Spiritual in different ways
In parallel with the fact that I was working on the degree work to become a psychologist, I also tried to make a "model" that would summarize central aspects of the whole thing. This work went on for several years (2009-2015 approx.) and went through several phases. Things changed names, and the graphic itself looked a little different. The picture above was as far as I got. “The final version.” (In the text this is mostly referred to as ASI, "Adult Spirituality Inventory". Here and there I have used NA which is an abbreviation for "New age/new spirituality", so you know.)
I developed my thoughts quite a lot in relation to James W Fowler's "Faith Development Theory" (FDT), which I find inspiring and useful in several ways. Sympathetically and briefly presented to a Swedish audience by Göran Bergstrand in the book "From naivety to naivety" (Verbum, 1990).
However, I felt that FDT had difficulty capturing or differentiating between certain peculiarities of the "new spirituality". Fowler and his assistants have also built the model based on interviews with traditionally religious, above all Christian, individuals. The text below, lifted deep out of the electronic darkness here on the website, is long and spreads a little in different directions. But I have cleared some. (The original text remains in another place and is called "Modeller"... )
Don't worry about various designations, axes and types! In the resonating text itself, however, there is a part that I still stand by, or at least am not ready to let go of all yet.
I introduce a concept, "A second boldness", which of course alludes to "A second naivete" in Fowler. Another concept I came up with and justify somewhere in the text is "The return of the absolute". The reasoning about a "Paradoxal" or "Supra-paradoxal" level may seem overworked, but I feel there may be something in it even if mostly hypothetical.
_ _ _ _ _
In the book "Stages of Faith" (1981), James W. Fowler presents a seven-level model of how an individual's spirituality can develop over the course of a lifetime. Not everyone achieves all stages, even if the individual achieves old age. The levels start already in childhood.
Fowler claims that individuals can be at very different levels, even within the same congregation or spiritual context. However, he believes that his presentation and results should not be understood normatively. It is not better to be at a higher level.
(Skips 1-4)
5. Conjunctive Faith
Early midlife and beyond
"This stage develops a 'second naïvité'", an expression that Fowler uses with reference to Paul Ricoeur. Symbolic and concrete are reunited here.
"Unusual before mid-life, Stage 5 knows the sacrament of defeat and the reality of irrevocable commitments and acts. What the previous stage struggled to clarify, in terms of boundaries of self and outlook, this stage now makes porous and permeable. Alive to paradox and the truth in apparent contradictions, this stage strives to unify opposites in mind and experience" (p. 347, in Conn)
In the same reasoning, something emerges that we need to pay attention to regarding the new age. Fowler further describes how the individual here stands free from group, tribe, class, religious context or nation... On a deeper level, this criterion certainly works for NA as well, but superficially it describes an attitude that occurs everywhere within NA.
"... and whith the seriousness that can arise when life is more than half over" (in Conn, p 347)
The danger here is to become paralyzed, passive, "giving rise to complacency or synical withdrawal, due to its paradoxical understanding of truth" (in Conn, p. 547)
6. Universalizing Faith
Midlife and beyond
"Exceedingly rare" (in Conn). Often they are killed by their own, and often appreciated only after their death.
"Universalizers are often experienced as subversive of the structures (including religious structures) by which we sustain our individual and corporate survival, security and significance" (in Conn, p. 348) (Sufficient as a description of how many with a new age/new spiritual world view looking at ideals and perhaps even at themselves.)
"Particularaities are cherished because they are vessels of the universal" (in Conn, p.348)
Here, perhaps as with Maslow at his highest level, do you meet people who have had mystical experiences? Maslow called these "peak experiences" to distance them from the religious (Wulff-2, p. 521)
Called "Generalized belief" by Wulff-2, p.230. Translation of "universilized"?
At Loewen... this stage is called the "Highest, Transcendent Stage" (?) This can lead to one moving on to a well-integrated, highest stage of development, where one can deal with seemingly incompatible aspects of life, for example the conflict between one's own aspirations and the legitimate claims of others or can reflect on human existence and its paradoxes. (Rosén, 2000)
(Rosen, 2000) Less than one percent among those who have reached this point can perhaps in addition reach freedom from the preoccupation with their own, objectifiable self and reach intuitiveness in thinking and experiencing", p273.
Brief about alternative model!
Both axes are the "p-axis"
Both the P axis and the S axis are basically the axis of personality organization in psychodynamic theory. They go from lower, immature, to higher, mature, level with four, five steps.
Regression needs to be shown
Two dimensions, to be able to show problems and pathology
The ASI has two dimensions that aim to also cover and explain problems and pathology.
Can explain how to "go backwards".
It can explain why the individual can go backwards (e.g. via involvement in a certain movement). To understand that, a dynamic theory, a conflict theory, is needed. Like Fowler and Kohlberg, using Piaget's model for the child's cognitive development on an adult population is not straightforward. A regression concept is needed.
Restricting to adults gives "higher resolution"
Fowler's descriptions of the latter two stages are very difficult to navigate.
Better describe neo-spirituality.
ASI provides greater opportunity to fairly assess more individualized, holistic spirituality, such as NA. Some wording also very nicely captures the dilemma that can arise with an NA spirituality (and I want to clarify once again that ASI leans heavily on Fowler's work above all), while other wording and words of caution so clearly reveal that Fowler's primary frame of reference is a communal spirituality of a traditional Christian kind. He wants to differentiate the individual on the sixth stage from cult leaders and ayatollahs. At the same time, the description of the former sometimes becomes too individualistic or "heroic". In part, this can be explained by the fact that the examples that can be referenced are also ones that are known and have made an impression on the world, while the others, for natural reasons, cannot be used as examples in the same way. But the image sometimes still becomes too individualistic or "heroic"
No stage theory, but typology?
ASI is not a stage theory, but a typology. (cf. Fowler in his article) What is the difference? Is it when you keep things like age constant, in this case "adult" (which, however, is assumed to contain a spectrum as well, cf. Erikson).
Normative.
ASI is normative. Functioning at an age-appropriate level is better than functioning at a lower level.
Covers adult life only (plus late adolescence).
It only covers adulthood. If it covered the whole life it would be quite similar to Fowler, and could show normal development of defense levels etc.
Alternative model
This alternative model is based on two axes, yielding nine types (five clusters).
How to justify the types walking on the "height"?
