EDIV

tabell_ASI_jämförelser_struktur_100127

Name requirements:   Not what the individual does, but what is DONE with the individual by the doctrine/individual, what is reinforced or accentuated. The nature of spiritual practice, which the individual/doctrine has both contributed to. To have an equally similar, English equivalent (preferably with the same initial), which can be descriptive, adjective, and serve as a designation of "type of spirituality". Something about what spirituality DOES to the individual, not just a description of spirituality itself — or what the individual feels about spirituality itself (e.g., "Fascinating"). The name should describe the IMPACT the doctrine/individual himself has on the individual regarding how he (views himself and her history (the doctrine allies itself with the psychic defense, for better or worse), the outside world and the fellow human beings. I.e. what spirituality helps/fuels/nourishes further. (or has this already been done in the "level" determination? Alternatively, a description of the state the individual is then in ("iterating"=repeating old patterns and experiences) Preferably descriptive words from branches of activity/science other than psychology! For example, "iterating", "leveling" It is not enough for the name to express that doctrine/spirituality "supports" (e.g. Disorienting?), because it makes everyone… Should not be a general word for transformation/reinforcement, which can also apply to negative: "transpose". _ _ _ _ _ End of words of '-iv'? Iterative-iterative, illusion-illusive? Or "-istic"? Simplistic?

"WE'RE GOING TO EVOLVE INTO, LIKE, JESUS. WHEN WE ARE AT THE FINISH LINE, WE ARE WELL AS HE" Interviews with eleven followers of new age/newness IV = Mature level III = Mature neurotic level II = Borderline level I = Psychotic level (5 = Supraparadoxal level) 4 = Paradoxical level 3 = Subparadoxal level 2 = Polar level 1 = Subpolar level This model is detailed. Basically, however, there are two axes: one that has to do with the maturity of personality, based on psychodynamic theory; Another one that has to do with the level of spirituality. When reading Fowler, for example, there are things that cannot be explained. Firstly, how an individual can go "backwards" in spiritual terms or perform at a lower level than would be normal. The prefixes "sub" and "supra" mean "under/hitom" and "over/beyond" respectively. These have been preferred to "pre" and "post" that would suggest a temporal? relationship that is not intended. Level I-IV is linked to the usual psychodynamic/self-psychological theory, which in turn is in a certain relationship with (the very young) child's, adolescen individual, adult, and the older individual's functional level The P-axis has received small Latin numbers because otherwise could be missed for I-type Also connects to things like coping strategies and level of defense mechanisms (DSM-4) The model is a considerable simplification of reality, but the intention is mostly to present a proposal for a way of thinking about the religiosity or spirituality of adult individuals that would be based on psychodynamic theory and experience It has certain advantages over, for example, James Fowler's model, as it can illustrate how it is actually possible to "go backwards" in spiritual terms, as well as how an individual can function at a lower level than would actually be natural to him or her Level 5 is a completely hypothetical level, but follows a kind of tradition in these kinds of models, where a highest, almost "saintly" level, is postulated, which has virtually no representatives. Key concepts are "regression" and "tolerance of ambigiuty" A-I would then constitute different kinds of spiritualities (with a higher and a lower variant of them all). Why are these different "types" not eighteen in number What justifies being arranged vertically and not horizontally? Between the levels of the P and S axis there is a natural, "normal" connection: the i-level corresponds to level 1, ii level against Level 2, etc. Based on psychodynamic theory and experience, it goes without saying that all individuals have all these levels (I-IV) within them. They are never completely overcome. We have continued through life, at best, access to all of them. In situations or stages of life when we are subjected to trials, it is natural that we retreat to a lower stage, which in a way means an easier way to categorize and relate to the environment. The lower stages, on the same basis, exert a kind of constant allure on us The waveform on the respective "types" forms a kind of flow up to the upper left corner Based on Fowler's theory, one could say that the individual, as he or she grows older, develops up along an imagined