Talk:Positive Disintegration
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Great article, thx whoever added it.--Hypergeometric2F1[a,b,c,x] 09:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Styles in TPD
I changed all instances of the word "level" followed by a number to be capitalized. Talking about the "second level" would continue to be lower case.
Currently scattered throughout the article, levels are named with Roman numerals sometimes and in others with Arabic ones. I believe in the books, level numbers are almost invariably Roman. Should it be otherwise on Wiki? --CarbonWire 04:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Additional TPD articles
This article is very long. Since OEs are often discussed out of a TPD context and are complicated in themselves, overexcitabilities eventually will need its own article. Dabrowski uses a bucket of terms with unique meaning, such as DP, multilevel/unilevel, authentism, negative adjustment, personality ideal, autopsychotherapy, autonomy, and hierarchy of values (constantly). Each of these could take up an entire article, though there must exist a balance between providing usefulness and, in essence, importing all of his books. The theory is so interrelated that it hardly makes sense to separate anything out of the main page. However, according to Wikipedia:Summary_style, given the way the article has thus far developed, maybe a separate page should be created to describe the different levels. --CarbonWire 04:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Critical Note
As a critical note, I would like to say that although I like the theory to some extent, I think it has an idealistic tendency: it seems to single out a certain group of people on the basis of overexitability and giftedness, make them special and capable of achieving new levels of existence, as if they are a better, more human type of people and less driven by animalistic instincts. This might inforce pathological narcissistic believes in indivuduals who recognize themselves in this theory. I, however, feel that there should be a more down-to-earth approach and that the theory should be rethought in terms of a coping strategy. This "overexitibility" seems to be the same thing as "Neuroticism" in the Five Form Model of Personality (Big 5). There is no need to make such people believe they're special. In fact, that might be detrimental.
I'm writing this down in the discussion section, since I can't find critical resources on the Internet, and since I have no prove, my comments should not go in the article itself. But I think a slight warning towards this theory is in place. If rethought in terms of a coping strategy, it might even be a hell of a lot better!
[edit] Response to Critical Note
This has always been a problem with Dabrowski - it is idealistic and so are many other theories from Plato on. But without ideals to shoot for where are we? Dabrowski said that he did not create an elitist theory, rather, he described what he saw and what he saw was best described using a hierarchical model. There are low levels and there are high levels that we can observe in behavior and Dabrowski tried to create a theory they could account for both these lowest and highest levels.
If the reader does not like the theory I would ask that he or she not change Dabrowski's original position, but rather, develop a neo-Dabrowskian position and identify it so. Over the years people have simply said that they don't agree with something and end up changing it, while still under Dabrowski's title -- this has created a lot of confusion as subsequent readers don't know what was original and don't know what was added. For example, a recent edit added free will in the section on third factor. Dabrowski was clear to differentiate third factor from free will. He felt that free will did not go far enough in capturing the motivating aspects that he attributed to third factor. For example, an individual can exercise free will and show little motivation to grow or change as an individual. Third factor specifically describes a motivation -- a motivation to become one's self. This motivation is often so strong that in some situations we can observe that one needs to develop oneself and that in so doing, it places one at great peril. This feeling of "I've gotta be me" especially when it is "at any cost" and especially when it is expressed as a strong motivator for self-growth is beyond the usual conceptualization ascribed to free will.
Another common example: people have often equated Maslow's concept of self-actualization with Dabrowski's level of secondary integration. There are some major differences between these two ideas, fundamentally, Maslow described self-actualization as a process where the self is accepted "as is" so, both higher and lower aspects of the self are actualized. Dabrowski introduces the notion that although the lower aspects may initially be intrinsic to the self, as human beings, we are able to become aware of their lower nature. We are able to develop self-awareness into how we feel about these low levels -- if we feel badly about behaving in these lower ways, then we are able to cognitively and volitionally decide to inhibit and eliminate these behaviors. In this way, the higher aspects of the self are actualized while the lower aspects are inhibited and, for Dabrowski, this is what is unique about humans and sets us apart from animals -- animals are not able to differentiate their lower instincts and therefore can not inhibit their animalistic impulses. So again in this example, Dabrowski has gone beyond Maslow's idea of self-actualization and it is not appropriate to equate the two authors on this point. Thanks, Bill Tillier.