For example, B, C and F both span both neurotic and mature levels. Why not over two levels on the S axis (for e.g. B both "contradictory" and "subcontradictory" level)? Because vertical differences are more sluggish and only move in one direction (dementia?). Here, the individual in adulthood is stationary in older age. Movements along the S-axis are also relatively slow, although more mobile than along the P-axis. (Does the model show very temporary movement, such as intoxication, falling in love, fatigue, etc.? Or should it be seen as that the person also here has his relatively fixed level along the S-axis? Which is fixed by a certain doctrine, habit, outlook on life, ISM)
Cf 9-field, benefits?
Why a modified version of Fowler might be needed
Need more precision when assessing the line of development or scale, the spectrum, which is connected with new age/new spirituality, otherwise easily misjudge its various expressions. Overestimation is probably the closest thing to hand. A universal spirituality, which has strong tolerant and fraternal ideals, which "prefers rather than falls" in disputes, etc. While Fowles' model has its origin more in community spirituality, with a traditional belief in God, more sensible ideals, etc.
Using a psychodynamic basis. Connects to typical defenses and functional levels, which are possibly reduced in comparison to what the individual is fundamentally capable of (that is the basic idea: In Fowler's model, one cannot retreat to previous levels.)
While the "universal", the tolerance for other viewpoints etc. is (a) BV dependent variable in Fowler's Stages of Faith, it is the OV independent variable in this alternative model (can you say that?). New age/new spirituality is already in its basic form "universal", limitlessly tolerant, etc. One must not attach too much importance to such things. Rather, one must be able to distinguish such "universalism" which is rather high ideals, self-deception, etc.
Universalism, tolerance, individualistic ideals and self-image, independence from community etc. are constants. It is nothing that varies along a variable. What varies, however, is "paradoxality", tolerance for contradictions, both internal and external,,,
(Variables:
OV=experimental variable, causal variable or controlled variable.
BV= result variable, outcome variable or effect variable)
The same applies to individualism. That the individual does not allow himself to be limited by a collective is partly built into the philosophy itself, and partly a difficult criterion, seen from, for example, a psychoanalytic perspective. Individualism/independence also becomes an OV-Independent variable.
What is simply needed is a more dynamic understanding of phenomena such as regression-adulthood, freedom-fundamentalism, collectivism-individualism, and a model that makes it possible to distinguish the different expressions. In other words: There are at least two kinds of regression, two kinds of individualism, two kinds of responsibility, etc., and models must be able to distinguish them.
A dynamic understanding is also needed to explain how a spirituality can "go backwards". Fowler has received criticism for this. According to him himself, this is not possible (ref).
Another important difference is that this alternative model should limit itself to adult individuals. In the doctrine itself, New Age/new spirituality has certain characteristic features that are reminiscent of, for example, pre-Oedipal thinking and functioning, i.e. things that develop normally through childhood and adolescence, up to adulthood. Allowing the model to include all ages would make it difficult to distinguish and address benign and less benign elements of such "pre-oidipality". There will be too many dependent (?) variables.
Even if one restricts the model to include adult individuals, one will need to be able to describe both: 1) high and low levels of personality organization, 2) high and low levels (of a more temporary nature) of the spiritual commitment, and 3) the latter in both a malignant and a benign variant!
“Mystical experiences.” Mysterious experiences? Presumably they can appear at different levels. This is what transpersonal psychologists (Wilber et al, Hart) claim. That "50%" had mystical experiences that for them confirmed and inspired spirituality (La Cour, reply to Granqvist). I myself am skeptical about this... In different religious cultures, such things can be valued very differently. In some it is common, sanctioned, while in others it is viewed with skepticism.
"Variable"
Here are some thoughts about what could be the basis for a differentiation of new age/new spirituality. Partly based on the interview material, but mostly speculative. It has something to do with "mobility", which new age/new spirituality is almost in itself the opposite of. New age/new spirituality dwells so much on binary magnitudes, b/w analyzes of existence and ideals, hierarchical analyzes of peoples and cultures, both contemporary and throughout history, total conditions
Developing and nurturing an inner mobility is a struggle for the follower of this teaching, I believe, to a much greater degree (at the group level) than for other types of teachings or ideologies. This also has to do with its high coherence, or what to call it. This means that it actually gives answers.
Maturity in a psychological sense: This has a connection with the integration of aggressive and libidinous forces/drives (Winnicott, Fairbairn). “Ego Integration.” It also has a connection to schizo-paranoid and depressive positions (Klein). Integration of Aggression and love, Weakness and strength, Independence and dependence on others, Things that can be influenced, and things that cannot be influenced, To live, love and create, even though you know you will die, Using your life as well one can, although it is finite…
A challenge for the follower of new age/new spirituality: Two development goals that collide!
At the same time as the individual approaches with age a more mature/ambivalent/paradoxical stage and vantage point (here led and pressured by, if nothing else, the approaching death of close relatives and her own and the cessation of many relationships) – Fowler's 5th, and perhaps 6th stage; 4 and 5 according to ASI - there are no completely bad or good people, everyone is struggling as best they can - so you get a job instead (but the degree of commitment, and also motives, and which needs it satisfies, obviously varies from individual to individual) with questions of human perfection and a perfect order. This has such clear parallels to "adolescent thinking", i.e. (contradictory level, according to ASI).
Different names for such mobility could be an openness to paradoxes, e.g. A "unit of measure" that could possibly be used is "tolerance of ambiguity". It is a researched topic. Individuals are assumed to be able to dispose of this ability to varying degrees. In terms of developmental psychology, this is a fact. And psychiatric too. And in different phases of life, and faced with different amounts of stress (an interview situation, poor sleep, not being used to talking about these things with a stranger, that one's spiritual interest engages one's thinking to a lesser degree and therefore offers resistance when trying to verbalize it). But what are its markers in a context like this?
Degree of ambivalent ability, paradoxicality, is proposed as markers at the individual level. At the group level, however, these markers will not do. New age/new spirituality as a phenomenon falls short here compared to a more everyday Christianity, for example, while this possibly says very little about the followers, but more about the strain on adult structures that association with the spiritual system can entail. (And of course it cannot say anything about the degree to which one or the other spirituality is more or less "true".)
