THE

NEVER ENDING
Quest
 Dr. Clare W. Graves
Explores Human Nature

The Never Ending Quest

A treatise on an emergent cyclical conception

of adult behavioral systems and their development

edited and compiled by

Christopher C. Cowan and Natasha Todorovic

ECLET Publishing
Santa Barbara, California
 © Copyright 2005 by Christopher Cowan and Natasha Todorovic
ECLET Publishing
All Rights Reserved

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form, by

any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by
any information capture and storage system without written permission.

First Printing

For permission to reproduce sections of this book, contact

ECLET Publishing
PO Box 42212
Santa Barbara CA 93140-2212
http://www.ecletpublishing.com

Graves, Clare W.
The Never Ending Quest / Clare W. Graves
Christopher Cowan and Natasha Todorovic, editors
ISBN 0-9724742-1-8
 To the memory of Marian Graves,
to Sue and to Bob,
and to the extended family of students
in the legacy of Dr. Clare W. Graves
 CONTENTS

Editors’ Foreword ..........................................................................i

Preface ........................................................................................... 1
Section I – What is Human Life All About? .................................. 9
Chapter 1 – The Problem..............................................................11
Chapter 2 – An Approach for Investigating the Problem ............... 33
Chapter 3 – The Basic Data ......................................................... 51
Chapter 4 – Confusion and Contradiction Exacerbated ................. 91
Chapter 5 – New Problem, New Opportunity, New Task .............133
Chapter 6 – The Emergent Cyclical Model...................................159
Section II – The Levels of Existence ..........................................195
Chapter 7 – The Autistic Existence – The AN State .....................199
Chapter 8 – The Animistic Existence – The BO State...................215
Chapter 9 – The Egocentric Existence – The CP State ................ 225
Chapter 10 – The Absolutistic Existence – The DQ State .............251
Chapter 11 – The Multiplistic Existence – The ER State .............. 307
Chapter 12 – The Relativistic Existence - The FS State ................ 337
Chapter 13 – The Systemic Existence - The A’N’ State ................ 365
Chapter 14 – The Intuitive Existence – The B’O’ State ................ 395
Section III – The Sum of All Our Days is Just a Beginning...... 403
Chapter 15 – Verification ........................................................... 405
Chapter 16 – The Broader Meaning of the Concept..................... 475
Appendix ................................................................................... 505
Bibliography .............................................................................. 509
Index .......................................................................................... 543
 TABLES and EXHIBITS
Table I a - Change Instigators ......................................................100
Table I b – Direction of Change ...................................................100
Table II – Psychometric Studies....................................................122
Table III – Designation of Levels .................................................169
Table IV – Six Levels and Subsystems .......................................... 409
Table V – Harvey, Hunt, and Schroder Data................................. 424
Table VI – Harvery, Hunt, and Schroder Data Rearranged ............ 426
Table VII – E-C Theory Compared with Others.....................440-446
Table VIII – E-C Theory Compared to Ego Development.............461
Table IX – Tachistoscope Data.................................................... 466
Table X – Mean Recognition Times ............................................. 468

Exhibit I – Entering, Nodal, Exiting .............................................. 56

Exhibit II – Rise and Fall of System Dominance............................ 113
Exhibit III – Organizational Structures ......................................... 117
Exhibit IV – Conceptualization of Psychological Lifespace.............164
Exhibit V - E-C Psychosocial Development..................................168
Exhibit VI – Nesting Aspects of Adult Psychosocial Systems ......... 171
Exhibit VII – E-C Model and Cultural Institutions ........................175
Exhibit VIII – Wave-like Development.........................................177
Exhibit IX – Progressive-Regressive Development ........................179
Exhibit X – Leading Edge Times .................................................. 181
Exhibit XI – Existential Problems in Time ....................................183
Exhibit XII – Double Helix Representation.................... 187, 376, 430
Exhibit XIII – Nomenclature .......................................................192
Exhibit XIV – Source of Existential States.....................................193
Exhibit XV – DQ Subjects .......................................................... 468
Exhibit XVI – ER Subjects.......................................................... 469
Exhibit XVII – FS Subjects ......................................................... 470
Exhibit XVIII – A’N’ Subjects .....................................................471
Exhibit XIX – Development of Existential States ......................... 479
 Editors’ Foreword i

Editors’ Foreword

How to do justice to a man whose work, insights, contributions and

observations have changed lives and transformed the way we see the
world? One way is by continuing his work so as to bring it forth more
broadly into that world so others might know the mind behind the
theory and be thus mentored. What better than to share with the world
the work and words of a brilliant and good man whose life was devoted
to teaching, research and unraveling the riddle of human nature?
It is our privilege to help Dr. Clare W. Graves’s endeavors continue
to bear fruit, and to bring more of his perspective into more hands and
minds. The interest in his kind of bridge-building approach is growing,
just as he expected, because it adds necessary understanding of human
affairs and connects many ways of figuring out why we do what we do,
as we do, and what we might do next. Clare often said he was addressing
questions which were not yet being asked in psychology or the sciences,
for that matter, but that they would be one day. Now they are, in fields
ranging from systems and cognitive psychology, to evolutionary
developmental biology, to consciousness studies. He was a pioneer
living a bit before his time, blazing trail for others to follow toward a
common destination: understanding who and why we are.
To have the opportunity to share the Gravesian point of view so it
can be more clearly understood, further elaborated, wisely used, and
more sharply appreciated is a gift. This book is our way to honor Clare
Graves and his profound influence. In the process, we fulfill a promise
made to our friend and his life partner, Marian Graves, by ensuring that
Clare’s work might move forward through helping this volume and its
companions come to be.
Thirty years have elapsed since Clare Graves began to put his ideas
down in longhand on legal pads to be typed by his secretary in the old
ii Editors’ Foreword

‘psych building’ at Schenectady’s Union College. Nearly twenty have

passed since his death in 1986. Way back in 1951 he had set out on a
quest for better understanding of human nature – who we are and who
we are to become. It was an ambitious undertaking which culminated
with the statement of a new theory and then a manuscript after nearly a
quarter century of work. The original pages which remain are brittle, but
the ideas are flexible and hold together better than ever. They have
begun to be recognized for what they are: an elegant theory that pulls
together a broad spectrum of approaches to human nature and helps
bring them into focus. The beauty of Graves’s work is its open-
endedness, thus leaving room for all the discoveries made during those
years between then and now in systems theory, the neurosciences, and
even geopolitics. The concept – the bridge - is as fresh and vibrant today
as it was in 1977, and provides a solid map to what lies ahead.
Graves did not set out to ‘explain it all’ or to provide all the answers
to ‘life’s nagging questions.’ He only sought to provide a framework
with the explanatory power to pull our knowledge about ourselves and
why we do as we do together with more elegance. He saw fragmentation
and compartmentalization in psychology, in education, and politics. He
also envisioned interconnected systems where others found
compartments, and complementarity where others found competition.
He sensed a deeper layer that could pull our understanding of the
chunks closer together, a set of organizing principles that could draw the
best from many viewpoints and resonate without eroding them. This
theory was to be a statement for his peers and the world to consider – to
accept, to build upon, or, perhaps, to shred and cast away. Today, many
people, ranging from academics to successful bottom-line business
executives, even New Age spiritual gurus, agree that he succeeded in
opening a powerful new window through which to see the world
differently. Gravesian thinking is an additive force in many domains.
Yet most of those opinions are based largely on secondary and
tertiary reports of the Gravesian legacy and not the work, itself. When
Clare died in 1986, his major project was shelved. Until this publication,
only smatterings of the theory and the thinking behind it have been
generally available. Thus, a number of reinterpretations, postulations,
and even fabrications of what Dr. Graves intended have been tossed
about along with accurate reports. This book will clear up some
confusion. In Graves’s own words, it gives those already interested in
the material a means to cross-check what they’ve read and been told. It
gives a Gravesian starting point to those who have not been prejudiced
by renditions which might be distorted or which might be merely flying
 Editors’ Foreword iii

a flag of convenience, sometimes spreading nonsense under the name of

Graves. And for those with a clear view of Gravesian theory already, it
offers both foundational details and a direction for further work.
One of the editors of this book, Christopher Cowan, knew Dr.
Graves quite well during the last decade of his life and had the
opportunity to work closely with him, helping him prepare his last two
summary papers in 1981 and 1982. Some of the materials blended herein
are from his collection of Gravesian papers, as well as recordings and
notes from sessions conducted jointly with Dr. Graves. Other pieces are
from the collection of Gravesian archivist William R. Lee.
In addition, Cowan is co-creator of what is arguably the most
prominent commercial application of parts of the Gravesian point of
view, Spiral Dynamics®, and co-author of the original book by that title,
Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values, Leadership, and Change. With the
compilation of this manuscript and the learning that came with the
process, however, he has also become a critic of some aspects of his
own work from nearly a decade ago, recognizing how easy it is both to
glibly over-simplify and to inject elaborations which are not appropriate.
Thus, the publication of this “Graves” book is an opportunity to set
some of the record straight, to confess some misunderstandings, and to
redirect some confusion by accurately citing the source. We hope it
provides a means for sincere students of the theory to lay down their
own foundations on the bedrock of the Gravesian legacy – what it is
and what it is not - and from there to raise their own challenges, find
their own truths, and expand on a body of work better grounded on a
more solid, accurate footing.

History

Every book has its history. If this one could speak, it would tell an
adventure story of excitement, catastrophe, and separation involving an
international border and hundreds of miles, both sides of a continent
and at least four states and two provinces. It could speak of a wild ride
through Canada avoiding moose and staying just ahead of a November
blizzard, and of a paragraph found on the last page of an article in box
#7 of the huge Carl Rogers archive at UCSB. It would celebrate what it
is and ask readers to help it grow into what Graves wanted it to become.
When he began this project, Clare Graves’s plan was to put out a
definitive work. He envisioned an opus that would stand among the
classics, a statement on human nature nothing short of revolutionary
that might be a key to open minds to new thinking about psychology.
iv Editors’ Foreword

But there was a catch. Reportedly, he had seen Abraham Maslow “torn
to pieces” by his colleagues at an APA seminar in the mid 1950’s.
Afterwards, Graves found Maslow hanging his head while slumped on a
couch in the lobby of the hotel. Maslow was wondering why his friends
and associates would treat him so shabbily and attack his point of view.
He mourned: ‘Why would they do that to me?’
That memory of an icon being lambasted and emotionally crushed
by colleagues stuck with Clare Graves who seems to have vowed that he
would never put himself in Maslow’s position. Instead, he would
conduct rigorous research and release his findings only when the theory
was ripe and defensible in the face of the harshest criticism. It would be
thorough and more. Thus, he published relatively little and held his
work very closely while surrounded by the behaviorists and Freudians of
his day.
His studies actually began in an effort to answer a student’s
semester-end question after a survey course in psychology: “OK, so
which one is right?” From there he went on to try and rationalize
Maslow’s views and to prove them valid. He quickly came to discover,
however, that the Maslowian approach was insufficient to frame his
mounting piles of data, and that even the great Maslow’s perspective
was only brushstrokes on a much larger canvas of human nature. That
picture was what he intended to reveal with this book.
The process of disclosure began in the 1960’s when Graves was
beginning to discuss his work and its implications more openly. He
crafted statements for conferences and presentations (many of which
are available on the www.clarewgraves.com website operated by the
editors and William Lee). He had some success with an article in the
Harvard Business Review1 applying his viewpoint to managerial issues, and
another in the Journal of Humanistic Psychology2 laying out an initial
statement of his theoretical perspective. A piece in Canada’s Maclean’s
Magazine3 suggested that his might just be “a theory that explains
everything,” though Graves was well aware that his, too, was only a
work in progress without finale, just as is nature of Homo sapiens. Still,
interest was growing. His approach was striking chords. A lengthy

1 Graves, Clare W. (1966). Deterioration of Work Standards. Harvard Business Review,

September/October 1966, Vol. 44, No. 5, p. 117-126.
2 Graves, Clare W. (1970). Levels of Existence: An Open Sstem Theory of Values.

Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Fall, Vol. 10, No. 2, p. 131-155.

3 Steed, Nicholas (1967). A Theory that Explains Everything. Maclean's Magazine.

October, 1967.
 Editors’ Foreword v

exposition of his point of view appeared in The Futurist4, the publication

of the World Future Society which has been active in support of this
work for many years. (Graves’s feelings about this piece were mixed
since the text blends his own words with comments by the editor, some
of which he liked and others which he found troubling.) There were
study groups devoted to his point of view. He began sharing his ideas
more broadly. And he commenced writing this, his major statement, as
his star was beginning to rise.
Then, suddenly, a heart attack and problems in follow-on surgery
halted that rise. Impaired eyesight and balance made reading and writing
difficult. Graves was never able to resume his pace, though he did work
on polishing parts of this manuscript for a time and also participated in
a limited number of seminars, as well as consulting on several projects.
The book project eventually went to sleep, a beginning and an end
without a middle. It has waited a quarter century to awaken.
Drafts of large parts of sections I and III of this manuscript were
ready in 1977, while other planned chapters remained unwritten. The
project was shelved, due largely to frustrations created by impacts of his
illness and in part to difficulties he never fully explained regarding his
‘Canadian publisher.’ He didn’t even have copies of some of the pages
he’d approved, only early pencil drafts. In truth, during the last years, it
was unclear whether Clare was sad about the aborted attempt to
complete this manuscript or if he was actually somewhat relieved that he
was not required to bring the mammoth undertaking to fruition. (The
latter was the opinion of his widow. It was also her opinion that what he
had done needed to get out, despite his drive for completeness.)
So, the history of the book could have ended with Clare’s passing in
1986. Co-editor Cowan helped Marian Graves to assemble his remaining
papers which they donated to Union College’s Library archives. Two
years before, as his health was again deteriorating after several small
strokes, Clare had decided to clean up the “mud room” one day and
discarded his raw data and other writings to make room for harnesses
from the barn. (In addition to being Union’s golf coach, Clare and
Marian loved Morgan trotters which gave the entire family such joy.)
Thus, what remained in other filing cabinets were personal papers,
articles, and rough copies of a few chapters of this book. There were
pages scribbled in long hand on pads of legal paper; other sections were
typed with scratch-outs; some were crinkled carbon paper copies.
Conflicting versions and numbering made it nearly impossible to know

4 Graves, Clare W. (1974). Human Nature Prepares for a Momentous Leap. The Futurist.
April, p. 72-87.
vi Editors’ Foreword

what was to go where. It seemed the papers were merely of historical

value as nuggets and small gems, nothing more.
Then, in 1999 the editors were fortunate in retrieving copies of
additional chunks from a box stored away at the Quetico Centre in
Canada, the organization which had been participating in the project
earlier. In 2001 we found the table of contents which provided the
intended order, along with some cassette audio tapes from the mid-
1970’s in which Clare discussed his book-in-progress. Those remarks
provided sufficient direction to begin working on the puzzle. We have
not given up on locating more pieces and, like Clare Graves’s theory,
this book is open-ended. But the picture is clear enough to move
forward and live with a few missing pieces and unanswered questions.

Approaching the book

In reading Graves, remember that the Emergent-Cyclical (E-C)

Levels of Existence theory (which he referred to as “the Emergent
Cyclical, Phenomenological, Existential Double-Helix Levels of
Existence Conception of Adult Human Behavior” in 1978 and “the
Emergent, Cyclical, Double-Helix Model of Adult Human
Biopsychosocial Systems” in 1981 – the reason E-C is used herein ) is
the child of a multidisciplinary approach to human nature and behavior.
Because it spans many fields, the theory cannot be collapsed into any
one of them. Although not essential, the reader will benefit from
familiarity with psychology, sociology, biology, education, systems
theory, anthropology, history, and brain sciences. At the same time,
study of any of these fields, including leadership, management, policy,
politics, philosophy, or anything requiring understanding of human
nature can benefit from exposure to this theory. Graves urges his
readers to rise above established disciplinary boundaries, limits which
often confounded his own studies, and to examine culture, adult
behavior, thinking, motivation, management and learning from many
points of view, each of which can hold elements of truth. He sees these
not as different entities, but as multiple facets of the same diamond.
This work pushes for broad rather than narrow views, and insists upon
the recognition of interdependent relationships among ideas, fields,
models, perspectives and concepts – a bridge.
 Editors’ Foreword vii

The book is in three sections.5 In Section I Graves asks the eternal

question that leads to both war and peace while doggedly avoiding a
single answer: ‘What is human life about and what is it meant to be?’
This question frames the entire work as he picks up human nature,
holds it to the light, turns it, then examines it both under a microscope
of individual development and from afar as an emergent process of our
species.
In Chapter 1 he reviews various psychological approaches:
behaviorism, psychoanalysis, and humanistic psychology, then proposes
the Emergent Cyclical Levels of Existence Conception as a way to get
beyond the confusion and contradiction in the field of psychology and
culture with a new map. In Chapter 2 he explains how this conception
emerged while glancing at other conceptualizers and what they seem to
have overlooked. He outlines his basic research, then moves on to
discuss his study of what adults had to say about the mature personality
in Chapter 3. He weaves an intriguing story that would, were it not
factual and a report of his activities, research and methodology, make
for a good detective novel. As it is, he gives life to research and the
suspense provides spice for the reader.
Chapters 4, 5 and 6 explore the building of a theory from a set of
raw data. In Chapter 4 the evidence in the ‘protocols’ – statements
about what the mature adult personality is like - provides clues to adult
psychosocial development. The confusion in these data led Graves to
search through other theorists’ (and philosophers’) work for
explanations for what he had discovered and a way to frame it. Chapter
5 grapples with the idea that perhaps there is no such singular thing as
psychological maturity, but that it is an emergent, open-ended process.
That leads to Chapter 6 wherein he lays out the Emergent, Cyclical,
Double-Helix Model of Adult BioPsychoSocial Systems Development -
the Levels of Existence theory (E-C) - and briefly compares it to other
perspectives in personality, culture, change and maturity. (This
summation chapter is required reading before getting to Section II lest
the coping systems describe there become a simple typology rather than
a series of emergent relationships among existential factors from
‘outside’ and neurobiological equipment ‘inside,’ a trap some newcomers
to Gravesian thinking fall right into.)

5
Chapters 1-6 in Part I, as well as 14 and 15 in Part III, are from a near-final draft
approved by Dr. Graves with only light editing and adjustment for this publication.
The graphics appearing herein are either direct reproductions of drawings Dr. Graves
used or reconstructions from rough copies in his other papers and notes.
viii Editors’ Foreword

Each chapter of Section II is devoted to describing one of the

Gravesian Levels of Psychological Existence and some of its
characteristics. This middle section - Chapters 7-14 – was not written by
Dr. Graves as it appears here. According to Marian Graves, he never
completed these chapters, planning to leave them to the end of his
project since they are artifacts of the theory, not the theory, itself.
(Perhaps this was one of the issues between him and his publisher.)
Instead, Section II as presented here is mostly a compilation by the
editors (Chris Cowan and Natasha Todorovic) of Dr. Graves’s own
words drawn from a number of original sources - both written papers
and audio recordings. We have tried to concentrate on the phrasings and
views presented in his later years when there was a choice or confusion
as to his intentions. Since this theory was always a work in progress, Dr.
Graves did change some aspects of it significantly over the years, while
other pieces remained remarkably consistent down to the specific
words. One idea that came in later, for example, is that there might be
only six basic themes which then repeat in elaborated forms, producing
the subsistence levels, the being levels, and, perhaps, compassionate
levels (to borrow a term and idea from Anne Roe, John Calhoun,
Maslow, and others).
We have included sections of the protocols and criteria Dr. Graves
used to differentiate the levels and, where possible, sections on origins,
management of the system, educational needs, reactions to stress,
readiness for change and transitions to illustrate his thinking. One part –
the recovered DQ/ER pages in Chapter 9 – demonstrate how rich this
book would have been could he have completed it himself. There are
examples of conceptions of the mature personality used to build the
levels which Dr. Graves often cited, but no sample conceptions of the
mature personality representing A’N’ (Chapter 12) or B’O’ (Chapter 13)
because none remained among his papers, and he did not read them on
tape or in seminars.
We decided to include practically everything Graves wrote and said
about the B’O’ level since it is one of the most controversial and
curiosity-producing systems. He made it clear that his understanding of
the eighth level was scant and speculative, and we insert this material
only as historical notes, not a theoretical statement or description we can
support today or with which he would necessarily agree. Readers can
evaluate the evidence or lack thereof for the appearance of this level of
psychological existence (and others) since 1977 for themselves. The
open-ended nature of the theory certainly leaves room for the
emergence of systems beyond B’O’. We leave this discussion for
 Editors’ Foreword ix

elsewhere and online since this book is a compendium of Dr. Grave’s

words then, and not our projections or opinions now. In any case, the
core is the E-C theory and its derivation, not the levels.
Section III begins with a comparative analysis looking at other
models of development, emergent systems, and evolutionary tracks.
Chapter 14 includes discussion of similarities and differences with other
theorists’ work as verification or challenge to the E-C point of view.
Comparison of Emergent Cyclical Theory to Maslow; Harvey, Hunt and
Schroder; Loevinger; Schroder, Driver, and Streufert; Kohlberg; Perry;
Isaacs; Calhoun; Drews; Aronof and more are all included within a table
sampling and contrasting the models of twenty-five conceptualizers. The
implications of this perspective to psychology, management, politics,
social policy, education, foreign policy and various social
transformations complete the book at Chapter 15.
The original bibliography and source list was lost. We have
attempted to rebuild it as thoroughly as possible from citations in the
manuscript (and other writings) which sometimes consisted of little
more than a last name and, in a few cases, a last name with a page
number. Very few titles of books or publications were included. With
only a few exceptions – noted - we have located the books and scholars
cited and tracked down quotations to source them. Our objective was to
locate the writers and even editions which would have been available to
Dr. Graves prior to 1977. In the process, we were exposed to some of
the forgotten geniuses of his day, and to many ideas raised then which
are being re-raised today as innovations. Many of the authors he refers
to have published considerably more; some have modified their
positions; others stand by earlier works. A great deal has been learned in
the neurosciences and cognitive systems post-Graves, for example. Yet
even some of his ideas in this area which sound quaint on the surface
stand up pretty well if one merely swaps the language for contemporary
terms. Rather than include updates in this publication, though, we will
rely on the technologies of today – online notes and discussion – to
flesh it out and make corrections.
Dr. Graves obviously planned to include extensive explanatory
footnotes. Some were intact in sections of the manuscript and notes.
Those are marked “CWG:” in the text to indicate they are his own
words, as found. The rest of the footnotes are our bibliographic
references and, in a few cases, notes to explain events that would have
been “current” in 1977 in America, but historic and mostly unfamiliar in
2005 and elsewhere around the globe.
x Editors’ Foreword

Reprints of many of his papers and biographical materials are

available on our www.clarewgraves.com website. Fortunately, though,
most of the material used in this book stands quite as well today as it did
then. Even political examples are as apt now as three decades ago –
change Presidents’ names and things sound very much alike. That is one
of the beauties of his point of view, of course, and why we are
convinced that the theoretical work of Clare W. Graves stands even
taller today than ever, and is even more useful now than then.

Acknowledgements, 2005

If this book could tell its story of excitement, frustration,

abandonment, and renewal, it would speak of the many people involved
in keeping it alive, for were it not for the pages stored, the papers filed,
the tapes preserved, and the notes transcribed about the research
conducted by Clare W. Graves, this could not be.
Thanks go to Linda Wiens, who worked with Clare at Quetico
Centre and helped him in crafting these thoughts, along with others
recognized later in the Preface. She kept the manuscript pages safe,
waiting for the time to make them available as chapters. Dedicated
archivist and Gravesian enthusiast William R. Lee had the interest,
wisdom and foresight to collect and preserve every word, lecture and
paper by Dr. Graves that he could as part of a Graves interest group in
Washington, D.C., and then as teacher of the Gravesian legacy for 30
years to his own students at Arlington (VA) high school. In addition to
his support of the ClareWGraves.com website, he has also assisted with
checking this book and ensuring that it accurately reflects the authentic
Gravesian perspective as well as possible. Ziza Todorovic waded
through the noise of decaying cassette tapes to transcribe and check
hours of recordings of Graves seminars, parts of which fill in large
chunks of the missing chapters. We are indebted to her for weeks of
effort, her reviews, and ongoing encouragement and enthusiasm.
Gratitude and respect to the many brilliant minds who laid down
the ideas Graves built on and adapted, some of whose names appear
herein, and to the creative legacy of many others unlisted. Our
appreciation goes to Dr. O.J. Harvey for helping us to understand his
work better and providing us with keys to Dr. Graves’s inspiration. We
are appreciative of Morris Stein, Robert Hawkins, and David Elkind
 Editors’ Foreword xi

who knew where their quotes came from, and from Mrs. William Gray
who aided with her late husband’s papers. All graciously took the time
to respond to our queries. And special thanks go to Dr. Kenneth Isaacs
who joined with us to explore where his work and Dr. Graves’s coincide
and differ.
In large measure, this book owes its existence to the support,
friendship, advice and confidence of futurist Ed Edwards who has
believed in the value of the Gravesian point of view for many, many
years. While the editors fought with the pieces, dug through libraries,
and doubted that it would ever come together, Ed always saw it as an
important thing to make available to a wider public and generously
facilitated that process. And, of course, this book is due to the
friendship and blessings of the late Marian Graves and to the Graves’s
children, Sue and Bob, for their encouragement and endorsement.
But this book could not tell its story of human nature and our
emergence were it not for the lifetime of work, research, dedication and
persistence of the man who said and wrote it, Clare W. Graves, even
though he is not physically present for the publication. This book is a
sampling of his genius, passion and insight. We hope we have done
justice to the work and to the man. We wish he could have been here
through the process to clear his throat and say in his deep, resonant,
professorial voice a protracted, “Welllll…” and then gently nudge for
improvements and continue to turn on those light bulbs of revelation.
We particularly wish he were here to discuss the innumerable questions
that arose in its compiling and all the new ones an understanding of this
point of view will surely pose. But those questions are now in your
hands, gentle reader, and the answers forthcoming as you join with us
move this work on.
xii Editors’ Foreword

ONLINE LINKS

To explore additional comments and elaborations on points made in

this book, see the online notes at

http://www.neverendingquest.com

To read many of Dr. Graves’s papers online and to learn more about
the development of this theory, go to

http://www.clarewgraves.com

To learn more about the editors, their work and applications of

Gravesian theory in seminars and consulting, go to

http://www.spiraldynamics.org
 Preface 1

Preface 6

The Sum of All Our Days is

Just the Beginning

This is a book about the levels of human existence, those ever-

emergent, ever-spiraling psychological way stations at which the adult
human being may tarry and live out a psychological lifetime. Why and
how this system’s conception of adult human behavior came to be, what
the systems are, how they operate and what they imply in the many
faceted aspects of the mature human’s life are the subject matter of this
book.
It sketches a theoretical trellis upon which, it is hoped, the
confusing behavior, the contradictory information and the conflicting
explanations of adult human behavior can grow, with time, into an
integrated network. It considers the adult behavioral system of the past,
the systems of the present, and projects that new systems will appear
infinitely in the future. It suggests that when, and only when, we have
more knowledge of these adult behavioral systems and their hierarchical
relationship to one another will we be able to more adequately describe,

6 This preface was written by Dr. Graves in the late 1970’s when he still expected to
complete his book project. One working title was “The Sum of All Our Days is Just
the Beginning” and is probably borrowed from Lewis Mumford. Others were “What
is Human Life About? What is it Meant to Be?” and “The Existential Helix.” Since
this book is not what was planned, we have retitled it “The Never Ending Quest,” a
phrase drawn from Graves’s writing.
2 Preface

understand, predict and manage the behavior of the adult individual, the
operation of an organization, or the development of a society. It outlines
the goals toward which the future of a person, organization or society
should be pointed no matter the current position of that person, that
organization or that society on a complex that is called a human
existential helix.’ And it suggests, within its framework, that there are
ordered rules for dignifying or improving the state of existence of a
person, or organization or a society so as to provide all human kind a
future pregnant with hope rather than laden with the fear of our demise.
In these pages I take the position that human psychological
development is an infinite process - that there is not, even in theory, any
such thing as a state of psychological maturity. I say, instead, from the
data of my studies, that one’s conception of psychological maturity is a
function of one’s conditions for existence; and, I say that so long as
humans continue to solve their problems of existence they will create
new problems forever and on, and thus proliferate into new and higher-
order forms of psychological being. And, I say that what our definition
of psychological maturity is will change with each and every newly
emergent form of psychological existence.
It is the thesis of this book that a human, though one biological
organism, who does, in fact, develop biologically from a state of
immaturity to a relative state of biological maturity which is maintained
during the greater part of his or her individual existence, is an infinite
number of psychological beings. And that our understanding of the
human so far as ethics, values and purposes are concerned must be
changed accordingly if we are to make any real inroads into the
problems of human kind. We must reorganize our thinking and our
approaches to man’s problems to include the fact that there is no
ultimate set of ethics, values, and purposes by which humans should live
that will ever be revealed, laid down or discovered. There is instead, a
hierarchically ordered, always open to change, set of ethics, values and
purposes by which people can come to live. Thus, if we are to make
progress in attacking our problems, our task is to learn how to live with
an ever-changing process of values, ethics, and purposes rather than
how to rear a person to live by “the right and proper” human values of
ethics. Therefore:
ƒ If you have almost despaired of making sense of human life, of
the problems that we have and the people with whom you

* CWG: The existential helix is the basic construct utilized in this book to represent the
emergent-cyclical adult behavioral systems.
 Preface 3

have to deal, this book may bring you clarification and new
hope because in it you may find new explanations of our past,
new understandings of our present and new visions for our
future.
ƒ If you have asked yourself what is this militancy, this violence
in so many of our people, or whether we are tearing apart at
our moral seams, then you may find new and possibly even
heretical thought in what I have to say.
ƒ If you are a social planner concerned with the current and
future goals of mankind, then the material in this book may
open new horizons to your thinking.
ƒ If, personally, you have asked, “Why can’t I get along with my
boss?” or if you are the boss, “Why are my subordinates so
intractable?” then what this book says about the adult human
being and the management of him at work may open new
vistas for your thinking.
ƒ If you are concerned with your organization and its viability,
whether it be profit or non-profit oriented, then what is said
about organizational decision-making may be something you
need well to consider.
ƒ If your interests are in basic social or behavioral sciences and if
you are seeking regions for research which might extend
man’s knowledge, then the theoretical framework of this
book may warrant your study and consideration.
ƒ If you are an applied social scientist, an educator, or the like
seeking new approaches to your problems, then you may find
new avenues opened for application by what is said herein.
ƒ If you are of the older generation trying to comprehend the
young, or if you are one of the young trying to communicate
your message of concern and hope, then this book may aid
you to see the breadth of your problem.
ƒ And finally, if you are just like me, simply a human being,
wondering what human life is really like and what it is meant
to be, then you may find what I have to say tantalizing. But if
you are of another ilk, then what I have to say may be
nothing less than scandalous.
The aim of this book is to attempt the impossible dream - to
develop, in basic form, a theory of adult behavior, which:
4 Preface

ƒ clarifies within its framework the many confusing,

contradictory and controversial aspects of adult human
behavior;
ƒ is at one and the same time comprehensible to the layman and
contributory to the worlds of pure and applied science;
ƒ may someday coalesce into one explanatory framework the
many diverse theories of human behavior which have been
presented to date;
ƒ will be applicable to any adult human being, regardless his
culture;
ƒ will reach into the past, carry through the present, and project
into the future so as to help the reader make better sense of
human behavior and see the totality of human life in clearer
light;
ƒ will provide a revised, enlarged and, in many respects, new
theoretical framework within which the pure and applied
scientist can reexamine and extend his knowledge of adult
human behavior and cultural institutions;
ƒ will provide the applied social scientist and social planners with
a different means to the end of comprehending and
approaching human problems than they have had at their
disposal before;
ƒ will provide the philosophically minded with new and needed
goals for mankind, ethical wise and otherwise;
ƒ strives differently to explain why you and the boss don’t get
along and what your organization can do to rectify such
threats to its viability; and
ƒ enables us to more fruitfully examine and constructively
approach our adult educational problems.
The overriding intent of this book is to suggest, through its makeup,
what human life is all about and what it is meant to be and to lay out
through its blueprint what one might consider the goals for the future of
mankind to be – the never-ending quest.
This book is another way station on my journey to and along the
human existential helix. It is the outgrowth of more than twenty-four
years of research, contemplation and writing. Therefore, a word of
explanation is required as to how this work relates to what I have said in
the past, in speeches delivered, papers read, classes and seminars
conducted and articles published.
Some of my effort, scattered over the years, contain a certain
amount of preparatory work and preliminary conception of adult human
 Preface 5

behavior. Some of this preparatory thought has been retained over the
two decades of preparation. Some of the earlier thought has been
discarded because, it seemed with time, it had aborted. Some of it has
been revised as new data forced reconsideration. Thus, my earlier works
reflect more the laborious process of an interpretive idea trying to be
born than what my research leads me to say in this book.
Therefore, he who has had previous contact with my work may find
much that is familiar but also some that is different from what I said
before. The underlying conception of emergent psychosocial systems
has been retained throughout the years, but the specifics of my
conceptualization of adult behavior have changed and the underlying
neurochemical, experiential explanation of their source will be quite new
to many.
During the years of research and preparation some of my original
sketches and interpretations have been attractive to others, even to the
extent that some have been stimulated to do research within the
confines of the preliminary conception expressed. Thus, I have been
urged to hurry into print more of the details of my thinking. Grateful as
I am for the acceptance the earlier expressions have received, and for
the flattering request for more of my thinking, I must state what it has
done. This very acceptance, use of, and call for more of my ideas has
caused me to delay publication until such a time that I could feel my
thinking was further developed, because even now, though it is being
printed, it is far from mature and can become more mature only through
the efforts of others.
Unfortunately, two years ago I was the victim of a surgical accident
which damaged my brain. The accident left me considerably dysphasic
and dyslexic and my conceptual capacities impaired. So the theory
presented herein is not the product I had envisioned. It is a sketch with
gaps and expressive deficiencies within.
In one sense, I apologize to those who sought more than I was, in
pre-accident days, of a mind to scatter. On the other hand, I do not
apologize, because then I did not feel that I was ready to stand on what
I, too early, might have said. But now, even within my problem, I am
ready to stand on what I say herein, but not on what I said before except
in a basically general sense. What I said before was a part of an effort
which produced the product contained herein. Even today it is not a
finished product. Obviously it is incomplete and obviously there will be
gaps and errors in my thinking. But when I say ON THESE WORDS I
STAND, what I mean is this: If my conception of adult behavior is to
be torn to shreds by criticism and even demolished by subsequent
6 Preface

research, let it be the basics of the emergent cyclical levels of existence

theory of adult behavior as I am able to present it herein that be
criticized and torn apart. Let it not be that which I said or wrote while
trying to conceive what is presented within the covers of this book. And
let it not be the specifics of the conception that criticism dwell upon.