oblique axis from the lower higher, towards the upper left corner. However, ASC is only about the religiosity or spirituality of the adult individual, and then it is the "child" and the "adolescen individual", etc., in each that, if anything, is meant. According to Fowler, most individuals make a level 3-4 content in his model, which is presumably represented in ASC by the middle-lower parts of type F and D? The present model grew out of a dissatisfaction with Fowler's theory to describe "new age/newness". For example, it was difficult to understand how a spiritual imagination itself can entail a greater regression pressure and/or trait, which will cause the individual to function at a lower level than is his natural. For example, an individual has a way of thinking about life, himself and fellow human beings, which can be characterized as "Level 2", even though the person in maturity is at "Level III" along the psychological axis. Fowler's theory tends to "overestimate" things like individualism and the independence of an assembly. Such individualism exists at both lower and higher levels. Under the influence of charismatic leadership and/or strong peer pressure and isolation, spirituality may rather be considered "Level 1-2". Although the person's normal level of function is, for example, "II-III". Drug abuse can similarly primitive an individual, making him or her function well below their normal level. Similarly, the individual can, with the help of a certain spiritual context, function stable at a higher level than would be natural for him or her, e.g. "F" instead of "E" "E" "Ambiguity tolerance" is the very criterion It is possible to postulate that great similarities could exist between a spirituality at "Level 4-5" and a spirituality at "Level 2" This is what Ken Wilber calls "pre/trans fallacy" The direction of the P-axis is irreversible (refibel). The level of maturity attained by the individual cannot be undone. In this model, you have to imagine regression to previous levels along the S-axis. It is a way of illustrating these movements. Regressive (or progressive) movements may have different scope and duration. What is the focus of this model are regressive (or progressive) movements that last slightly longer. The P-axis stands for the maturity that normally occurs over the course of a life. In this model, however, it is the adult individual who is in focus. Here, the P-axis stands for the achieved degree of maturity in adulthood. Normally, the individual makes the move from level (ii) to (iii) sometime in early adulthood. Ideally, she also reaches (iv), although (iii) may be considered the level at which most people are. Examples of what can be illustrated in the model (hypothetically): An adult with a relatively low level of function can become the central figure of a cult or sect. This sect may have a political or religious purpose. This person then has a spiritual type within the CA cluster. This may attract younger individuals who are still, naturally at the level (ii), i.e. who are naturally resident in the AC cluster. As the individual gets older, in most cases levels 1-2 are abandoned. This is what happens in different types of idealistic or revolutionary movements. This is what is captured by the saying "he who is not red in his youth has no heart, he who does not turn blue as an elder has no brain (Churchill). Some remain, by external or internal circumstances that they cannot handle. An adult who has achieved (iii) on the P-axis can be dragged along and then will function at levels 1-2. This is what is observed in sect research. A person can "wake up" and with the help of information and contact with the outside world restore their inner balance. Her approach to ideological, religious or political, etc., issues will then be at levels 3-4 An adult who has not reached the iii level of the P-axis can in adulthood make this movement or maturity. This can be done within the framework of a certain spirituality, or with the support of one's surroundings. An example of this is what in attachment theory is called "acquired security"? (Granqvist & Kirkpatrick, ref). Such maturity can also be done with the help of psychotherapy. Here you can imagine two scenarios: first, a level of maturity maintained with the support of an assembly or good role model, or a more profound change. In the first case, the movement, under the good impact of the environment, is "horizontal", e.g. from type C to E. This is something that is maintained by factors in the environment. In the event of a more profound personality change, movement from e.g. C to F This movement from ii- to iii level (e.g. C-F) sometimes also occurs naturally with increasing age, often then in middle age.          