Here are a number of signs of such mobility, partly inspired by the interviews:
"Play." The person, otherwise a devoted atheist and realist, who tells us that on a mushroom tour she doesn't want to throw pussies on the ground "because then the forest won't give her any mushrooms". And who also dares to tell about it! Being amused by and having an interest and fascination with astrology, even though you don't "believe" in it at all and it clashes with other assumptions about life that you hold dear. And who can joke about it!
"Forget truths." That you can sometimes live "forgetful" of your philosophy. Admittedly, everyone creates their own reality, but... Speaking of the vaccination, which my informant believes is dangerous, so she tries to persuade her acquaintances not to take it. But they do it anyway. When she worries about a friend, this friend says, "Esh, I don't like it." And they have themselves to blame. And it doesn't really matter anyway, because everything exists and everything". Risk of "cop-out", says my informant. The point is that you should become a little more humane, not less (ö15)
Some emphasize a kind of millimeter justice, since there is also no reason to be upset. Others may become irritated. That one could in principle suffer from other people's stupidity and bad decisions, the world is ending, etc. (ö18)
One person describes how she feels bad about reading about animal cruelty, but that she still embraces this notion that everything has a meaning and a reason, etc. (ö63)
"Endurance." Perseverance is a good sign, if it has not gone to exaggeration and is more about coercion and cowardice. The image of NA as a collection of individuals moving from activity to activity does not fit everyone, and to a lesser degree the fraction of neo-spirituality that this study has in focus.
"Being able to feel guilt." New age/new spirituality is theoretically guilt-free. To then be able to feel guilt, even in such a "guilt-free" world, must be seen as a double achievement.
Compare the Christians (Arlebrand) for whom guilt is central. Winnicott on the debt in relation to the original objects. Having tried to destroy (but they held) and now the rest of their lives trying to make amends. Pathology that manifests itself, among other things, in an inability to feel guilt. Instead shame?
It is difficult to get rid of the feeling that in association with new age/new spirituality the extremes will meet and feed each other. The notion of total responsibility brings irresponsibility to life and the recourse to primitive mechanisms for "ejecting" the inner meets. Here, in parallel with the individual's spiritual creative power - and responsibility - there is a huge preoccupation with what "the powerful" have for themselves, the establishment.
"Humor."
"Self-distance."
"Healthy aggressiveness." Another area where the doctrine itself puts strong sticks in the wheel (since it is not possible to accuse someone else of anything at all, in the deepest sense, and there are clear ideals about what should be practiced, and what are signs that one has come a long way in one's development). "If I want to make changes in my life now, that's it, how do I do it? What do I do when the neighbor is teasing me with bilious fever?” (ö61) And can talk about it!
"Openness to mystery." To be open to the mystery, that everything can't be understood perhaps, and that because of both things you know about and things you don't know about. It gives distance to the concrete, scientism becomes more difficult. Conspiracies as well. This is something other than squeamishness, or conspiracy thinking. It is rather something that grinds off the edges so that, for example, conspiracy thoughts don't really take hold. Can it really be that the dark is "out there"? It also something other than "meditative emptiness or peace", or at least can be confused.
"To like the ambiguous." To like, draw nourishment from, the ambiguous. As the interviewee who likes the "dirty", and is in no hurry to get out of here, from earthly life (the person in the survey who in many ways, for me, represents an example that it is actually possible to live with new age/new spirituality!)
"Tolerating the imperfect." To like the shitty, the imperfect. The half-finished. To like the journey, the struggle, even the hard part to some extent. Because the perfect, the ideal, has been toned down – it was too heavy to carry, and served psychic purposes that they too became too heavy to continue.
"Respect for the undead." To show in his reasoning that the unconscious - that man is not always "master of his own house" - is a reality for one. That the perfect is just a bad dream. Life has to be lived in the gray zone, there is nothing else. YinYang. Exponentially to access the last percent of the imperfect.
That it is things in the person themselves that cause it, bodily symptoms for example, does not have to be food, electricity, substances in the environment, sound, noise... Or "energies". You keep a bond with your own inner self, that the answer may be in whole or in part there.
“Mature, flexible defenses.” (theory) Humor, long-term planning, os v. Secondary defenses, keeping things "on the inside". (Reincarnation memories a kind of intermediate form - between primary and secondary strategies? It falls outside, but is still tied to one's own person.) Absence or not overuse of immature, inflexible defenses (splitting, primitive idealization, etc.).
NA can cause otherwise mature or neurotically structured to use more immature defenses than would otherwise be natural. Much like when the individual is under pressure from circumstances such as stress, poor sleep. Or for that matter is in love, inspired with a dash of schizo-paranoid position. This should be in a different place - it belongs to "hypothesis"...)
"Coherent life experience." Coherence at the individual level. To somehow bring together - as in this case - NA teachings with ordinary life, the imperfection of being human. This is the championship level. Relating coherently to NA is much more difficult than, for example, with standard Christianity, to "get it together" simply, philosophy with ordinary life
"Maybe it makes me a happier person, but I mean... I don't think it's very easy to live anyway. If I do say so. I can feel a great sense of hopelessness and think... So there is no such guarantee that the sun will shine." (p? )
The same thing is on another's mind, as when asked if it is an optimistic view of life that he has, that of course it is. In the big perspective he is an optimist, but in the small he is quite pessimistic (FL)
(I perceive both as relatively mature individuals. By the way, both refer to Dostoyevsky in connection with the theodicy problem, they have read him and been impressed by him. But I perceive KH's worldview as a more elaborate or "coherent" NA doctrine that turns up the temperature extra! She thus finds it more difficult to maintain an inner balance - perhaps especially in an interview situation. FL has a more archaic, mysterious variant, which gives greater scope for one's own approach and interpretation.) (ö64)
"To be able to grieve." To be able to mourn those who have died, friends and relatives. His youth, missed chances. The children growing up. Mourning has a lot to do with the depressive position. To lay down, for example, one's manic defenses. That the inner world becomes real to one. Beyond the ideals (Winnicott, Klein). Wulff writes about how Erikson, for the stage of old age, also adds "disgust" to the otherwise positive solution "integrity". That even the wise will feel disgust in the face of weakness, etc. (Wulff, p.196, understood correctly? Error in the picture in Wulff, compare with Erikson!)