To the Philosophical or Behavioral Science Academician

This book should be useful as supplementary reading in any course

which considers the nature of the human condition; the problem of
ethics, morality and values; the management of human affairs, including
education, management, per se; and psychotherapy. Also, it should find
its place as a supplement in both graduate and undergraduate courses in
Developmental and Life Span Psychology, Theories of Personality, and
Organizational Behavior. Particularly, it could serve as a major text in
that vast field of adult education where courses in the psychology of
man are offered. It should fit all these areas and others because it is
written in a language which requires no previous exposure to the jargon,
specialized language, or way of thinking of psychology. So it is a book
that can be profitably read by the interested layman, the beginning
college student, the advanced undergraduate student, and still be
thought-provoking to the new Ph.D. or the long established professor.
As for where this book fits into the world of philosophical and
psychological thought, it is cast, philosophically, in the General Systems
thinking of Joseph Lyons and Maurice Merleau-Ponty and other
existentialists. On the psychological side, its deepest roots lie in the
works of Heinz Werner, Jean Piaget and Kurt Goldstein. It is
conceptually at home with the productions of Jane Loevinger, Lawrence
Kohlberg, Abraham Maslow and the Maslowians, Fritz Heider, Peter
Blos, Elizabeth Drews, Robert Peck and Robert Havighurst, O.J.
Harvey, David E. Hunt, Harold Schroder, Jerome Bruner and the
students of all of these. Its closest intellectual bedfellows are Gerald
Heard’s The Five Ages of Man, William C. Perry, Jr.’s Intellectual and Ethical
Development in the College Years, and the work of John Calhoun.
As a contribution to the field of developmental psychology, this
book might be seen as follows: Piaget’s framework extends to 15 or so
years. Harvey, Hunt and Schroder’s work overlaps all of Piaget and
extends into adulthood. The work of William Perry, Jr., adds an
advanced period beyond Harvey, Hunt and Schroder and that of Eric
Homburger Erikson whose last period begins in the thirties. This work
overlaps all of these but picks up, particularly from where Perry and
 Preface 7

Erikson leave off. The only other person, of whom I now know, who
has the extending systems concept which I utilize is John Calhoun.
Theoretically, this book is a contribution to phenomenological,
existential, humanistic and cognitive developmental emergent stage
psychologies. As such, it attempts to meet some of the criticisms that
have been directed at them. It attempts to bring some systematic
toughness to the loose and discursive phenomenological and existential
thinking. It attempts to move humanistic psychology away from its
maudlin and sentimental view of human nature toward an empathic
representation closer to the realities of being human.
As a contribution to cognitive-developmental stage theoretical
psychology, it deals with at least five of the major criticisms directed
toward them: (1) it offers an explanation of how constructs develop; (2)
it presents a picture of what the process of development is like; (3) it
hypothesizes what factors determine the hierarchical order of
constructs; (4) it explains what determines the particular characteristics
of constructs; and (5), it suggests how the constructs operate.
Herein, I should like to acknowledge those to whom I am in debt
for aid in the preparation of this book. Thanks are extended to Clare
Lumpkin, our departmental secretary, for her patience during the many
hours and days she typed and retyped the basic manuscript. Thanks go
as well to Richard Wakefield of Bethesda, Maryland, former President of
the now disbanded Human Needs Foundation. I thank him as the only
person who has provided moral support from the beginning of my first
attempt to rationalize my data in 1961. As President of the former
Human Needs Foundation, I thank him for the monetary support,
which made possible the development of the figures and diagrams
utilized to represent my thinking.
I desire, also, to express my thanks to the three people who
contributed so much to the basic editing and layout of this book; Linda
Wiens, Cliff McIntosh and Robert Michels of the professional staff of
Quetico Centre. Without their aid, in a time of travail, this book could
never have come to be. And finally, I wish to thank the Board of
Quetico Centre, for offering the staff and facilities of Quetico Centre to
me for the culmination of this book and its publication.
8 Preface
 Section I 9

Section I

What Is Human Life All About?

WHAT IS IT MEANT TO BE?
10 Part I
 The Problem 11

CHAPTER 1

The Problem

Shaken by repeated threat to their established way of life, many

people in this world are deeply troubled. But, is their concern
properly directed? Are they correct when they see immaturities and
immoralities in the behavior of their fellow man? Or are their
concerns the offspring of misperception and delusion?
These are not idle questions just floating through a human
mind because in the answer to them may lie the future of mankind.
Nor are they new queries in the annals of man, for they were asked
earlier by others when there were threats to the “established
mature” ways of life. Threats to adult humans’ establishment have
been with us, so legend says, from the time of Eve and Adam. Yet
every time man has faced a new tomorrow, the frightened ones
have given forth their plaintive cry: “What the hell is going on?
What is happening to people?”
“What is happening to people?” is a cry emitted not only by the
frightened ones but by other people, as well. Some, more ashamed
than afraid, cringe in shock at the “immature,” “immoral’’ behavior
of their fellow humans and proclaim how dreadful it is that the
behavior which they see has ever arisen, or is allowed to be. Still
others, more angered than frightened or ashamed, vehemently
condemn those who question ‘‘the mature” ways for living and
righteously defend the tenets of their personal conceptions of
maturity. But I, for one, am not despaired by any questioning of
man, nor am I troubled by the so-called “immature things” which
many men are doing. I see, instead, that we live in a time for
12 The Problem

reappraisal - a time when we must reassess ourselves as one of

nature’s beings, a time when we must look again, but only after a re-
centering of our focus. Then, and only then, may we see in a clearer
light what the human is meant to be and what adult human life is all
about. Then, and only then, may we see in newer ways what is the
meaning in man’s ‘immaturities’ and the misperceptions that lie in
our current visions of them. And then, and only then, may we see
in bold design new steps that we might take in order to survive that
which keeps happening to people.
What does keep happening to the human being? Must humans
always be tearing apart at their moral seams? Must they always be
threatened with the decline of their established way of life - that
(way of life) to which their existence owes its hope? Is there
something cancerous in humanity that foredooms it to the kinds of
disorder people seem so repeatedly to experience? Something
happens; of this we can be certain. But, is this something bad? It is
cancerous? Possibly it is, but perhaps it is not. Perhaps one’s
judgment of what keeps happening to humanity is a function of
one’s conception of the human organism. And perhaps those who
repeatedly see breakdown in the behavior of certain people have
conceptions of the human organism which should be questioned.
In the mid-twentieth century one could not deny that rifts in
the behavior of adults came to exist. They were then to be seen at
every point on the compass. From one direction, the American
establishment’s, the finger pointed at the psychedelic,
confrontational, and sexual behavior of youth. From another,
youth’s direction, the finger pointed at the righteous protestations
from those callous exploiters of our environment - the American
industrialists. Businessmen and Presidents saw a breakdown in the
work ethic as welfare rolls climbed, and they saw moral depravity in
the slowdown and sabotaging activities of “the working people.”
But the “working people” pointed to questionable merchandising
practices, budgetary manipulations, and political machinations as
evidence of problems in our human decision makers. Dissenters
were called immature when in the name of “civil rights” they
frightened their fellow citizens, both here and abroad. Yet these
same dissenters yelled immaturity at those who used “civil rights”
as their shield while they carried on vicious, even murderous attacks
upon those who were dissenting.
In China, in the sixties, under the banner of Maoism and a
better life for all Chinese, the Red Guards attacked both the
 The Problem 13

country and the towns. In Rhodesia and South Africa, the adult
white man, while demanding the right of one’s own decision,
denied these same rights to his non-white countrymen. In Uganda,
acting in the name of freedom and progress, Idi Amin7 dispatched
to exile or to death one after another of his countrymen.
In America, adult humans were so confused that they, in the
name of peace, for ten years carried on a hopelessly futile war. They
professed the need of equality for all, yet excluded many from the
rights and privileges that some adults enjoyed. They spoke of the
need to respect differences, both nationally and internationally,
both in the school and in the factory, yet these same adult humans
managed national and international affairs, the student, and the
employee in ways more to deny that such differences did exist. And
they professed concern for the poverty stricken but behaved toward
them so as to precipitate riots born of their deepening despair.
In other realms, academics preached the sermon of integration
of all knowledge, yet continued to devise curricula which
fractionated all learning and failed to achieve the educational goals
they so righteously proclaimed. Teachers acted to suppress the
surge of “student power” yet took up the cudgel of the strike for
their own, not just the public’s welfare. And peculiar was the
behavior of both labor leaders and labor members who condemned
the strike behavior of those on the public payroll while they readily
used the same weapon to further their own selfish interests. At the
legislative level, legislators, both liberal and conservative,
condemned youthful confrontation, sit-ins, and work stoppages
while they righteously defended the right of filibuster and the right
to slow the legislative process by committee machinations when to
do so served their own selfish ends.
In still other regions of adult behavior, human thought and
action was even more peculiar. Some professed an unshakable
belief in God while other insisted that God was dead. Among the
poor, apparently able-bodied people, living in the direst of
circumstances, seemed to sit and complain rather than do
something to improve their lot when it appeared that the
opportunity to do so was provided them. But the everyday behavior
of adults was not the only place where conflict and controversy,
confusion and contradiction abounded.

7 See Mittelman, James H. (1975). Ideology and politics in Uganda : from Obote to Amin.
Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press.
14 The Problem

Confusion and contradiction pervaded the field of personality

and culture theory, possibly more so than any other human realm.
As one man, Ludwig von Bertalanffy said, “We have to realize at
the start that personality theory is at present a battlefield of
contrasting and controversial theories.”8 Another, Morris Stein,
stated: “The problem is most pervasive. We encounter it when we
survey the various theories of personality and the conflict between
the theorists.”9 And Carl Rogers, writing particularly in respect to
psychotherapy but touching on a theme applicable to all
psychology, said:
“The field of psychotherapy is in a mess. Therapists are
not in agreement as to their goals or their aim in therapy.
They are in deep disagreement as to the theoretical
structures which would contain their work. They cannot
agree as to whether a given experience for a client is
healing or destructive, growth promoting or damaging.
They are not in agreement as to what constitutes a
successful outcome of their work. They cannot agree as
to what constitutes failure. They diverge sharply in their
views as to the promising directions for the future. It
seems as tough the field is completely chaotic and
divided.”10
On the cultural side, the anthropologists and sociologists
presented no less confusion. Leslie White criticized Franz Boas for
a cultural anthropology that he saw as “a philosophy of
hodgepodgism.”11 Yet this same Leslie White insisted that
investigators were ridiculous when they sought to learn whether the
origin and the development of culture was an expression of human
needs. He insisted that, “culture is a thing sui generis, that culture can
be explained only in terms of culture.”12 Yet Malinowski, Parsons

8 von Bertalanffy, Ludwig (1968). General System Theory: Foundations,

Development, Applications. George Braziller, Inc., p. 105.
9 Stein, Morris (1963). Explorations in Typology. In Robert W. White

(Ed.). The Study of Lives: Essays on Personality in Honor of Henry A.

Murray. Atherton Press, A Division of Prentice-Hall, Inc. p. 283.
10 Rogers, Carl (1963). Phychotherapy Today or Where do we go from

here? American Journal of Psychotherapy. Vol XVII, No. 1, p. 5-16.

11 White, Leslie (1949).
12 White, Leslie (1966). Social Organization of Ethnological Theory.

Monographs in Cultural Anthropology. Rice University Studies, 52:4:1-66.

 The Problem 15

and Shils, and Kluckhohn and Murray among others, brought

organismically based needs into their theories of culture.
All in all, conflict and confusion, contradiction and controversy
lie everywhere in the world of adult humans. But are these
problems reason for despair? Are they reasons for the
condemnation of the human being or the designation of them as
not mature, weak, immoral, selfish or worse? Is this what these
problems are, or is there another explanation?
One could readily agree that such problems are reason for
despair if the fears, premises, and the possible misconceptions of
those who so see the behavior determined one’s views. But before
one agrees, some serious questions might be asked.
• Should we accept inferences which may be drawn from a
narrow perceptual view - a field of view restricted by limited
premises, narrowed by fear and constricted by an incomplete
view of human nature?
• Is it perhaps true that those who believe adult human
problems evidence only the improper shaping of them, or the
baseness of their nature, really misperceive the human being?
• Are those who have concluded we are hopeless - are those
who have concluded that we need better shaping - are those
who have concluded that human problems are but a
perversion of our basic human goodness blinded by
interpretations of the past, illusions of the present and
terrifying visions of the future?
Can it be that their minds are clouded by conceptions of humanity which
may be false? Perhaps we should question the conclusion that our
recurrent problems signify depravity or the breakdown of a solid
and sound way of life which previously existed. And, perhaps we
should question that such behavior signifies a failure to shape us
into mature form, or that it is just a perversion of the urge toward
maturity in our basic nature.
Suppose, instead, that in another framework, just as tenable
(the framework of this book), such behavior could be seen as a
positive sign, as a sign of growth rather than decay, as a sign of
continuing maturation rather than improper shaping or perversion
of our nature, as a sign of movement toward a more viable order
rather than as a sign of disintegration of all that is good in life, as a
sign of that which is necessary for human nature to survive, rather
16 The Problem

than the worst that is in it. Would not such a framework be

interesting to explore?
For some, this may be strong stuff. It may border not only on
heresy but also on the brink of irresponsibility and may seem to
have within it more than a tinge of the crackpot. How, one may ask,
can I take evidence as has been cited, twist it full around and come
out with the bad as a sign of good, the immoral as a sign of growing
toward more mature behavior, and the inconsistent as a sign of
growth? And, one may ask, isn’t this a rather extraordinary
manipulation of data, or perhaps even a highly irresponsible and
dangerous distortion of fact? How can I do this?
The answer is simple: I work from a different set of premises. I
do so because it is not necessary to subscribe to only one set of
premises when attempting to understand the behavior in question.
Within the premise of some people, what is being said may indeed
be a distortion, and what I am asserting will be a reprehensible and
reproachable suggestion. But since there are other premises upon
which understanding can be based, I intend to question whether it
is wise to stay only in customary frames of reference when
interpreting the adult behavior under consideration.
There are three major explanations of man’s controversial
behavior: the behavioristic, the psychoanalytic, and the humanistic
or Third Force. Each is based on a premise consisting of three
parts.

The Behaviorist Conception

The behaviorists and social learning theorists explain that

controversial behavior results from improper shaping or modeling.
Their point of view is as follows.
1. The human is first and foremost a moldable organism.
2. Moldable humanity can be shaped into good form or
bad form provided one
a. knows what to shape it into;
b. knows how to do the shaping; that is, learns
‘the powerful science of behavior’; and
c. uses ‘the powerful science of behavior’
properly.
 The Problem 17

3. The immature behavior that has troubled so many

people is evidence of
a. failure, over time, to have experimentally
determined the proper way to behave; and
b. failure to learn the powerful science of
behavior for shaping man (a Skinnerian
phrase) and/or failure to use it properly
(William Blatz).
This Lockean, Watsonian, Blatzian, Skinnerian, Bandurian,
Walterian, Ullmanian, Krasnerian, Hawkinean point of view is the
most prevalent and most enticing explanation of the immature
behavior of people. It is the explanation of the American
psychological establishment, the Russian Academy of Pedagogical
Sciences and the Israeli Kibbutz. And it is the point of view which
led Chairman Mao to say: “The outstanding thing about China’s
people is that they are poor and blank. On a blank sheet of paper,
free from any mark, the freshest and most beautiful characters can
be written.”13
This is a most appealing explanation of the aberrations of
human behavior. It appeals, at one and the same time, to the
Utopians, the escapists, the simplistic-ists, and the moralists. For
the Utopian it provides the way to the dream, not necessarily
tomorrow or next year, but someday. The mature life for tomorrow
is just waiting to be fashioned from within this conception of
human nature. We need only search until we find it and then shape
people to fit its design.
The escapists find it appealing because it enables them to place
responsibility, particularly for their own aberrant behavior, outside
of the self. From the reinforcement and modeling behavioristic
point of view, the behavior troubling people has its source in what
the shapers do or fail to do, and in no way does the responsibility
for it lie within those whose behavior is condemned. It lies, by and
large, in the molders of behavior, particularly in the parents who
use behavior modification techniques to mold the human organism.
Robert Hawkins attests this to when he says in his paraphrase
of Skinner:
“… it is not a matter of whether parents will use
behavior modification techniques to produce mature

13 Chairman Mao Tse-Tung. “Introducing a Co-operative.” April 15, 1958.

18 The Problem

behavior, but rather whether they will use these

techniques unconsciously with unknown, unchosen
results, or use them consciously, efficiently and
consistently to develop the [mature] qualities they
choose for their children.”14
From the social behavioristic point of view, immature behavior
has its source in improper modeling. The modeler does not
properly take care to shape his or her self before placing that self in
front of the one whose behavior he or she desires to influence.
Those who seek quick answers to troublesome human behavior are
enticed by the theoretical simplicity and Utopian possibilities in the
behavioristic conception of humanity. All the troublesome behavior
of humanity will waft away if you decide or learn what to shape a
person into, learn how to do the shaping, and apply the rules for
shaping properly. This is indeed an appealing solution to the many
problems of mankind. Unfortunately, the behaviorists tend too
quickly to glide past how complex it is, even within their
conception, to implement into action what to teach, how to teach
it, and how to properly do the teaching.
Seldom does one find, in behavioristic popularizations of their
point of view, what they say in their professional articles. Seldom
do they tell the larger public how their own conception says it may
take a thousand years, and many abortive attempts along the way,
before even they arrive on the threshold of what they believe mature
human behavior should be. Seldom do they lay before the
unsophisticated public that Skinnerian principles apply to an
organism in want, and only to one confined in a Skinnerian box of
life where only limited choice and limited opportunity to behave are
provided. Reinforcement behavioristic principles are indeed Beyond
Freedom and Dignity, in the Skinnerian sense, because they derive
from studies in which the shaper restricts the degrees of behavioral
freedom of the organisms being molded.
Beyond these problems with the behavioristic conception are
still others which they tend to gloss over. Learning to do it properly
is a complex business, so complex that merely learning how to
reinforce behavior is very difficult. It is so difficult that few can be
expected to properly learn to use this aspect of behavior

14 Hawkins, Robert P. (1972). It’s time we taught the young how to be good
parents (and don’t you wish we’d started a long time ago?). Psychology Today, 6,
11:28-40.
 The Problem 19

technology. Thus, there is considerable doubt that their attempts to

implement their conception of maturity into action will make any
real inroads upon the problems of humans.
This is true, also, of the social behavioral point of view, the
point of view that promotes modeling as the way to tomorrow’s
mature behavior. Seldom do the social behaviorists point out the
basic modeling problem: To implement modeling requires an almost
inhuman capability of people to monitor and change their own behavior so as to
be sure the proper mode is placed before the imitator. So, even this
seemingly very simple solution to the production of maturity has
incredible complexities in it.
But before you agree with this analysis, be careful. There is a
way to conceive of implementing it into action. In fairness to the
behavioristic conceptions, one can conceive that the few
knowledgeable ones can do the shaping of the molders and thus
effectuate this point of view. Thereby, the problems I have
mentioned could be circumvented. However, one does not need to
elaborate on the complexity of striving to accomplish the
behavioristic aim by this means.
One of the values in the behavioristic conception, although this
value creates a paradox, is that it does provide the escapist the
opportunity to assign responsibility for his or her immature
behavior to sources other than his/her own. Yet this same
conception provides surcease for the moralist. Theoretically, it
assigns the responsibility for the origin of troublesome behavior to
the modeler or the shaper, but, ultimately in most adults, it places
the responsibility for change in the person who is troubled or
troublesome.
This can be seen in two lines of evidence. First, behavior
technologists say that in most people, the final decision to submit
the self for change lies in him or her whose behavior is
troublesome. Secondly, the plethora of self-change manuals
spawned by its protagonists is evidence of their belief that
immature people should and can change themselves. But these
basics in the behavioristic conception are less serious than those
which stem not from commissions but from omissions within the
conception.
Blithely, the reinforcement behaviorists cast aside any
suggestion that new forms of consciousness emerge over time and
changing conditions of existence. They do not see emergence as a
worthy explanation of any of the things which keep happening to
20 The Problem

people. As one of them, Howard Kendler says: “Each person does

not proceed through a predetermined sequence of stages, but
instead learns important habits in certain situations in life.”15 Such
statements, typical of behaviorists, suggest they are filtering out,
rejecting, or oblivious to the reams of information suggesting
emergent stages in the development of both individual and cultural
man.
The non-emergent position is a tenable one to explore, but
how does it explain the appearance of Black Muslim thinking in
those in which it originally appeared, or Consciousness III16 as a
way that so many who were shaped to think otherwise now think
today. Explanations based on accidentally chained responses,
accidentally reinforced, or on accidental modeling are just not
satisfactory ways to explain these changes in some of our people.
Furthermore, how can such explanations handle the fact that public
school teachers, once notorious bastions of respect for authority,
suddenly turned to the strike cudgel in defiance of authority?17 How
does it explain that these previously authority dependent, authority
respecting, authority promoting people suddenly came to demand,
over and above salary, benefits and job protection, the right of
autonomy in the performance of their jobs?
Beyond this there is a much more glaring omission in one of
the behaviorist conceptions of man. It is particularly true of
reinforcement behaviorism. This version of behaviorism expresses that
reinforcement is the way to set proper behavior into man. Yet these
behaviorists will admit that reinforcements oft times lose their
potency for strengthening behavior, and they do so without having
any adequate explanation of why this occurs. Beyond this, they do
not sufficiently explain the casting aside of old values by those who
have received much payoff for living by them. The behavioral
position just does not explain a person’s switch from one

15 Kendler, Howard (1968). Basic Psychology, (2nd ed.). New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts, p. 497. [Slightly modified by Graves. The actual text is: “Each
person does not proceed through a predtermined sequences of stages, but
instead learns important habits in certain situations of his early life.” ed.]
16 From Reich, Charles (1970). The Greening of America. New York: Random House.
17 Reference to the 1968 New York City teachers’ strike which began with

dismissals in the Ocean Hill–Brownsville area of Brooklyn and turned into a

conflict involving workers’ rights as well as race. See: Mayer, Martin (1968). The
Teachers Strike. New York: Harper & Row, and Podair, Jerald E. (2002). The
Strike that Changed New York: Blacks, Whites, and the Ocean Hill-Brownsville Crisis.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
 The Problem 21

reinforcing agent to another - a problem which brings forth a third,

though related, omission.
There is no way in the behavioristic conception of human
nature to hypothesize the class of reinforcements to which one
might switch when behavior is no longer responsive to that which
previously brought it forth. The behavioristic conception offers no
solid intelligence as to why a person shifts from what reinforces
selfish, hedonistic, bodily-based values to that which reinforces
altruistic, sacrificial, spiritual values. In other words, it does not
explain the Piaget-like shifting of moral behavior which is found in
the well-replicated cross-cultural studies of the Lawrence Kohlberg
group. Or as Salvatore Maddi says in summing up his argument
against the total adequacy of the behavioristic conception of human
behavior:
“To say that all behavior is the result of learning and
then say nothing about developmentally common
themes as to what is learned, is to do very little in the
attempt to understand human life. To say that learning
is dependent upon reinforcers and to -‘give no basis for
discovering or identifying reinforcers except as learning
actually occurs, is to damn us to a minute analysis of
every event of human life that amounts to searching for
a needle in a haystack.”18

The Homo Homini Lupus:19

The Psychoanalytic Conception

Another conception of man which offers an explanation of his

recurring immaturities is the homo homini lupus conception. This is
the conception of certain religionists such as the Calvinists, the
Orthodox, and early Freudian psychoanalysts. In this conception,
man’s recurrent problems are again mainly failures to transform
immaturity to maturity. But it is based on a different premise, again
consisting of three parts.

18 Maddi, Salvatore R. (1976). Personality Theories: A Comparative Analysis (3rd Ed.).

Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press, p. 560.
19 “Man is a wolf to man.” Plautus, later cited by Thomas Hobbes.
22 The Problem

1. Beneath it all, the human is a beast driven by original

sin, aggressiveness, and a death instinct with a
moderate capacity for conversion.
2. Since humans are so constituted, civilized human
behavior, good values, mature behavior, can only be
superimposed on people and, therefore, they must
constantly be monitored and controlled lest their
animalistic tendencies override their humanistic ones.
3. Ultimately these mature values, Judeo-Christian ethics,
Buddhist principles, or the like can be fashioned in
people so any failure to show them is evidence of
faulty superimposition or lessened vigilance.
Logically within this three-part premise, current human
problems are evidence of failure to properly transform, or of
lessened vigilance, or in the parlance of psychology, permissiveness.
In many respects this is a tenable explanation of recurrent immature
behavior. But this explanation, like the behaviorist conception, is
quite time bound in its origin and interpretation. It arose in times
shortly before the birth of Christ and was a major explanation of
human immaturity up through the third decade of the twentieth
century. These were times when the conditions for human existence
were quite precarious. Then nearly all men lived in a world of
scarcity, and in a world of no chance for abundance.
Thus, it may be that this ‘mine own self interest’ concept of
human nature is quite correct for explaining behavior when humans
are in a state of want. But is it an adequate explanation when basic
want is not the center of the human scene? It would make good
sense for humans to behave in a selfish, not other-concerned way,
if truly their lives depended on it; but the question is: Does this
point of view explain the behavior of people whose life is more one
of abundance than of want or threat of want? Does it handle the
evidence that in sexually less-rigid youth one finds less prejudice,
less material concern, less selfishness, and fewer signs of
egocentrism?
It may seem odd to some, but very true to others, that a
repeated complaint of the establishment toward some who dissent
is, “They trust too much. They are going to lead us to complete
anarchy if they get power and go around trusting people the way
they do.” As a former chairman of my academic division once said
to me, “Graves, ever since you came here I have had a feeling there
was something wrong with you. In today’s meeting, I figured out
 The Problem 23

what it is. You have a tendency to trust people - maybe not all - but
you do have a tendency to trust. Don’t you realize what will happen
in this school if we trust anything those other people say?”
This is indeed a problem with the homo homini lupus
conception of human nature. Even the very best in people, such as
lack of prejudice, less materialism, less selfishness, trusting and the
like, is always suspected to be bad. But beyond this, as shown in the
annals of the psychoanalytic world, lies still more damning
evidence. The Hartmans, the Krises, the Lowensteins, the Eriksons
- all later day psychoanalysts - have found the early, orthodox
psychoanalytic view not to fit many people living in the middle
decades of the twentieth century.
The homo homini lupus conception of human nature does
explain some of the troubling behavior of humans. One can see it
in the behavior of those who go to any end to achieve, hold onto,
and exercise power positions.
In many places where the eyes might fall, one can see
Machiavelli’s view: “For it may be said of men in general that they
are ungrateful, voluble, dissemblers, anxious to avoid danger and
covetous of gain ...”20 But is this an immaturity or a failure to
properly transform the bad into good? Or, is there another point of
view? Does the total evidence support the Calvinist assertion that:
“... Infants themselves are rendered liable to
punishment by their sinfulness, not by the sinfulness
of others. For though they have not yet produced the
fruits of their iniquity, yet they have the seed of it
within them, even their whole nature is as it were a
seed of sin...”21
Or, must we include in our conceptualizing matrix what
happens in man’s behavior when the “sinfulness of others” is
removed? What about that which happens when the “sinfulness of
others” such as demeaning, degrading organizational practices are
removed? What about all the evidence as to the appearance of
positive work behavior when job enrichment supplants humanly
demeaning job simplification as found by the Fred Herzberg group?
Can this evidence be explained within the homo homini lupus
conception of humanity? It is doubtful. Therefore, as with the

20 Machiavelli, Niccolo (1903). The Prince. Chapter 17, Translation by Luigi Ricci.
21 Calvin, John (1949). Institutes of the Christian Religion. (8th Ed.). Translated by John
Allen. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, I, 1, 8.
24 The Problem

behavioristic position, one must question the total validity of this

pessimistic conception of human nature. But in so doing one must
not get lost on the other side, the side of the Humanistic or Third
Force conception of the human being.

The Humanistic Conception:

The Human is Neutral or Good

This third major explanatory conception of man is that of

Condorcet and that of the early writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
It is the conception of Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and, in
psychology, most who would call themselves humanists. Again, it
bases its explanation of immature adult behavior on a premise
consisting of three parts.
1. The human is either basically neutral or possibly an active,
rational and positively good organism driven by an
instinctive inner urge to come to know and to express his or
her inherent potentials. Or, in the words of Abraham
Maslow, “This inner nature, as much as we know of it so
far, is definitely not ‘evil,’ but is either what we adults in our
culture call ‘good’ or else it is neutral. The most accurate
way to express this is to say that it is ‘prior to’ good and
evil.”22
2. Because humanness is neutral or active, rational and decent
human behavior will be “good” unless it is deflected from
its natural course by anti-human ways. Evil behavior is
reactive rather than instinctive.
3. Therefore, immature adult behavior is evidence that man has
been canalized into bad ways or has been deflected from
behaving in accordance with his or her active, possibly
rational and good nature.
This conception does not deny that humans can do some
immature things, but its explanation is that humans do them in
defense of the need to express their inner nature. Again as Maslow
says:

22 Maslow, Abraham (1962). Toward a Psychoogy of Being, Princeton, N.J.: D. Van

Nostrand Company, Inc. p. 181.
 The Problem 25

“My opinion is that the weight of the evidence so far indicates that
indiscriminately destructive hostility is reactive because uncovering
therapy reduces it, and changes its quality into healthy
self-affirmation, forcefulness, selective hostility, self-defense,
righteous indignation, etc. In any case, the ability to be aggressive
and angry is found in all self-actualizing people who are able to let it
flow forth freely when the external situations “calls for” it.”23
Thus, according to Maslow, immature adult behavior is
defensive, reactive behavior. It is not from an inner wickedness in
man. The critics of this point of view object not only to its
conceptual looseness but to its idealistic conception of human
nature. As one of these critics, Theodore Millon says:
“... The notion that man would be a constructive
rational and socially conscious being, were he free of the
malevolent distortions of society, seems not only
sentimental but invalid. There is something grossly
naive in exhorting man to live life to the fullest and then
expecting socially beneficial consequences.”24
Personally, I cannot accept that Millon’s words, as expressed,
are a valid criticism of the humanistic conception of human nature.
His last sentence, in the quote above, too obviously extends from
the homo homini lupus conception, a point of view I have already
dismissed as not totally adequate for explaining human behavior.
But rejection of this type of criticism does not mean that the
conceptual basis is accepted - not at all, because I do have my
objections to it.
Above all else, it is the conceptual looseness in the point of
view to which I object - a looseness which makes it impossible to
comprehend much of human behavior from within its framework.
This is so in at least four ways. The first stems from Maslowian
words as “... the ability to be aggressive and angry is found in
self-actualizing people.”25 This type of statement, plus the
admission that man can act in horrible ways, says to me that one of
the potentials in man’s nature - though Maslow chose to emphasize

23 Maslow, Abraham H. (1962 &1968). Toward a Psychology of Being (2nd Ed.).

Princeton, D. van Nostrand Company, Inc., p. 195.
24 Millon, Theodore (1967). Theories of Psychopathology. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders

Co., p. 10.
25 Ibid (Maslow, p. 195).
26 The Problem

calling it ability - is for bad behavior. No substitution of words, no

semantic machination can wash away this conceptual looseness.
Secondly, it is absolutely imperative that any person seeking an
explanation for man’s behavior takes cognizance of another
conceptually loose aspect of the humanistic position. Namely, if
man is neutral or good, then how do the bad ways come to be?
How does badness arise out of neutrality or goodness? Until the
humanistic conceptualizers explain this better than as a reaction to
barriers, their explanation of human ways must be suspect.
To understand the third conceptual problem in the humanistic
position one must know that they divide human needs into two
large categories: the deficiency or deficit needs and the abundance
or growth needs. In respect to the former, immature humans
behave in order to get, to get what they need to meet physiological
needs, to get safety, to get love, belonging, approval and the like. In
respect to the latter, the abundance or growth needs, one behaves
in order to be, to become that which one is, in order to express his
inherent potentials, to express the genetic blueprint. Within this
need conception, they go on to derive, at least as currently stated,
that any deficiency or deficit-oriented behavior is ‘bad’ or at least
immature behavior except in the chronologically immature, as
demonstrated by Maslow’s words.
“Immaturity can be contrasted with maturity from the
motivational point of view, as the process of gratifying
the deficiency needs in the proper order. Maturity or
self-actualization, from this point of view, means to
transcend the deficiency needs.”26
Thus,
“The psychological health of the chronologically
immature is called healthy growth. The psychological
health of the adult is called variously, self-fulfillment,
emotional maturity, individuation, productiveness,
self-actualization, authenticity, full humanness, etc.”27
Unfortunately, there is a serious problem within this
conception of healthy growth and/or maturity. It requires one to
conclude that even successful deficiency oriented behavior in an

26 Maslow, Abraham H. (1962 &1968). Toward a Psychology of Being (2nd Ed.).

Princeton: D. van Nostrand Company, Inc., p. 202.
27 Ibid (Maslow, p. 196-197).
 The Problem 27

adult who lives in bad conditions for existence or the behavior of

an adult who must struggle for need satisfaction is immature. In no
ways does the humanistic conception of maturity deal with the
question: Can there not be a mature way of adapting to a world in
which necessity requires a deficiency need orientation? To avoid
labeling many forms of man’s behavior as immature, the humanists
must reword the concept of actualization or include as mature the
coping behavior of adults living in less than favorable human
circumstances. Or as H.A. Witkin says, they must deal with the fact
that:
“... At any level of differentiation varied modes of
integration are possible, although more complex
integration may be expected with more differentiation.
Adjustment is mainly a function of effectiveness of
integration -- that is, a more or less harmonious working
together of the parts of the system with each other and
of the system of the whole with its environment.
Adequate adjustment is to be found at any level of
differentiation, resulting from integrations effective for
that level, although the nature of adjustment that may be
considered adequate varies from level to level.”28
The fourth conceptually loose aspect of humanistic psychology
stems particularly from those humanists who think similarly to Carl
Rogers. These humanists propose that need satisfaction from
unconditional positive regard leads automatically to higher-level,
more humanistic behavior. Those who think like Rogers break from
the Maslowian position that frustration is necessary in life. They
assert that the fulfillment of man’s lower level needs leads
automatically to the emergence of higher-level, more humanistic
behavior.
They should consider that lower-level needs are just as much a
part of being human as higher-level needs. To set off the higher
needs in the Maslowian hierarchy as human needs, while the lower-
level needs are seen as something else, is logical mish-mosh. But
this criticism of this conceptual problem is trivial in comparison to
their position that the only road to mature behavior is through need
gratification brought about by unconditional positive regard.