A scale from the individual being completely uncomprehending/threatened in the face of the ambiguous, to this even becoming a source of nutrition, what makes life worth living (literature, art and music, for example, as well as a hunger for a more demanding spirituality) something one seeks out, an object of wonder. "How the adult individual relates to ambiguous impressions/impulses from the environment and from within himself" Post-paradoxical – Paradoxical – Pre-paradoxical – Adversarial – Pre-adversarial ? "P₃ – P₂ – P₁ – K₂ – K₁" No better with numbers for levels 5-1, when comb m I-axis (M4, I2, etc)     Post-paradoxical level Here you get up from the wrestling match, dust off, get ready to move on.     Relatively unfazed by the ambiguous, the existence of such things as well as how one can relate takes as something natural. Here it is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time, so to speak. Want activity again, as after a period of illness. An activity that is not requested in the same way as before. Fowler describes it as toning down individuality. The activity has both a new sender and a new addressee, one could say, although what is being done does not have to look so different. One has placed one's life and one's powers in the service of a larger context, which can be both "a god", the well-being of humanity or one's own high ideals. A religious terminology is close at hand to describe this transition, but it can probably be described also entirely in psychological terms. (jmfr Maslow). An obvious difficulty is to distinguish – and to imagine at all – a level like this, from what one is used to and rightly distrusts. It is naturally confused with expressions of, above all, adversarial and pre-paradoxical levels. For some, this transition may be marked or triggered by some mystical or religious experience (Geels), which gives a "kick" in this direction. A "call" for greater engagement. For others, it is merely a saturation of the theme that has been dominant for long periods of searching and living. You're ready to move on. This is an activity of a new species, which is difficult to conceptualize or simply understand at lower levels. It is natural that the ultimate goal of the lower-level development of the spirit should instead be stated as "extinction", a "nirvana", the abolition of opposites, etc. That it is the activity, the will itself, that is malicious or that is lost (which in itself is also at lower levels). On a post-paradoxical level, it is probably here that the individual puts in his gunpowder, to distinguish activity from activity, to examine 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 to self-examination. Like all such stage theories (although this is not quite one, since at any given time the individual can be found at a lower level than before), there is a built-in temptation when trying to place oneself or others in them. They naturally activate natural narcissistic tendencies, and make the task difficult. Fowler tries to escape this by repeatedly pointing out that one stage is no better than anything else, etc., probably from a Christian frame of reference — "my father's house has many abode" (etc. Erikson does not have it in the same way, as his staircase is more closely linked to chronological aging. For this model, it is especially a danger that can be predicted, 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 suppose the paradoxical stage really needs to be sought – and realised – before the post-paradoxical level becomes genuinely available. To describe the activity of the post-paradoxical level, one needs to resort to contradictory expressions: The individual at this level makes choices without, in a deeper sense, opting out of anything. No position in a deeper sense implies a rejection of other opinions or opinions. Calls and words for guidance on a collective or individual level do not preclude the simultaneous acceptance of other ways of life and act. Such an "impartial" attitude is the very foundation and premise of the post-paradoxical level. But that this level can very easily be confused with other species of activity is certainly not difficult to understand. If we play with the idea that the historical figure Jesus worked on a post-paradoxical level (several of my respondents indicate him at least as an example of someone who has come as far as one can get), this illustrates just how difficult it is to properly judge such an individual and his driving forces. We know that he can be perceived as anything from a hardline revolutionary, in whose succession almost any condemnation or act can be justified, to a very cautious person, who may wonder how he dared to go outside his carpenter's shed at all. That he would have worked at a post-paradoxical level may make it easier to make the different fragments fit together. So this model, like most models, sees our life from a bird's eye view. Where actions are not the "purely" post-paradoxical level, 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 in which determination, action is paired with spiritual overtones, which are far from the post-paradoxical