The questions that deal with the "loss" of close relatives, for example, and how this may have affected the person, potentially clash with several of the neo-spiritual beliefs: That one can suffer for no reason, that one can be "affected" by something. That the person who dies or disappears is no longer within reach clashes partly with the notion of a life after death, and the possibility that this person continues to work in one's life, for example as a guardian angel, partly with the notion of telepathic bonds etc. It is more difficult to be able to mourn with this kind of outlook on life…
“Ability to take responsibility.” That the person wants to take personal, adult responsibility. Which doesn't feel premature, clever, reactive. Responsibility for the neighborhood, family too, not just the big utopian life project.
"Put up with starting opinions." This, as Fowler described so well, when the individual goes from one stage to another, frees himself. Someone claims that "you create your own reality", MM, while L claims that reality is something that EXISTS. It is not "a subjectivist quagmire". That everyone has their own truth… (Even if there would only be a truth in the end.)
"Put up with imperfection." That it is not all or nothing, either for oneself or others. Compare adolescent thinking: Adults who show any weakness have thereby disqualified themselves.
“Individualization? (Jung)”, Symbolic Maturity, Inner Mobility, Vitality
THE AXLES
Both the P-axis and the S-axis are basically the axis of personality organization in psychodynamic theory. I'm not sure how explicit to be in printing this on the P axis? It is easily more "precise" than what the figure actually means. Perhaps one can settle for writing "high-level" or "low-level defense". For the S axis I have invented some new concepts. The central concept is "paradoxical", which basically corresponds to mature/ambivalent, yes you know. "At home with straw", mature middle age, capacity for love and work (Erikson, Fowler... etc.). The individual has gained reasonable distance from his former adolescent/young adult thinking - black/white analyses, twisted egocentrism, idealization, high ideals, "apparent hypocrisy" (Elkind), etc.
What suddenly became so clear to me is that "new age" deals with "absolute greatness". Much like the young man. There are perfect individuals, and who have become this by their own power, and such you yourself can become (and you can become their disciple, read them, listen to them), there is perfectly selfless love. "Utopia" is not imagination, but a real vision of the future that especially open-minded people were able to get, and a benchmark, os v. As a 17-year-old! (I think mainstream religion has much less of this, and thus less of the "pressure" and temptations: Christ is indeed perfect, but also god, so he belongs to a different category. The Kingdom of Heaven is a Utopia, but at the same time so obviously "somewhere else ", a mystery. The New Age, however, wants to embrace such notions with a "scientific" spirit.)
Note that I am not taking a position on whether the beliefs themselves are stupid or false (because I may not even think they are!) but what impact they can have on the individual, and why.
Whether this is to be seen as normal tasks, a la Erikson, or projects or ambitions that the individual has chosen himself, it can be described as "two development goals that collide". At the same time as the individual, with age, approaches/should approach a mature/"paradoxical" (Fowler's level 6) point of view (there are no completely good or bad people, everyone is struggling as best they can, etc.) then one gets busy ( instead, but the degree of involvement obviously varies from individual to individual) with "the big questions" of perfect morality and love, the only right action and the perfection of man - which have such clear parallels to adolescent thinking ("contradictory" level - found nothing better in Swedish) – with an almost scientific sense of self
For a while I thought you needed to have a higher step on the organizational axis, but not anymore. "Mature" covers most things, there is room to grow in. However, one more level is needed on the S-axis. This level could be called "Supraparadoxal". It corresponds in part to Fowler's 7th, the "Universal" level (although I think his description has too much of an individualistic, "heroic" feel - with references to Gandhi and Mother Theresa - probably colored by a long life enclosed in various Christian congregations and context!)
What do I think is special about this level? Why is it needed in a scheme of levels of spirituality? Well, it represents "the return of the absolute" - that the individual can once again take up - what up until now has been - typical "teenage" themes but now without the risk of being too much affected by the gravity from this period, or these layers in his psyche. This requires that one has first conquered a "paradoxical" capacity.
Here, I perceive it as, is the very focal point if you want to describe the potentially problematic aspect of new age.
But it is unclear if the supra-paradoxical represents a further "maturity" level? Or why not everyone gets here. A normally fairly favorable personality development lands (I think with Erikson) in "reconciliation" or "peace" etc. But not everyone seems to take the step further to a "supraparadoxical" level, just as few take the step from 6 to 7 according to Fowler. (Why not? Depending on chance, temperament, interest? But perhaps also because this "mature" crowd actually contains several subgroups, which are at different levels of a different kind of maturity, which is less "life course" generated, but instead based on accumulated experience from many lived incarnations.Could this be a synthesis of "new age" teaching and mainstream developmental psychology?
P axis (i-iv)
The individual's resources in the foundation. Maturity level reached. How the individual tends to function in the face of everyday challenges: work, friends, love, in conflicts or when expectations are not met.
A person's level on this axis is a balance. The presence of lower defenses is not a big problem, as it is called (unless overly rigid or dominant) but the absence of higher ones is.
The individual's resources in the foundation. Maturity level reached. How the individual tends to function in the face of everyday challenges: work, friends, love, in conflicts, when expectations are not met, etc.
iii-iv
High level defenses, secondary defenses. Marked Neurotic up to Mature (Transcendent) Repository.
i-ii
Low level defenses, primary defenses. Psychotic, delusional up to Markedly neurotic. Maybe gifted. Perhaps functioning at this level after a long, hard life of crime, drugs, betrayal, dashed hopes and relationships. Hardened (where in practice it is difficult to determine what is the individual's actual level of functioning and what is not). Perhaps due to a high internal "pressure" that can be relieved, for example, with psychotherapy, or increasing age.
iv
iii
ii
i
Low level defenses, primary defenses. Psychotic structure, up to markedly neurotic. Maybe gifted. Perhaps functioning at this level after a long, hard life of crime, drugs, betrayal, dashed hopes and relationships. Hardened, where in practice it is difficult to determine what is the individual's actual functional level and what is not. Perhaps due to a high internal pressure that can be relieved with psychotherapy, or increasing age.
S axis 1-(5)
A scale from the individual standing completely uncomprehending/threatened in the face of the ambiguous, to this downright becoming a source of nourishment, what makes life worth living (literature, art and music, for example, as well as a hunger for a more demanding spirituality) something one turns to, an object of wonder.