28 Witkin, H.A. (1962). Psychological Differentiation: Studies in Development. New York:

Wiley, p. 10.
28 The Problem

I will accept that need gratification is part of the way to mature

behavior, but the evidence just does not support that it is the road to
mature humanism. This position is just not explanatory of tribes
like the Tasaday on the island of Mindanao.29 Apparently, from
what evidence we have, this tribe whose lower-level needs seem to
have been relatively satisfied, for how long no one knows, still lives
in a most primitive form of existence. They are reported as warm,
friendly, compassionate people, full of love and interpersonal
understanding. Yet, in their life, there is certainly no evidence of
fulfilling their genetic blueprint, no evidence of their being fully
functioning or self-actualizing persons. Thus, there must be more
that brings forth higher-level behavior than just unconditional
positive regard or lower-level need gratification. Need satisfaction,
alone, seems more to fixate the behavior of man than to foster his
development.
This brings us to the heart of this weakness in the humanistic
position, a matter which is one aspect of the central core of this
book. Even if need satisfaction is the road to higher-level behavior,
the humanistic position does not:
• adequately map the road from lower-level, less mature to
higher-level more mature behavior,
• adequately describe the means by which the road is to be
traveled, or
• adequately handle the problem that there may be mature
forms of behavior for less differentiated human beings.
Therefore many of the adult behaviors which so often trouble
people would be classified as immature by the humanists when it is
indeed possible there are mature ways of behaving for an adult
human who has emerged only to a less differentiated psychological
state. Thus, this Third Force view, like the others examined, seems
to fall short of adequately conceptualizing the concept of maturity.

29 Nance, John (1975). The Gentle Tasady: A Stone Age People in the Philippine Rain
Forest. Harcourt, Brace & Jovanovich.
 The Problem 29

The Emergent-Cyclical Levels of Existence Conception

(E-C or ECLET)

Logically within the premises of first, second or third force

psychologies, behavior such as I have mentioned represents either a
breakdown of man’s values and/or a failure to develop the values
of a truly mature human being. But these are not the only premises
from which we can look for conceptualization. There is another
rapidly developing point of view based on a different three-part
premise which casts a different light upon many so-called human
immaturities. It is a marriage of the cognitive-developmental and
existential systems of thought. I call it the Emergent-Cyclical Levels
of Existence point of view (E-C). This premise holds that:
1. man’s nature is not a set thing: it is ever-emergent, an
open system, not a closed system.
2. man’s nature evolves by saccadic, quantum-like jumps
from one steady state system to another; and
3. man’s psychology changes as the system emerges in new
form with each quantum-like jump to a new steady state
of being.
My version of this developing point of view is a revised,
enlarged and, in certain critical aspects, new version of a
hierarchical systems perspective, one of whose uniquenesses is that
it is infinite rather than finite in character. According to this view, I
am proposing the following in this book:
The psychology of the adult human being is an unfolding,
ever-emergent process marked by subordination of older behavior
systems to newer, higher order systems. The mature person tends
to change his psychology continuously as the conditions of his
existence change. Each successive stage or level of existence is a
state through which people may pass on the way to other states of
equilibrium. When a person is centralized in one of the states of
equilibrium, he has a psychology which is particular to that state.
His emotions, ethics and values, biochemistry, state of neurological
activation, learning-systems, preference for education, management
and psychotherapy are all appropriate to that state. If he were
centralized in some other state he would think, feel and be
motivated in manners appropriate to that state. He would have
biochemical characteristics and a state of neurological activation
30 The Problem

particular to it. When in a certain state, he would have opened only

certain systems for coping and learning. Thus, he would respond
most positively to education, management, and therapy which is
congruent with that state. And he would have to respond negatively
to forms of education, management and therapy not appropriate to
the state of his centralization.
An individual person may not be equipped genetically or
constitutionally to change in the normal upward direction if the
conditions of his existence become more favorable. Or, he may be
genetically or constitutionally, even morphologically, prone to settle
into or stay in a particular state unless extraordinary measures can
be instituted to change the genetic, constitutional or morphologic
disposition. He may move, given certain conditions (I see six of
them) through a hierarchically ordered series of behavior systems
infinitely on so long as his life exists, or he may stabilize and live
out his lifetime at any one or a combination of the levels in the
hierarchy. He may even regress to a position lower in the hierarchy.
He may show the behavior of a level in a predominantly positive or
predominantly negative fashion.
Thus, the theory to be presented in this book says an adult lives
in a potentially open system of needs, values, aspirations,
biochemistry, neurological activation, ways of learning, thinking,
and the like, but he often settles into what approximates a closed
system. When he is centralized within any level, he has only the
degrees of behavioral freedom afforded him at that level. If the
necessary conditions arise and he moves to another level, he lives
by another set of psycho-organismic principles and will react
negatively to the way he was previously managed. Thus, the
behaviors cited at the beginning of this chapter can be interpreted
within this framework as normal attempts on the part of humans to
live according to their level of emergence rather than as they are
interpreted when viewed from within the other frameworks I have
examined.
If by now your opinions differ from mine, it is probably
because of our premises. There is no doubt that other conceptions
of man exist, and that other explanations of man’s troubling
behaviors stem from them. But from another angle of observation
one can question that a fully adequate explanation of man’s
recurrent troubles has arisen during man’s time on earth. From this
angle of observation, one would have to doubt the comprehensive
 The Problem 31

worth of some of the explanations which have come to be from

other conceptions of man.
So, for the purposes of discussion, let this position be posed:
a. that the data of history do not support that the
recurrent problems of man are primarily signs of
immature behavior; and
b. that a different frame of reference allows one to
interpret the behavior distressing to so many as
necessary behavior, as a part of the laws of nature and
as a heartening sign of man’s growth and capacity for
survival as an organism.
Actually, the position I shall present in this book is not based
on what I know is the true nature of man. I do not possess such
knowledge, nor does anyone else. The argument is based on a
deduction, not without considerable evidence to support it, that
there is a conception of adult humanity which allows one to
interpret the recurrently disturbing behavior as necessary. And, the
argument is that if this conception has substance, we should be
more than pleased with what so many call immoral, unethical, and
immature behavior. And the argument is that if this conception has
substance, it might be well to understand it more fully and
disseminate it more widely because in it may be not only new
understandings of man’s nature, but new insights into many of
man’s problems.
However, in our approach to the new we must not, on the way,
destroy the old. We must incorporate it in the new because to me,
as to David Elkind, “... it seems rather fruitless and unproductive to
contrast theories which are more likely to be complimentary than
contradictory.”30 Whether we are talking about Skinner or Freud,
the blank slate or homo homini lupus, or a conception based on the
goodness of man, “it is likely that each theory carries a certain
measure of truth.”31 So, if we are to have a meaningful psychology
of adult man, it must depict man as the being he is - as one who
values, as one whose values change in peculiar ways, as one whose
values rise from pylons rooted in the deep recesses of his biological

30 Elkind, David (1971). Cognitive Growth Cycles in Mental Development.

Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1971. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska
Press.
31 Ibid, Elkind.
32 The Problem

nature. It must accept that in some manner all the established

systems of psychology somehow represent the whole. Each of
them, no matter how strange it may seem, is neither right nor
wrong, but is a psychological datum, a part of the whole. But we
cannot accept that an eclectic selection from each system is a way to
the whole, because such a selection would disrupt the partial whole.
The whole is the all of each, not the best of each. No condescending
mixture of parts will be sufficient to represent the larger whole.
There can only be one psychology of man in which somehow all
the psychologies must be represented; and the body of this book is
a suggestion in that direction.
But how did this framework come to be? What is its suggested
nature? And what are its implications to man in search of himself,32 and
in search of new avenues of approach to his problems? Let us look
first at how the framework of this book came to be.

32 Likely paraphrase of Rollo May, “Man’s Search for Himself.”

 Approach 33

CHAPTER 2

An Approach for Investigating the Problem

The emergent cyclical levels of existence conception of adult

personality and cultural institutions began in a simple fashion. It started
when I surmised that some of our adult problems exist because our
means for managing them are based on erroneous conceptions of: 1) the
psychological development of the adult human being; and, 2) the
psychological development of the species Homo sapiens.
After years of working with adult behavioral problems, I concluded
that erroneous conceptions of the psychological development of the
adult and the psychological development of the species were producing
more problems for us than they were producing effective means for
coping with them. Therefore, I decided to consider that our
management of adult behavior might be more effective if it were based
on some conception of the psychological development of the adult
individual other than the systematized conceptions then in existence.
Particularly, it seemed our management of adult behavior might be
better if our managerial means were derived from:
1. some conception more in line with our current knowledge
of adult human behavior, and
2. some conception more inclusive of our recent information
as to the organismic psychological nature of the human
being.
34 Approach

Some Problems with Current Conceptions of

Adult Human Behavior

Inge M. Ahammer, Paul B. Baltes and K. Warner Shaie, William

Looft, Robert Havighurst and other Life Span investigators, as they are
currently wont to call themselves, have reviewed, summarized, criticized
and offered suggestions in respect to the existing conceptions of adult
behavior. And, Joseph Katz and Nevitt Sanford have joined them in
expressing dissatisfaction with all current conceptions of adult
psychological development.33
Ahammer, particularly, has offered a statement of dissatisfaction
when saying:
“Adult development has typically been neglected by developmental
psychologists
1. because of the psychoanalytic domination in the field of child
psychology within the notion that personality traits are
established in the first few years of life and only modifications
thereof occur in the adult years;
2. because of the domination of the biological growth maturity
model in the field of life-span psychology with the assumption
that adulthood is a period of stability or maturity without
systematic behavior change (see models by Buhler, 1933;
Kuhlen, 1959); and
3. developmental state models, such as those of Piaget and
Kohlberg, similarly preclude the study of adult development
since they are tied to a maturational concept of development
and since ... “it is not immediately obvious ... that there is a
biological process indigenous to the adult portion of the life
span that could impose such definite and strong constraints on
(behavior) change (as there is in childhood)” (Flavell 1970, p.
279). These theories by definition conceived of adult behavior
change as the stabilization of earlier achieved behavior change
rather than as development to new qualitatively higher stages
(Kohlberg, 1969; Kohlberg and Kramer, 1969).”34

33 All of these investigators are in Baltes, Paul B. and Schaie, Warner, et al. (1973). Life-
Span Developmental Psychology. Personality and Socialization Academic Press.
34 Ahammer, Inge, in Baltes, Paul B. and Schaie, Warner, et al. (1973). Life-Span

Developmental Psychology. Personality and Socialization Academic Press, p. 254.

 Approach 35

Both Katz and Sanford agree that no conceptualization of adult

behavior exists which includes the more recent information on the
phenomenon of psychological growth in adults. In pointing this out
Katz says: “The lives of some people show a pattern of continuing
development not just in their teens but continuing into the thirties,
forties, fifties and beyond.”35
And Sanford, working with the same theme, says it is his
observation that conceptual psychologists have overlooked an important
point, namely, that psychological development can only be understood
as a part of a continuing process of development not necessarily
reaching a peak at 22, or thereabout, and then automatically sloping
downhill to decay. He spotlights this problem by saying:
“Further elaboration and integration of personality can occur
at any age. An adult’s readiness for change and the occurrence
of events that can upset equilibrium and induce new forms of
behavior which are then integrated within a more complex
structure are highly individualized matters. Our understanding
of a particular adult’s potential for further development and of
how he or she might be assisted in overcoming and the various
internal and external barriers to development is helped little by
knowledge of psychological development in children.”36
These words of Katz, Ahammer, et. al., point to definite deficiencies
in the existing conceptualizations of the developmental psychology of
the human adult. They do not point clearly to why this conceptual
problem exists.
As I see it, the major reason for the lack of a more inclusive
developmental psychology, one that
(1) includes the existing developmental psychologies in its
framework,
(2) portrays adult development to continue into the forties, fifties,
and beyond; and
(3) is potentially a developmental psychology not only of childhood
and adulthood but of the life-span of the species,
is that we have not incorporated in our conceptual frameworks, whether
they be developmental in character or otherwise, both some recent and

35 Katz, Joseph in Baltes, Paul B. and Schaie, Warner, et al. (1973). Life-Span Developmental
Psychology. Personality and Socialization Academic Press, p. 1.
36 Sanford, Nevitt in Baltes, Paul B. and Schaie, Warner, et al. (1973). Life-Span

Developmental Psychology. Personality and Socialization Academic Press, p. 2.

36 Approach

some earlier information as to the nature of the species Homo sapiens and
its psychology.

Information Overlooked by Most Conceptualizers

Let me cite a few bits of information more or less overlooked by

most conceptualizers of human psychology, and particularly adult
psychology.
First, there is the information which indicates, as some of the
authorities cited above said, that psychological development is a process
which does not plateau or cease in the thirties, forties, fifties, and
beyond. And there is the related information that the psychological
development of the species has been preceding since its origin and is
still in process today.
Second, there is the information pointing to the two-sided,
objective-subjective aspects of man’s neurological and psychological
nature. Almost all conceptualizers have failed to weave this information
into their systems. We have a plethora of one-sided objective, rational,
positive conceptions of human behavior, but we have only a few, like
those of Carl Jung and Vikor Frankl, wherein attempts have been made
to include both the objective and subjective side of man’s psychological
being in a single conceptual framework.
A third body of information not adequately woven into existing
conceptual frameworks is that indicating the hierarchical structuring of
the human brain. John Sutherland37 points to this when he says that a
significant problem in conceptual psychology, largely overlooked, is that
brains in both animals and humans must be viewed as hierarchical
systems wherein causality tends to be unique in each system. He
punctuates this by saying that the modus operandi associated with the brain
stem does not imply knowledge of the cerebellum any more than
knowledge of lower-order cognitive systems implies anything
approaching knowledge of the cortical system. This type of information
has just not been adequately woven into any of our psychologies let
alone developmental ones.
A fourth bit of information passed over or overlooked suggests that
the objective-subjective aspect of development is both hierarchical and
cyclical. This is left unnoted in most conceptual systems. An outstanding
exception is the work of Gerald Heard.

37 Sutherland, John Derg (1959) Psychoanalysis and Contemporary Thought. New York Grove
Press.
 Approach 37

A fifth kind of information not sufficiently utilized suggests that the

brain is not only hierarchically ordered, but systemically so. It seems that
Gordon Bronson is one of the few persons who has called attention to
this aspect of psychological brain organization. Bronson has not utilized
it to further the conceptualization of adult behavior, but he does call
attention to the systemic organization of neurological structures,
learning processes, and critical periods of development in childhood.
A sixth bit of information passed by or overlooked by
conceptualizers suggests human behavior is infinite rather than oriented
toward some ultimate goal. This is of singular importance to
conceptualizers because it requires one to question all
conceptualizations which include in their framework concepts of
ultimate fulfillment, the mature personality or the perfectibility of man. It
appears to be only people like Ahammer and other social learning
theorists who include this information in their conceptualizations.
And, finally, there is that bit of information which has been with us
since the 1850’s - the information about the extraordinary large size of
the Homo sapiens brain. This fact led Alfred Russel Wallace to ask Darwin
to explain, within Darwin evolutionary thinking, why the human brain is
the size that it is.38 By and large, Darwin ignored Wallace’s question.
And, by and large, our theories of adult development still ignore it
today. We just do not have a developmental theory which explains,
within its construction, why the brain of man contains far more
structures than are necessary to provide, in a Darwinian sense, for the
survival of the species.

A Suggested Social-Learning Substitute

With some of these criticisms of adult psychology in mind,

Ahammer has suggested a social-learning paradigmatic substitute for the
older conceptions of adult psychology. However, his suggested
substitute is based on operant and classical conditioning, a choice which
does not, in my judgment, sufficiently utilize all the seven kinds of
information which are available to be used. Also Ahammer’s
social-learning substitute does not meet the suggestions of Looft and
Baltes and Shaie39 as to what a more adequate model of adult
psychological development should include. Therefore, it appears that
there is need for conceptualization which goes beyond Ahammer and
38 Wallace, Alfred Russel (1891).
39 Baltes, Paul B. and Schaie, Warner, et al. (1973). Life-Span Developmental
Psychology. Personality and Socialization Academic Press, p. 339-395.
38 Approach

other past and current theorists. There is need for the development of
adult psychological paradigms which meet not only the major criticism
of Ahammer (namely that behavior changes throughout life have been
neglected), but also depict the character of the development which takes
place, how this development proceeds, why it takes place as it does and
how this process of development can be influenced. This treatise is an
effort in that direction.

Origin of the Study Behind the

Emergent-Cyclical Conception

The emergent cyclical, levels of existence conception of adult

psychology developed from a number of questions which arose in my
mind in 1950-51, and in a series of studies which were begun in 1952.
In 1950-51, I was concerned with the contradiction and conflict, the
confusion and controversy which pervaded the field of personality
theory. As a means to the end of studying this conflicted state of
psychological affairs, I chose to study the conflict and controversy in the
area of conceptions of the mature personality. I started to study this area
in the age-old way, that is, by examining what other people said was the
nature and character of the mature human being. I read many theories in
respect thereto, and by and large they suggested:
a. that research should be directed toward ascertaining that
state or that psychological condition which is the psychologically
mature state or condition, and
b. that research should be directed toward ascertaining what
practical means could be utilized to implement that state or
that condition into the people.
The thoughts expressed in the many theories required me to ask
whether it is sufficient to assume that the mature personality is a
describable state or condition which the human being conceivably can
achieve. Or would we be better off if we think that mature personality is
a process of becoming rather than the epitome of a state of being? In
answer to this question, one must say that it is perfectly proper to
assume that the mature personality is a state or a condition which does
or can exist. And, it is just as proper to conduct research toward the
possible description of the state. Such is, indeed, a legitimate scientific
endeavor. In fact, the literature is replete with such endeavors and more.
 Approach 39

Lay people and professionals alike raise their children; run their
businesses; direct their educational enterprises; conduct their
international relations; draw up, lobby for and pass laws; and order their
societies so as to produce what is, in their minds, the mature adult
personality, the viable business, the mature student, the mature state of
national and international affairs, and the proper societal state made up
of properly behaving people. The professionals go quite beyond the
layperson. They not only conduct studies to ascertain the nature of the
mature condition, both individually and societally, but they also write
articles or books describing that state or that condition as they view it to
be. And they go much further. The professional mental hygienist, the
professional business manager, the professional educator, the
professional legal expert, or the professional international relations
practitioner extends efforts into the realm of therapeutic, managerial,
educational, international relations and social welfare practices. They
intervene, teach how to intervene, or administer the intervention into
the lives of people, the activities of business, the process of adult
education, or the practice of international and societal relations. They do
so in order to change the psychologically or sociologically
less-than-mature state into their conceived-to-be psychologically or
sociologically mature state.
These people, these laymen, and these professionals, in lay circles or
in professional circles, in mixed circles or in restricted circles, may argue
as to what is the ‘mature’ personality; but seldom do they do that which
needs to be done, namely, question whether the state should be
considered to exist.
Although I accept that it is proper, for research purposes, to assume
the existence of the ultimately mature state, I raise the question as to
whether this theoretical state actually can exist? Perhaps the belief of so
many people that this state not only exists but also is definable is a belief
that is more mythical than true. It seems to me that a thorough
investigation of how people conceive of mature states might clarify this
confused and controversial region of human behavior, and that a
clarification of psychological maturity as a process or as a state or a
condition might resolve much of the conflict and contradiction in other
regions of psychology and culture. Therefore, research toward this end
might profitably examine:
40 Approach

1. What are the concepts of psychological maturity

which actually exist?
2. Do the existing concepts suggest that psychological
maturity should be viewed as a state or a condition,
or should it be viewed as a process?
3. What is the actual nature of psychological maturity
if research suggests that it is a state or a condition?
4. What is the nature of the process toward
psychological maturity if research indicates that it
should be viewed as a process?
Then, based upon the research of this point, one could ask:
• if psychological maturity is a state, • if psychological maturity is a process,
what does the character of the what does the character of the
state tell us about the practice of process tell us about the practice of
intervention into human affairs? intervention into human affairs?
• if psychological maturity is a state, • if psychological maturity is a process,
how can we diagnose human how can we diagnose human
behavior in respect to that state? behavior in accordance with the
process?
• if psychological maturity is a state, • if psychological maturity is a process,
what theory or theories of how can we reconceptualize
personality more appropriately personality theory in order that it be
relate to the properly- described consonant with the process, or are
state which is determined by there theories of personality
research? consonant with the process we might
discover?
• if psychological maturity is a state, • if psychological maturity is a process,
how can we relate our other how can we relate our accumulated
knowledge of human behavioral knowledge of human behavior, and
problems indicated by research, to our approaches to behavioral
this state? problems indicated by research, to a
reconceptualization of personality
based upon the evidence that
psychological maturity is a process
rather than a state or a condition?

But this was not all that I felt might come from a study of
conceptualizations of mature personality. There is yet another set of
problems of mature personality which might be clarified by
investigation.
The other set of problems seems to arise from some peculiar
inferences present in existing conceptualizations of the mature human
being. These conceptions infer that a person who cannot take his basic
 Approach 41

needs for granted, who lives in an insecure world, who is much

concerned with lovability or status, whose awareness or comprehension
is limited cannot be a mature personality. Such inferences, it seems to
me, demand that certain questions be asked. Among them are:
• Should we not consider that there might be something
seriously wrong with the ways mature personality is
conceptualized if such conceptions lead to the
inferences that have just been noted?
• Must not we ask whether we should accept a
conception which categorizes most living people as
immature personalities?
These questions logically follow the inferences listed above, but
beyond them there are other things to be considered.
It is entirely possible, if mature personality is a particular describable
state or condition, that the questions above are irrelevant. Mature
personality may be a state and, if it is, the decisions made there from
must be accepted. However, it is equally possible that many people, dead
or living, could be cast erroneously into the immature category simply
by the nature of the conception of mature personality. This we can see if
we focus on six reference points which are used by most definers of
mature personality.
a. The attitude shown by the person toward his own self.
b. The style and degree of self-actualization.
c. The degree of personal integration achieved by the
individual.
d. The degree of autonomy achieved by the person.
e. The adequacy of the person’s perception of reality.
f. The degree of environmental mastery achieved by the
person.
If one accepts, for purposes of argument, that some, or more
probably all, of these six points define the mature personality, then he
must answer the two questions asked above affirmatively. He must
conclude:
1. that almost all biologically mature humans who existed
in the past were immature personalities and,
2. that the vast majority of mankind who exist today are
also immature personalities.
42 Approach

This he must do because the masses of humans who have lived

have shown odd and peculiar attitudes toward their selves. Certainly
they have shown a deficiency in self-actualization as the term is used
today, although they may have achieved reasonable personal integration.
Few alive today or in recent history, and still fewer in remote times,
achieved autonomy or possessed an adequate perception of reality, and
who knows if we possess one today? And only in very recent times have
any number of people, whose total numbers are still few, achieved any
reasonable degree of mastery of the environment.
How many people alive on this earth today have the mental
hygienist’s proper attitude toward the self? How many have approached
self-actualization? In fact, is such approachable? Autonomy of the self is
certainly lacking in the masses of currently living human beings. And the
question of what is an adequate perception of reality is as much a matter
for argument as it is a matter of accepted knowledge. Was and is a
person psychologically immature because his world did not or does not
permit him autonomy? Is the adult human necessarily immature who
lives by a false perception of reality? Is it not possible that there is a
mature form of existence for the human who cannot be autonomous;
for one whose limited knowledge produces false perceptions of reality;
for one who because of ignorance possesses peculiar attitudes toward
the self?
These are very serious questions. They warrant careful and thorough
consideration no matter what is the questioner’s purpose. But, for this
work, they are far more important because they led to the specific
research questions I asked in my studies.

Questions Asked in the Studies

The first formulation of these questions was as follows:

1. How do biologically mature human beings conceive of
what is the mature human personality?
2. Do adult humans have basically one identifiable
conception of what is the psychologically mature adult?
3. Do adult humans have more than one conception of what
is to be conceived of as the mature personality?
4. If they have several conceptions, are the various
conceptions classifiable?
5. If the various conceptions are classifiable, how can they be
classified?
 Approach 43

a) Can they be classified by content? If so, how do

they differ from one another in content?
b) Can they be classified structurally? If so, how can
they be classified in a structural sense?
c) Can they be classified as to the manner in which
they function? If so, how do they differ from one
another functionally? How do people who
possess the same or different conceptions
operate in similar or in dissimilar situations? Do
those who profess the same conception of
psychological maturity behave similarly in
relatively standard situations? Do those who
profess different conceptions behave similarly or
differently as the situation varies? If they behave
similarly, what are the differences?
d) Will there be evidence that one conception of the
mature personality stands out as superior to other
conceptions of the mature personality?
Specifically the questions asked at the beginning of the series of
investigations that led to my revised version of human and adult
psychology were worked into the following form:
1. What will be the nature and character of conceptions of
psychological maturity, in the biologically mature human
being, produced by biologically mature humans who are
intelligent but relatively unsophisticated in psychological
knowledge in general, and theory of personality in
particular?
2. What will happen to a person’s characterization of mature
human behavior when s/he is confronted with the criticism
of his/her point of view by peers who have also developed
their own conception of psychologically mature behavior?
3. What will happen to a person’s conception of mature
human behavior when confronted with the task of
comparing and contrasting his/her conception of
psychologically mature human personality to those
conceptions which have been developed by authorities in
the field?
44 Approach

4. Into what categories and into how many categories, if any,

will the conceptions of mature human personality produced
by intelligent, biologically mature humans fall?
5. If the conceptions are classifiable, how do they compare in
content from category to category? How do they compare
structurally and how do they compare functionally?
6. If the conceptions are classifiable, how do the people who
fall into classes compare behaviorally as observed in quasi-
experimental situations and in every day life?
7. If the conceptions are classifiable, how do the people who
fall into one class compare to people who fall into other
classes on standardized psychological instruments?

The Design of the Research Project

The basic studies which contributed to the development of this

book were spread over nine years. Supplementary studies were done
over another twelve years. The subjects in the basic studies were
students in the author’s classes in Normal Personality. Some were full-
time day students in a men’s college, some were graduate coed students
in the field of teacher education and industrial management, and some
were students in the evening division of a coeducational college for
mature students. Most of the latter two groups had full-time jobs.
The class in which the students were enrolled was a fifteen-week
course on The Normal Personality. In most cases this was a second
course in Psychology taken by the students. There were more subjects in
the lower age groups, and more of the subjects were male than female.
However, these facts did not seem to affect appreciably the results of
the studies. The investigation began with instructions given to the
subjects on the first day of class. The instructions which led to Phase I
of a four-phase study were:

Phase 1
During the first four weeks of this semester you will be expected to
develop your own personal conception of what is the psychologically
mature, biologically mature human being. No reading will be assigned to
you during this time, and you are requested to do no reading on this
subject during this four-week period. You are to develop your
conception from what you now know, from that which you have
experienced and from what you now believe.
 Approach 45

During class time, we will discuss what personality is considered to

be by various authorities and we will discuss what areas of human
behavior need be considered as one thinks about what is psychologically
mature behavior.
Outside of class you are to work toward the development of your
personal conception of psychologically mature behavior.
At no time during the semester will I discuss with you what are my
personal views about the subject. It is your conception of
psychologically mature human behavior with which we will be
concerned.
At the end of the first four weeks you will turn in to me your
conception of psychologically mature human behavior. And since I
must, at the end of five weeks, turn in grades, your conceptions will be
graded on the basis of the following four criteria:

1. Breadth of coverage of human behavior.

2. Concurrence with established psychological fact.

3. The internal consistency of the conception.
4. The applicability of the conception.

When you turn your papers in to me at the end of four weeks, they
will be read by me, and returned to you at a later class period.40 You will
then spend four weeks in small groups where each of you will, in turn,
present and receive criticism of your point of view before and from your
peers. After all have been presented and after all have received criticism,
you will be required, in the ninth week, to develop a defense or a
modification of your point of view elaborating on why you are
defending, if you choose to do so, or explaining the reasons for your
modification if that be your choice. This paper you will turned in to me
at the end of the tenth week and I will return it to you at a later class
period.41
After the second set of papers is returned, you will be reassigned to
small groups in which you, with the groups, will spend the next four
weeks studying the conceptions of mature personality which are in the
literature. You will study the position of many authorities and you will
compare and contrast your position to that of the various authorities. At

40 CWG: The subjects were never aware that copies were made of their productions
during this period of time.
41 CWG: Again, these papers were copied.
46 Approach

the end of this experience, again, you will modify or defend your
personal conception and give your reasons why.42 After you have
handed in your final papers, instead of a final written examination, I will
first read your paper and then talk with you individually about the total
experience.
From this basic design I was provided with three kinds of basic data
produced in Phase 1 of the studies:

1. A phenomenological view of certain beliefs of the subjects -

beliefs as to the nature of psychologically mature human
behavior.
2. a) The reaction of the subject to peer criticism as shown in the
modification or the defense of the original position.
b) The reaction behavior of the subject under peer criticism, as
observed unbeknown to the subjects, through one-way
mirrors and an inter-communication system. (The physical
arrangement of the investigator’s laboratory provided several
small rooms in which groups could assemble and which had
an entry to observation booths outside the awareness of the
subjects.) The coed college groups were observed in various
classrooms.
3. The reaction to confrontation with the position of authority as
shown in the final paper. Again, since the subjects were in small
groups, it was possible to observe reaction to authorities of
different kinds and of different points of view.
4. Interview data which came from a talk with the subjects after
the final paper was turned in. These were data which enabled
the investigator to double-check observations obtained from
the papers and from the observation booths or rooms.

Phase 2
The second phase of the investigation involved classification of the
most basic of the data, the original conceptions of psychologically
mature behavior. This phase began in the second year and was
continued on a cumulative basis each spring for the next eight years.
Independent judges, people not involved in the production of the
conceptions of mature personality who knew nothing of the project,
were assigned a task. They were handed the conceptions accumulated to
date and were instructed to place them into categories if they found
them to be classifiable.
42 CWG: These papers were also copied.
 Approach 47

They were instructed in a very simple manner: “Take these

conceptions of mature personality, study them, then sort them into the
fewest possible categories if you find them to be classifiable. Do not
force any into categories. If some do not fit any category you decide
upon, just place them into an unclassifiable group.”
Each group of judges consisted of 7 to 9 people who had no
relationship to the project. At first, each judge worked independently of
all other judges. After each member of each year’s group of judges had
decided on his classification system, the group worked toward one
classification system into which the conceptions could be classified by
unanimous opinion. At no time was any conception forced into a class.
If even one member disagreed as to placement of a conception, that
conception was not used to establish classification types.
This phase produced the basic classes of mature adult behavior
according to the judges who did the classifying.

