of distress (depressing? Well, the result is a more personally-optimal value-system, so the hardship is greatly offset by the newfound knowledge; it can be thought of as learning).
• The inward expression of the third factor to the end of self-examination can be considered a “fourth-factor” that has not yet emerged at level 5. It’s not really distinct from the third, however.
• It’s a big jump, and many self-actualized people do not successfully make it. Such people likely remain at Level 5 rather than negatively adjusting, as they are already convinced of the rectitude of their value systems. These are the artists or scientists who ply their craft in a manner that they are convinced is correct due to their internal values, but are unable to abstract themselves away from the situation and ask “is this really correct anymore?”

With this addition, Dabrowski’s theory falls neatly into place with Maslow’s and my own. I think it’s quite an elegant and powerful idea that unifies two major developmental theories. Ignore it at your own risk.

I also made some less elegant distinctions on Dabrowski’s first level at my Temple page.