"How the adult individual relates to ambiguous impressions/impulses from the environment and from within himself"
How the individual functions under the influence of the specific doctrine, or community (religious, political, etc). This is the individual as we judge her based on her appearance, her reasoning, opinions - her attitude towards dissent, etc. Here there are two factors that influence: First, the specific teaching (St. Francis' words at a retreat, versus a demagogic Hitler in the radio during burning war), partly the individual's response to this, her inherent tendencies, and more or less conscious desires. Where the individual ends up on (II) depends on both of these two factors, it is a mix, "a dance".
Also for the S axis, the presence of things that belong further down the scale does not say much, if it does not become too dominant or perhaps "perverted" (?), but the absence of things that belong to the higher levels (aspects of ambivalence) does.
The S-axis is about how the individual functions under the influence of the specific doctrine or community (religious, ideological, even political). Two influencing factors: First, the specific teaching or community (St. Francis' words at a retreat, vs. a demagogic Hitler on the radio during a burning war), secondly the individual's response to this, her inherent tendencies or resources, and more or less unconscious desires . Where the individual ends up on the S axis depends on a mix of these two factors, it is "a dance".
Lower levels on the S axis. There are things that break almost anyone and would cause us to perform below our actual level. And there are things that only attract some, and maybe only for a time, and only to a certain degree. This can be a regression that can be both problematic and beneficial. (Note! Although the postive regression is usually not so long-lasting or frequent that it is justified to place the individual after it?)
If the higher levels of the S-axis can be said to be inversely related to the lower levels, then there are factors that can cause the individual to function at a higher level than he or she tends to do in the face of everyday challenges and stresses. This could be that she or he gets "something to believe in", the influence of people who wish her well, who keep her company and care for her. For example, being able to change the drugs and a destructive relationship to the running shoes, or a congregation, "a life with Jesus", can of course have good effects. No longer being hunted (imagined, as a result of the drug addiction, or real, as during periods of abstinence, when moving among ordinary, decent people in town, or hunted by people to whom you owe money, or by the memory of them you failed, for example) makes it clear that the individual can begin to function with minor elements of primitive defenses, completely regardless of what the individual's actual level is.
The teachings that the individual with a level 2 spirituality includes do not have to be simplified in and of themselves. On the contrary, this can be relatively advanced, with great explanatory power. But overall with the individual, who normally functions on a neurotic level, the result or effect becomes simplistic. How can this happen? Thoughts about reincarnation and karma could explain a lot, but they can also easily do something to the individual's thinking and feeling. The focus on the career of the individual spirit often both pressures and tempts the individual to operate on a simpler level than would be natural for her with respect to the organizational level.
Individuals at level 3-4 can, in addition to purely ideological or theological objections, which may or may not be valid, notice that there is something "missing". Questions they can ask themselves (within the neo-spiritual paradigm) are: “How can they so obviously claim that everyone is the origin of their own destiny? Without trembling on the cuff? How can they seem so willing to compromise their humanity? They seem so far from the "wonder", from the realization that 'the Lord gives and the Lord takes away'…”
The natural thing is that the individual has a spirituality that corresponds to her level of maturity.
That a teaching can both tempt and pressure the individual to function at a lower level constitutes a kind of "influence dynamic".
(5.) “Supraparadoxical level”
With level 5 (but was it already at level 4?) the possibility of "the return of the absolute" occurs. (Compare with "a second naivete" which belongs on level 4, while "a second boldness" on level 5.) Here, the individual can again take up ideas that are close to typical adolescent themes, without being too much affected by the gravity that starts from this period in his own life and psyche. It requires that one has developed a paradoxical capacity. This is the very focal point if you want to describe the potentially problematic nature of new age/new spirituality.
"The return of the absolute." Which was natural at level 2, mated at 3-4. Now the individual can connect with it again. “A second boldness” (Compare “A second naivete”)
"A second boldness."
"Warm and filled transcendence."
“Two types.” Level 5 comes in two types. Outwardly and viewed from a lower level, these types may appear to be very different. But it all depends on what you're looking for. One type involves introspection, degrees of "enlightenment". The "boldness" you can allow yourself here is no different from the other type, it just expresses itself in different areas. The spiritual type lacks self-view. But can work with other people's experiences, or hypothetical truths, in such subtle ways, that the difference in practice is not so great. They have a kind of purity of heart in common. And for individuals at this level, the quality of the "vessel" is the basic criterion, not what it is filled with.
People with cosmic "glimpses", according to MK terminology, they can be said to belong to level 5. I think so. But as the memory of this greater fades, they will eventually return. To level 4-3?
"Maslow's Self-Actualized Type." Abraham Maslow's description of "the self-actualizing people" (ref in Wulff, p.521), is that these - although individual differences are also most prominent at this level - in summary.
“In a brief summary, the most important characteristics of self-actualizing people can be said to be the following: A more accurate perception and acceptance of reality, including human nature; spontaneity, a healthy appreciation and creativity in everyday activities; relative isolation from the immediate physical and social environment and from culture at large; deeper, more fulfilling personal relationships, most likely with a small number of other self-actualized people; strong feelings of identification and sympathy with all other people; democratic (non-authoritarian) character structure; non-hostile, philosophical humor; centering around problems outside themselves that reflect a broad set of values; clear moral and ethical principles consistently applied and an experience of dissolving prominent dichotomies and opposites.” (from Maslow, 1970; ref in Wulff, p.521)
"Univesalizers (Fowler)." Midlife and beyond "Exceedingly rare" (in Conn). Often they are killed by their own, and often appreciated only after their death.
A high level of guilt is required. In some sense, you must have included a larger circle than family, ingroup, clan. For example, to be able to deal with the fate of the world and the theodicy problem. (whose words?)
"Universalizers are often experienced as subversive of the structures (including religious structures) by which we sustain our individual and corporate survival, security and significance" (in Conn, p. 348) Sufficient as a description of how many within NA look at ideals and perhaps even on themselves.
"Particularaities are cherished because they are vessels of the universal" (in Conn, p.348)
Here, perhaps as with Maslow at his highest level, do you meet people who have had mystical experiences? Maslow called these "peak experiences" to distance them from the religious (Wulff-2, p. 521)
Called "Generalized belief" by Wulff-2, p.230. Translation of "universilized"?
"Fowler's Critique of Freud's 'Maturity'." James Fowler writes, speaking of the maturity at stage 5 (and versus the Jungian concept of individuation): "Freud illuminated many of the paradoxes that arise from trying to strengthen the slender abilities of rationality to mediate between the imperious demands of the id and the harsh constraints of the superego. But his visions of maturity scarcely got beyond the maintenance of a kind of armed truce" (Fowler, 1996, p65)
Here you get up from the wrestling match, dust yourself off, get ready to move on.