Phase 3
Phase 3 of the investigation involved an exploration of the
categories of conceptions of mature personality by means of a number
of different techniques. Once groupings of conceptions of mature
behavior were established, I made use of a fortunate coincidence which
enabled me to explore the meaning of these categories.
Most of the subjects took another class with me the following
semester. These were classes in Organizational or Industrial Psychology,
Experimental Psychology and Abnormal Psychology. These classes were
designed so that, where possible, students with like conceptions were
grouped into small groups and placed in problem-type situations
appropriate to the subject matter of the course they were taking.
Since some members of subsequent classes were not members of
the experimental groups, they too, were grouped and taught through the
same methodology. This served two purposes. It kept the experimental
subjects from being aware that they were being treated in a special
fashion and it served as a moderate control over the investigations in
process.
The experimental groups were studied through the one-way mirror,
as were the non-experimental groups. Special problems were designed
for the Organizational and Experimental students. In the Abnormal
Psychology class, many standard tests were administered under the guise
of providing the student with knowledge of diagnostic instruments and
providing self-insight, though these things they also did.
48 Approach

Phase 3, therefore, produced seven kinds of data for me:

1. How subjects who had similar conceptions of mature
personality operated in certain problem situations.
2. How subjects who have similar conceptions organized to
solve problems. (They were told, simply, what their goal
was and that they would have to organize themselves to
complete the assigned tasks.)
3. How subjects who had similar conceptions interacted with
one another in the course of attempting to solve problems.
4. How subjects who had similar conceptions worked toward
the solution of problems.
5. How long it took subjects who had a similar conception to
solve problems.
6. How well subjects who had similar conceptions solved
problems.
7. How subjects with similar conceptions performed on
certain standard psychological tests.
Phase 4
Phase 4 of the investigation was a library research project which was
carried on from 1960 up to the moment of this writing. From the
classification, situation and test information, confusing data arose.
Therefore, I combed the literature for any hints that I might get as to
a. how to make sense of the data, and
b. how to begin the conceptualization of adult behavior to
which the data was pointing.
From this four-phase study, data was collected which seemed to say
that many investigators have been living within an illusion - a
misperception - of the nature of psychological maturity - an illusion
which has created conflict and confusion for us where it does not need
to be - an illusion which it seems must be swept aside if ever we are to
truly comprehend the nature of man’s being.
What then is this illusion which must be swept aside? What is this
misperception by which we live that is creating consternation for us
where it does not need to be? Have not many concluded from certain
evidence before them that psychological maturity is a state which can
conceivably come to be? Have they not concluded that psychosocial
man, like biological man, grows from a state of relative immaturity
through early stages or experiences, finally to arrive, in adulthood, as a
 Approach 49

fully developed, basically unchanging mature psychosocial system for

the greater part of one’s biologically mature years? Have not they
concluded from this belief that if we can discern
a. the underlying nature of man, and
b. how to properly treat him in his developing years,
some day we will be able to live as truly mature psychological beings in a
truly mature psychosocial system? And have not many conceptual
explanations of man laid out, at least in theory, the road to man’s
Utopia? Has not Skinner done so in Walden Two and Beyond Freedom and
Dignity? Did not Freud do so in his conception of the genital character?
Has not Erikson done so in his eight stages of man and Maslow in his
concept of the Self-Actualizing man?
Indeed they have, and yet from my data, doing so is to live in a
world of misperception. From my data, it was necessary to conclude that
the state or that condition which could be called psychological maturity
or Utopian society cannot be theorized to exist and, further, to conclude
that those writers, philosophers and scientists who have spent much
time prospecting for or writing about the psychologically mature
personality or the Utopian society were, or are, living within an illusion.
It has been necessary because there are reams of evidence - mine and
others - that negates the Utopian position and supports the assertion I
have made. What these data were like, what problems they created, and
how the problems were resolved is the subject matter of the next four
chapters.
50 Basic Data
 Basic Data 51

CHAPTER 3

The Basic Data

From the research project outlined, it should be apparent that the

emergent cyclical theory of adult behavior did not arise capriciously, nor
is it a product of armchair theorizing. I did not visit the Gods on
Olympus nor have I stood on the mountaintop in Sinai to procure the
substance in its words. It came to be in an arduous, systematic fashion.
As I sought some way to make sense of human life, of the
confusion and contradiction of the conflict and controversy surrounding
it, I came to have, in the language of the street, a ‘monkey on my back.’
This monkey consisted of data more confusing and contradictory than
that which I had set out to clarify. The data could not, within my
knowledge and efforts, be rationalized within any existing explanatory
framework. Thus, I was driven by their nature to develop an explanatory
framework which would make sensible, at least to me, the confusing
data my efforts had amassed.
These data produced in me an experience similar to the one Darwin
must have had when he visited the Galapagos Islands. As Darwin went
from island to island in the Galapagos archipelago, he took note, in its
confusing animal world, of the creatures that inhabited each of the
islands. He observed subtle differences in the finches and iguanas and
how these differences varied from island to island. These differences, it
occurred to him, were part of a slow and developing process, the
process he was to call evolution.
A similar experience happened to me in the course of my
investigations. As a means of researching toward answers to my
52 Basic Data

questions, I chose to study conceptions of mature personality and how

those people who professed certain conceptions operated in a variety of
situations. As I examined the basic data, the various conceptions of
mature personality produced by my subjects, and how those who
produced each type of conception operated, I moved from one
conception of mature personality to another. I took notice of
differences in the form of the conception, of the character of the
conceiver’s operation, and the way these changed with time and
experience. My observations noted subtle differences in the conceptions
of mature personality professed by the subjects who contributed basic
data to my work. So studies were designed to investigate the nature of
the conceptions and the character of the apparent differences. As the
results came in, I seemed to see, as had Darwin, a slow and developing
process, an observation which created a problem for me. The work had
begun as an attempt to clarify the confusion and contradiction in adult
conceptions of maturity and in the world of psychological information
and theory. But soon I was faced not with clarification, but with
exacerbation. The data, on the surface, seemed in no way to bring
clarification to the muddled states of man, nor of his confused state of
psychological affairs. It amplified them many-fold.
When this problem arose, time was taken to think through the
situation created by the accumulated information. This period of
contemplation directed me to reopen an age-old question – the question
about the essence of human life. Pursuant to this train of thought I
asked: “What is human life about? What is it meant to be?” If it is not,
as I have questioned, a transformation of man’s perversity into decency,
if it is not a search for the proper way for man to live and for how to
condition him to live that way, if it is not a search for one’s self and for
the expression of all of one’s potential, then what is it? What is human
life like and what is it meant to be? This is a question which needs to be
answered if ever we are to understand mature human life and if ever we
are to find more constructive approaches to the many of man’s
problems. But how are we to proceed toward an answer to it?
My approach began with a consideration of this question. Is human
life a soul-trying, morality developing struggle up the mountainside only
to experience, when the apex is reached, a character-destroying,
institution-wrecking tumble down the other side? Or is it a trip fraught
with heaven and hell that has a theoretical end in a benignant destination
oozing with safety, security, freedom and abundance for all as B.F.
Skinner seems to want us to accept? Or is John Stambaugh correct when
he says of human life:
 Basic Data 53

“... the historical cycle of the body politic indicates that man
progresses from spiritual faith to courage, from courage to
freedom, from freedom to abundance, then comes the waning,
from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to apathy, from
apathy to dependency right back into bondage again.”43
Or can we hope with Radoslav Tsanoff:
“...that the twilight in which we seem to be moving today is a
twilight not before night but before dawn: that we are reaching
the end of the dark ages of materialism; that the modern mind,
without surrendering the tools by which it has achieved its
mastery of material nature, will now more fully vindicate its
own self-recognition and achieve self-mastery and a more
humane life individual and social?”44
Perhaps we can so hope, but perhaps to do so is a futile effort. The
fact of the matter is we simply do not know which of these two men, if
either, more correctly perceives the character of man’s being or the
future of mankind. But I do believe, from the data of my studies, that
Tsanoff’s hope is closer to the facts of human life than all the
Stambaughs are. In fact, the latter poses a position which necessity
requires that I debate. I do so because, from the information I have
gathered, the strong suggestion has arisen that all such contradictory
explanations of man’s predicament exist because we have failed to solve
a problem - a problem we have not as yet unriddled because we have
not approached the goal James F.T. Bugental set down when he said:
“Humanistic psychology has as its ultimate goal, the preparation
of what it means to be alive as a human being. This is, of
course, not a goal which is likely ever to be fully obtained, yet it
is important to recognize the nature of the task. Such a
complete description would necessarily include an inventory of
man’s native endowment, his potentialities of feelings, thought
and action, his growth, evolution and decline, his interaction
with various environing conditions (and here a truly complete
psychology of man would subsume all physical and social
sciences since they bear on the human experience actually or

43 This quotation is variously attributed and and frequently repeated. Its true provenance
is unknown. A reference in John E. Stambaugh’s has not been located.
44 Tsanoff, Radoslav A. (1942). The Moral Ideals of Our Civilization. New York: E.P.

Dutton & Co., Inc., p. 125.

54 Basic Data

potentially), the range and variety of experience possible to him

and his meaningful place in the universe.”45
It seems to me that we have not approached this goal because we
have lacked both the message of what human life is all about and a
medium for its transmission. And it seems to me that we have lacked
these because we have not had at our disposal an investigatory means
sufficiently broad to bring forth all that human life seems to be. Also, it
seems to me that the basic data from my studies may be a means
through which is conveyed what adult human life is all about and what it
is going to be. So let us see in this chapter how the conclusion came
about.
When I asked adults, aged 18 to 61, to take four weeks of time to
think through and develop, as best they could, their personal conception
of the psychologically mature human being, the task was undertaken on
the basis of three assumptions:
1. They would project themselves into their conception.
2. If I collected a considerable number of these conceptions, I
would have a reasonably representative sample of what
human beings see the best of human life to be.
3. With these ideas in hand, I might be able, through study of
them and the people who produced them, to come closer
to the goal of Bugental.
The assumption that the participants would project themselves into
the conceptions was, I believe, well corroborated in my data. It was
corroborated by my observation of them and by the fact that many
openly said they were projecting. But I did not feel secure in this
assumption until later, when Frank Barron of the University of
California, supported it. He, after gathering together a group of his
colleagues to attack the task of defining healthy personality, a task similar to
mine, said:
“ … with some half-dozen psychologists arrayed in a circle and
comfortably seated, it was natural enough that a sort of
informal symposium should quickly organize itself. We listened
as a group as each of us in turn presented his own ideas of what
the psychologically healthy person would be like. After a bit of
listening, it became clear to me that I had fallen in with a group

45 Bugental, James F. T. (1967). Challenges of Humanistic Psychology. Los Angeles:

Psychological Service Associates, McGraw-Hill Book Company, p. 7.
 Basic Data 55

of rather noble souls for the traits, which they uniformly

ascribed to the psychologically healthy person, were the sort
that would earn anyone a reward in the afterlife. As I listened
further, however, I began to realize that the catalogue of named
virtues would be somewhat more appropriate to an effectively
functioning person in the temperate zone than in the tropical or
arctic zones. Then it came to me that the effectively functioning
person had two rather locally determined restrictions imposed
upon him; namely, like each and every staff member of the
institute, he was a man rather than a woman and rather closer to
middle-age than to adolescence. At the end of the first
comfortable discussions, then, we had arrived at an excellent
picture of an effectively functioning and notably virtuous man
in his middle years in late summer at Berkeley, California.”46
The second assumption was somewhat, but not completely, justified
according to the data which came in. Originally four, then, with time,
five major conceptions of mature human existence appeared. These five
conceptions were easy to relate to established ways of life by which men
live or have lived. But there were two forms of human existence not
included in the data, those which some call the tribalistic way of life and the
pre-cultural ways of man. Then, beyond these, an additional conception of
mature behavior appeared which was not only different from any of the
others but also did not relate to any established form of existence by
which man has yet lived. Thus, eventually, to portray the picture of what
the data from my studies said mature human life was all about, I had to
move beyond existing conceptions of adult human psychology to
construct the medium which I sought.
The third assumption - that the study of the conceptions of mature
human behavior produced and study of the people who produced them
would enable me to develop a medium for expressing what human life is
all about - was, I believe, borne out because from it came the framework
for the conception of adult human behavior presented in this book.
Examining what my participants said can test the validity of this
assertion.

46 Barron, Frank (1963). Creativity and Psychological Health. Princeton, New

Jersey, Toronto, London, New York: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., p. 2.
56 Basic Data

What Adults Say Mature Personality Is

The message transmitted through the conceptions and the reasons

the emergent cyclical level of existence conception was developed can
best be seen by an examination of what the participants said about
mature personality. Soon you will find protocols of the conceptual types
produced by my participants.
They produced conceptions which could be classified as expres-self or
sacrifice-self conceptions. These could be broken down into three kinds of
expres-self conceptions and two kinds of sacrifice-self conceptions. Each
express-self or sacrifice-self type was further classifiable into an entering
version, a nodal version and an exiting version as illustrated in Exhibit I.

Exhibit I

As you examine each conception, it may interest you to compare

your thoughts about mature personality to my participants. If you do so,
I offer a few words to keep in mind. There may be a conception which
quite clearly portrays your ideas; but you may find your thoughts to be a
mixture of more than one. Keep in mind that the protocols, as
presented, represent a step-like progression from conceptions which
develop earlier in human history to conceptions which develop later and
later in time.
Also keep in mind that the protocols selected for presentation are
ones which are more clearly nodal sub-types or more obviously
transitional sub-types than ones which are mixed. The fact of the matter
is that my participants produced what seemed to be clear nodal types,
and obvious entering and exiting sub-types. But 40 percent of them
produced types which were mixtures of several types or sub-types.
In cases of the purer nodal sub-types, almost all the person’s thinking
was centralized around the basic theme of the particular nodal type. In
 Basic Data 57

the sub-types almost all of the person’s thinking consisted of two

adjacent sub-types. In the mixed types, it is common to find at least 50
percent of a person’s thinking stemming from one central theme with
the remainder of the person’s thinking varying over other types. Keep
these things in mind if you compare your thinking to that of one of my
contributors.
Now, as I present examples of five types and an entering, nodal and
exiting version of each type, I will organize them around the type, the
entering version of each type, the nodal version of each type, and the
exiting version of each type. And I shall organize them in hierarchical
order from types which appear earlier in adult human development to
types which appear later in adult human development. The first is an
entering sub-type of what I classified as ‘the express self, to hell with others
conception’. The second is a nodal version of this type and the third is an
exiting version. These are followed by entering, nodal and exiting versions of
the other four types.

Express Self, to Hell With Others Lest One Feel Shame -

Entering Version

This is the conception of a tall, handsome, 24-year-old male. It, like

all others, has been edited because space does not permit complete
presentation. Editing removed only repeat examples of the person’s
thinking.
It is presented precisely as the participant wrote it. All errors, all
rough language, all ungrammatical construction are unaltered:
“Life is a jungle - one goddamned great big jungle. It is
survival of the fittest and that is all. Anybody who does not
recognize this is not or will never be a grown up person. Life
is competition, it is fight and struggle and get and take and
hang on. Some they have got it to fight there way through it
and some they just don’t have it. The grownup he survives, or
he go down big in trying he’s got it. He is the guy who fights
to get what he needs and he keeps after it till he gest it. If he
wants some chick he don’t take no. He wears her down. One
thing about him is he don’t chicken, he don’t let fear stand in
his way.
If it has got to be done he does it he don’t stay to think, he
just does it. It don’t matter who gets hurt thou it best it ain’t
him. There ain’t no reason for him to feel guilty cause a man’s
58 Basic Data

got to live ain’t he. This aint no picnik world in which he live.
It better he do what have to be done cause he can’t hold his
head up if he ain’t a man. That’s the way life is any grown guy
know it. He know its him or me and it sure ain’t going to be
me if hes healthy. He gets what he can from this world and no
one pushes him around, even if the dice is loaded its up to
him to make them shake his way. If he don’t what kind of
man is he --.
Now don’t you set me down Doc for saying this. You said to
put down what we believed. I believe this and don’t you ever
forget it.”
This is the conception of a young man having his third try at college
after having been, literally, thrown out of two other institutions. In it we
see a frantic need to assert self, preferably for survival, but at least in
order to be seen as manly. This was typical of all variants of the express
self regardless of consequences type. In this conception, we see uncultivated
language which was typical of this variant of this particular type of
conception. Beyond these aspects, one can see a raw, idinal type of
thinking, impulsive, amoral and uninhibited in character. There is no
feeling of guilt in this thinking, but there is in it a strong element of fear
of shame. Also, there seems to be an underlying aspect of heroism in the
conception. It is as if the conceptualizer were saying: “If the dragon is
there, then one must join battle with it, even if he dies in the action;
otherwise he would be less than a man. If the dragon is not there, one
must create it in order to prove that one has the right to survive, or live
as a man.” So, in this conception it is better to die in the glory of having
tried rather than to live in the disgrace and humiliation of “being
chicken.” To die in the act of heroic living seems to enable this
conceptualizer to live at least in the minds of the surviving who would
say: “Sure he died. But, man! He had the guts to try. He was a man!”
 Basic Data 59

Express Self, to Hell With Others Lest One Feel Shame –

Nodal Version

To me, the second example of this type is quite like the first in basic
content, but it is quite obviously a softer, more relaxed, not quite as
barbarous version of the same theme:
“Psychologically mature human behavior is that mental
behavior that enables a human being not only to survive but
also to succeed and win over his environment. The
psychologically mature person is the one that fate has
endowed with the natural human qualities to rise above the
conditions of his being and to impose control over it and
modify it as he sees fit regardless of what others think. Being
an animal, the human being possesses certain natural qualities
normal for his species. He is temperamental and impulsive,
and thus given to violence, passion, stubbornness and
irrational actions. He desires to mate but not just to produce
children. He fights life as it is and he works most to survive.
He senses that he is alone and endangered and seeing
strength in numbers, he seeks to fit others to the needs of
himself. The drive for self-preservation is instilled in him and
the only way to be what he is, is to be selfish, placing his
needs before all others with the “possible” exception of his
own family. He must overcome his fears and inhibitions to his
own satisfaction.
He must fulfill his primal lusts and desires. A human being
free from guilt and frustrations closely approaches the ideal of
the mature personality. Unhampered expression of his
impulses might lead to his destruction but it is necessary to his
health. He must not temper his striving for pleasure.
He performs when he is motivated for not to do would
leave him less than a man. He is free from the threats and
negative reactions of others and does not fear for his own
psyche. In other words, he is confident of being a law unto
himself, the source and inspiration of all of his actions and of
good for others.”
This is the conception of a male college sophomore attending a
night school who has a full-time job as a self-tutored construction
engineer. In this young man’s conception is the same unabashed
60 Basic Data

self-assertiveness of the first one. It is egocentric and survival-centered,

as was its predecessor. It is hedonistic and impulsively oriented and has
in it the element ‘fear of shame least one be seen as less than a man.’ But
it seems as if this young man had come to peace with his conception,
whereas the first young man was frantically attempting to achieve the
way of life ‘express self, to hell with others’. Notice also that both young men
deny that guilt should be a part of life’s experience. It is as if guilt had
not come to be as a part of their lives, an element which begins to
change in the next variant of this ‘express self to hell with others’ conception.
The following conception is one which maintains the ‘express self
to the benefit of self’ theme, but a wee element of concern as to one’s
selfish impulsiveness enters the scene. It seems, developmentally, to be a
mite beyond the way of thinking of the structural engineer, and to be
one in which the conceptualizer is striving desperately to put tight hands
upon that which the jungleistic young man in the first conception was
striving to get into action. This type of change is an important aspect of
all the conceptions of mature personality which were collected and, thus,
warrants some attention at this time.
Once the data were collated, classified and studied, it seemed that
each variant had a moment of rushing entrance onto the stage of life;
each had a moment of calm, almost total take-over as if it were
perceived as the way for the expression of life; and each had its moment
of rigid, reluctant absenting from the scene. It is as if a new idea about
life fights for existence, then takes over the ordering of existence, and
then reluctantly rigidifies and loses its vitality before the next expression
of life comes to be. So each way of life seems to come upon us in a
rushing ground swell, then to have its moment of smooth sailing on the
sea of life, only finally to break down from the weight of its own way of
being. This latter aspect stands out particularly in the next concept
where a rigidification of the ‘express self to hell with others lest one feel shame’
theme takes place.

Express Self to Hell With Others -

Rigidifying Exiting Version

“My conception of the mature personality, as I suspect are

all conceptions, is based on how this world is and the men we
are. Though there are some who will profess to disagree with
me, if they should really stop to think, they would agree that
there are two facts of life upon which a conception of mature
 Basic Data 61

behavior must be based. One is men are not born equal,

though they are born dependent on one another. The other
fact is that the strong must use the weak to fight this world
and its other people in order to survive. Therefore, the mature
personality insists that the world take cognizance of those
realities.
To me the mature personality organizes to maintain his
existence and the right way of life taking into consideration
only those he must in order to survive. He sees to it that he
organizes his world so as to improve his chances. He takes
over and assigns roles to those less able to decide and sees to
it they know what their roles are and live by them. He is
meticulously careful to take care of those lesser ones who can
help him so long as they are helpful but he realizes, because of
his superior powers, that they are more expendable than he in
the mundane of life.
He takes seriously his duties to those who depend on him
but he does not overdo it lest he raise wishes in them they are
not competent to fulfill. He leads them to do what is right by
outstanding examples in his own life.
He maintains his position in the world as is appropriate for
one of his competence, by deed not by word, lest those who
are dependent on him feel they be shamed in the eyes of
others. He feels compassion for the fact that his dependent
ones are not as he, but no undo qualms of guilt can enter into
his decisions. His standards of action are high for himself and
his kind but he readily recognizes the weaknesses in other
men and his need to control them. So, he, through his
superior competence sees to it that other people are organized
so as to maintain the viability of that for which he is
responsible. He enlarges his domain when it is to his
advantage to do so and he is not overly hesitant as to how, if
and when it becomes necessary.
He is ever watchful to his survival making arrangements
whenever necessary, with whom ever necessary when they
become necessary. These arrangements must take into
consideration that the competent people in the world must
care for the ones who are dependent on them.
He realizes the world could soon disintegrate into chaos if
order were not impressed upon it. He knows the problem of
unbridled lust in the lesser ones so he organizes so that
62 Basic Data

normally the rules of living are quite strict upon them except
as, through his largeness, he provides them moment
uninhibited exultation. It is by example in his own life that he
brings forth the force for implementing his will. For example,
any man worthy of his name, any woman worthy of being
called a lady serves their human desires but in a manner that is
properly formalized.”
This variant of the express self lest one be ashamed for not being a man
theme is the conception of a 23-year-old black student reared in the
British Colonial System. He is a Nigerian Ibo. This is, indeed, a most
interesting conception. Within it we see all that is expressed in the two
previous ‘express self, regardless of consequences’ conceptions, but a new tone
seems present within it. The self-assertiveness, the lust, the survival
mode, the fear of shame are all present. But sneaking in seems to be the
element of guilt, the tendency to feel there is something a bit wrong in
not exercising at least some control over one’s impulse life. Raw want is
still there, but a questioning of its unbridled expression has crept into
the scene. Along with this we see developing a peculiar sense of
morality, but one that is imposed upon rather than derived from within.
Particularly, we note the suggestion that chaos might be just around the
corner. It is as if this person was desperately trying to hang on to the
idea of self-assertive expression, but quite aware that such a way of life,
if not bridled, can lead to disintegration. As a result, we see this
conceptualizer declaring that this system for being does indeed exist, but
only within rigidifying formalisms. It seems he is attempting to hold the
old ways together with the glue of moralistic prescription. But we must
ask: What does this moralistic, guilt-determined intrusion into this
expres self conception mean? Can it be the intruding germ that infects
this way of life with its fatal disease? Can it be, at the same time, the
herald preparing to trumpet the way of human life that is next to come
to be? We shall see as we examine the next phase of the human
existential helix.

Sacrifice Now to Get Reward Later -

Righteous Absolutistic Entering Into Version

The next conception of mature personality comes on with a rush

like the jungleistic express self to hell with others conception, but this time its
nature is an engulfing wave of righteousness. It seems the conceptualizer
sees mature personality as that which is pounded into man’s iniquitous
 Basic Data 63

soul. What is particularly central in this conception is almost

diametrically opposed to the ‘express self, to hell with others conception.’ Its
centrality lies in the idea “nothing comes unless you put out first.” It is a
‘put out now to get reward later’ theme.
“There is little doubt in my mind as to what makes mature
personality. I learned that at the end of my old man’s switch
and I’m not likely to forget it. The grown-up learns47 and
particularly he learns nothing comes lest you put out first.
Right is right and wrong is wrong and if you are going to be
mature you better learn it, the sooner the better. It always has
been this way and it will always be because that is the way it is.
My old man learned it from his and his old man learned it
from his father, and my kids are going to learn it from me
because that is the law of the land.
We were not put on this earth to get something for
nothing. We were not put here to want or to wish for or to
have evil thoughts. We were put here to do right and see to it
that other people do right too. It is our duty to strike wrong
whenever we find it. The mature personality knows what the
rules are and he knows if he violates them he should get it.
Life is a serious business with no place for frivolousness in it.
He knows what he is allowed to wish for and he knows what
is forbidden and he behaves accordingly. Any mature man has
got his duties and he does them even if he does not want to
because it would be wrong of him not to do so. If he does not
the grown-up knows he should be punished. There is no place
for self-serving sentimentally in becoming of age.
One thing that bothers me about this work is what the kids
said in class about God, heaven and the like. I didn’t see a
mature person seeing God as nice and loving. God is
vengeful, he is to be feared. He is not some nice old
grandfather-like guy. To me it is hell that you have got to fear
more than you look for heaven. God says there are laws we
must live by or He will see to it we pay for it in the future.
That’s what being fully grown is. The mature he is that guy
who watches out for evil that is in us. He is the guy who
learns to keep evil down and strive against it.”
This is the conception of a 19-year old male ‘drafted’ into college
from his coalmining town in Pennsylvania. This conception seems to be

47 CWG: Notice the language “learns” rather than the expected “knows.”
64 Basic Data

a decidedly different form of thinking about mature, ‘grown up’

behavior and about what human life is meant to be. It is more an effort
toward a conception than it is the culmination of one. We see the wee
element of guilt that had crept into the previous conception become a
central element in this morally righteous conceptions. It seems to say
that the central aim of life is to make a person feel guilty for being what
he or she is.
We see within it that the mature person is the one who learns to
bind one’s impulses within, rather than the heroic person of action of
the previous conceptual type. Now the grown is one who has learned
from the punitive action brought down upon him even for thoughts no
more than entertained, let alone for actions taken.
In the previous conception one learned mature ways when positive
results accrued from impulse driven, self-assertive, great risk taking
venture. Now, in this morally righteous conception, the mature person
quivers in fear lest action lead to condemnation and to pain. In the
previous conception, the mature person acted in self-assured certainty
that impulsive expression would produce pleasure from conquest if only
it was fought through to the end of satisfaction. The least it could lead
to was a heroic death as a reward for having tried. But this righteous
conception seems to be the beginning of a major change in thinking
about what is a mature human being. How major can be judged only as
we see it relative to the previous conceptions presented to date, and to
the ones which are to come.
The next conception is the first I shall present which was produced
by a female, thus it raises a question. Is this because females, as some are
wont to say, being more civilized than males don’t think in more
barbarous ways? Are they more moral than the male? My answer is, not
at all. The presentation of a female protocol at this stage is purely an
artifact, an artifact of the time and conditions under which the
conceptions of my people were collected. The rawer thinking, rawer
behaving females were simply not present in the college samples in the
days when my data was being collected. In those days, education of the
more idinal females, for one reason or another, was not being
subsidized. Even rougher thinking males were not subsidized except in
the case of athletic talent or in the case of emergent nation origin.
That this was an artifact and not a fact can be supported by a little
time spent in a female prison or a big city street gang. The survivalistic,
jungleistic females exist in such environs but don’t make the error I
made in an attempt to fill out my data. Do not try, as I did, to elicit
written conceptions of mature personality from them. Never have I
 Basic Data 65

been so blistered, by language emanating from the mouths of humans,

as I was blistered after requesting cooperation from females who think
in the jungleistic fashion. They told me where to stick my request and
they meant it.
The first female protocol to be presented was produced by a
27-year-old attractive-looking woman who was attending night school.
She came to school from an office whose people said she was the
epitome of secretarial competence. This fact is mentioned because
certain aspects of her conception, recorded precisely as it was worded,
takes on much significance when one knows she produced error free
work when work was produced for others and not from within herself.

Sacrifice Now to Get Reward Later -

First Nodal Absolutistic Version

“This assignment was to develop on our own, and in writing,

our personal conception of what is the psychologically mature
person in operation. Dr. Graves, I have found this to be a
most difficult task. It is my honest belief that what is a mature
personality is determined by that power which determines
good and evil in the world. God created man and God has
indicated in His Ten Commandments the principles by which
the human should live. It is not for me to decide what God
pretended [I believe the writer meant intended]. If God had
wanted man to decide he would have indicated that. He
would not have “commanded”. As a result one cannot easily
fulfill this assignment. I have thought very much about how I
could fulfill this assignment. The only way it can be done is
within God’s design. Therefore, since God did give man free
will to choose, in this context, to be mature or immature, I
have decided the only way I can fulfill the assignment is to
decry [I believe describe was intended] what I think God
meant by each of his commandments. I do hope for your
forgiveness if wrong or if this does not satisfy the
requirements.
Thou shalt have no other god before me.
This commandment, in operation, questions the right of man
to decide what the mature person is. This assignment, as
stated to us, would place man before God because it would
not be God who determines the mature personality. The
66 Basic Data

mature personality accepts what God commands. He does

not, in arrogance take unto himself that which is not in his
domain. The mature knows that God, in His omniscience,
knows best. He lives for this rule.
Thou shalt not make any graven image.
The dictionary says this means one does not make an image
of God in wood or in stone. This the mature person does not
do. It is one reason why this assignment is an improper
assignment, though I may be wrong, since the dictionary said
no image in wood or stone. It seems to me if I sculptured my
picture of the mature personality, I would be creating a graven
image. This is because God created man in his own image.
Thus an image of the mature human being would be a graven
image of God.
Thou shalt not take the name of thy Lord thy God in vain.
This is what I have been trying [the “c” was crossed out and
the “t” inserted] to say. The mature personality operates so, as
not to take the name of God in vain. He does not question
what is the mature person. He accepts that it is what God says
it is, because God says that is the road to everlasting peace
and contentment.
Remember the Sabbath, keep it holy-
The mature personality does on the Sabbath what holy means.
He sets it apart and he devotes it to the service and worship
of God. One sees that self is given to a sacred purpose.
Honor thy father and thy mother.
The mature personality does by word and deed honor his
father and his mother. He does not criticize his parents since
they are what God intended them to be. To criticize is to
criticize God. The mature is thankful to his folks for having
given him life and the opportunity to serve God in God’s
ways; he is not ungrateful like kids are today.
Thou shalt not kill.
The mature personality does not kill. This is why so many
people are unhealthy. They add to the commandment, except
in the service of God. This is not right. God commanded
“thou shalt not kill.”
 Basic Data 67

Thou shalt not commit adultery.

