To quote Maslow:<\/p>\n
“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\u2026 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…”<\/p>\n
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!<\/p>\n
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<\/i> 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”, …).<\/p>\n
Thus, we have a level 6<\/b> state, Meta-Integration<\/i>, in which the value system itself<\/i> 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”.<\/p>\n
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<\/i> rigid.<\/p>\n
The step from Level 5 to Level 6 is huge<\/i>, however, perhaps even to the extent of the step from Level 1 to Level 2, as it requires abandoning stability<\/i>. 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<\/i>. It represents the extension of one’s moral reasoning from synchronic to diachronic, as one can now envision a direction<\/i> or change<\/i> 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.<\/p>\n
So how can we summarize this?<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n