Relatively unmoved by the ambiguous, takes the existence of such as well as how to relate, as something natural. Here it is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time, so to speak. Wants activity again, as after a period of illness. An activity that is not driven by desire in the same way as before. With Fowler, it is described as individuality being toned down. The activity has a new sender as well as a new addressee, one could say, even if what is done does not have to look that different. One has placed one's life and energies in the service of a larger context, which can be either "a god", the good of humanity or one's own high ideals. A religious terminology is close at hand to describe this transition, but it can probably also be described entirely in psychological terms. (cf. Maslow). An obvious difficulty is to distinguish - and to imagine at all - a level like this, from what one is now used to and rightly distrusts. It is mixed quite naturally with expressions on a mainly contradictory and pre-paradoxical level.
For some, this transition can be marked or triggered by some mystical or religious experience (Geels), which gives a "kick" in this direction. A "call" to greater commitment. For others, it is simply a saturation of the theme that has been dominant for long periods of searching and living. You are ready to move on.
This is an activity of a new kind, which is difficult to conceptualize or simply understand at lower levels. It is natural that the ultimate goal of the spirit's development at lower levels is instead stated as "extinguishment", a "nirvana", the cancellation of opposites, etc. That it is the activity, the will in itself, which is ill-tempered or astray (which that in and of itself is also at lower levels). On a post-paradoxical level, it is probably here that the individual puts in his powder, to separate activity from activity, to study drive and motivation. Being able to distinguish activity from activity - instead of activity from inactivity - places greater demands on the individual's maturity and readiness for self-examination.
Like all such stage theories (although this is not really one, since at any given moment the individual may be found at a lower level than before) there is an inherent temptation when trying to place oneself or others within them. They quite naturally activate natural narcissistic tendencies, and make the task difficult. Fowler tries to escape this by repeatedly pointing out that one stage is not better than another, etc., probably from a Christian frame of reference - "my father's house has many dwellings" (etc). With Erikson, it is not found in the same way, as his staircase is more closely linked to chronological ageing.
For this model, there is a particular danger that can be foreseen, and that is to confuse the "activity" and audacity of the post-paradoxical level, with similar expressions at lower levels. I trust Fowler, and Maslow, that individuals at the highest level are extremely rare (ref). And I suspect that the paradoxical stage must indeed be sought—and realized—before the post-paradoxical level becomes genuinely accessible.
To describe the activity of the supra-paradoxical level, one needs to resort to contradictory expressions: The individual on this level makes choices without, in a deeper sense, opting out of anything. Taking no position means in a deeper sense a distancing from other opinions or perceptions. Calls and words of guidance on a collective or individual level do not exclude a simultaneous acceptance of other ways of living and acting. Such an "impartial" attitude is the very foundation and prerequisite for the post-paradoxical level. But that this level can very easily be confused with other types of activity is really not difficult to understand.
If we play with the idea that the historical figure Jesus functioned on a post-paradoxical level (several of my respondents at least cite him as an example of someone who has gone as far as one can go) then this can illustrate just how difficult it is to correctly assess such an individual and his driving forces. We know that he can be perceived as a very radical revolutionary, in whose wake almost any condemnation or any action can be justified, to a very cautious person, who makes one wonder how he even dared to go outside his carpenter's shop. That he would have been operating on a post-paradoxical level may make it easier to fit the various fragments together.
So this model, like most models, sees our life from a bird's eye view.
Where actions are not "purely" post-paradoxical, should they still be attributed to this level, or to lower levels? Should the post-paradoxical level be reserved for "mystics"? That there are individuals or contexts where determination, action is paired with spiritual signs, which are far from the post-paradoxical qualities, it is obvious. But there are probably also mixed forms that are more difficult to determine where they should belong. (But there should be those on the neurotic + post-paradoxical level... Where the paradoxical level is not fully established - perhaps simply because they are not very old, so that there are naturally "young adult/adolescent" traits left (perhaps this purely of a future type?) - and the notation for them should then be "N5".
Is it possible to justify that the model is also adapted for "I5", and purely "P5", i.e. a sixth box? The conflict should increase with the distance to the post-paradoxical, just as with a child or teenager who is pressured to act at the level of an adult.
Could the model simply have a box for each level on the II axis (as now with level 5)? Advantages disadvantages? There will be more variants... Inclusive and regulatory end up in each box, for example. And with a box also for each level of the I-axis? There will be 5×5=25 squares.
Is the individual described here at a post-paradoxical level – relatively active and determined – peculiar to a Western culture, or are these characteristics shared by such advanced individuals in different parts of the world? (The Brahmin sitting on a plank being bathed and fed…) What room for personality is there, and cultural color?
4- (5)
"Stage 5 (Fowler)." Early midlife and beyond
"This stage develops a 'second naïvité'", an expression that Fowler uses with reference to Paul Ricoeur. Symbolic and concrete are reunited here.
The individual can connect things that seem incompatible. One can endure living with paradoxes (Bergstrand, 1990).
"Negative capacity" (Bion)
"Unusual before mid-life, Stage 5 knows the sacrament of defeat and the reality of irrevocable commitments and acts. What the previous stage struggled to clarify, in terms of boundaries of self and outlook, this stage now makes porous and permeable. Alive to paradox and the truth in apparent contradictions, this stage strives to unify opposites in mind and experience" (p. 347, in Conn)
In the same reasoning, something emerges that we need to pay attention to regarding the new age. Fowler further describes how the individual here stands free from group, tribe, class, religious context or nation... On a deeper level, this criterion certainly works for NA as well, but superficially it describes an attitude that occurs everywhere within NA.
"... and whith the seriousness that can arise when life is more than half over" (in Conn, p 347)
The danger here is to become paralyzed, passive, "giving rise to complacency or synical withdrawal, due to its paradoxical understanding of truth" (in Conn, p. 547)
4. "Paradoxical level"
Level 4 is a high level, which when fully achieved means that the individual has made peace with himself and the world. "The world is like me, and I am like the world." A fairly favorable personality development leads to something like that.
Why isn't everyone stepping up to level 5? Level 5 should not be perceived as another level of maturity. Why doesn't everyone take the plunge here? Maybe it depends on temperament, coincidences, interest?