This should be the easiest of all to fulfill because God gave
man the will to control his impulses. Man knows what it is
for. It is to produce children. So the mature personality
accepts this even, for example, if the wife is barren for if that
happens, God intends that marriage to serve him in some
other way.
Thou shalt not steal.
I have heard some kids say, “How can I serve God if I am
dead?” Therefore, if I am hungry God will not condemn me if
I steal bread. This is not the mature personality in operation.
The mature follows this commandment even if it means to
suffer with the hunger of children. God tests man in many
ways to see if he is worthy.
Thou shalt not bear false witness.
Some who say they are mature personalities show they are (not
seems to have been omitted) through this commandment. They do
not realize that not to bear false witness means not to fail to
tell the truth even if the truth hurts. Its only meaning is not,
“Don’t lie about a person.” The mature personality tells the
truth. He is honest all ways and at all times.
Thou shalt not covet.
To covet is to want, to desire. The mature personality does
not covet. He suppresses desire and he does not question any
why others have. If God intended him to have he would have
given to him. If God gives, it is not because man needs or
desires or wishes. It is because God has to see if it is used to
serve God’s purpose. The mature person does not covet, she
accepts.” [Notice: though a female, this is the only use of she
or her.]
In this conception, the mature personality accepts what the
higher power prescribes. No questioning of it is permitted. The mature
accepts that maturity is what the higher power says it is because a
human is tested in many ways to see if s/he is worthy - worthy that is, of
the peace and contentment that comes in the after life. Such is the
centrality of this conception: sacrifice the desires of self now, in order to
get the reward of peace and contentment later.
Absolute obeisance to the prescriptions of an authority higher than
the self is present in this conception. It stands in marked contrast to the
68 Basic Data

‘express self, to hell with others’ conception. Yet additional data to be

presented in the next chapter indicates that the sacrifice now for reward
later developed out of the ‘express self, to hell with others’ conception.
In the previous ‘expres self, to hell with others’ conceptions, man
made his own rules or went down in the glory of having tried. Mature
behavior was aggressively striving behavior. Here, in this sacrifice now
conception, mature behavior is that which is absolutely obeisant to the
prescriptions of the higher order. Mature life is what one ought to do,
what one must do. Previously, it was what one made it to be. Here that
inkling of a guilty concern about one’s impulses, which crept into the
self-righteous version of the sacrifice now to get later conception,
becomes the center of existence. Guilt is no longer a voice from the
wings. Guilt is now stage center, so strong in fact that this
conceptualizer suffered the torment of expected damnation for just
trying to fulfill what was, to me, a simple classroom assignment.
The way this 27-year-old woman thinks is absolutistic almost
beyond belief. Her thinking is all or none, black or white. It is
categorical, rigid, dogmatic and redundant. She thinks in terms of
accepting what is and not in terms of changing or even attempting to
change what exists.
But there is a most interesting element present in this conception.
This conceptualizer was known for her perfection as a secretary. Yet in
several instances, in this and other similar conceptions errors, which
look like Freudian slips of the keys, are present in the material handed
in. Shades of The Psychopathology of Everyday Life, Freud’s strict super ego
bombarded by a relentless id seems unquestionably present in this type
of conception.
A 24-year-old male refugee of the 1956 Hungarian revolt produced
the conception, which follows. It is a most revealing document when it
is seen in relation to the 27-year-old female’s conception and the other
conceptions presented so far. Not only does it reveal the same kind of
thinking about mature behavior as the 27-year-old female, but also it
reveals what came to be with time the most central of all my
propositions for understanding adult human behavior - the proposition
that it is not what a person thinks that reveals his or her psychology but
it is how a person thinks that provides the central material for
understanding a person.
In this Hungarian refugee’s conception, the content is very different
from the content of the thought in the 27-year-old female’s conception
of maturity. Yet, the way she thinks about maturity is the same as the
way the 24-year-old male thinks about it. Each of these young persons
 Basic Data 69

thinks about maturity in an absolutistic, categorical black and white,

obeisant to the higher order redundant, sacrifice of self manner.
A number of people have sought to develop “tests” which would
assess a person’s position in the levels of Human Existence hierarchy.
Some have had a limited measure of success but some have reported
that their efforts have not been as successful as their interpretation of
my words have led them to hope. 48
It is my considered opinion that this problem has arisen for one of
two reasons: (1) the theory, which follows in this book, may be wanting.
That is always a possibility in work of this type. But (2) this problem
may arise because consumers of my words may fail to comprehend what
it is that one must assess, if the theory in this book is to be put to the
test of experiment and application.
With the case of the 27-year-old female and the 24-year-old
Hungarian refugee, I present the first representation of what is central to
assessment within the emergent cyclical theory of adult development. If
you should be disposed to develop assessment instruments, in order to
test or apply this theory, be certain you understand what is to be
assessed.
Those who have tried to develop instruments have based them on
what people think, do, or believe, which is not the proper base for
assessment devices. They should be based not on what the person
thinks but how s/he thinks, not on what people do or what they believe
but how they do what they do, and how they believe that which they do
believe.
The conceptions just presented, and the conception to follow,
illustrate this problem. What the two say is mature personality is poles
apart. How they think about mature personality is essentially the same.

Sacrifice Now to Get Later -

Second Example of Nodal Version

The former Hungarian says:

“Maturity can be defined as a ripeness, as a fruition of
determined potentialities, as a fullness of possible
development. The word and the concept, as I see it, carries
48 CWG: This fact is of prime importance to any who should aspire to develop
assessment devices to test the propositions expressed in this book - a task which a
number of people have attempted as a result of previous publications and papers
read at professional meetings. They have missed the mark.
70 Basic Data

certain moral implications. When we say she or he is mature,

we are passing judgments, the word carries an implied ought:
maturity is good and one ought to be mature.
The mature ought to be what he can be and nothing more.
The cardinal rule of maturity is that an individual must ever
seek vainly and erroneously to compete [the “n” in never was
left out; the “l” in complete was left out. Other than these two
errors, this paper was letter perfect] himself falsely. He must
never seek to find [lose himself] in the material world of
things or hide himself in books or meaningless social
activities. The mature individual never seeks to define himself
strictly by roles. This, however, is only negative advice.
Positively speaking, the mature individual must (ought)
transcend his animal desires and give its geist free range in
order that it might seek the fullest possible actualization of its
ideas. The mature individual must not repress his animality
[here used in a neutral context] because man is both geist and
body, and in fact they are one. An individual geist can only
actualize itself through a body. The body ought therefore be
appreciated, respected and cultivated to the fullest extent
possible.
The mature individual must seek harmony between the
symbolic system (as may be manifested by the intellectual
rational ego), must realize its origins and limitations, while yet
cultivating its powers. The mature individual must take stock
of this emotive meaning structures and understand them. In
this way the play of emotions and the subconscious will not
produce existential anxiety in the mature individual and
psychopathological stress will be avoided. The mature
individual must take stock of his emotive meaning structures
and understand them -as opposed to vain attempts of others
to comprehend, repress or ignore them.
The mature individual does not seek power or control of the
environment. Since the mature personality realizes that his
geist is but a particular manifestation of the Universal, he is
aware that the same is true of all men.
Since personality is a process and develops through
relationships, the mature individual must not bother himself
with seeking absolute freedom. For him, it is a meaningless
concept.
 Basic Data 71

The mature individual realizes that the possibility of death lies

always on the horizon and life per se is here and now. He will
live his life, at any one moment, as if at the next death might
bring an end to the projection of his ideals. This realization
will not bring despair to the mature individual but rather will
intensify his celebration of the joy of becoming. In the fullest
sense, maturity is the ability to Be and Become; to know
communion and realize the inevitability of reunion with the
Universal.”
This young refugee writes of maturity in a very different language
than did the 27-year-old female. His words are couched in existential
jargon. Hers were in the language of a Southern Baptist Lady, which she
was. But the way they think about maturity is the same. In both, what is
maturity is prescribed. In the case of the young man it was prescribed by
the Universal order; hers were prescribed by God. Both are full of
commandments. His are in the language of must and ought. Hers are in
the language of “Thou Shall”. He is redundant. She harps over and over
on the same old theme. Her commandments are black and white. His
are all or none. Both are categorical and both behave maturely in order
to find peace and contentment, not to express themselves. And both are
sacrifice now, in order to get reward later conceptions of maturity.
But it does seem that these two conceptions are about as different
as conceptions can be from the ‘express self, to hell with others’
conceptions previously presented. They are so different that if, as my
total data suggests, these conceptions follow the three previous ones on
the developmental helix, then the people who produced them give
evidence that they have taken a new, and qualitatively different view of
what the best of human existence is all about. As a result, the curious
person must ask: Is this change to an almost polar opposite form in two
contiguous conceptions, a part of what the story of mature human life is
all about? Is this one of the signals we must capture and decode if we
are to translate conceptions of psychological maturity into the story of
human existence? Perhaps it is and perhaps with its appearance, I should
speculate as to certain other possibilities. In fact, if one carefully
examines the data presented so far, limited as it is, one might ask four
questions from the signals emitted to date. The first one has been noted
before.
1. Does each conception of mature personality have its moment
when it enters onto the stage of life, a moment when its theme
72 Basic Data

takes over centre stage and a moment when it exits as the theme
for human existence?
2. Does each theme specify itself into many different ways?
3. Is there something to be learned from the data which says an
expres self is followed by a sacrifice-self theme?
4. Do themes change, first in a progressively quantitative fashion
until, following a regressive movement, a qualitatively different
way of thinking about maturity emerges?
It seems to me that the data so far presented answers each of these
questions positively. And it seems to me, that these positive answers
tentatively define the next three movements on man’s existential helix.
According to the data to date, they should be: the rigidification of
the sacrifice now, to get later theme; the beginning of a return to a
self-assertive theme; to be followed by a nodal self expressive theme - in
an assertive fashion somewhat different from the express self, to hell
with others theme.

Sacrifice Now to Get Later -

Rigidifying Exiting Version

1. “I shall open my conception with a short statement which

will lay before you the basic facts of what a conception of
mature behavior should be. The statement will be about the
assignment that we have been doing in class and the facts
of my conception.
2. This class has been the worst of what I feared I would run
into in college. It has been nothing but empty-headed
theorizing and muddle-headed hemming and hawing. Why
we have to spend four weeks talking about what proper
instruction would cover in one good lecture, I don’t know.
[Note the display of anger toward the authority figure.]
3. It seems to me that it would be far more efficient for the
facts of mature personality to be presented and then cover
how to achieve it along with what happens if one does not.
[Note that even within the anger expressed toward
authority in 1 above, that there is dependence on authority
displayed]
 Basic Data 73

4. Several times I have asked why such nonsense is allowed,

why the time is being utterly wasted and why the instructor
will not tell us what mature personality is.
5. Therefore, at the risk of incurring the instructor’s
displeasure, sir, my conception is what any clear thinking
person knows mature personality is.
The Mature Personality
The mature personality is the clear thinking person who makes
decisions on the basis of fact. The mature does not let
emotion overrule his reason.
The mature personality thinks about the things that are
important, not about a lot of muddle-headed abstractions. He
stands for the tried and true and against those who through
their muddle-headed thinking would question the established
purposes and virtue of .man.
The mature personality does not go off on tangents, he is
clearly focused.
The mature personality is loyal, he respects those who know
better.
The mature personality has “his reach beyond his grasp.” He
works hard, he does not waste time, he knows that reward
should come only for effort.
The mature personality sees to it he is known by his deeds, what
he does, not what is said and he knows that it is right for him
to do so.
The mature personality lives by the rules of proper living and
requires that all others do so lest there be chaos.
The mature personality seeks always to better himself, he is
never satisfied with half measure.
The mature accepts the laws for living because it is only
through their existence that one can be free.
The mature has goals in life, he is not hampered in his goal
seeking or decisions by uncertainties. He knows where he is
going.
The mature is open-minded. He listens to all sides so that when
he makes a decision he has all the information necessary to
make the best decision, the one he knows is right.
The mature personality is he who achieves on his own, through
his own efforts, by following the established rules.
74 Basic Data

The mature personality is one who respects the established

order in life. He is one who knows that established order does
exist and he is one who strives always to know and to guide
his life by that established order.
The mature personality is respectful of his duty and he does it.
If he does not subscribe to what is being done he seeks to
achieve the position where he can institute right.
The mature has the will to work, he does not waste time, he
always finds something worthwhile to do.
The mature controls his thinking. He keeps his mind on what
he wants and off what he should not think about.
The mature strives to express only positive emotions - he uses
negative emotions only to handle the evil in the world such as
war or crime which he may need to hate so as to kill the evil.
The mature uses up surplus energy in work not in frivolity or
sex or drinking or eating or the like.
The mature is undaunted by failure or misfortune. He believes
success comes to he who keeps trying whatever his troubles
may be. Every adversity has a benefit.
The mature is a master of his attitudes. He directs his thoughts
and ordains through self-direction how to control his destiny.
The mature separates fact from fiction, fantasy from reality.
The mature believes the greatest value in life is to master the
negative and animal emotions so as to do good for people
even if they cannot or will not do good for themselves.
And finally -- whatever the mature has accomplished he
recognizes it is not enough. To do right he must set his
standards high and seek ever and ever to achieve more, so the
best be better.”
These axioms are but some of the righteous prescriptions for
properly mature behavior laid down by this self-designated right
thinking person. There seems little question that it is of the sacrifice
now to get later type. But into it has crept an expressed disdain for an
authority who does not act like an authority.
In the previous versions of the sacrifice now to get reward later
theme in no way did the subjects question authority; in no way was the
mature seen as one who asserted the self. Yet, here we find that this
young person’s mature individual quite definitely asserts self against
what is perceived as deficiencies in the performance of authority. There
is then, a new element in the ‘sacrifice now for reward later’ conception.
But, it is not something new in the overall development of the human
 Basic Data 75

because assertion of the self was present before in the ‘express self, to
hell with others’ conception.
In this particular conception, the ‘express self’ is of a different order
than it was when previously we viewed it. Here the person asserts self by
beginning to take opposition to those who react against authority, to
those who see things in ways diverse from the conceptualizer. One can
almost feel the scorn and derision directed toward those who would
conceive of mature personality in a manner different from this
participant. The mature person is absolutistic in knowing what is right.
There is not a confused thought in his mind. He stands stubbornly
against change unless he decides upon it. He is that well-intentioned
person who rejects all those new-fangled ideas. The mature listens to all
sides, yes! But not to change his views. Rather to learn how to argue so
as to bring the dissidents to see that he is right.
Life to one who conceives of maturity in this manner is a matter of
proper procedure. It is not a matter to be interpreted. There is no other
better point of view. There is no other way to go. Life is not seen as a
place for theoretical speculation. It is a no-nonsense business, a matter
of dealing with the tangible and not with muddle-headed fuzziness.
To this conceptualizer, authority is still central in his life. But it is
the authority of his own right thinking mind that is supreme. Respect is
due to parents and the boss because they are the ones who show people
both the light and the right. They have set before him the standards of
what the mature person is like. They have taught him to believe in
honest hard work to get in position to stand on one’s feet. One gets
there by following the dictates of authority as to how to become
possessed of independence, not dependence; of certainty, not
uncertainty; of knowing, not grasping to know.
One cannot avoid perceiving the ‘he protesteth too much’ quality in
this conception. He fights so hard against those who question
authority’s established ways that it is obvious the germ of independent
thinking is beginning to infect him with doubt. Why else would he be
almost vicious with those who have come to peace with questioning? In
others words, this is not the unquestioning obeisance to and accepting
of authority shown in the 27-year-old woman’s conception. Instead, it is
the desperate attempt to hold onto belief when doubt has crept in.
Opposition has taken a foothold in this thinking. Independent thought
and action are not unthought of. They are, instead, a disturbing element
in an inner world that is no longer a sea of tranquil certainty.
In the previous sacrifice conception, there was no diversity in
thinking. In this one, diversity is present. However as seen by the
76 Basic Data

conceptualizer, it is wrong and to be suppressed or eradicated. But

present it is. Multiplistic thinking is aborning. Atomistic additive
thinking has come to be thinking which is argumentative toward and
oppositional to authority and is about to enter from the wings. It seems,
indeed, that a leading edge of doubt is gnawing up from within, a fact
which will become all the more apparent as we move to the next notch
on the spiral of adult human existence.
The next protocol is another intriguing conception, particularly
when one considers the background of the young woman who
produced it. A 21-year-old daughter of a college professor of humanities
developed it. Again this young woman prefaced her conception with a
short statement as to how she felt about the assignment.

Express Self Calculatedly With Little Shame or Guilt -

Entering Version

“I should like to preface my conception with a few words

about the way this class is being conducted, and what I have
to say is no shit. It is the straight stuff.
I’m a senior in college but I wonder how I got there. Maybe
they did not want to embarrass the old man because I sure
did not go for the crap those professors dished out the first
-three years. In fact, of all the time I have given to school
this is the first class that ever acted as if there was some
respect for the people who don’t think the way profs or
teachers do. This is what education ought to be, not that
poll parrotting stuff we always get demanded. You would
think no one knows anything except profs from the way
most of them operate. But that is enough of that! What I
believe mature personality is, is detailed below.
The mature woman can be seen through her analogue, the
mature animal. She does not look for trouble but she is ever
alert to its possibility. She has her antennae at the ready.
She takes nothing for granted. There’s no certainties in the
world so she organizes her domain so as to control and
amplify her chances for success.
When others interfere with her domain she does not
necessarily react to destroy or seriously harm them but to
 Basic Data 77

get them under control so as to drive them from her

domain, but react with vigor and fury she can if necessary.
She gets away with what she can which will foster her
chances lest she be considered a fool.
She is friendly with whoever are with her but watchfully so
because she knows it is human nature to take people if you
can.
She is too rational to ask for or take on that which is certain
trouble but she will take advantage of any situation which is
about to foster her success.
She is the one who has control of her world or whatever
her organization is because she is not only one who can
plan but is one who insists on running her affairs. She takes
no shit.
She is able to shift attitudes as necessary. No fear, no doubt,
no shame can stand in the way of her carrying out what she
sees as the best.
She does not get bound up by the old virtues crap because
she knows life is what you make it to be, not what the
sayers say it is. She knows that that which is best for her is
best for all.
The mature does not cast people into molds. She knows her
opinion is as good as anyone’s because nothing is certain
except the certainty of one’s own experience.
The last thing the mature would do would be to let others
manage her affairs. It is she who looks out for herself and
her interests.
She watches her impulses but she has no fear for using
them if her own best interests are endangered.
She does not spend time contemplating who she is or what
it is all about. She knows and she knows, she knows.”

This is certainly a different conception from the three just

previously presented. It is multiplistic49 and dogmatic. Authority, which
shackles the human in the ‘sacrifice now to get later’ conceptions, is
brusquely cast aside. In fact, what is present is that the authority of one’s

49 CWG: Multiplistic - the person accepts that there are a number of different views but
believes that there is one best one.
78 Basic Data

own experience is substituted for the authority of some power higher

than man. Thus, this is a conception more like the three ‘express self, to
hell with others’ conceptions than it is like the three sacrificial ones. But it
is different from the ‘to hell with others’ conceptions. It is not an ‘expres self,
to hell with the consequences’ point of view. It is a wary conception. This
young person’s mature human is struggling more with the need to
express self than recklessly doing so. It is a modulated form of self-
expression which is more concerned with overcoming authority than
with heroically overcoming the dragon.
Absolutism is gone from this conception. Nothing is for sure. There
are as many value systems as there are people valuing, but she is in
search of the best value system. This factor of professed multiplistic
values may cause many to question whether this conception is further
along on the spiral of life. Many may see it not as a notch further along
but as a reversion backward toward the rawer, more brutish, more
selfish, more egocentric, less civilized ‘express self lest one be shamed’
conception. But before this conclusion is drawn one should examine it
more carefully.
It is evident that this young woman’s conception allows for differing
value systems. Right is learned by careful testing rather than by arrogant
assault. Right is something that humans in their actions establish rather
than something a higher power decides. This conception speaks of
expression as more than undisciplined assault, and of denial as less than
the mature human displays. This conception lessens the pangs of shame
and guilt but does not do away with them altogether. These are strong
elements in the other conceptual systems we have examined.
It is evident that this conception has no firmer basis for valuing
than one’s own experience. It is true that it sees maturity in calculative,
self-serving ways. And it is true that this young woman’s conception
allows for a chaotic multiplicity of values. But one can discern other
significant things within it.
In this conception it is the authority which shackles the human that
is cast aside. This young person sees maturity to be shown more in a
person’s struggle to be his or her self than in what an
authority-prescribed set of rules says it should be. The human does not
show maturity by restricting his or her behavior within the conditions
for living into which s/he was dropped. The mature is the healthy
animal staking out his territory for future existence. The mature is not
one passively accepting that which is, or one roaring at restriction in
uncontrolled defiance. The mature is the person who hungers for
 Basic Data 79

opportunity to express the self. The mature is the one who keeps
grasping for something not quite in hand.
Certainly this conception takes an oppositional, possibly even
negative attitude toward authority. And certainly the expression of self
stands supreme within it. But whether it is or is not a further notch up
on the helix of life is arguable - arguable to a degree that can be settled
only by more information. Thus I turn, now, to the conception of a 35-
year-old entrepreneur studying business administration.

Express Self Calculatedly With Little Shame or Guilt –

Nodal Version

“After giving rational thought to what is the mature personality I

have come to the following list of characteristics which add up to
what it is.
1. The major characteristic of the mature person is that he is an
independently operating individual. He goes it alone, so there
is no such thing as a mature person. There are only people
who behave maturely in their various ways.
2. The mature does what has to be done. He is not held back in
his actions or judgments by that which other people do or
believe.
3. The mature does not accept without questions existing data,
theories or practices.
4. He is energetic, outspoken and expressive of what he believes
regardless of where others stand.
5. The mature does for himself and thinks for himself. He does
not look to others for their guidance or support and he does
not need their acceptance or acclaim.
6. The mature person is absolutely objective. He does not let his
emotions interfere with what has to be done. He is an acting
person who keeps feelings out of his actions. He goes by the
facts as they are not by sentimentality. He does not get
entangled in emotional problems, his or others.
7. The mature personality is goal directed. He knows what he
wants to do and does what he has to, to get there. He does not
resign himself to his fate or surrender to the inevitable.
8. The mature person does not conform to arbitrary standards.
He conforms to what he has established to be right. He goes
80 Basic Data

by his data until his data proves him wrong and then he
changes however the data demand that he change.
9. The mature person is not afraid to do what has to be done. If
a person has to be told his weaknesses, the mature person
does so without being squeamish. He does not go out of his
way to spare feelings. When people need to be shaped up, a
mature person shapes them up. Wanting to be liked is not a
weakness, of the person who is mature.
10. The mature person does not feel guilty or ashamed for doing
what rationally has to be done.
11. The mature person being rational and objective is a shrewd
appraiser of that which is to his best interests.
12. The mature person accepts that he is human but he controls
such tendencies when it is to his welfare to do so. He does not
get sentimental and maudlin about such tendencies. He
controls them himself.
13. The mature person has a reasoned, risk taking, calculating
mind. He uses objective procedures to make his decisions. He
places faith in that which he knows works, he does not get
caught up in non-workable theory or speculation.
14. He is not afraid to stand alone, even in opposition to others,
but he plans so as to have the best chance then goes ahead
regardless of what others say or what effect it has.
15. The mature person is not afraid ‘to get his hands dirty’ in
order to do what has to be done. He plays hard when he plays
and he plays to win, but he does not waste his time in
activities which he sees as hopeless.
16. He is not satisfied with yesterday’s ways unless he has found
them to work and he holds to them only so long as he sees
them to work.
17. The mature person is not one who resigns himself to his fate
or surrenders to the inevitable. He changes his course rather
than accept what works against him. He never gives up
control to his environment. He seeks rather to get the control
that will enable him to do what he knows needs to be done.”
This conception of maturity is indeed an expres self type, but it is
not the raw assertive form we saw in the first three conceptions. It is a
conception which shows a lack of conscience and a disdain for empathy.
It expresses that to get involved in interpersonal relations is to enter a
very tenuous situation. This mature person seems to insist on
maintaining one’s self-evaluation even in the face of negative
 Basic Data 81

information. He represents maturity as being able to avoid modifying

one’s behavior except from one’s own experience. This mature person
never changes as a result of feedback from others.
In this conception of maturity, the mature person thinks not only
disdainfully of empathy, but disdainfully of other people, as well. He
thinks in terms of absolute self-sufficiency, of independent operation
and cold quantitative evaluation. He thinks in terms of a multiplicity of
values and a myriad of ways to do anything. So his way, if it works, is as
good as anyone’s way. But he does not normally think in ways that are
overtly obstructive, destructive or over-reaching. Rather, he thinks
mature behavior is shown in a high but not unrealistic level of
aspiration. His thinking is that of the odds-calculating professional
gambler, not that of a brash risk-taking fool.
The one who behaves maturely thinks in terms of leaving the field
when the chances of winning the game become too slight. The mature
operator is the one who thinks it is better not to enter the game than to
risk self unduly in the playing. He truly lives by the dictum, ‘to thine
own self be true.’
To me, this is a conception which is developmentally beyond those
previously presented, a position which is upheld by the data in the next
chapter. It is not an ‘expres self, to hell with others’ conception. It is not a
conception which sees denial or sacrifice of self as a sign of mature
behavior. It is not a “let your reach exceed your grasp” conception. But
it is a conception which seems excessively to see the maturely behaving
person as an island unto himself.
Though I see this conception as further along the developmental
trail than the others we have viewed, it does not seem to be as far along
as the one I shall next present - an exiting version of the ‘express self
calculatedly’ conception. An 18-year-old English major who professed to
be studying creative writing produced this. The following paragraphs are
excerpts from her conception.

Express Self Calculatedly With Little Shame or Guilt –

Exiting Version

“The psychologically mature person is the one who deals

successfully with the environment, the one who has an
unquestioned accurate and objective perception of one’s
environment and others and who is able to handle both
successfully. The mature person takes both the conflicts and
82 Basic Data

contradictions of life and turns them into experiences which

are to her advantage.
Of course ‘dealing successfully’ and ‘handling successfully’
presupposes a wider range of abilities and competencies than
one might think at first and thus will not be achieved by many.
But it is the true sign of maturity. It means a superior ability to
exercise one’s emotions so that these volatile features enhance
rather than harm one’s ability to perceive and achieve goals.
Indeed, perceiving clearly is probably the best way to deal with
any environment and at this the mature personality is superior.
One might be tempted to assert that dealing with other
humans to fulfill one’s personal need is really the only
necessity in dealing with the environment. But I think other
people are only one part of the environment, so the concept
should include organizing other humans, the physical
environment and one’s own mind and one’s own body to
assure one’s personal welfare.
The mature person is completely free of illusion. To her,
mature means one must appraise others and self accurately, it
means to be intelligent in any situation, even to being
uninhibited as in sex, for it is intelligent to be so. The mature
has that clear perception of reality which is based on objective
evidence and her rational deductions. She must realize this
reality and acts in her own best interests even if to do so
requires her to take well thought out risks, even if it means to
lose a friend.
The mature person says what needs to be said and does
what needs to be done even if doing so may not be liked by
others. The mature person is capable unto his or her self and
does not need to depend on anyone. That is, the mature
person adapts to the reality of the way things are but does not
just accept them. If something isn’t right or isn’t working
correctly as the mature person sees it, it is weighed against
other factors. It is then labeled good, bad, right, wrong or
whatever label is necessary. Then what the mature person
does is to take intelligent action toward it, doing it if it is to
one’s advantage, avoiding it if it is not.
The truly mature person is the one who insists on total
fulfillment with all actions determined by values directed at
her own well-being. She would always recognize the necessity
of developing herself as an entity while appearing to conform
 Basic Data 83

to the reality of the group. She would not do so out of fear of

punishment or lest she feel guilty or ashamed but out of the
realization that she must do so to employ the realities and
personalities around her to her own ends without arousing
them.”
Here we have another conception which is quite obviously of the
‘express self calculatedly’ type. But it is not a striving person that is mature,
nor is it the calm operator who succeeds when the odds are good, but
avoids when they are not who is mature. This mature person does not
just strive. This mature person “deals successfully with” regardless of
the odds. This mature person “has an unquestioned accurate and
objective perception of his or her environment.” Even the inevitable
conflicts and contradictions of life give way to the superior talents and
abilities of this person’s mature human being.
In this conception, one feels again the element of protesting too
much. According to this conceptualizer, the expression of the self is,
should be, and will be unlimited. This person’s idea of the expression of
the self is extended almost to the realm of unreality. Even its element of
optimism seems too strong for the real world, for it has within it almost
an air of omnipotence. It emits the feeling that she is trying to grasp for
herself a conception of maturity that is about to drift away. Her mature
person “perceives with unquestioned clarity.” Her mature person “is
completely free of illusions.” Her mature person is the accurate
appraiser, possessed of the ability to be intelligent in any situation. She
“says what needs to be said and does what needs to be done,” and she is
the judge of what is to be said or is to be done. But there are certain odd
elements in this conception.
Her mature person denies the need to depend on anyone or
anything other than her own competencies and abilities. This, she
insists, “is the true sign of maturity.” Self-expression is the be all and
end all of maturity. She denies that the mature person is in any way
constrained by the realities of being. Her mature one lives within an
illusion of competence, and in the delusional world of “total self
fulfillment.”
But sneaking into this conception is the perception that maturity
does not reside on an island unto itself, that the mature person at least
“appears to conform to the reality of the group.” A wee bit of
sacrificialness is again present in this girl’s conception of maturity. Some
feeling for others, albeit selfishly conceived, seems to be reasserting
itself in the core of her being.
84 Basic Data

Two other things are apparent in this conception. First it is obvious

that this conceptual type overly insists on two key elements, expression
of the self and rational, objective thinking. Secondly, it seems to see
rationality as something which “enhances rather than harms one’s ability
to achieve goals.” This latter point is possibly the most revealing of all,
so far as this conception is concerned. This I say because its minor
presence foretells what is to come in the next conception on the
developmental helix of maturity.
The next is the conception of a 45-year-old male, civil service
employee who was long an amateur and became a semiprofessional
entertainer.

Sacrifice Self Now to Get Reward Now –

Entering Version

“I suspect as I start this, that each human being, as he sits

back, alone with himself, considers his character to be
fundamentally okay, or at least, headed in the right direction
with good intention. In the social market place this attitude
most assuredly gives way to a more self-critical state of mind,
a consciousness in which ideals to be aimed at are evolved -
however, it seems that solitude breeds a kind of tacit
self-consent. My problem then becomes this: should I
describe myself or what I would like to be? On the other
hand, as I consider the vague presence of some sort of
evaluative force which seeks by means of this document to
classify my personality, I would imagine that if I describe what
I think I am, it would in that way be aided. But the intent of
the question with which I am faced, namely to define what I
consider to be a psychologically mature human being, seems to
point toward the ideals of the social market place, the
psychological goals and aspirations of self-critical man. What I
am driving at seems to be this: there appears to be a gap
within the nature of this “evaluative force” of which I speak
between its consideration of the personality itself and the
intellectualizations of this personality, between actual
behavioral skills and the sorts of fantasies which the behaving
being aspires to.
At this point, consideration of this question appears to me
as crucial; yet for now a resolution of just who I should
 Basic Data 85

describe shall have to wait and I shall acquiesce with the

supposed intent of this project, attempting to imagine my
psychological ideal.
I suppose the best way to approach such a consideration
would be an outline of the dynamic sort of tendencies of the
mature individual, then to be illustrated by the subject’s
attitude toward different realms of human experience - i.e.
friendship, religion, authority, etc. Specifically, I envision the
mature human as a vital, growing entity, potentially susceptible
to change and influence at all times, experiencing happiness,
suffering and developing. Since the self can only be a
derivative of what is outside the self, since man’s self
consciousness, his “selfhood”, seems necessarily to be socially
founded, an obsession with individuality and autonomy
appears a bit unrealistic, yet within its capacity as a reasoning
entity, as an arbitrator of conflicting forces, the mature self
finds its dignity, its separateness. Its peace is inner, unanxious
over, and tempered to the realities of the outside. Social
participation is motivated by enjoyment and a kind of
personal curiosity, and not by a sense of quest. Emotionally,
affection is esteemed, other emotions being a part of
humaness. Rationality is valued as a means of growth, though
owing to man’s nature, by no means an exclusive means.
Regarding specific life’s activities, physical activity, whether
it be sport or manual labour, is seen as a fulfilling activity.
Career goals of material, political or social nature are seen as
insignificant.”
Consistent with this sketch of an overall attitude seems to be
these opinions:
On friendship - Inner security is such that friendships are
not of a dependent nature. Friends are viewed more as
“companions in the world” than as necessary to the
satisfaction of need. Large circles of friends are sought but not
required. The ability to be affectionate without expecting or
requiring its return is also a sign of maturity.
On authority - Authority as a social expedient and necessity
is recognized and accepted, though social mores will not mold
the individual in the sense of ruling him; critical evaluation on
the part of the individual is here the final judge. In the case of
political and economic sorts of imperatives, having to abide by
them is neither a matter of hardship or pleasure.
86 Basic Data

On the mystic urge - often deemed the religious attitude, the

theological need to explain the unknown -mystic, a-rational,
Zen-like attitudes toward reality are recognized as legitimate.
The complimentary of this general state of mind with the
tendency toward rational understanding is seen as a whole
view of reality.
The concept of God as a moral force is virtually dismissed,
and as a first cause determining force, respected though
considered irrelevant for personal peace of mind.
As a final note, maturity also engenders a sort of overview
of what such a paper as this has an object - i.e. something of a
self-reflexive awareness of the relative nature of opinion; a
recognition that although I can and must (because of my
humanness) argue out of my own position, argumentation and
opinion from other positions is equally valid in the sense of
being understandable and defensible. But then again, it would
appear that such a perspective cannot be humanly, vitally
maintained and that we must therefore jump in and outside
ourselves in the process of growth.”
What stands out in the opening words of this contributor is his
tentativeness. There is not the surety in his thinking that has been
present in the conceptions previously reported. He really isn’t sure what
maturity is. He cannot describe himself as mature nor can he give in to
describing an ideal. The closest he can come to an ideal is “the social
market place.” And he is torn between what he means by “the
personality itself” (whatever he means by that phrase) and “the
intellectualizations of this personality, between actual behavioral skills
and the sorts of fantasies to which the behaving person aspires.” What
he conceives maturity to be seems obviously in a state of transition,
between a state of categorical certainty and a state of relativistic
thinking.
In his conception, he is prone to stop with the consideration of the
question, but he reluctantly gives in to the nudge of authority (the task I
assigned him). In other words, he is really not ready to commit himself.
One gets the feeling that there was a time, in his mind, when he was
more certain, but some change in his thinking is taking place. And it
prevents him from writing about what was; at the same time, as it
prevents him from writing about what is now.
He says, as he approaches the task, “I suppose the best way to
approach the task would be to outline the dynamic sort of tendency.”
Even when he commits himself, he is not committed. Thus, as he enters
 Basic Data 87

into the task, he writes in the language of “I envision” not in the

language of “I believe.” He thinks in terms of wanting to be committed
to a conception of mature personality, but all he can actually do is
“envision” it.
Then, as he begins his envisioning, he discards inner absolutistic
certainty and warns, as well, against “an obsession” with individuality
and autonomy as bases for a conception. This type of thinking is not an
‘expres self, to hell with others’ conception; it is not a ‘sacrifice self to the
prescriptions of authority’ conception; it is not a conception in which the
mature is in search of individuality and autonomy. These he dismisses as
unrealistic thinking. Yet it is a conception which says, “the mature self
finds itself, its dignity, as an arbitrator of conflicting forces.” His is
indeed a conception in transition with the stronger element being
“inner, unanxious peace.”
The rational conception of maturity is pushed to the back burner
and positive emotional elements are placed in the front positions.
Rationality is only a part of mature thinking. It is by no means the
dominant aspect of it. Maturity is other than materiality, other than the
ascension to political power, and more than social interaction. But what
it is, he cannot come to say. He seems on the verge of making a
commitment he is not yet ready to make.
This contributor may not be certain of what maturity is, but he does
know what it is not. Maturity has something to do with friendship but as
companions not as confidants one can depend upon as in the previous
sacrificial conceptions. Large circles are sought but a remnant of the ‘go
it alone,’ ‘friends are not necessary,’ ‘expres self calculatedly’ conception
is left. And the sacrificial tone is back in this conception: “the ability to
be affectionate without expecting or requiring its return is also a sign of
maturity.”
In it authority is a “social expedient” not a “ruling power.”
Acquiescence to imperatives is not a sign of maturity. The religious
attitude is definitely an element, but not as a moral force. As such, God
is virtually dismissed and replaced with a first cause concept and is
irrelevant for personal peace of mind. Then, finally, he places the
capstone on his thinking about maturity. It is something he will decide
about. It is “something of a self-reflective awareness of the relative
nature of opinion” wherein “an opinion from other positions is equally
valid in the sense of being understandable and defensible.” His position
is tentative for, as he says, “it would appear that such a perspective
cannot be humanly, vitally maintained.”
88 Basic Data

As a conception of maturity these tentative words stand in marked

contrast to the conception I shall now present. This conception,
produced when the writer was a junior in college, is notable not only
from the thought it contains, but from the story of what has happened
to the woman who produced it. She has become a professional clinical
psychologist and occupies herself today in the busy task of “growing
personalities.”