qualities, it is obvious. But there are also likely mixed forms that are more difficult to determine what to belong to. (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/adolescent" traits left (perhaps this is even a type of future?) – and the notation for them should then be "N5". Is it possible to justify adapting the model also for "I5", and even "P5", i.e. a sixth box? The conflict should increase with the distance to the post-paradoxical, just as with a child or a teenager being pressured to act on an adult's level. Could the model even have a box for each level of the II axis (as now with level 5)? Advantages, disadvantages? There will be more variations… Inclusive and regulatory ends up to exemel in each box. And with a box even for each level of the I-axis? It will be 5×5=25 squares. Is the individual described here on a post-paradoxical level – relatively active and determined – special to a Western culture, or is it the characteristic shared by such advanced individuals in different parts of the world? (The bramin sitting on a plank and being bathed and fed…) What space for personality is there, and cultural color? "Old age"?  Paradoxical level This is a mature level. Great ability to ambivalence, to see things from different points of view, to be forgiving of one's own and others' shortcomings. Own desires rarely get in the way or lead astray. Both Kegan and Bergstrand (in An Illusion) write about "guilt", the importance of processing and freeing it. A guilt that originates from the oedipal drama?   Mesmerized by the enigmatic, mysteriuemt, the great in the small (ref Tolle!). Can also be partially passive by it, want to "own" it… Like Gollum, "My Prescious." Premature aging a risk (Erikson). The crown of a kind of movement that has passed over "youth" and "young adult". Here you have 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 which the respondents in this study talk about. This stage/level has probably been "an ideal" at both pre-paradoxical and adversarial level. But the post-paradoxical level, on the other hand, has been hidden, so to speak, behind the horizon (its elements of activity are easily confused with and cannot be separated from the anxiety or desire-driven project that one experiences and has experience with – it is primarily "peace" that attracts). When the paradoxical level goes "stand", it has become too introverted and then perhaps resembles a psychotherapy where (both client and therapist) has lost sight of the purpose, i.e. to be able to return to normal life with renewed powers and abilities, and that the therapy room (like the prayer chamber, dojo, 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 that exists here is often both admirable and the result of many experiences. It is natural that this condition is both long-awaited and very satisfactory. It is the old age of the search (?), the end of the working day, the saturation of the meal, a moment of stillness after the gong sounds. Midlife.   Typical defenses: ** High adaptive level/Mature ** Antecipation Attachment Altruism Humor Forthright Self-reflection Sublimation Suppression Pre-paradoxical level Can be attributed, respect the more mature, but lose sight of it time and time again. Religious worship of the exalted, his guru attributed to such capacity, etc. Mature/neurotic defenses are engaged to keep the big issues away, for example. (Still splintering tendency when it comes to the "over-everyday" issues and stresses?) Here are the natural adepts, those who can recognize the greatness of others without too much hallabaloo. Young adult.   Typical defenses:   ** Inhibition level/Neurotic **   Displacement Dissociation Intellectualization Dogmas, "Teachings," Beliefs Affect Isolation Reaction Formation Displacement Cancellation (Rationalization — V) (Isolation —V)     Adversarial Level Registers but Disapproves..   "Yes, but what would it look like?" How about trad religious, which is maturingly at the pre-par level, jobs and family, etc., but supports terrorism – is their spirituality then of the "simplifying" type? It is quite possible that a suicide bomber belongs to the group SIMPL (Björn E at lecture) – definitely, confident, seduced, but not "crazy" – i.e. can stick together, a dear family member, etc. (But there are probably those with ideology/functioning/ of PRIM as on ITER and SREF type as well). Alternates between idealizing the quiet, the gist (which is probably associated with power), and the power of action, potency, being able to speak out. Can seem to idealize better functioning people, who are capable of their lives, and are "human", versatile – perhaps those at the "pre-paradoxical" level? – or the completely exalted in those at the "paradoxical" level the level of the teenager.   