It may also be that this crowd - at level 4 - actually contains several subgroups, which are at different levels of a different kind of maturity, which is to a lesser extent "life course generated". Instead, it is based on the accumulated experience of many lived incarnations, where each old age repeats the previous one in principle, but on a different level, something additional has been added to the previous life. This is what transpersonal psychology hypothesizes about (ref). Yes, and my respondents too, by the way.
“Paradoxical level.” This is a mature level. Great capacity for ambivalence, to see things from different points of view, to be lenient with one's own and others' shortcomings. Own desires rarely get in the way or lead astray.
Both Kegan and Bergstrand (in En illusion) write about "guilt", the importance of processing and freeing oneself from it. A guilt that originates in the Oedipal drama?
Captivated by the enigmatic, the mystery, the great in the small (ref Tolle!). Can also be partially passivated by it, wants to "own" it... Like Gollum, "My precious". Premature aging a risk (Erikson). The crown of a kind of movement that has transcended "youth" and "young adult". Here one has reached the mastery of one of life's great tasks (Erikson). Overview, wisdom. This development and this end goal also have counterparts in the "spiritual" development that many teachings hypothesize or describe, and that the respondents in this study talk about. This stage/level has probably been "an ideal" on both the pre-paradoxical and contradictory level. But the post-paradoxical level, on the other hand, has been hidden, so to speak, behind the horizon (its element of activity is easily confused with and cannot be separated from the anxiety or such desire-driven projects that one experiences and has experience of - that is in primarily the "peace" that attracts).
When the paradoxical level "stands still", it has become too introverted and perhaps resembles a psychotherapy where (both client and therapist) have lost sight of the purpose, i.e. to be able to return to ordinary life with renewed powers and abilities, and that the therapy room (as well as the prayer room, the dojo, the mosque) does not become a final parking lot, an aquarium where water, oxygen and light exist in perfect homeostasis.
At the same time, we must understand that the maturity found here is often both admirable and the result of many experiences. It is natural that this condition is both long-awaited and very satisfying. It is the old age of the search (?), the end of the working day, the satiety of the meal, a moment of stillness after the gong-gong sounds.
3. "Subparadoxical level"
The perfect possibly exists as something, elevated, but you don't put pressure on it to be "concrete" and therefore it can coexist with ordinary life, which requires this very relationship in many ways.
Normal fighting level.
You can compromise
"Ulf Ekman, March 2014." In March 2014, Ulf Ekman (2014-03-09), pastor emeritus of the Christian free church Livets ord, writes a debate article in Dagens Nyheter in which he announces that he is now leaving the organization he founded and will instead become a Catholic. The motives he indicates can be seen as prototypical of a maturity late in life. Ekman refers partly to divisions within Christianity in general, to which he no longer wants to contribute, partly to the suffering he has caused others through his involvement in the Word of Life:
"I have come to realize that the movement I myself have represented in the last 30 years, despite successes and a lot of good that has happened in various mission fields, is still part of the ongoing Protestant fragmentation of Christendom. Moreover, I must note with sadness that frictions, differences of opinion and disputes have created enmity and that wounds and sufferings have been inflicted on individuals through their contacts with the [Words of Life] movement. In this, I myself and other representatives of the Word of Life have a responsibility, and I am sincerely sorry for what has hurt and what has caused people to suffer.”
He also apologizes for the criticism of the Catholic Church that he himself previously expressed: "As a Protestant, I have been influenced by and adopted a common anti-Catholic rhetoric and in our earlier stage I both wrote and spoke negatively and hurtfully about the Catholic the church. This is something that today I really regret and regret.”
We do not need to take a position in either direction in this story. We can content ourselves with seeing this change of course, and the motives indicated, precisely as prototypical. This is how a maturity along the S-axis (P-axis?) could be expressed.
The sub-paradoxical level can be enraptured, respect the more mature, but lose sight of it time and time again. Religious worship of the sublime, one's guru attributed with such capacity, etc. Mature/neurotic defenses are engaged to keep eg the big questions at bay. (Still divisive tendency when it comes to the "super-mundane" issues and stresses?)
Here are the natural adepts, those who can acknowledge the greatness of others without too much hallabaloo.
2. "Contradictory level"
Deals with absolute magnitudes in a concrete way. There are objectively "good" and "bad", etc., "perfect" and "reprehensible, primitive".
Idealization/devaluation in the ordinary world, also among ordinary people (not only Christ)
“Perfect individuals.” There are perfect individuals. power, whose disciple one can become. There is perfect, selfless love. Utopia is not something unattainable, but a rather apt description of the coming kingdom of peace.
"Adolescence and beyond (Fowler)." "Has its rise and ascendancy in adolescence but for many adults it becomes a permanent place of equilibrium" (in Conn)
The end justifies the means, hard to compromise, compromise is seen as weakness.
"Premature mysticism." Dissociative or withdrawing meditation... At this level, a premature mysticism is possible, which is more about withdrawing, via meditation or physical seclusion. Narcissistic inflation, which is actually very tiring.
“Slight reality distortion.” Devaluing: Some are bad, plain and simple, do not measure up (but can still be used or kept as friends, as they do not threaten inner balance or activate more difficult emotions)
Idealization worship of guru, leader, among other things, but also interpersonally (the individual has few situations when he judges others – above or below)
Omnipotence has "abilities", meant for great things (of which new age provides a menu), omniscience
Devaluing some are bad, plain and simple, do not measure up (but can still be used or kept as friends, as they do not threaten inner balance or activate more difficult emotions)
Idealization worship of guru, leader, among other things, but also interpersonally (the individual has few situations when he judges others – above or below)
Omnipotence has "abilities", meant for great things (of which new age provides a menu), omniscience
1. "Sub-contradictory level"
Bizarre, aloof, introverted, unrestrained (if in an adult). Deeply regressive, along with paranoia, drugs, mind control, threats, isolation, disinformation, exploitation (Heaven's Gate, Manson). Freud's thoughts on retreat to fixation points may be relevant here. For a normal adult, this should hardly be possible.
"The Children's Stages (Fowler)." 0. Infancy and Undifferentiated Faith
infancy
Later called "Primal Faith" (1996, Faithful Change).