Sacrifice Self Now to Get Reward Now –

Nodal Version

“I can say what is my conception of the mature personality

in one sentence but it would take reams of paper to clarify
what I mean. So I shall, in this endeavor, express my thoughts
in one sentence and then elaborate only upon the basis of
what I mean.
The mature personality is a participating, creative personality
which in its operation does justice to every type of personality,
every mode of culture, every human potential without forming
anyone into typological molds.
The mature personality provides a means for bringing
relations of reciprocity and willing amity to the entire family
of human beings. The mature provides for the interchange
and utilization of the entire experiences of humankind. He or
she lives in a moral world which tears down manmade barriers
of law and custom widening the means of communication and
cooperation between humans.
The mature is a committed person, committing self to
continuous self-development, and to intimate relations and
cooperation with all people. He or she is one who believes in
face to face interaction and assessment, one who believes
friendly eyes are the indispensable mirror for reflecting what
is. He or she believes in an absolutely open society where
every nook, every corner is exposed to anyone who is curious.
He or she behaves so as to demonstrate that every person may
be freely heard.
The mature personality deliberately exercises choice which
directs life toward allegiances which are beyond the
boundaries of natural communities and the organized state
and toward the ultimate hopes of mankind. He or she seeks to
 Basic Data 89

widen the ties of fellowship without respect to birth, caste or

property, and disavows claims to special privilege or the
exclusivity of leadership. He or she replaces Godly authority
with the temporal authority of the time and the place. He or
she softens the features which identify a person with a
particular society or culture. To the mature, humanity is a
unity of souls seeking salvation not a union of Catholics, High
Episcopalians, Orthodox Jews or Baptists.
The mature is beyond sordid concern with his or her own
survival and is focused on intensive cultivation of a belief in
freedom, not a belief of freedom.
To the mature technology is for human needs, not power,
productivity, profit or prestige and scientific endeavour is not
for ruthless exploitation or desecration. Scientific endeavour is
for depth exploration of all regions not just physical regions,
so as to provide for the inner human knowledge that will
assure human supremacy.
The mature indulges in the dematerialization of self, in
self-transcending endeavours which reach beyond sordid
concern with one’s own survival, beyond the overrational and
irrational, beyond mechanical uniformity toward a concept of
organic unity. He or she operates by the belief that we are all
one and should seek to enhance human expression to provide
for a world society based on human values. He or she believes
one should know both the objective and the subjective and
show the ability to face one’s whole self and direct every part
of it to a more unified development.
In summary, and in Freudian terms, the mature personality
accepts its id, but does not give it primacy, and fosters the
super ego but does not allow it to depress the fullest
expression of the ego.”
90 Confusion and Contradiction
 Confusion and Contradiction 91

CHAPTER 4

Confusion and Contradiction Exacerbated

To learn that adults believe in several types of mature personality is

not particularly surprising. But to come upon a hint that the types
emerge one out of the other in an ordered hierarchical way is quite a
revelation. In addition, the apparent fact that these hierarchically
ordered concepts of mature personality alternate with one another so
that every other conception is like, yet not like, its alternating partners
provided some most intriguing data. These data were so intriguing that I
decided to explore in some detail the behavioral and psychosocial
aspects of the people who produced them, and when this was done, I
was in trouble.
I had collected and collated data with one end in mind, to clarify the
confusion and contradiction, the conflict and controversy, in psycho-
logical fact and theory about mature human behavior. Now it was time
to analyze the total data, to study it, to see what was contained therein.
Much to my surprise and more to my dismay, these efforts took a most
unwelcome turn. The efforts to study this representative realm of
confusing and contradictory behavior so as to bring forth clarification
did nothing of the sort. They served only to exacerbate an already
muddled state of psychological affairs - a result which is the subject
matter of this chapter.
In order to effectively present this exacerbation, I will begin with a
short summary of the investigations and then develop, through a
summary of the total results, the problem created by the data. But
before this is done, a few words of explanation are in order.
92 Confusion and Contradiction

Since the purpose in this chapter is to show how the results dictated
a revised conceptual framework for explaining adult behavior, this
chapter deals only with the results of the studies, not with the details of
them. The details shall be dealt with at another time and in another
place. These investigations were studying conceptualizations of mature
personality and how those who professed conceptualization “A” versus
conceptualization “B”, versus conceptualization “C”, operated in a
variety of situations.
The subjects each developed, as a classroom exercise, his or her
personal conception of psychologically mature behavior. At the
beginning of a class in Normal Personality, the subjects were instructed
to take four weeks to develop their conception. During these four
weeks, the students were asked not to consult either authority or others
and to develop only their own ideas. Classroom time was devoted to
discussing the areas of human behavior, which might be included, and
to providing factual information sought by the students.
At the end of each of nine semesters, these conceptions of mature
personality were given to a group of seven to nine independent judges.
The judges were instructed to sort them into the fewest possible
internally consistent categories if they found them to be classifiable. The
judges worked first independently of one another, then as a group.
According to the judges, over sixty percent of the conceptions fell
clearly into two major categories, one of three and one of two sub-types.
Category 1. Mature personality expresses self
Sub-type (a) - aggressive, heroic, exploitative, expres self, to hell with
the consequences, no feeling of guilt.
Sub-type (b) - dogmatic, expres self with reasoned calculation for what
self desires with little feeling of shame or guilt, and
even at some expense to others but in such a way as
not to raise undue reaction from those others.
Sub-type (c) - a quiet, undogmatic, expres self with regard for others
and never at the expense of others.
Category 2. Mature personality denies self
Sub-type (a) - denies self to prescriptions of higher absolute authority
in order to get spiritual reward later.
Sub-type (b) - denies self to prescriptions of secular-valued other
people in order to get approval and spiritual
satisfaction now.
 Confusion and Contradiction 93

First Perplexing Result:

Two Opposed Categories

Later the process was repeated with other subjects. New judges
were utilized. They classified the old and the new conceptions. From
their work, the first mildly surprising result developed. It pertained to
the consistency of results. I did not expect the extent of agreement that
occurred over nine successive years. Overall, each group of judges
agreed markedly both as to which documents were classifiable and the
number of basic and sub-type categories to be established. In fact these
judgmental runs resulted in many cases in each sub-type wherein no
disagreement existed50. This I did not expect. This had not been my
experience with previous psychological research - research which more
often than not produced ambiguous data. Now I began to feel some
trepidation. Now I started to doubt the secrecy of my design. I feared
that somehow the judges might be trying to please me or even that they
were in collusion. But as I thought it over, I dismissed this doubt from
mind.
I simply could not see any way that the judges could be trying to
please me because they knew nothing about what was being done except
that I wanted them to classify the documents. They had practically no
contact with the subjects who were also unaware of the nature of the
project and each year’s set of judges was gone from the scene before the
next year’s judges came to be. Also, there was no other source of
information for them because not even my family, my department head,
my administrators, my students, nor my colleagues knew I was involved
in this research. In fact, in those years I was oft times chided for being
‘nonproductive’. But this was not a crucial test of this problem. The
crucial test was that each set of judges worked first of all with the new
data of the current year. Yet with two exceptions, which I shall explain
later, exceptions which in no way affected this crucial test, each year’s
set of judges came up with essentially the same classification system and
roughly the same percentage of classifiable documents. Therefore, to my
mind, there was nothing left to do but accept this mildly peculiar result
as a psychological phenomenon suggesting that several discernible
conceptions of mature personality do indeed exist.

50 CWG: Only these cases were used in later behavioral and instrumental studies of the
sub-type categories.
94 Confusion and Contradiction

Second Perplexing Result:

Both Categories Functioned Well and Poorly

As time went on the peculiar aspects of the data became more and
more apparent. The next perplexing results arose from clinical
observations of the subjects - observations made over the two or three
years that many of them continued as my students. Clinical judgment
seemed to say (I have had many years’ experience as a clinician) that
something more was present in each sub-type category than simply the
expression of a subject’s belief as to what is a mature personality. In
each sub-type category established by the judges I observed:
ƒ the presence of subjects who seemed to function well and the
presence of subjects who seemed to function poorly;
ƒ subjects who displayed certain symptoms but not other
symptoms; and
ƒ subjects who were relatively free of symptomatic behavior.
These observations both intrigued me and confused me. I could not
help but ask, what does it mean that two people who think alike
psychologically, who have the same conception of mature personality,
behave so differently? Why does one of the pair perform so poorly, and
in a certain peculiar way? Why does the other perform so well, yet
behave differently in other ways, too? Why does the former never turn in
a paper without ridiculous errors, even when he has taken time and tried
carefully to prepare it? Why is his work full of omissions, commissions,
and obvious “slips of the tongue?” Why is this particularly true of one
whose conception professes that maturity is the orderly, the
rule-following, the carefully designed, authority respecting way of life?
Why does he do that when his conceptual bed-fellow produces work
which is consistent with his orderly, correct, rule-following, authority-
respecting conception? But more than this, much more than this: Why
do two representatives of the rational, calculating ‘express self’
conception of healthy personality behave similarly to the two ‘sacrifice
now for reward later’ subjects in that one functions well, the other
poorly, but well and poorly in a different way than the sacrificial
subjects? Why do the two sacrificial subjects function so differently
from the two ‘express self’ subjects when conceptual pair is compared to
conceptual pair?
 Confusion and Contradiction 95

Why does the well-functioning ‘sacrifice now for spiritual reward later’
subject follow the suggestions of the instructor as he produces his well-
ordered conception? Why is the calculating risk taker driven to produce
his well-ordered conception in a manner quite contrary to that suggested
by the instructor? Why do both do so well when judged by the criterion
“quality of performance?” Why do they behave so differently in the way
that they do their work?
Why do two other conceptual antagonists show a similarity in that
they both function poorly, yet behave so dissimilarly in the way they
function poorly? For example, why does the ‘sacrifice now to get spiritual
reward later’ subject show his dysfunctional behavior in “silly” errors
which punish self, when his conceptual antagonist becomes
dysfunctional by interrupting his goal efforts with a mild to marked
tirade directed toward others, usually his instructor?
What is different in the former that causes him, under stress, to take
his frustration out on himself, while the latter takes it out on others,
particularly authority? These results, accruing from my study of many
such pairs, were bad enough, but the consternation they produced was
minor in comparison to that which further study of them revealed, let
alone what came to be when other sub-type pairs were studied. Soon I
was to see that the similarity and dissimilarity between the ‘sacrifice now for
spiritual reward later’ sub-type and the ‘rational calculating express self’ risk-
taker was even more peculiar.
The ‘sacrifice now to get spiritual reward later’ was not only punishing
himself, he was also punishing me. When I returned his paper for
correction stating it was returned for rewriting so that I could decipher
it, the resubmitted paper took, relatively speaking, hours to decipher
where previously it took minutes. In other words, this poorly
functioning ‘sacrifice now to get spiritual reward later’ subject hurt self directly,
but me indirectly. Subtly, he made me pay for what he felt I had done to
him. But the ‘rational, risk taking express self’ calculator’s behavior was
of a different order. There was nothing subtle in his direct attack upon
me. He let me have it. But, at least from my point of view, he subtly
attacked self by putting himself under the stress of much time lost in
getting on toward the goal he was required to achieve.
When I moved on to examine the ‘sacrifice now to get spiritual reward
now’ type, my consternation increased, but it was trifling in comparison
to the perplexity which developed when the ‘express self but not at the
expense of others’ data was encountered. The ‘sacrifice now to get spiritual
reward now’ displayed a tendency similar to the ‘sacrifice now for spiritual
reward later’ type. But once more, paradoxically enough, there was
96 Confusion and Contradiction

dissimilarity in the similarity of the two sub-types. As in the poorly

functioning ‘sacrifice now to get later,’ the poorly functioning ‘sacrifice now to
get now’ punished self directly and others indirectly. The poorly
functioning representative of this type openly condemned self, damned
self, and derogated self, but he was not aware that he punished others by
making them suffer through his interminable self-condemnation.
On the well-functioning side, the ‘sacrifice now to get spiritual reward
now’ produced a well ordered, though different type of conception, but
his modus operandi was very different from his well-functioning ‘sacrifice
now to get later’ counterpart. During the development of his papers he
continuously sought the counsel and aid of his friends and he sought
their approval of the final product; whereas the ‘sacrifice now for reward
later’ leaned on me and sought only my approval or leaned on some
other authority he respected and sought his approval of the final
product. Thus, the ‘sacrifice now for reward now’ showed a dependency on
his peers that was not the dependency on authority displayed by the
‘sacrifice now for reward later’ type or the dependency on self of the ‘express
self with little shame or guilt’ subject.

Third Perplexing Result:

Poorly Functioning Produces Well

At this point, had I been predicting from the data studied to date
how the “poorly functioning,” ‘express self but not at the expense of others’
would perform (poorly functioning must be in quotes for reasons which
will soon be apparent), I would have said he will attack others directly
and self indirectly, but in a new and different form because this was
what I found in the other ‘express self’ category and because there was
this kind of consistency in the two ‘sacrifice-self’ categories. And I
would have predicted that he would produce an inferior product
because that is what I found in each of the three categories studied to
date. Had I done so, I would have been at one and the same time quite
right but also very, very wrong,
I would have been right in that this ‘express self’ type did openly
attack, and in that he did attack in a different form. But I would have
been wrong because he did not attack other personalities. Subjects of
this type did not attack people, nor did they displace their aggression on
things. When they attacked, they bore down on ideas. Personalities were
just not involved as they were in the ‘calculating risk-taking’ type. Thus,
here, as with any set of my data, had I been predicting from one set to
any other set there would always be something I could predict, namely the general
 Confusion and Contradiction 97

form of the behavior, but there would also be something I would never have predicted,
namely its specificity. That is, the behavior did not change just
quantitatively; it also changed in a qualitative way. And more than this,
at least in so far as the ‘express self but not at the expense of others’ type was
concerned, I would have missed one aspect of their behavior
completely.
I would have predicted that this ‘express self’ type would harm self
indirectly through failure to produce a satisfactory product, a product
done well and also on time. Yet produce well and on time is precisely
what he did, though one would never have predicted it from his means.
When he was working on his conception or revision, he seemed at times
both unsure of himself and at other times lethargic. What he did made
no sense. Each task undertaken toward the goal seemed an
insurmountable obstacle. But, always, out of lassitude and/or chaos and
disorganization, an adequate, well-organized product emerged on the
assigned delivery date. Hardly ever, except in most dire circumstances
such as prolonged and incapacitating illness, did one of this type fail to
produce not only on time but well.
This behavior of the poorly functioning ‘express self but not at the
expense of others’ brought my developing comprehension to a halt.
Previous data had said poor functioning equals poor product, no matter
the conceptualization of mature personality. Now I had to accept that
for this category, this was not so. Poor functioning was not poor
functioning. It only looked that way, even though in other psychological
settings, other types of conceptions, poor functioning was poor
functioning. These accumulating like and unlike results plagued me.
They left me with the feeling that I was getting nowhere, and that I had
to find some other approach to my data if clarification were to come.
This was most evident in the early stages of data analysis. For nine
years I had collected data in the hope that it might help me clarify the
confusing and contradictory world. Instead of fulfilling my hope, I had
to face a fact. My data was screaming at me: “Psychology is a bigger
muddle that ever you expected, and if you want to comprehend it you
must find some other way than the one you are pursuing.”
From this torment and from the peculiar kind of information now
before me (similarity and dissimilarity both between major types and
within sub-types and across type categories), the idea emerged that the
conceptions represented something more than what some people
thought was the psychologically mature person. The idea that the
conceptions might represent personality systems in miniature came to be
98 Confusion and Contradiction

and the idea that psychological maturity was something other than a state
or a condition came to be.

Are Mature Personality Conceptions

Personality Systems in Miniature ?

When the idea that psychological maturity and its parent, human
personality, might be a systemically ordered process took root in my
mind, I began to examine, from a systemic orientation, the quasi-
experimental situations into which the subjects had been placed. Then
the rumblings in my mind became a psychological avalanche which
today has not subsided - an avalanche in which many feel my thinking
should be buried because of what its slippage has uncovered. To see
what this avalanche was and why so many think my findings should be
rested deep within it, we need to take another backward look.

A Study of Change in Four Systems

After the subjects had developed their conceptions, without

reference to the work of others and without reference to authority, each
was required:
ƒ to turn in a copy of his conception;
ƒ to explain and defend his conception to a small group of
co-subjects;
ƒ to write either a revision or a defense of his conception, to
cite the reasons for his defense and to turn it in to the
instructor-investigator; and
ƒ to study the conception of authorities as expressed in the
literature.
Again, a defense or a revision was required along with reasons for
the change or the defense.
Thus, there was the opportunity to observe for change or no
change, an opportunity to observe for the direction of change if change
took place, both when peer force was applied and when the force of
authority was applied, and an opportunity to study what produced
change. These data presented still more intriguing information. This we
can see by looking at change as revealed in the early studies.
 Confusion and Contradiction 99

Change of one’s conception of healthy personality, within the

framework of the original four basic conceptual sub-types produced by
the subjects and within the framework of the studies designed could be
manifested in three major ways. They were:
1. no change;
2. peripheral change, that is change in the details of the
conception but no change in the major premises; and
3. change centrally, that is, change in the major premise -
progressive or regressive in nature.
In the course of the investigations, each of three major possibilities
occurred. In the majority of the cases, the change was peripheral. When
central change occurred the question was: Can one ascertain what
precipitated this central change? To see how this was determined it is
necessary to recall that the subjects were successively:
ƒ put under peer pressure,
ƒ required to modify or defend their conception and cite
reasons for the change or the defense,
ƒ put under the pressure of authority, and
ƒ required to modify or defend their conception after being
under the pressure of authority, and cite reasons for the
change or the defense.
As checks upon the written reasons for change, subjects in each
sub-type group were observed through a one-way mirror as they
defended their conception in interaction with their peers and as they
discussed their conception in relation to that presented in the literature
by various authorities. Certain subjects were interviewed at the end of
the course.
When the conceptions of the subjects who revised after either
pressure situation were examined, it was found that some of the subjects
in each category showed central change. When the cited reasons for this
change were studied, it was found that certain reasons and not other
reasons were given for change in each sub-type category. These reasons,
again, tended both to differ and not to differ from sub-type category to
sub-type category. When these data were crosschecked with the one-way
mirror observation and interview data, the results listed in Table I
appeared.
100 Confusion and Contradiction

Table I - a
Change Instigators for Each Conceptual Sub-type of
Healthy Personality

Type of Conception Change Instigator

Sacrifice now for reward later Pressure from respected
authority
Sacrifice now for reward now Pressure from valued
important other
Express self for what self New information or
desires without shame or guilt experience, self procured
Express self but not at expense New information,
of others regardless of source

Table I - b
Direction of Change

Sacrifice now for reward later changed to:

Expres self calculatedly for what self desires changed to:
Sacrifice self now for reward now changed to:
Expres self but not at the expense of others.

Examination of Table 1 indicates that the sub-type ‘sacrifice now for

reward later’ conception changed centrally under the circumstance of
pressure from external authority, a result which was not unexpected. It
is quite customary for many humans to believe that authority should
know and should direct, and for these humans to believe that authority
exists in certain people but not in others - a fact which was clearly in the
data. But here it was not only the pressure of authority that brought
about the change; it was also a kind of external authority toward whom
the subject already tended to feel respect. That is, a devout Catholic
subject tended to respond to the thinking of a Catholic authority, but
not to the thinking of a Jewish authority. A strong Jewishly oriented
subject would be apt to respond to his kind of Jewish authority, but not
to a Catholic authority, a Protestant authority, or a Jewish authority of a
different ilk.
How the subjects knew who the authorities were is easily explained.
In class sessions, before the student subject studied authorities, I
presented an extended biography of each of those to be studied.
 Confusion and Contradiction 101

The sub-type category, ‘sacrifice now to get spiritual reward now’ changed
in a way similar but dissimilar from the ‘sacrifice for spiritual reward later’
type. They, too, changed under the pressure of others, but their source
was their valued peer. Authority did not come from external higher
sources as in the ‘sacrifice now to get later’ subjects. The latter did not
respond to peer pressure, no matter what kind of people made up the
peer group and no matter what was the peer group’s orientation.
Neither of these two sub-types changed centrally when straightforward
factual information called into question the position they had taken.
Instead, they questioned whether the information was factual. The
‘sacrifice now to get later’ group called information a fact only when their
authority said it was a fact, and the ‘sacrifice now to get now’ subjects took
information as gospel when their valued other accepted or provided it.
These ‘sacrifice now to get now’ groups did not ignore authoritativeness, nor
did they disregard factual information. It was what they looked upon as
authority and what they did with factual information that was different.
They used the valued other as their authority, as the authority to pass
judgment on whether factual information should or should not be
accepted. If the valued other lent authoritativeness to the information, it
was accepted and then, and only then, did central change ensue.
As I considered the meaning in this tidy bit of information, it
became apparent that my psychological avalanche was now gaining
momentum. Now, one sub-type said, “A fact is not a fact unless my God
says it is so; but this same fact is not a fact if your particular God says it
is.” Another sub-type said, “A fact is not a fact when anyone’s God so
defines it. It is a fact only when my valued friends say so.” But it isn’t
even a fact then, as we shall see as we look at the result of the ‘express
self rationally’ sub-type.
The sub-type ‘express self rationally but calculatedly for what self desires
without shame or guilt’ accepted information as a fact in quite a different
way. Thus, in this group the impetus to central change was of another
order. These subjects paid no attention to what any authority said, least
of all me. In fact, one day, a certain subject astonished me and his class
when he demanded that I step aside and let him inform the class what
his experience had told him were the true psychological facts. He and
other sub-type subjects scoffed at peer opinion and disparaged all
authority. When information peripherally modified their point of view,
this information came to be and came to be “fact” only as a result of
their own actions. They did something themselves the results of which
signaled to them that their previous information did not work, and they
did it alone. Their road to central change was pragmatic. These subjects
102 Confusion and Contradiction

went so far as to openly fight the design of the course. They insisted that
they be excused from interaction with their peers and they even resisted
studying authorities. They finally acquiesced to this part of the course
only when I permitted them to demonstrate that from their own
experience the authorities studied seemed to be wrong.
So now we have, from the ‘express self rational calculators,’ another
interpretation of when information is a fact. It now becomes a fact if
one’s experience, and only one’s experience, says it is. But I do not want
to mislead the reader. There is nothing really new in the finding that
there are filters in the minds of men.
However, there is something quite extraordinary in these data. It is
the peculiar, similar-dissimilar aspect of the data in the first two
sub-types which is not completely upheld in the third sub-type. Because
of this, I wondered what I would find about a fact in the fourth
sub-type, the ‘express self, but not at the expense of others’ group.
The fourth group related in their papers and stated orally that at
times it was the word of authority which led them to change certain
points in their conception. They reported and stated that other changes
took place because of peer group experiences. And at other times, their
data showed that some change arose from what the self alone did or
what it alone thought. Thus, this group was again similar to the ‘express’
types than the ‘sacrifice’ types because information could become a fact
for them regardless of its source. All this seemed to say that they were
more open-minded.
Normally, we would readily explain the apparent open-mindedness
of the ‘express self concernedly’ subjects, particularly when the investigatory
subject matter is conceptions of mature personality, in a very simple
way. We would say that this sub-type is the psychologically mature state
in operation. But before this conclusion is drawn, one should consider
what it would leave unexplained in respect to the total data accumulated
to date, a consideration which might leave you more confused.
One should recall that we have three other psychological states
demonstrably different from each other, as well as different from the
‘express self concernedly’ type. And one should recall that in each of these
states, observation has indicated that people function well. Thus, if this
fourth state is the psychologically mature state, then logically the other
three are less mature states; and logically, there should be degrees of
immaturity between the other three. But denoting the fourth as the
mature state in no way explains the relationship of the other three to one
another, nor why or how they are less mature. Therefore, it is necessary
to entertain the idea that there is much more in the data than has been
 Confusion and Contradiction 103

seen so far. And it is necessary to prepare ourselves for the possibility

that designating the ‘express self concernedly’ sub-type as the mature state may
serve to lead us away from, rather than toward, an understanding of
what human life is all about.
This is precisely the quandary I got into when the next set of data
was examined.
My next set of data said almost unequivocally that the ‘express self but
not at the expense of others’ conception does not represent the mature
psychological state in operation. In fact it demolished the idea that there
is a conception of psychological maturity, a state of psychological being
which can be researched for and someday described. It said that the
‘express self concernedly’ is only one more state of being, one more in an
endless chain. But these new data said much more, so much more, that
the effect of what they revealed almost put me in a state of shock. My
condition came to be as I examined the data for change in the centrality
of conceptions and how, if it existed, such change came to be.

Six Factors in the Change Process

Change in the centrality of conception was not rare. When it was

observed, the first thing which had to occur for change to another
central conception to ensue was a solution of what I came to call
existential problems. The evidence of this came about in a very peculiar
manner. All of the subjects were students in my classes. All had the very
real problem of not only passing the course but of achieving, or feeling
they had a chance to achieve, the grade level to which they aspired. This
problem of grading was a stumbling block to all until the first marking
period in the course, the point at which the original conception was
turned in. In order to demonstrate to the student-subjects that
expressing self honestly would not damn them, I chose four criteria for
grading their work. They were:
a. Breadth of coverage of human behavior;
b. Internal consistency of conception;
c. Non-violation of established psychological fact (For
example, it was indicated that if a conception said a
human being was mature who did not feel emotion,
this would violate fact.); and
d. Applicability of the conception.

After setting up the criteria, I still had to prove, to the best of my

ability, that personal bias as to mature behavior was not affecting the
104 Confusion and Contradiction

grading. I handled this by making lengthy comments and selecting

certain papers to be read before the class with the comments
appropriately related. Then, after the paper was read, the student was
asked to tell the class what grade was recorded for him at the registrar’s
office. Some of the comments were almost brutal. For example, I might
say, “If this is what you think a mature human being is, then when you
leave this class, I hope I never see or meet you again.” Or, “Ye Gods,
what a horrible automaton you make of human life.” The first might say
he received an “A.” The second might say he received a “D”. We would
then examine how the “A” came about through the application of the
criteria and how the “D” seemed warranted in terms of the criteria set
up for grading.
At the end of the course, when I interviewed those whose central
position changed, they pointed out that solving the grade problem was
essential to their readiness to think of change. But this, they said, served
only to create the condition for change. It did not produce change.
When queried about what else was involved, they said one thing was
that somewhere, somehow, in the course of time things were said or
done which disturbed their complacency. They said that following this
disturbance of their complacency some new ideas, some new thoughts
which came from somewhere - they could not often express from where
- started the change. And they said that at the right time the right
person, seldom the instructor, encouraged them to explore their ideas
further. But here the similarity from sub-type to sub-type ceased. For
each sub-type the general factors listed above held, but the specific
change factors varied.
For them to change, now translating into the technical language of
this book, they had to experience certain general conditions which were:
1. potential,
2. solution of existential problems,
3. feeling of dissonance,
4. gaining of insights,
5. having properly timed and administered aid or
non-interference - that is removal of barriers, and
6. opportunity to consolidate.
But, when they talked further, it became evident that these general
change factors were particularized to each sub-type, a matter we shall
now explain.
The meaning of having a chance to procure the grade desired meant
something different to the subjects in each group. The ‘sacrifice now to get
 Confusion and Contradiction 105

now’ group felt it put them in good stead with the peer group. The
‘express self at any cost without shame or guilt’ group felt it proved they had
been right about this world all the while. And the ‘express self but not at the
expense of others’ said the grade meant little or nothing, but the fact that
grading took place in a setting wherein they could think for themselves
meant a lot.
That which disturbed the person’s complacency, that is, that which
produced dissonance also varied from sub-type to sub-type. The ‘sacrifice
self now to get reward later’ sub-type was disturbed when a respected
authority questioned an idea the student believed his authority would
never question. A Catholic subject might find a Catholic authority
questioning whether sexual abstinence was good for psychological
health. A ‘sacrifice self now to gain now’ might find his valued other or
valued others taking a position contrary to general group opinion, and
he might find people who did not damn him if he differed with the
group. The ‘express self for what self desires without shame or guilt’ subject was
particularly disturbed when I, as his instructor, disagreed with him
violently and still gave him a good grade. He could not comprehend fair
authority. The ‘express self, but not at the expense of others’ became disturbed
by reading over what he had previously said or he became disturbed by
seeming to be too sure of himself.
The insights of each of the sub-types also varied. For example:
1. ‘Sacrifice now for reward later group.’
Insight - one can question authorities’ established rules and
not necessarily get into trouble.
2. ‘Sacrifice now to get now group.’
Insight - going against the group will not necessarily end in
ostracism, if you have good information.
3. ‘Express self calculatedly for what self desires without shame
or quilt group.’
Insight - others may help you expres self, they are not
always out to get you.
4. ‘Express self but not at the expense of others group.’
Insight - when I started this train of thought I felt I would
find the answer; now that I see that any answer is a
function of what information one has and of how he looks
at the information, I see there is really no one answer.
When these six factors were studied in order to determine the role
of each in change, I was far from prepared for what I was to find. When
existential problems alone were solved, the person went only to a more
106 Confusion and Contradiction

complex version of his already existing way of thinking. It was as if he

said unto himself, “Things have gotten better and better so long as I
have thought this way; therefore, if I go further in this direction, things
can’t help but get better and better.” In other words, solving one’s
existential problems alone was not sufficient reason for him to change
his behavior. But as I continued, more and more insight into change
came to be; but at the same time more and more confusion arose in my
mind.
It so happened that some subjects who got good grades the first
five weeks, who also extended and defended their original conception,
produced a logical mishmash at the end of the second five weeks
reporting period. Where this occurred, the subjects insisted on a
resubmission so that their grade problem might be righted. At first, I
simply acquiesced to their request and thus had an opportunity to
observe what they would produce when existential problems had been
solved (first five-week grade) and when dissonance came in to disturb
what appeared to be an already existing solution of a problem. That the
person was in a crisis stage was most apparent.
The first resubmission was simply an increase in what had worked
well for the person originally, but had failed him later. After it failed him
again, after the expected payoff was not forthcoming, all of these
subjects came to progressively feel hopelessness and frustration. Some
never got beyond this point; whereas others moved on into somewhat
random trial and error behavior as if to say, “The old way isn’t working;
I’d better look for something new.” But these people just did not make
it back to where they were or forward to some other point of view. In
other words, solution of existential problems and the arisal of
dissonance, served either to cause a person’s point of view to encyst or
to cause the person to strive to change to a new functional point of
view. Together, solution of existential problems and arisal of dissonance
were not enough to establish a new behavioral form.
It was only when the insight specific to a category arose, along with
potential, and was added to the solution of existential problems and
dissonance that one could truly see a definitive change in conception
taking place, definitive in terms of movement in the direction of a new
conceptual form. But this alone, in the setting of this work, was not
enough to rapidly change the conception. I say “in the setting of this
work” because I still do not know if a person could have gotten there
alone, because in the setting I helped the person as he demanded help.
That is, wherever possible I removed barriers to his performance.
 Confusion and Contradiction 107

Two examples should illustrate this barrier factor. For the ‘express self
with little shame or guilt’ type, I had to completely remove intermediate
evaluation of his performance. He would permit no evaluation of his
work in process or evaluation of the way he was working. In the case of
the ‘sacrifice now to get later’ subjects, it was necessary to work toward
change gently, protectively, and methodically in the beginning of the
process to enable them to overcome the barrier of fear. When this was
managed to their satisfaction, a second barrier arose in its place. The
subjects were now blocked by any aid that I might proffer. Aid at this
point was so frustrating that they told me to get off their back, to leave
them alone, to let them work out the changed conception to their
satisfaction whether it fulfilled the established criteria or not. When I
learned to accept this change in them, they settled into the
consummation of a new, different, and reasonably ordered conception
which signaled the end of this change process.
Now I had a six-fold process of change. The first was potential -
some never changed. The second was the solution of existential
problems. The third was disturbance of the solution, that is dissonance,
which precipitated a stage of regression. Then insight came into the
picture as that which halted the regressive phase. This was followed by
the need to remove barriers so that a quantum-like jump to a different
way of thinking could occur. Then it was necessary for consummation
of the change to take effect.
But in this overall process there was much complicating data. For
each conception there were different kinds of dissonance, insights,
barriers, etc. Now, all had to be combined with the previous data before
I could think of rationalization. But this complication, though bad
enough, was just a minor rumble from the avalanche that was now
gaining mass and momentum - the avalanche that scrambled all
psychological data in its path.
The next data to be examined arose from the question: What is the
nature of the change which ensues when central change occurs? These
results became the most disconcerting ones to date because they so
aggravated the developing confusion in the data - an aggravation which
can best be reported by examples.

