With level 5 (but it was already at level 4?), the possibility of "the return of the absolute" occurs. (Compare with "a second naivite" that belongs at level 4, while "a second boldness" at level 5.) Here the individual can again take up ideas that are close to the typical adolescent theme, without too much being affected by the gravity that emanates from this period of his own life and psyche. It requires the development of a paradoxical capacity. This is the focal point if you want to describe the potentially problematic with new age/newness.
"The Return of the Absolute." That was natural at level 2, slowed down at 3-4. Now the individual can connect with it again. "A second boldness"
"A second boldness."
"Warm and filled transcendence."
"Two types." Level 5 is made up of two types. Outwardly and viewed from a lower level, these types may seem very different. But it all depends on what you look for. One type involves self-view, degrees of "enlightenment." The "boldness" one can allow oneself here is no different from the other type, it only manifests itself in different areas. The spirit lacks self-vision. But can experiment with the experiences of others, or hypothetical truths, in such subtle forms, that in practice the difference is not so great. They have a kind of purity of the 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, can be said to belong to level 5. I think so. But when the memory of this major fades, they will possibly go back. To level 4-3?
"Maslow's self-realization type." Abraham Maslow's description of "the self-realization men" (ref in Wulff, p.521), is that these — though individual differences are also most prominent at this level — in summary.
"In a brief summary, the most important characteristics of self-realization people can be said to be as follows: A more precise conception and acceptance of reality, including human nature; spontaneity, a healthy appreciation and creativity in everyday activities; relative seclusion from the immediate physical and social environment and from the culture at large; deeper, more satisfying personal relationships, most likely with a small number of other self-realization 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 that are applied consistently as well as an experience of having dissolved prominent dichotomies and opposite pairs." (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.
It requires high-level debt perception. You must have brought in a larger circle than family, group, clan. For example, to be able to deal with the fate of the world and the theodice problem. (Whose word?)
"Universalizers are often experienced as subversive of the structures (including religious structures) by which we sustain our individual and corporate survival, security and significance" (i Conn, p. 348) Good enough as a description of how many in NA view ideals and perhaps even themselves.
"Particularaities are cherished because they are vessels of the universal" (in Conn, p.348)
Here, perhaps as with Maslow at his highest level, you meet people who have had mysterious experiences? Maslow called these "peak experiences" or "highlight experiences" to distance them from the religious (Wulff-2, p. 521)
Named "Generalized Faith" in Wulff-2, p.230. Translation of "univerzilised"?
"Fowler's critique of Freud's 'maturity'." James Fowler writes, "Freud illuminated many of the paradoxes that arise from trying to strenghten 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 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 now accustomed to and rightly distrustful of. 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 supra-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 one might 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 hallmark 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?