1. Intuitive-Projective Faith
Early childhood; age 3-7 (1996b)
2. Mythic-Literal Faith
Middle childhood and beyond
The school child, "though we sometimes find the structures dominant in adolescents and in adults" (in Conn)
Barely have the resources to register, let alone process, ambiguity. Very low functional level. Escapes or dissociates from the stresses of ordinary life. Gives free play to the "primary process", both the libidinous and retaliatory impulses of the lust principle.
Cluster (C/A, D/B, G/E, H/F, and I)
It is natural for the individual to have a spirituality that fits his or her level of maturity on the P-axis. Thus, there are two clusters that are natural, namely C/A and H/F, and two clusters that are "unnatural", namely D/B and G/E. In the latter category, the former (D/B) represents that the individual is tempted/pressured to function below their actual level, while G/E accommodates people who, with the help of a spiritual context, are helped to function above their actual level.
There are things that break almost anyone and would cause us to perform below our actual level. And there are things that only attract some, and maybe only for a time, and only to a certain degree. And this can be a regression, a "fall in love", which can be both problematic and beneficial.
Conversely, there are also things that can help the shakiest to function higher than she or he tends to do otherwise in the face of everyday challenges. This could be that she or he gets something "to believe in", the influence of people who wish him well and keep him company and moons (a social support that lifts the individual up to his actual level, or maybe even higher). For example, being able to exchange the drugs and/or a treacherous social interaction for a pair of jogging shoes or for "a life with Jesus" can of course have several good effects. Not being hunted as much (imagined, as a result of the drug addiction for example, or real, as during periods of abstinence, when you move among ordinary, well-behaved people in town, or hunted by people you owe money to, or by the memory of those who have been let down, for example) make it clear that the individual can begin to function with minor elements of primitive defenses, completely regardless of what the individual's "actual" level is.
Types (AI)
Type of spirituality (B-type, H-type, etc.) is a combined result of, on the one hand, the individual's level of maturity (the I-axis), on the other hand, a mix of partly external factors (specific thought system, group dynamics, etc.), partly the individual's own "day form" and tendency (e.g. to control or avoid responsibility) which is expressed on the S-axis. This latter position (S) is admittedly more superficial than the one with which the individual expresses himself on the P-axis, but for that reason rarely fleeting.
A type
Low level of maturity translated into spirituality. Maybe low talent. Or the opposite. Primitive defenses. Strong projection, possible exploitation of others. Borderline psychotic, delusional. Destructive cult leaders and cults. The category is reserved for rare serious cases (like the I type, at the other end of the scale). Ex: Charles Manson, Appelgate/Heavens gate?
Important to understand that psychotic level of organization is not the same as "psychotic". Destructive cult leaders. The category is reserved for rare serious cases.
Example of destructive variant: Charles Manson? But it doesn't have to be something that affects others. It can also be a rather providential, own, childishly colored religiosity of, for example, someone who is sick.
How to compare with so-called primitive religions, which can exhibit many "psychotic" reasoning? That someone must die to atone for the group's debt. Spirit possession.
“The Immature Sect Leader.” Personality disorder-psychotic
B type
The individual functions far below his actual level. Some members of destructive cults, who may eventually "wake up". The Stockholm syndrome.
Spirituality that not only has similar effects to drug addiction, but may also be associated with actual addiction. More primitive repositories are activated to endure, simply, and to be able to continue living the life you live. Possibly with things that are gratifying as well as other things. "The thin red line." Denial.
“The Derailed Cult Leader.” Which basically has a higher level of functioning than A, but is intoxicated by power, access to sex, drugs, etc
C type
Relatively low level of functioning, perhaps personality disorder or markedly neurotic. Attracted to teachings and ideologies with clear rules and principles. Probably also with a clear in- and out-group scenario. "Natural borderline spirituality." Lots of projection, rationalization. Strong defenses. The past continues to play its game. Others may get a clear feeling that religion fulfills needs other than "spiritual" for the individual.
"The Young Seeker." Still at an adolescent/immature-neurotic level, and personality is still developing. High ideals, simplified reasoning, are natural at this age and probably transient (Cognitive, Piaget/Elkind). There are also dynamic factors that have to do with liberation and becoming an adult, etc.
D type
Simplifying? Generalizing? Attracted to simple solutions and definitive categories. Intellectualizing defense. Philosophy and spirituality also as "a party game".
"The middle-aged seeker." On the one hand, there are a large number of women for whom the new spiritual interest is an emancipatory phenomenon, after a life of responsibility for children, one or more marriages. Who want to do something "for themselves". (Most probably function at a stable neurotic-mature P level and at level 2-3 on the S axis.)
E-type
Former criminals, addicts, for example, who find something to live for, to believe in. Maybe gifted. Some positive suggestion possibly from healthy, ideologically strong people, the priest, or new friends.
People who may have hit rock bottom and managed to climb up, possibly with increasing age. Personality disorders are also more rare among older people. You simply cannot bear to carry on as before. Less vitality and more experiences contribute to rising "upwards". Reality has caught up with one.
F type
The footmen of the church. (This type was not in the original model.) According to the model, this is a person who functions at the neurotic/mature-neurotic level and has a spirituality at the subparadoxical level.
"The faithful worshiper." No special claims to power within religion, relatively weak individualism, possibly a powerful person in the home.
G type
People who found something to live for, to believe in. Some positive suggestion possibly from healthy, ideologically strong people. The priest, or new friends. Probably many of the members of the AA movement can be counted here. D vs a doctrine which in its overall atmosphere is strikingly mature, in its reflections and in its view of man, even if it does not answer some of the big questions.
H type
Healthy religious, who are relatively harmonious with themselves and their life. There is something vital about how the religious or spiritual commitment is woven into their everyday life. Dynamic, playful. (Corresponds well to level 4-5 at Fowler. An important finesse with this alternative model is that, for example, this level is found on both the P-axis and the S-axis.)
That this is the front yard of the transcendent is far from certain (as one can get the impression of in the figure, as perhaps in Fowler). Perhaps there is even a "latent age" of religious development and that these individuals are also sorted here? That is, a relative stillness and complacency that should not be confused with spiritual-moral maturity?
I type
The mystics. Equivalent to level 7 of Fowler, and are probably very rare, just like he says. Possibly, people within the new spirituality can be wrongly categorized (or be tempted to do so themselves, very easily) as Type I, as Fowler's criteria are mainly related to communal spirituality.