Examples of Central Change in Sub-type

Mike M. originally said in a part of his protocol:

“My idea of the psychologically healthy human may differ from
others but here it is. First he does not have any glaring problems
108 Confusion and Contradiction

like the gambler. This includes certain kinds of addictions to

habits which are not evil but wasteful, such as a sports “nut.”
Please don’t confuse this with the sports buff. My definition of a
sports nut is one who insists on watching the Sunday football
game while the buff is one who likes football but disciplines
himself to leave it alone. This is an example that the person would
exercise control over his emotions and his actions. He lives by
principles such as the Ten Commandments, by the religious
ethical or moral principles prescribed in his world.
One of his most noticeable characteristics is his outwardly
placid disposition protected by a thick emotional skin which
allows him to remain unaffected by taunts, insults and other
irritants in life. This placidity exists in the mature because he
knows if he controls himself when others do not do so, it will be
he in the long run who will profit. He is willing to sacrifice his
own desires whenever possible and feels that were others to do
so, it would be for the overall interests of society. He adheres to
The Golden Rule - “Do unto others as you would have them do
unto you.”
He know that taking baths, and going to school, controlling his
appetite is unpleasant to him but he knows the clear distinction
between right and wrong and such things as temporary joy and
sadness with respect to future joy and sadness. He does not live
by what is good for him or will bring him momentary joy. He
lives by what is right, by his raison d’etre, his reason for being
almost invariably will be manifested in theism.”
The centrality of this concept from Mike’s original protocol (the
totality is basically a repetition on the themes stated above) seems quite
clear. He speaks of strong and disciplined control over his impulse life
and wants; of sacrificing current desires for future reward; of living by
an absolutistic, prescribed moral code generally theistic in origin; and in
a subjective, qualitative way. But this is not the centrality in the
conception he vigorously defended when the final presentation was
made. Then he said:

“I think now of what I said in the beginning of this course:

‘My idea of the psychologically mature human may differ from
others but here it is.’ Now I would have to include myself among
those others because something has happened to me. Even those
who knew me in the past insist that what I say and do now is not
what I said and did before. But somehow they just don’t
 Confusion and Contradiction 109

understand. I don’t deny that what I said then was me nor will I
let anyone dispute that what I believe at this writing is the me that
is.
I still believe that the mature personality disciplines himself
but he does so to get control over the world of which he is a part;
he does so to keep himself unwilling to submit to the arbitrary
controls put upon him by rule and others; he does so in order that
he can rationally and objectively question the validity of all ideas
of the society.
Today to consider the issue of perfect psychological maturity
one must accept the idea that behavior and character are
interrelated and measurable. And, to be measurable, in two or
more people, with the intent to compare the results are but a part
of the end.
Each individual, ideally at least, should be governed by
instincts and motivations which seem rationally to lead to his
betterment and to his comfort. This is the only logical end one
can attach to existence, the gratification of himself as an
individual.
It is evident that in determining what is mature psychological
behavior, we have based our conclusions on the prescriptions
handed down to us by authority, judging men by values that were
laid down “on Tablets of Salt.” It was thus that our moral
prescriptions for proper living and the means to their
implementation developed. In the past it was generally accepted
that the individual was subordinate to the cosmic whole, and
hence the psychological traits of the mature person were based on
value judgments concerning a collective rather than an
individualistic analysis of human nature.”
That is not how I see mature behavior today. Today it does
seem to me that psychological well being is dependent upon
man’s ability to overcome the inhibitions to his own satisfactions,
upon being free of guilt and free of shame and upon performing
when he is motivated and not tempering his striving for pleasure.
He is free from the threats and negative reactions of others. He
does not fear his own psyche or the consequences of being a law
unto himself. He is the source of inspiration for all of his actions,
the determiner of what means are appropriate to his ends.”
I doubt that anyone would deny that the centrality of Mike’s final
(final in the sense of the last class paper) conception is poles apart from
his original presentation, though some might doubt that he meant what
110 Confusion and Contradiction

he said. I, however, had to proceed on the assumption, albeit tenuous,

that the change was genuine.
Following that assumption I was able to conclude that Mike’s
revised conception centralized around the expression of self, the
establishment of one’s own rules, satisfaction of “human wants,”
shaping means to fit personal ends, and around objective materialistic,
rational, quantitative thinking.
In some respects the character of the change in Mike M.’s
conception did not surprise me. Experience would say that if one threw
off a moralistic, absolutistic, self-sacrificing set of ideas, he would try in
their place the unashamed expression of the self. But I had to ask
myself: Would I have predicted that accompanying this “selfish
expression of the self” would be a change from subjective, qualitative,
spiritual thinking to objective, quantitative, thought processes? I know I
would not have done so, and I doubt that others would have predicted
the total change. Therefore, becoming more intrigued with each
successive datum, I proceeded to the next, the change of the ‘express self
without shame or guilt’ to another central form. In this instance, the original
conception of Linda S. proposed in the heart of her protocol:
“If we view man’s greatest concern as that of problem solving and
decision making, the ability to make decisions rationally,
objectively and decisively, without lingering doubt because it is
backed by sound quantitative data, would be the basis of a
psychologically mature mind. This ability to be decisive, to live
without doubt, to be able to live for what one wants today, to be
able to eliminate confusion regarding ends and the means
necessary to reach those ends so as to decisively use the means
necessary to the end, ranks as the number one requirement for a
mature psychological mind. It helps prevent the establishment of
misdirection and aimless behavior. The ability to prevent that
which impedes logical, rational thinking which leads to worry, or
guilt or shame, which in turn upsets the psychological soundness
of the person, is one of the major qualities of the theory of
decisiveness which helps lay the basis for judging a
psychologically mature human being. If uncertainty and doubt are
removed from the mind of man by objective, quantifiable
information, if thinking can therefore be rational and logical, if
ends (are established) and effective means established a
psychologically sound human being is in the making.”
 Confusion and Contradiction 111

I believe it is apparent that the centrality of Linda’s original

conception is substantively the same as was found in the revised
conception of Mike M. In her conception the central concern is with
self, with ends over means, and with rational, objective, quantitative
thinking - the same central elements we found in the conception of
Mike. But now the question is: What is the character of the central
change when Linda’s concept evidenced revision? At the end of the
course Linda said:
“Not too long ago I might have hesitated to put down the words
that now describe my feeling as to the psychologically mature
mind. I have nothing of an objective or quantitative character
upon which to base that which I now find myself disposed to
believe.
A few short weeks ago decisiveness was to me the key sign of
maturity. Man had to observe, test, analyze and decide if he was to
do the mature thing. But now I am not so certain, so certain as I
was then that precise knowing is the means to the end of a sound
psychological mind. It seems to me that the mature personality,
the sound psychological mind cannot, need not, and should not
be so calculating, so certain as then I conceived it to be. What
then is the conception I now have? What is the psychologically
mature mind? It is the mind that is alert, alert not only to fact, but
also to feeling. It is the mind that recognizes facts may not be
what the data says but the way they are interpreted.
But I seem to be equivocating. I seem to be writing around rather
than to the point. Tonight in contrast to my previous concern
with decision making and objectively arrived at courses for action,
I see the mature mind concerned with the effect decisions might
have on others, with being with, rather than going it alone on the
basis of evidence. I do not see how the mature mind can live as an
island to itself. Nor do I see that it can exist solely in relation to its
God. To be mature is to cast aside one’s certainty, to be able to
commune with others, to receive from them the signals for one’s
being rather than to live by one’s own wants or the prescriptions
of the past.
Life is not a fact nor is it a set of rules. There is something more
than believing, something more than knowing in the mind of him
who is mature. There is, above all else, feeling, feeling with and
feeling for and feeling that to be is to be as one with the others in
our life, feeling that we must abrogate our wants if we are all to
find the acceptance which we seek and which now and forever we
112 Confusion and Contradiction

must have. I do now believe that becoming one with other men,
leads more toward the maturity of man than all his certain
knowing can.”
These results, when first observed, were indeed disconcerting.
When the moral, ‘sacrifice self for reward later’ subjects changed centrally to
the immoral, ‘calculating, materialistic express self with little shame or guilt’ type
it was not unexpected. But when I saw this materialistic view change
into the ‘sacrifice self now to get peace and approval now’ conception, I began to
search for explanation. Then, when I searched for how the ‘sacrifice some
now for reward now’ changes, my capacities for explanation began to run
out. It changed to the ‘express self, but not at the expense of others’ type. As a
pattern started to emerge, my dismay subsided. The pattern was that
‘sacrifice-self’ types, when they change centrally, change to ‘express-self’
types. But what of the other major category? What of the ‘express-self’
types? How do they change when the subject is not under stress? Now,
still to my dismay, I was to learn that the pattern was repeating. The
‘express self for what self desires with little shame or guilt’ type changed to
‘sacrifice self for reward now.’ And, the ‘express self but not at the expense of others’
rocked the total foundation of my beliefs. It changed to a new form, to
‘maturity is accepting the realities of existence.’ Maturity is not trying to know
the unknowable. Maturity is adjusting to man’s existential dichotomies.51
In other words, the ‘express self but not at the expense of others’ changes to a
new form of adjusting and became more like the two ‘sacrifice-self’
groups and less like the two ‘express-self’ types.
An interesting factor here is that in the latter part of the basic
studies, a few subjects started to produce conceptions of this kind as
their original point of view.

Systems Are Specific As Well As General

Now you can see a major peculiarity in the data. Now you can see
that something remarkable has happened. The two ‘sacrifice-self’
groups, which look like one another in terms of being sacrificial,
accepting systems, are also like one another in terms of shifting centrally
to ‘express-self’ forms. But they are not like one another in terms of
what they perceive to be their existential problems. They are not like one
another in terms of what produces dissonance in the field, and they are

51 CWG: Existential dichotomies, according to Eric Fromm, are: Why was I born? - Why
must I die? Why was I born with more ability than can be used in a lifetime? Man is
alone and related at the same time.
 Confusion and Contradiction 113

not like one another in terms of the insights they develop before and as
other change takes place. The two ‘express-self’ categories are like one
another in terms of changing centrally to ‘deny-self’ types of
conceptions. They are unlike one another in the same way as are the
sacrificial systems.
Now a cyclic, oscillating movement in adult development is
suggested. It is, sacrifice self, express self, sacrifice self, express self, and
so on. Next, the need for ordering this wavelike movement so that each
wave is properly related to the other waves was required.

Exhibit II

How this ordering should take place was suggested by another study,
but before we look at it, we must examine some unfinished business.
What of the subjects who did not change, or what of those that
changed in some other way than related above? Those who did not
change seemed unaffected by the way I handled the grade problem. In
other words, the power at my disposal could not solve any existential
problem important to them. Any existential problems which had to be
solved for them in order for them to be ready for change were problems
I could not affect.
As to other forms of change, only one need be mentioned now. It is
regressive change. As I look back, after the systems are ordered, I can
114 Confusion and Contradiction

see that some subjects changed regressively, not progressively. My

opportunity to study this was limited because severe personal stress
seemed to produce the regression and this seldom occurred in the
course of the studies. It needs to be studied more, but since knowledge
of it is not essential to the problem of deriving the conceptual idea, I
will leave it at this point and return to the development of the idea of
hierarchically ordered “systems” of adult behavior.

The Freedom to Behave Study

At this point, clinical inference again entered the field. By now I

knew my subjects well, not only from their personal documents, but also
from the behavioral situations. From this knowledge developed the
impression that the ‘express self but not at the expense of others’ subjects, of all
the original subjects involved, were overall the freest subjects. In any
situation they seemed to display more degrees of behavioral freedom.
The ‘sacrifice now to get reward later’ subjects seemed by far the least free of
all. Therefore, another group of judges were assigned the task of
observing the subjects in problem situations, to judge how free the
subjects were to behave without restriction in a novel situation. They
were instructed to order the conceptions from the least free to the most
free.52 The results corroborated the clinical judgment, and were further
corroborated in later experimental studies.
The ‘express self but not at the expense of others’ subjects were judged the
most free and far freer than any others. The ‘sacrifice self now to get now’
subjects were judged the next most free, followed by the ‘express self for
what self desires with little shame or guilt’ type. The least free was the ‘sacrifice
now to get reward later’ group.

Summary of Confusing Data

Now a most conflictual set of data had been collated. It is

summarized below.
a. The ‘sacrifice now to get spiritual reward later’ was like the ‘sacrifice
self to get spiritual reward now’ in seeing mature personality as
adjustive to external source and as denying the self.
b. The ‘sacrifice self now to get later’ was like the ‘sacrifice now to get
now’ group in terms of changing to an expression of self type
when central change took place.

52 CWG: The sacrifice self to existential realities were too few to study.
 Confusion and Contradiction 115

c. The ‘express self for what self desires with little shame or guilt’ type
was not like the ‘express self but not at the expense of others’ in
terms of taking advantage of others.
These conflictual data started to make some sense when the change
data was combined with the data from the Freedom to Behave studies.
Now, if one hypothesized that adult man moved from fewer degrees of
behavioral freedom to more degrees of behavioral freedom, he had
dictated to the hierarchy:
‘sacrifice now to get later,’ to
‘expres self for what self desires with little shame or guilt,’ to
‘sacrifice now to get now,’ to
‘expres self but not at the expense of others,’ to possibly
‘adjust self to existential realities.’
But, this was still the germinal stage of an idea. It was necessary to
explore further.

Supplemental Studies

When these data took the peculiar character noted above, several
other studies were carried out in an attempt to see if further information
might possibly clarify the conflict in the data and support the idea of
adult personality systems. The first of them involved the Norman Maier
type53 problem solving situations but with some variations injected. For
example, problems similar to Maier’s were presented as problems for a
group to solve rather than just on an individual basis. A group in each
sub-type category was assigned not only the task of solving the problem
but also they were told to organize themselves for the task. Five kinds of
data were provided from these studies.
1. How each of the groups organized to carry out the assigned task.
2. How the members in each group interacted in the course of their
attack upon the problem.
3. The degree to which the approach taken was relevant to the
problem.
4. The quality of the solutions arrived at.
5. The quantity of solutions arrived at.
In a sense, the results of these studies did not clarify the previous
data. Yet, in another sense, the new data made the older more

53 CWG: These problems involved using objects in ways far removed from their normal
use. [Ed.: The New Truck Dilemma, an exercise in group decision making]
116 Confusion and Contradiction

meaningful, but not in the sense of removing any of the conflict in the
previous data. These studies simply added more of the same. But, in the
sense that they added more of the same, and thereby strengthened the
developing belief that something quite peculiar lay in the data, the
problem solving data was most helpful. We can see this by looking at
each of the five sub-studies carried on in the problem solving setting.
First, let us look at how each of the four basic groups organized to
approach the problems. The results of how each group organized are
shown in Exhibit III.
The groups varied in size from seven to fifteen. In each of the sub-
type categories, the organization took a different form. The ‘sacrifice self
now in order to gain reward later’ regularly organized in pyramidal fashion,
but never was just one pyramid formed. There were as many as four
and as few as two. In each overall organization the members lined up
under the direction of one they already considered an authority who
began laying out an attack upon the problem. Some members quickly
fell into line with and continued to carry out his/her instructions. But
not all members fell in line with the one who was given the lead role.
Before long, an obvious kibitzer or two emerged. The number of
kibitzers in the pyramidal group varied. Some markedly challenged the
position taken by the original leaders; other kibitzers did not. With time,
other members, who waited first to follow, lined up under the original
leader or a kibitzer. Still in most instances, one or two isolated or
floating uncommitted appeared in this type of group.
The ‘sacrifice self to gain reward later’ group, therefore, utilized a
pyramid type of organization, but all members could not be drawn into
one pyramid. The group organized itself basically into more than one
pyramidally structured group.
The ‘expres self for what self desires with little shame or guilt’ group
organized in a quite different fashion. Once the assignment was begun,
an obvious vying for the leadership position took place. Each member
seemed to be trying to get hold of the group. As the vying took place,
argument increased. The whole atmosphere became charged. Epithets
rolled; name-calling was the order of the day. The struggle continued
until one party managed to subdue all objections to his taking the lead.
Once he took the lead, he was not only the ‘boss man’ in the sense of
thinking for the group as to how to approach the problem, but he also
kept, so to speak, his finger constantly on the action and thought of all
members of the group. He would allow no change from his approach.
 Confusion and Contradiction 117

Exhibit III

Yet, he would change his approach suddenly at times, possibly in a

direction some other member had previously tried to suggest. But
seldom would he acknowledge that anyone had ever suggested a
variation. This man acted like what some people call the “big wheel,” a
person who not only insists on leading the action, but also on being in
on and controlling everyone involved in the action. Therefore, this was
called “the Big Wheel” form of organization.
Our third group is the ‘sacrifice now in order to get now’ group. Again,
they operated in a fashion noticeably different from any other group.
First of all, it was very difficult for them to get going. They insisted that
time be taken for each to express himself as to how to approach a
118 Confusion and Contradiction

problem. They would express that they did not feel they should begin
with any single person’s approach until they were sure they were all in
agreement, and no one seemed to take the lead. Gradually, as one or
another expressed an opinion, form started to take place. Sub-groups
developed as the members related to the idea of one person or the idea
of some other member. The larger group, in other words, became
organized into smaller groups. As each smaller group evolved, they again
sought consensus and each again was reluctant to assume the lead. But
with time they agreed on an approach and assigned a member or
members the task of carrying it out. This type of organization was called
the “Circle” organization because it reminded the author of Bavelas’s
work.54
The last group, the ‘express self but not at the expense of others’ group,
operated in a most intriguing fashion. As soon as the assignment was
made, a squabble, sometimes more than just lively, tended to ensue.
Each member, as soon as he had an idea, insisted that he be heard. He
fought the ideas of others in order to get them to see his light but never
fought a person personally. The fight always related to the merits of the
idea. It was never reduced to epithets or name calling as in the other
‘expres self’ group.
In this group, a person who seemed to be best equipped in terms of
the problem, his knowledge, and his ideas emerged into leadership. But
he made no attempt to dominate the work. He would present his ideas
and he and the others would work them through. If his idea failed or
when a new problem arose, he might or might not continue to lead.
Whether he continued to lead seemed to be determined by whether the
group continued to see him as more equipped. In other words, this
group revolved leadership when, in their judgment, other knowledge
should prevail. The leadership, then, tended to change, but failure never
led to ostracism of the person whose approach did not work, as
occurred in the other ‘express-self’ group. Because of this, it was called
the “Revolving Leadership” organization.
Thus, as you can see from Exhibit III and the descriptions above,
the two ‘sacrifice-self’ types are more like one another than they are like
the ‘express-self’ types. But alike as they are, they are still unlike one
another. This like but not like relationship holds for the ‘self expressive’
types as well. Therefore, we can see that the trend of the data in the
organizational study follows the trend of the data from the previous

54 Alex Bavelas, professor of psychology, MIT; founder of the Group Networks

Laboratory in 1948; experimentor in communication and social networks.
 Confusion and Contradiction 119

studies cited. We can therefore see that we have, from the organizational
studies, a reinforcement of the results of the previous studies.

The Interaction Studies

Some of the interaction data was obvious in the organizational

studies related. Here I shall present only the salient results as they
pertain to the developing conceptual idea.
Again, in these data I found the two ‘sacrifice-self’ groups similar
and dissimilar at the same time, and I found them interacting quite
differently from the ‘express-self’ groups. A most noticeable factor was
the air of quiet control present in both sacrificial groups. Voices tended
not to rise when disagreement was present. Politeness seemed to rule
the scene. But here the similarity ended between the two sacrifice
groups. This was most obvious when conflict ensued. When and if
conflict ensued, in the ‘sacrifice now to get later’ group it was between
hierarchical leaders or between the same level of subordinates in their
own or other hierarchies. By and large, conflict just did not ensue
between levels in a hierarchy. When it did arise between hierarchies, it
became ultimately the most vicious of the conflicts in all sub-type
groups. It was not only irresolvable except by separation of the
hierarchies within the particular ‘sacrifice now to get later’ groups, but it
lingered in spiteful and revengeful form far longer than in any other
sub-type.
In the ‘sacrifice now in order to get now’ group, conflict would arise in the
form of mild disagreement, gently even almost apologetically expressed.
But, as soon as it arose, nearly all members of the larger groups would
try to conciliate the disagreement. It was as if they could not bear for
any discord to break out. Disagreement might arise from any member of
this group, even after the group established assigned leaders; but it was
the group as a whole that operated to remove the disagreement even
though the problem might not be solved. The group accepted that
conflict might arise. That conflict should continue or should disrupt the
group was beyond their ken. They interacted continuously in a
compromising manner after conflict ensued in order to see that all
finally agreed that the problem was resolved and that the conflict was
eradicated.
In the self-expressive sub-type, I again found the
similarity/dissimilarity operating. In the ‘express self now for what self desires
with little shame or guilt’ group, conflict was there from the beginning, and
it was raucous conflict, not the quiet controlled form of the two
120 Confusion and Contradiction

sacrificial groups. The conflicts continued unabated until the more

dominant won. Then the dominant person allowed no conflict once
leadership was established. If his leadership failed, the conflict
reappeared until a new pecking order ensued. It was only after leader-
ship breakdown became apparent and new leadership was established
that one could see only a sullen peace had intervened. The new leader
was most vicious about the frailties of the fallen leader. The only
similarities here to the ‘express self but not at the expense of others’ group were
that raucousness was present, that leadership changed and that a person
central to all led the group.
In the ‘express self but not at the expense of others’ group, raucousness was
present, not only in the beginning, but almost all the time. They seemed,
so to speak, to be having a ball while they argued. But there was no
attempt of one to dominate another. Each had his say, and each by and
large presented his say in a fervent manner. When it appeared that one
person had a good idea, the others said, “Let’s try it.” If the idea failed,
he did not necessarily lose his position. If he had another idea, as I said
previously, it would be entertained with equal weight even though one
of his ideas had just failed. He might well be kidded, but at no time was
be reviled as was the fallen leader in the ‘express self for what self desires with
little shame or guilt’ group.
Again, one can see in these data the need to conceptualize adult
behavioral systems so that certain of them are similar and dissimilar
sacrificial systems at the same time. And we see again the need to view
the ‘express-self’ systems as being quite different from the ones
mentioned above, yet similar and dissimilar to one another. And, we will
see in the remaining sub-studies more evidence to this effect piling up.

The Relevancy of Approach Study

In the problem solving situations I knew, of course, what attacks

upon the problems were relevant and not relevant to the task before the
subjects. Therefore, I was able to assess as I observed the process of
attack upon the problem how relevant were the questions asked, and
how much redundancy was present. That is, how much did a group tend
to go at the problem in a progressively solving manner or in a manner
that they had tried previously and found wanting.
Here it was found that the sacrificial groups approached the
problem in a less relevant manner than the two ‘express-self’ groups.
The approaches and questions of the sacrificial groups were also
redundant. But the ‘sacrifice now to get later’ group’s approach was more
 Confusion and Contradiction 121

irrelevant, more redundant than the ‘sacrifice now to get now’ group. And
the ‘express self for what self desires with little shame or guilt’ group was more
irrelevant and more redundant than the ‘express self but not at the expense of
others’ group which was the least redundant and most relevant of the
four.

Quality and Quantity of Solutions

When I examined the quality of the solutions of the problems, all

the groups did, in time, resolve most problems in ways which were
considered to be reasonably good solutions, though the solutions of
some were quite fragile. What varied most was the time to find a
solution, the average time of solutions, and the number of the solutions.
The sacrificial groups were slower than the ‘express-self’ groups. But the
‘sacrifice self now to get later’ was the slower of the two and slower than the
‘express self but not at the expense of others’ group. When the quantity and
quality of solutions was considered, factors beyond the pairing of results
appeared. Here the most significant data was that the ‘express self but not
at the expense of others’ found more solutions and better solutions than all
the other groups put together.
A number of other studies were conducted, but with seven
exceptions did not contribute anything new to the development of the
basic conceptual idea. There were psychometric studies and, with the
exception of the study of temperament, results are listed in Table II.
122 Confusion and Contradiction

Table II
Results of Psychometric Studies of Four Conceptualizations of
Healthy Personality per Sub-type
4 = s most of characteristic
1 = s least of characteristic
* = s significant difference in respect to other
types as numbered immediately below

Instrument and Sacrifice Express self

nd Sacrifice now Express
2 Dimension for with
Reward later at Cost
Measured Approval Consideration
ACE and College Boards
Intelligence 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.6
Adorno
Authoritarianism 4 2 3 1
Rokeach
*2-3-4 *1-3-4 *2-3-4 *1-2-3
Dogmatism
4 3 2 1.5
Gough-Sanford
*2-3-4 *1-2-3
Rigidity 1.5 3
4 1.5
Edwards’ Preference
Deference 4 1.5 3 1.5
Autonomy 1 3.5 2 3.5
*3 *2
Affiliation 3 2
1 4
*4 *1
Change 3.5 1.5
1.4 3.5
Aggressiveness 2 4 2 2
Scott’s Values
*2-3-4 1.8
Self control 2.0 2.7
4 1
*2-3 *1-3
Honesty 3 2
4 1
Desire to be
1 4 3 2
different
*2 *2
Kindness 1 2
3.5 3.5
Loyalty 4 1 3 2
Independence 1.5 4 1.5 3
*2-3-4 *1-3
Religiousness 3 2
4 1
 Confusion and Contradiction 123

The Dogmatism - Rigidity Studies

Representative members of each sub-type were administered the

Gough-Sanford rigidity scale55 and the Rokeach dogmatism scale.56 On
both, my confusion was again exacerbated. The developing pattern I
have been describing was not confirmed. The plot thickened; the results
were:
1. ‘Sacrifice now to get later’ - most rigid, most dogmatic.
2. ‘Express self for what self desires without shame or guilt’ - third most
rigid, second most dogmatic.
3. ‘Sacrifice self now to get now’ second most rigid, third most
dogmatic.
4. ‘Express self but not at the expense of others’ - least rigid, least
dogmatic.
These results on dogmatism and rigidity were statistically significant.
Thus, these data produced a further conflict in the information. One
measure, rigidity, varied wave-like, but the other measure, dogmatism,
varied in a straight-line, quantitative fashion. This additional conflict
thus had to be rationalized through some conceptual framework.
Other results, which we shall now look at, simply complicated this
already confusing and contradictory picture of adult human behavior.

Other Psychological Test Results –

The Intelligence and Temperament Studies

Representative subjects of each sub-type were administered the old

ACE examination57 and, where possible, were studied in respect to their
College Board verbal and quantitative scales.58 They were instructed,
also, to score themselves on temperament in accordance with Sheldon’s
method of assessing temperament.59 The results were that no significant

55 Gough, H. G., & Sanford, R.N. (1952). "Rigidity as a Psychological Variable."

Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Institue of Personality Assessment
and Research, 1952.
56 Rokeach, Milton (1960). The Open and Closed Mind. In collaboration with Richard

Bovier et. al., New York: Basic Books.

57 American Council on Education (ACE), One Dupont Circle NW, Washington, DC

20036.
58 College Board verbal and quatitative scales, now known as the the SAT and

administered by The College Board, New York.

59 Sheldon, William and Stevens, S.S. (1942). The Varieties of Temperament. New York,

London: Harper & Brothers.

124 Confusion and Contradiction

differences were found between any of the sub-types studied so far as the
intelligence or the temperament of the subjects was concerned. So, by
now I had four, possibly five, behavior systems which varied in a cluster
of two from another cluster of two which varied from one another in a
system- specific fashion and which did not vary at all on some
dimensions. But this did not bring to a close the confusion in the basic
data, as the following information will show.

The Authoritarianism Study

Here the Adorno et al. F-scale60 was administered to representative

sub-type subjects. The results were that the pairing of categories was
again confirmed. The two sacrifice-self groups were more authoritarian
than the two expres self groups. But again the ‘sacrifice self to get later’
group was more authoritarian than the ‘sacrifice to get now’ group and the
‘express self but not at the expense of others’ was less authoritarian than the
‘express self for self’ group.

The Preference Studies

The Edwards Preference Inventory61 produced meaningful results

from five factors: deference, autonomy, affiliation, change and
aggressiveness, as seen in Table II. The results of measuring deference,
autonomy, affiliation, and change corroborated the clustering of
systems, but the measure of aggressiveness stirred up the pot of
confusion once again. Only the ‘express self for self with little shame or guilt’
type scored high - not only did it score high, but significantly high;
beyond this there was no difference on aggressiveness between the
other sub-type groups. Now, we have something in adult personality
which related to a pattern and not to other patterns. We seem to have
something system specific. Actually this result did not hold up with time
because later another type appeared which was even more aggressive.
This type later became positioned beneath the ‘sacrifice now to get later’
group in the hierarchy of types. When it appeared, this particular system
specificness disappeared, though system specificness was found in later

60 Adorno, T. W. , et al. (1950). The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper &
Brothers.
61 Edwards Preference Inventory (1967). Science Research Associates, Inc.
 Confusion and Contradiction 125

data. Nevertheless, at that time it brought forth a far more important

conceptual question.
If at this time I had thought that another type of expres self behavior
was present in man, if I had thought it was a lower cyclic partner to the
two other ‘expres self’ types, and if I followed the cyclic oscillating
trend, I would have said the ‘express self but not at the expense of others’
would be less aggressive than its predecessors but more aggressive than
the sacrificial types. But this would have been incorrect because the data
did not support it. Therefore, I had to ask: What does it mean,
conceptually, that aggressiveness seems to disappear with change in
conception of mature personality? As we shall see later, the explanation
for this psychometric variation is one of the most substantive aspects of
the emergent cyclical conception of man.

The Study of Values à la Scott

This study was done after the ones I have reported, after W. A.
Scott’s 1965 scale was published. It is entered now because, as Table II
shows, adult man’s psychology is a crazy, mixed up thing. We have seen,
by now, that my four sub-types seem to follow an ordered hierarchical
plan. But one certainly would not normally expect, as Table II shows,
that a higher order conception of mature personality would be less self
controlled, less honest, less kind, and less loyal than a lower order
conception which is both so and not so in the data. It is so in that the
‘sacrifice self to get later’ conception is more controlled, kind, honest, and
loyal than are any other types. But it is not so, at least not completely so,
because the ‘sacrifice now to get now’ is more honest than the ‘express-self’
types. Oh my! How confusion doth reign in the realm of adult behavior;
and the further we go, the more confusing it all becomes. But let us add
a little more confusion, another ingredient to the pot. Then, let us
summarize and see what all of this has said about conceptualizing adult
personality.