Typical defenses:   ** Easy distortion of reality ** Devaluation some are bad, plain, do not measure up (but can still be exploited or retained as friends, as they do not threaten inner balance electricity activates more difficult emotions) Idealization worship of guru, leader among others, but also inter-personal (the individual has few modes when judging others – above or below) Omnipotens have "abilities", intended for big things (which new age provides a menu of), omnivisal (Somatisation – W) purification cures, cures, enemas, "candida" ** Level of denial ** Denial Projection Rationalization "I don't need this or that – have done in past lives" ** Pronounced reality distortion ** Autistic fantasies "fend for myself" Projective identification Splitting of self/obj relationships ** Level of action ** Extitant Apathetic introspection Help-repellent complaints Passive aggressiveness   Primary level Disintegrated (but maybe should be on the I-axis?)       Barely have the resources to register, let alone process, ambiguity. Very low functional level. Fleeing or dissociating from the stresses of ordinary life. Gives free rein to the "primary process", the libidinous and retaliatory impulses of the principle of lust. True of SREF-type spirituality, but PRIM? (When I'm hesitant here, is it because I have a picture of what PRIM would be, as something that's at a higher level than "Primary"?)   The level of the child.   Typical defenses:   ** Psychotic level ** Proj. at the vanförst.n.It's an evil world that surrounds us, they're "after" us… A very closed cult climate Psychotic denial Jim Jones up in the jungle, invulnerable, I am protected by x Psychotic. distortion of reality."Day of judgment" soon here _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _                                               _ _ _ _ _ _ See in the arts… Music, painting. i.e. how one's senses and needs change over time with an in-depth acquaintance. And where a later stage is a picasso stage: "It's taken me a whole life to learn to paint like a child." ("My art is a lie that reveals the truth.")   This latter stage is again "self-referentious", one might say, also shamelessly. There is no place for religious rhetoric, but it is interesting to make a reference to the Gospel of Matthew, where Jesus is asked by his disciples who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, and is told: "Truly, if you do not repent and become like the children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Those who make themselves small as this child are the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:3-4). This idea of a childlike stage is also found in my material… Quote (?) But it is wrong to say that you are back, nor does it allow itself to be graphically portrayed as levels on top of each other in a spiral. There are two types of conditions that have remarkable similarities. The type of spirituality (in the ASI model) is always the result of a meeting between several factors, mainly the nature of the doctrine, possible peer pressure and the individual's more stable resources (e.g. the I-axis) and current life situation. When you say that someone has a spirituality of a "simplifying" type, it gives no indication of what movement the individual belongs to or what doctrine he professes. Individuals with spirituality of the SIMPL type can probably be found in mosques in Afghanistan, in televised sermons on the other side of the Atlantic, in yoga studios in Östermalm, etc. It has nothing to do with aggression either. If one were to allow oneself a reflection on the cultural or societal level, post-modernism would be the expression of a "paradoxical", while – the more balanced – expressions of criticism of it could be seen as precursors of a "post-paradoxical" level. That is, one sees the human potential and driving force behind its emergence, but also the obvious limitations and potentially anaesthetic or almost "toxic" effects when allowed to dominate too much (Bauman, Flax). A level normally has its most ardent defenders at the preceding level, who have the next level as their ideal, and possibly also easily project out their own incapacity in the aforementioned current regard to the surroundings. Therefore, it is not so strange that the "paradoxical" values – i.e. a boundless understanding and justice, in short – are often heard proclaimed with an almost "adversarial" heat and intransigence. (Jmfr in severe cases touches on delusional syndrome, of the type "collective paranoia", where the person sees himself as a spokesperson for any minority who are perceived to be subjected to neglect or abuse on the part of society (Ottosson, 1983/2004). Collecting injustices (Cooper, 1991) The relatively maturer in turn see through the limitations and risks of the post-modern and gladly put a word for the next level, i.e. the "post-paradoxical". But then often confused with those who from the "primary" level advocate an "adversarial" solution to this or that problem. The latter are like children who, when they think about adulthood, only pay attention to the aspects of freedom and power (ref). Those who debate at the adversarial level, in turn, have little resources to make the necessary nuance between these two more "active" groups. Why make room for these thoughts here? Although the essay is based on the individual's experiences, spirituality is part of society. Here it is appropriate to address the theories of the schizo-paranoid and depressive positions (Klein, ref?). These can be said to be equivalents to immature and mature levels on the more leisurely progressing psychodynamic scale (OPD, for example). How do these two paradigms relate to AIS? On the I-axis we find basically the psychodynamic personality development axis (minus more volatile fluctuations, which in the AIS placed to the II axis). On the II axis (with the underlying reasoning of "vital" and "dominant" regressiveness and rationality, the Kleinian can be recognized, i.e. that the two conditions can change in adult, healthy individuals. And even should do it! They are a kind of opposites that must be allowed to have their influence over psychic life. The II axis falls somewhere between the Kleinian and the usual psychodynamic views on – if one allows one's to simplify the reasoning – "activity" and "stillness", "childishness" and "adulthood". It is not wrong to say that the levels from "primary" to "paradoxical" represent a gradual reining of "schizo-paranoid" tendencies and impulses, much like the mature stage ending up at the top of the OPD model. But on the "post-paradoxical" level, they are released again! They are a source of power, and account for at least part of what "the second boldness" represents. The II axis represents both a stage theory (or even two, since in addition to describing the maturity of the individual from child to adult, it is also presented as a blueprint for the development of a spirit over several incarnations) as well as a number of levels that the individual, depending on life circumstances, can move between. PARADOX. Children have a limited capacity to deal with paradoxical or ambiguous statements or experiences. If they even understand that the task is overwhelming to them, then they can adapt in such a way that they imitate the adults. The consequences of such adaptation need not be serious, but probably can be. Undigested thought material that will then, as with people who hear "voices" (?), live their own life in the individual's psyche. Within religion there is an understanding that in the face of the paradox we can be differently equipped, here we are offered a number of different levels of how to deal with both paradoxes and "the eternal questions" that can seem like a kind of paradoxes ("just as one lives one should die"). As in the face of death and the brevity of life, we all stand plainly – from one perspective, the priest as well as the child – but we can process it in different ways. Variations on the impossible, you might say. DISSOCIATION. Not being able to process impressions and impulses. ASI. Levels of how the individual manages to process contradictory or paradoxical information? EXT. The level is called fragmented/dissociated. Which is assumed to occur when the child is unable to relate to the ambivalence or whimsy of his or her carers. AMBIVALENCE. To be able to perceive, digest and function – contradiction. But this is a challenge that most of us eventually manage, as it is not a true paradox: We discover that we ourselves are double, have split feelings towards people, ourselves and existence, and it then becomes easier to deceive or put up with others working like that as well. This is an adaptation to reality. But is this adaptation different from enduring the realization of one's own and loved ones' death? Development is to gradually overcome difficulties, learn new things, things that at first seem difficult, insurmountable. DEPRESSIVE POS. Depressive positition is both-and. Schizo-par's position is to ignore or not be able to experience duality. EXIST. Is existentialism said to be dealing with these issues? And how to confront them, reconcile, stand out. Erikson says that certain existential themes(s) or insights only come of age when you get older. When young, it's more of a pose perhaps, at best, and a prematurity at worst. Erikson talks about a reconciliation with death, etc. even in older people, who are also premature, that one mythologises one's past. DISSOC. DSM-IV places dissociation at inhibition level? How possible? ASI. What if the lowest level – the child's – alluded to how one relates to contradictory information and impulses? Instead of "Primary", maybe "Dissociative" or something with "ambivalence"? That ASI is actually a scale of how to deal with contradiction, different levels of this? "Oppositional"? "Pre-adversarial", "Divisive" SPLITTA. Rubble. Atomize. Fragmented. ASI. POST-PAR/PAR/PRE-PAR/KON/PRE-KON POST-PAR. Of course, enduring death is easier if you have experienced your immortality, which is part of many mystical experiences. "Paradoxical" level is the level at which one is reconciled, not with death, but with the problem of death anyway. This level gets an aspect of introversion, self-reflection, which is eventually abandoned. It is a variant of adolescence's difficulty, that no one understands this more than I, no one has been through this. You are alone in the face of the inexorability of existence (which you actually do). PARADOX. Absurdity. Absurdity. Affront. Unthinkable. Self-contradictory. Oxymoron. Contradiction. Adversarial. Conflicting. Divergent. Mockery. Unthinkable.