Added Conceptions of Maturity and Life

As I indicated previously, during nine years of basic data collection

two additional categories of mature personality appeared to further
confuse the picture. In both instances, the number of subjects
producing these categories was too small to allow for studies of the type
summarized above. Nevertheless, the appearance of these two categories
126 Confusion and Contradiction

again exacerbated the developing confusion in the data and intensified

the need to search for a conceptual system to explain it. Because of
them, one had to ask: What does it mean to the totality of the data that
now there are six categories instead of four? And what does it mean that
where five were always present from the beginning, though one was not
originally noticed, that a sixth should appear first out of the study of
change and secondly on its own, but late in the period of the
investigations?
I have already mentioned one of these later appearing categories
which first appeared when the ‘express self but not at the expense of others’
changed in a central fashion. It is the category which appeared as an
original conception five times in the years 1959 and 1960, the one titled,
‘sacrifice the idea that one will ever know what it is all about and adjust to this as the
existential reality of existence.’
The other category, ‘express self, to hell with others’ was present from
the beginning of the investigations. It was not sorted out as a category
per se until 1958 and after. It was only then that enough cases of its kind
accumulated for the judges’ attention to be drawn to it. It appeared six
times, but never more than twice a year. It was, beyond question,
according to the judges, an ‘expres self’ category. But there was,
according to the judges, a significant difference between it and the other
two. This conception had centered in it the element of shame, but not
of guilt. In essence, its theme was: “Thou shalt express self at all cost
rather than suffer the unbearable shame of loss of face. Thou shalt
express self at all cost in order to be praised as one who will live
unashamed forever in the mouths of men.”
When this expres self category appeared, it brought with it a
clarifying bit of information. Previously, there was much of human
behavior which could not be related to any of the conceptions of mature
behavior expressed by my subjects. None of the four conceptions they
originally developed fitted, in any aspect, the way people thought in the
ancient great civilizations of this world, nor the way people thought in
the less developed cultures of the world. But as I examined this rarely
appearing conception, the problem seemed to solve itself. I came to feel
that I was reading something like the epics of old, that I was reading the
state of mind expressed in the Mahabarata, Homer’s Odyssey, or the
Ramayana. Thus, the behavior of heroic man in the ‘glorious’ ages past
or in certain of today’s developing nations came to be represented as
one of the ways of thinking expressed in my subjects’ conceptions of
mature personality.
 Confusion and Contradiction 127

Later, from library anthropological research and study of the works

of others who have researched and thought along the lines of this book,
evidence was found to indicate that this ‘express self at all cost lest one be
shamed’ category belonged in psychological time before the ‘sacrifice now in
order to get later’ category. So it became the third system in the hierarchy
of adult ways of existence.
Then, the evidence from this continuing library research indicated
that still another sacrifice-self way of life, ‘sacrifice self to the traditions of
one’s elders, one’s ancestors,’ had to be represented in the hierarchy of
systems. This ‘sacrifice self to the traditions of one’s elders’ became the second
system in the hierarchy of systems.
But at this point there seemed to be a logical gap in my developing
hierarchy of systems. Logically, the first should be an ‘expres self to stay
alive as an organism and perpetuate the species’ system. Such should be the
beginning of the hierarchy of adult human psychological systems. This
logical gap created a very real problem for me in the early nineteen
sixties. Search as I could (and search I did), I turned up no
anthropological evidence that supported the existence of this system of
behavior which I deemed necessary to begin the hierarchy. So, in the
early sixties, I had to hypothesize that this first system in man’s
psychological development had existed in man’s past but that the
evidence for it was buried in those past ages. Fortunately for me, the
Tasaday of the island of Mindanao, in the Philippines archipelago, were
discovered in the mid-sixties.62 And this discovery gave credence to the
systemic hierarchy my research had suggested.
So, by 1970 the basic data from nine original years of study and
twelve years of supplemental study had produced some most
disheartening data so far as the avowed purpose of my investigation was
concerned. The investigation was undertaken to collect data which
might clarify the confusion and contradiction in adult human behavior
through a study of conceptualizations of psychological maturity. Now,
they had led not to enlightenment but to confused consternation. Now,
I had no evidence as to what really is mature personality and seemingly I
had, instead, a hierarchy of highly defensible conceptions of mature
personality which seemed to relate themselves to one another in most
peculiar ways, which seemed to suggest that my investigations had
aborted. But had I really failed? Had all this effort been to no avail? It
was possible that it had. But it was possible that hidden within these

63 See:Stone Age Men of the Philippines. National Geographic Magazine, August, 1972. See
also: John Nance (1975). The Gentle Tasaday: A Stone Age People in the Rain Forest.
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
128 Confusion and Contradiction

data were signals. Though the signals were obscure, the light that I was
seeking might emanate from them. So, I decided to summarize the basic
data to see what would arise.
The data seemed to suggest that eight central ways of being have emerged
from within the nature of man in his time on earth, and that eight basic
conceptions of mature personality are related thereto. If these are
numbered, and if the centrality of the way of existence is used to classify
them, then the order of their appearance in the hierarchy is:
1. Express self in order to stay alive as a human and so as to
perpetuate the species.
2. Sacrifice self to the established tribal ways of one’s elders.
3. Express self at all cost lest one feel ashamed for not living
forever in the mouths of humans.
4. Sacrifice now in order to get rewards later.
5. Express self for what self desires in a reasoned,
calculating, not overly risky manner.
6. Sacrifice self now to valued peers in order to get rewards
now.
7. Express self for what self desires but not at the expense
of others.
8. Sacrifice self to the natural existential realities of life by
adjusting to these realities.
But not all of the data fell into this hierarchy as it is ordered. If the
systems are numbered 1 through 8, the odd-numbered states - 1, 3, 5,
and 7 - are all express-self states. The even-numbered ones - 2, 4, 6, and 8
- are all sacrifice-self systems. The odd numbered states, though alike in
being express-self systems, are different from one another in terms of how
they believe expression should take place. The even-numbered states are
different from one another in terms of how sacrifice should be carried
out and what should be sacrificed.
These eight psychological systems differed from one another in still
other ways. When certain personality dimensions were studied - rigidity,
for example - there was a steady decrease from state to state. Yet
intelligence did not show hierarchical relationship after the first two
states.
The first six states had in common that they were driven by deficit
or deficiency motivation, whereas states 7 and 8 were, in a sense,
abundance motivated.
 Confusion and Contradiction 129

The early data prior to 1962 brought forth what seemed to be only
four states (states 4, 5, 6, and 7). Later data added three others at the
bottom and one at the top of the current hierarchy. Thus, if at first there
were four, then six, then seven, then eight, one must ask: Are there
potentially, in the human being, even more than these? Also one must
ask: If the first six share something in common - deficiency motivation -
which is not present in states 7 and 8, and if 7 and 8 share something -
abundance motivation - which is not present in the first six states, are
states 7 and 8 the beginning of a second swing around a spiral staircase
of life? And if there is a second swing around the spiral staircase, is
there, off in man’s future, assuming he continues to exist, a third, a
fourth, an infinite number of swings?
This limited summation of the results of my studies seems to say
that an appropriately inclusive conception of adult psychological
development will include, at least, the 15 points listed below. It would:
1. See adult psychology as an infinitely emerging series of
hierarchically ordered psychosocial systems.
2. Show the systems to alternate their focus in a cyclic,
oscillating dominant, subordinate fashion.
3. Show the systems to focus first upon expression of attempts
to control the external world and expand power over it, then
upon the inner world and attempts to know and come to
peace with it.
4. Show little variation over most systems for personality
dimensions such as intelligence and temperament.
5. Show some personality dimensions to emerge at a particular
position in the hierarchy with a decreasing or increasing
quantitative dimension in subsequent systems. For example,
ideological dogmatism enters first in the ‘sacrifice now to get
later’ system and decreases there after. On the other hand,
cognitive complexity increases from the very beginning.
6. Show a particular dimension to emerge at a particular
position in the hierarchy. Then show the dimension to vary
quantitatively, by increase or decrease, in a cyclic, wave-like,
in-and-out fashion. For example, guilt as a felt emotion
seems to appear first in the ‘sacrifice now to get later’ system,
almost disappears in the next, the ‘express self calculatedly’
system, reappears to a lesser degree in the ‘sacrifice now to
valued peer to get now’ system. Honesty, authoritarianism and
130 Confusion and Contradiction

need for independence are other dimensions which show

this cyclic, wave-like character.
7. Show every other system as like but, at the same time, not
like its alternating partner. For example, all ‘sacrificial’
systems show a tone of obeisance to authority, but in the
second system it is obeisance to the authority of one’s tribal
elders; in the fourth it is obeisance to a power higher than
man; in the sixth it is obeisance to the opinion of the valued
peer; and in the eighth it is obeisance to the existential
dichotomies of life.
8. Show each system to have uniqueness, its system
specificness. Examples of this are absolute belief in
objectivity in the ‘expres self calculatedly’ fifth system and
fear of shame as the centralizing force in the ‘expres self to
hell with others’ third system.
9. Show there is a general, central theme for life characteristic
of each system.
10. Show variations on the general theme particularized into an
infinite number of peripheral ways of living. The ‘sacrifice now
to get later’ theme has been particularized into many different
absolutistic monotheistic religious and absolutistic ideologies
for living.
11. Show increasing degrees of behavioral freedom, that is,
choices for behaving at each successive level in the hierarchy
of living.
12. Show human psychology to be a symphony built on six basic
themes which repeat themselves in higher order form as
each new movement in the symphony of life comes to be
with every seventh system. An example of this is that the
first system for human being focuses on the establishment
of viable existence in the natural conditions of human
existence. The seventh, the first system in the second
movement of the symphony of life, focuses on
re-establishing viable existence in an earth system threatened
by what has occurred during humankind’s first six forms of
existence. That is, show adult development is helical in
character.
13. Show each system to develop from a specific set of
existential problems to be solved and a specific set of
neurological means capable of coping with the systems’
 Confusion and Contradiction 131

companion existential problems. That is, show that adult

psychological development is a double helix.
14. Show that life is a process in which the human, as s/he
solves each set of existential problems of a position in the
hierarchy creates, by this solution, the next set of existential
problems the person must face in his or her development.
15. Show that the movement from one system to another up the
hierarchy takes place by slow accretion to a point of critical
mass, then a jump in all things psychological: belief systems,
perceptual systems, cultural systems, psychochemical brain
properties, and activated neurological structures.
With this summation of the fruits of my efforts to date, one thing
was now apparent. The efforts had not accomplished their original aim,
but they had not aborted. They had produced, instead, a new problem to
consider, a new opportunity for contemplation, and a new conceptual
task. It is to this new problem, the opportunity it created, and the task
which it defined that I turn to in the next chapter of this book.
132 New Problem, Opportunity, Task
 New Problem, Opportunity, Task 133

CHAPTER 5

New Problem, New Opportunity, New Task

By now I had traveled the road to conflict and controversy into the
by-road of consternation leading to despair. It seemed that my every
effort to clarify mature human behavior had completely missed its goal.
There seemed no clarification of these contradictory conceptions in the
data. There was only exacerbation of it, a fact which became ever more
apparent as new data came in and as it was collated and analyzed. Each
new set of data, each succeeding analysis of it, made it more than
obvious that this long-standing problem of psychology, in particular,
and behavioral science in general, was being amplified by my every
effort. Each new set of data, plus the old, made me painfully aware that
the total data simply could not be rationalized within any existing
conceptual system for explaining the many faceted aspects of mature
man’s behavior. Consequently, I was in a quandary. What now was I to
do? Should I accept that the project had aborted and stop the effort, or
should I go on? Were I to go on, how should I proceed? This was the
problem I found in the waning months of 1960.
As the situation developed, four choices seemed ahead. One was to
revise the whole attack, design anew, collect anew, and analyze new data.
But I could not bring myself to do this. The situation was too intriguing,
the predicament too tantalizing to let go. The truth of the matter was I
134 New Problem, Opportunity, Task

was enjoying the mess I was in. It had all the enticement of Makaha63 to
suffer - all the lure of the hunt when the prey has just deviously slipped
from view. So this choice was dismissed and the second was examined.
This choice was to report the unrationalized results so that others might
have their try at them - an action which, for me, would have taken all
the fun from the game. Therefore, this choice became as none and
therewith was dismissed.
The third choice seemed, on the surface, the most obvious of all. It
was to let the data do the talking - let them dictate the conceptualization
that should rationalize them. But this was easier said than done. For
talking to occur, one must have a basic language within which the
communication can take place, and this I had not found. I had not been
able to find it in the language of any other theorist. As a result from this
third alternative, and its problem offspring, an incestuous mating took
place which produced the fourth of my choices. This choice was to
search the more speculative, intuitionistic byways for the key to my
Rosetta stone. So I turned to the literature, the speculative psychologist
and the theoretical adventurer and there, in time, I came upon a basic
language for a conceptual explanation of the data.64

The Problem Created by the Data

Four things stood out in the analysis of the basic data, my subjects’
conceptions of mature human behavior. First, it was relatively easy to
classify sixty percent of the conceptions the subjects submitted. They
fell readily into distinguishable categories. Examination of the data by
judges other than the investigator resulted in at first five, then six, and
later eight kinds of logically well developed positions, only five of which

63 Makaha: Hawaiian word meaning "in or through the breath of life;" a popular tourist
destination with a prime surfing beach at the foot of a lush valley on the island of
Oahu.
64 CWG: As regularly happens in science, I was to learn later that others had come, in

many respects, to a similar conceptual viewpoint at about the same time.

Particularly this was true of some cognitive personality theorists such as Harvey,
Hunt and Schroder (1961), or the historically minded Gerald Heard (1963) and the
socially minded Louis Mumford (1957), and others. It was also apparent that in
many respects the psychoanalytic ego psychologists were thinking along the line of
my developing conception. This discovery created a language and organizational
problem. Should these results and the derived theory be reported in one of the
already existing languages or should the developing and existing language be
transposed into that which I had spawned before the discovery was made?
Ultimately the decision was made to incorporate the language of others into the
language of this book. This was not done capriciously nor egocentrically.
 New Problem, Opportunity, Task 135

will be utilized in the beginning of this discussion.65 These positions

were not determined by what the person thought as much as they were
determined by how the person thought. It was not whether the person
believed the mature human being should express his self that stood out;
it was how the self should be expressed that differentiated certain
conceptions from other conceptions. It was not whether the conceived
form of mature personality believed in God or whether the mature
personality did not believe in God that stood out; it was how the mature
person related himself to the universe and to the idea of God that
typified the conception. In other words, the conceptions of mature
human behavior had to be seen in the light of Rokeach’s statement that,
“It is not so much what you believe that counts, but how you believe”66
or the data had to be viewed in the light of Ionesco’s words: “It isn’t
what people think that’s important, but the reason that they think what
they think.”67
My data did not say categorically this is what life is all about or what
it is meant to be. They seemed to say instead: “what life is seen to be
depends.” It depends upon the way one looks at things. What life is,
what it is all about, and what it is meant to be, depends. I say this
because, when I took a certain restricted point of view toward what life
is about and what is the nature of the human, I could readily empathize
with how the contributor viewed mature human behavior and the
reasons why s/he thought the way s/he did. If I adopted another mental
set as to what life is about and what human nature is like, then this

65 CWG: It was done for a very substantive reason that is referred to in part in the
1961 book of Harvey, Hunt and Schroder. On page 89, there is a footnote referring
to a state of development below the four cognitive stages theorized to exist in their
book. My work, over and beyond the studies reported herein, suggested three nodal
stages existing prior to the stages I - II - III and IV of Harvey, Hunt and Schroder
and suggested another than just those of Mumford and Heard. My data required
also that I hypothesize stages beyond those of any of these people or of others who
were beginning to think this way. Since the first stage of adult human behavior, as
per the data of my studies, can hardly be called a “cognitive” or “conceptual” stage,
the decision was made to use a more comprehensive term - level of existence.
A similar reason led to the rejection of the psychoanalytic terminology of “ego
defective” and “ego integrative” states. In one sense, the data of these
investigations found “ego defective” and “ego integrative” states present in each
conception of mature behavior. It should be noted, however, that earlier appearing
conceptions are, in the sense of ability to deal with a complex world, “ego
defective.” But regardless of this, I stuck to my decision that the level of existence
language was the more inclusive terminology.
66 Rokeach, M. (1960). The Open and Closed Mind. In collaboration with Richard Bovier et.

al., New York: Basic Books, p. 6.

67 Ionesco, Eugene (1960). The New Yorker, p. 47.
136 New Problem, Opportunity, Task

different mental set applied well to some other category, but not to the
remaining major classifications except that, in the sense of conformity or
non-conformity, the conceptions fell into similar and dissimilar
conceptions at one and the same time.
The second message in the data was as tantalizing as a love just
touched, but still unknown. It said the surface aspects here are quite easy
to perceive because the conceptions fall into an ordered hierarchy with
“a” proceeding “b” and “b” preceding “c,” etc. But, it also said there
may be more here than surface aspects show because after “c” there is
“d” and “e” and “f” and “g” and possibly others ad infinitum. In other
words, the known serves only to point out that which is unknown, and
psychological maturity is of this order. ‘There is no such thing as
psychological maturity’ was this message in these data. There are only
those forms of mature human behavior that have been conceived by
humans to date, plus the newest one that is now coming to be. New
forms of psychologically mature behavior are there just over man’s
horizon, there to come to be when their day and their hour arrives.
This message dictated, at least to me, that a conceptualization which
would rationalize my data must start with a revised conception of
human nature.
The third message in the data was a most salient one. It derived
from the evidence that in each type of conception two basic forms
appeared. One was a positivistic, almost vehement presentation of the
conception of mature behavior which was followed by an
uncompromising defense of it when the subjects were required to
compare their conception to that of their peers or when they were
defending their conception in comparison to authority. The other
conceptual form, within a category, was a relaxed straightforward
presentation which usually was peripherally modified after comparison
to either peers or authority. These two intra-category forms differed
markedly under critical evaluation. Those who produced rigid
conceptions were most defensive when criticized; this tendency was not
displayed in those who took a more relaxed attitude toward their
creation. Thus, the message to date said: ‘Seek a basic language that
allows the meaning of life to change with time, a language that allows
the meaning of life to change in an ordered hierarchical way, and which
leaves the hierarchy open-ended. Then seek a language which allows for
this normal open movement to become arrested and closed.’
From the third type of data another message emerged. Not all
categories were as related above. One group, the fourth group in the
hierarchy as it was seen at that time, which ultimately came to be the
 New Problem, Opportunity, Task 137

seventh, the “expres self-but-not-at-the-expense-of-others” category, behaved in

ways quite different from the ways of any other group. Basically, they
held to their positions after comparing their conception to that of their
peers or those of authority except in two respects. First, as they
compared their position to others’, they changed not from peer or
authority pressure or the like, but only when their factual information
was increased. And secondly, they demonstrated a great deal of sound
intellectual doubt as to the validity of their position, argued their points
fretfully, in many ways changing only when substantive new information
came to them. Yet, in the long run, most of them retained a conception
essentially close to the conception they had in the beginning. The few
changed to a still broader conception.
Another set of data, how the groups organized for work, also
showed a marked difference between this group and the three other
groups. In the other three groups, organization finally took place around
some individual. This never happened in the fourth group where
organization took place around an idea and where leadership regularly
revolved. How this group thought and behaved was radically different
from any other group. So the part of the message was: ‘Seek a language
that allows for the most marked of changes to appear now and then.’
The fourth message in the data arose from a tangential observation.
It soon became evident as I observed the subjects both in class and
outside of class that if frank symptoms, undue anxieties, and seemingly
unwarranted hostilities were shown in any of the subjects’ behavior, that
it was those whose presentations were more positivistic who tended
more often to show the frank hostilities, anxieties, and symptoms. This
observation required me to draw the conclusion that a peculiar
relationship existed between the type of conception of mature human
behavior and the presence or absence of pathological behavior in the
person who produced the conception. Two people could conceive of
mature human behavior in basically the same way, a way quite different
from the way others conceived of mature human behavior. Yet, one of
these persons would be obviously and overtly disturbed under stress and
unable to function adequately, while the other would be a relaxed,
relatively symptom-free, well-functioning person. Thus the message here
was that I should seek a language which allows conceptions of maturity
to be systemically organized and oriented. From these five results:
1. a logically sound position, provided one accepted certain
premises of the conceptual constructor but radically different
conceptions of mature behavior;
138 New Problem, Opportunity, Task

2. conceptions of psychologically mature behavior seemingly

ordered into an open-ended hierarchy;
3. conceptions vehemently and defensively presented versus
similar conceptions presented in an easy-going, relaxed, take-it-
or-leave-it manner;
4. sudden very marked changes in conception and behavior; and
5. similar conceptions in those overtly disordered and overtly
ordered;
and other accumulating evidence, my data had mired psychology and
behavioral science further into their age-old morass - confusion and
contradiction in experimental results. Resultantly, it was concluded that
these basic data could not be rationalized within any existing
psychological and/or behavioral science theoretical framework. So, I
decided it was necessary to enter the more speculative world in order to
seek some different language for a conceptualization of adult human
behavior which would rationalize my accumulated data.

The Beginning of the Search for a

More Inclusive Conception

Having deep respect for the perspicacity of the artist when it comes
to divining the character of man’s nature, I began a search through my
mind’s remembrances for what writers had said about the nature of man
and the meaning of his life. Three particularly come to mind. They were
Shakespeare, Keats, and Thoreau. Why these three were dredged out of
the depths of my memories I do not know. But it was their words
particularly which cast the first sliver of light upon my data.
The aid of Shakespeare’s words is obvious if we see them in a
slightly different way than he intended. “All the world’s a stage - and
each man in his time plays many parts,”68 gave me aid. I saw this as
suggesting that each of my subjects was conceptualizing an honest view.
A view of how s/he thought one could best play the part of being a
mature human and that I had to explain how these many honest views
came to be. But the words of Keats and Thoreau were more to the point
of my need than were the words of Shakespeare. In a letter penned to
John Hamilton Reynolds in 1818, Keats said:
“I will put down a simile of human life as far as I now
perceive it; that is, to the point to which I say we both have

68 Shakespeare, William. As You Like It, Act II, Scene 7.

 New Problem, Opportunity, Task 139

arrived at - ‘Well - I compare human life to a large Mansion of

many Apartments, two of which I can only describe, the
doors of the rest being as yet shut upon me - The first step
into what we call the infant or thoughtless Chamber, in which
we remain as long as we do not think - We remain there a
long while, and notwithstanding the doors of the second
Chamber remain wide open, showing a bright appearance, we
care not to hasten to it; but are at length imperceptibly
impelled by the awakening of the thinking principle - within
us - we no sooner get into the second Chamber, which I shall
call the Chamber of Maiden-Thought, than we become
intoxicated with the light and the atmosphere, we see nothing
but pleasant wonders, and think of delaying there for ever in
delight: However, among the effects this breathing is father of
is that tremendous one of sharpening one’s vision into the
heart and nature of Man - of convincing one’s nerves that the
World is full of Misery and Heartbreak, Pain, Sickness and
oppression - whereby This Chamber of Maiden - Thought
becomes gradually darken’d and at the same time on all sides
of it many doors are set open - but all dark - all leading to
dark passages -- We see not the balance of good and evil. We
are now in that state...”69
These words of Keats comparing “life to a large Mansion of Many
Apartments, two of which I can only describe, the doors of the rest
being as yet shut upon me” were the keystone I was seeking. And the
words of Thoreau, written in 1854, added fervor to my feeling for he
said:
“The necessaries of life for man in this climate may be
distributed under the several heads of food, clothing, shelter,
and fuel; for not till we have secured these, are we prepared to
entertain the true problems of life with freedom and a
prospect of success. [After man has obtained these necessaries
of life], what does he want next? Surely, not more warmth of
the same kind, as more and richer food, larger and more
splendid houses, finer and more abundant clothing, more
numerous incessant and hotter fires, and the like. When he
has obtained those things which are necessary to life, there is

69 Keats, J. (1933). Autobiography (1818 letters). Compiled from his letters and essays by
Carl Vonnard Weller; illustrated by Wm. Wilke. London: Stanford University Press,
H. Milford, Oxford Univ. Press.
140 New Problem, Opportunity, Task

another alternative than to obtain the superfluities; and that is

to adventure on life now, this vacation from humbler toils
having commenced.”70
These three writers, particularly Keats and Thoreau, gave support to
my intuition that substance and not error lay in my data. And their
words, when I recalled them, directed me to search beyond the artistic
realm and into the speculative psychological realm for further help and
aid. There the thoughts of two men, Abraham Maslow and Gardner
Murphy were particularly helpful to me.

The Search in Psychological Speculation

Many investigators of human behavior were aware in the 1950’s that

the contradiction in psychological results and the confusion in
psychological theory was increasing throughout the psychological world.
They were aware that conceptually we needed to rethink theory in order
to account for some new kinds of human behavior which were
appearing. As Murphy said, “Human behavior is changing at an extra-
ordinary pace - new kinds of humanity are coming into existence.”71
One new kind of humanity, in the language of Murphy, which has
become much more prevalent since Nietzsche’s time was regularly
represented in the conceptions of mature human behavior developed by
my subjects, the adjust-to-the-existential realities kind. It is the kind of
humanity sometimes written about by Tillich, Camus, the existentialists.
How this kind of humanity thinks in general, or how it thinks in
particular in my studies, as to the nature of mature human behavior
seemed not explainable in the concepts of existing theological or
scientific explanatory systems. From the data of these investigations, and
from the data and explanations of others, it is a form of human behavior
distinguishably different from the forms of human behavior which
existed in the past. It seems to operate by psychological principles that
are different from those by which other forms of human behavior that
have existed or are appearing operate - the kinds that find or have found
their reason for existence to be in their tribal beliefs or to be in the
beliefs of their clan, to be in their gods or in their God, to be in their
ideological systems, to be in their economic system, or to be in their

70 Thoreau, H. D. (1854 letters). Correspondence. Walter Harding & Carl Bode, (Eds.).
(1958). New York: University Press.
71 Murphy, Gardener (1958). Human Potentialities. New York: Basic Books, Inc., p. 6.
 New Problem, Opportunity, Task 141

social system - those that have found their reason for existence
somewhere other than in the self.
The behavior of man in this existentially described emergent state is
so foreign to the explanatory principles of existing behavioral theories
that psychologists and other behavioral scientists have found it difficult
to provide a satisfactory explanation of it. The older explanatory
systems, the associative learning psychologists, the psychoanalytic
psychologies, and the interpersonal psychologies either ignore it or
explain it as an aberration. They either try to force it into existing
conceptualizations, or to refurbish their old concepts in order to fit this
new behavior into the existing scheme. But this has not been done by all
psychologies. The phenomenologists, the existentialists, and some
humanists have attempted to develop new conceptualizations to account
for this emergent form of behavior; but as I see their efforts, there is a
minor error in the effort they are putting forth. An error which is
illustrated when May says:
“I, for one, believe we vastly overemphasize the human
being’s concern with security and survival satisfactions … In
my own work in psychotherapy there appears more and more
evidence that anxiety in our day arises not so much out of fear
of libidinal satisfactions (something he would not say from
the data of my studies) or security, but rather out of the
patient’s fear of his own powers and conflicts that arise from
that fear.”72
May’s criticism may hold increasingly for modern twentieth century
man, as compared to nineteenth century man. But the
phenomenological, existential, humanistic conceptualizers may tend to
slight the fact that even now, insofar as the data of my studies
demonstrates, there are more people who base their behavior and their
conception of mature personality in the belief that God exists or in
some other concept for living not based on the power of self than there
are people who base their behavior and their concept of maturity in the
belief that God is dead; that there are more people, now, even in our
most advanced regions, whose chief concern is with security and
survival satisfactions than there are people whose chief concern is with
the search for self; that even now there are more people whose anxieties
arise out of the fear of libidinal satisfactions than there are people whose
anxieties arise from a fear of their own powers.

72 May, Rollo (1961). Existential Psychology. New York: Random House, p. 18-19.
142 New Problem, Opportunity, Task

The data of my studies when first analyzed suggested that this is an

error which must be avoided if one is to conceptualize mature human
behavior so as to include all that my series of studies brought forth. It is
an error which must be avoided if we are to conceptualize so that we
explain not only all behavior that is emerging, but also all behavior that
has existed before. If we are to conceptualize adequately, we must try to
explain in one overall system not only the old systems of behavior, but
also the systems of behavior that are new. And beyond this, it appears
that psychological theorists must include within their conceptualizing
matrix that there will be other, even newer, forms of humanity which
will appear in the future.
The need to explain the new, and in so doing to avoid the errors of
the past, suggested further the need for a new psychological frame of
reference. But this was not the only problem that demonstrated a need
to seek a new way of psychological thinking. The need to coalesce the
conflict and contradiction between the results of studies, and the need
to remove the conflict between theories, and the need to remove the
confusion as to how to apply behavioral science knowledge were also
present. Subsequently, it seemed that we might meet these needs if one
took, as Gardner Murphy says, “...a closer look at human nature, its
ways of development, its forms of control, and the direction it is
moving.”73 It seemed that this closer look at human behavior - in this
instance, the data of these studies - might provide a new model of adult
human behavior that is more encompassing of the forms of humanity
that have been; that is more cognizant of newly emergent behavior; and
that is more anticipatory of the forms of adult-behavior which may
come to be in the future.
Another factor which contributed to the thought that the data and
the problem of psychology provided an opportunity to reconceptualize
human behavior was another statement of Murphy which said that we
need a…
“...conception of science which represents man as genuinely
capable of grasping certain aspects of reality and moving slowly
toward grasping ever more because it would allow for a sort of
deep staining of the mind of the observer, selectively bringing
out that which was hidden before the stain was used. Man’s
interaction with the things of the world through the methods of
the arts and through the methods of the sciences will produce
more and more that is new in man as the centuries pass. The

73 Murphy, Gardner (1958). Human Potentialities. New York: Basic Books Inc., p. 7.
 New Problem, Opportunity, Task 143

very process of interaction with that which was previously

unknown produced new content, new stuff, new realities, new
things to understand and to love, as well as new instruments of
observation, new ways of knowing, new modes of esthetic
apprehensions. These will elicit changes in the nature of man
not simply uncovering more that lies under the threshold of his
immediate nature but by broadening the doorway through
which he passes so that he may see more of the vista he
approaches and may as he does so become a larger man. It is
because of man’s capacity for intimate union with the stuff of
this world through the methods of the arts and through the
methods of the sciences that he may hope to do more than
transcend his existent being, may hope to become in each new
emergent phase of his life a new kind of man.”74
The idea that man was genuinely capable of “grasping certain
aspects of reality and moving slowly toward ever more and more”
seemed to be in the data gathered in these studies, and from there
another part of an idea for removing the contradiction and confusion in
psychological information gradually came to be.
It seemed that these words of Murphy’s said my studies provided a
chance to conceptualize adult behavior if one beginning assumption was
made. It was an assumption which involved the conceptualizations
produced in these studies, the existing systematic conceptualizations of
human nature, and the existing theoretical explanations of man’s
behavior - conceptualizations with which and about which a theorist
could contemplate the meaning of these activities of humans. It was an
assumption which began to tie my data, and the data and
conceptualizations of others, together. The assumption made should be
acceptable to most authorities who study human behavior. It should be
acceptable to authorities no matter what their discipline and no matter
what the theoretical orientation to which they subscribe. The
assumption was that, by and large, integrity exists in those people who
have studied human behavior and conceptualized in respect thereto -
both those whose efforts contributed to the studies reported herein and
those whose approach is more sophisticated, more professional. More
specifically, it was: Let us assume that basically they have observed well, strived to
report accurately, and tried to conceptualize adequately within the data available to

74 Murphy, Gardner (1958). Human Potentialities. New York: Basic Books Inc.,
p. 324-325.
144 New Problem, Opportunity, Task

them. That assumption enabled me to say one thing and to ask two
crucial questions.
Within the assumption, I was able to say that most conceptualizers,
my subjects, and professional theorizers have an explanatory system
representing the human as he can and does sometimes believe and
behave. I was able to say most conceptualizers are explaining a particular
form of human behavior. This I could say because there is ample
evidence that the major theorists have limited the source of their data
just as, it seemed to me, had my subjects.75 But it was not necessary to
say that the conceptualizers are explaining all the forms of human
behavior. What could be said was that within the limitations of that
which the conceptualizer observed, that he observed well; that within
the data open to him, his conceptualizations were warranted. What did
not have to be said was that each observer saw representative samples of
all possible forms of human behavior; nor was it necessary to say that
the conceptualizations deduced were the only conceptualizations
deducible from each person’s data, at least when one person’s data is
viewed in conjunction with another person’s data. And it was not
necessary to say that each conceptualization allowed for all the forms of
human behavior not observed. Thus, it was suggested to me that there
was room for some one or some ones to conceive of human behavior in
ways that allow for all the forms of human behavior that have existed,
for all the forms of human behavior that do exist, and for all the forms
of human behavior which may appear in the future. With such in mind,
I went on to examine the two crucial questions which arose from the
assumption.
The first crucial question was: Why, if we assume most
conceptualizations are correct, is there so much argument as to whose
conception is correct? Why has Eysenck76 so offhandedly dismissed the
psychoanalytic point of view? Why did Horney77 so attack the biological
underpinning of Freud? Why did Freud78 become so antagonistic in
respect to Adler’s79 assertions about human behavior? Why did

75 Maskin, Myer (1960). Adaptation of Psychoanalytic Techniques to Specific Disorders.

In Jules Massermar (Ed.), Science and Psychoanalysis, Vol, III. Psychoanalysis and Human
Values (p. 321-352). New York: Grune & Stratton.
76 Eysenck, Hans J. (1959). Learning Theory and Behavior Therapy. Journal of Mental

Science. 105:61-75.
77 Horney, Karen (1939). New Ways in Psychoanalysis. New York: W. Norton and Co., Inc..
78 Freud, Sigmund (1933). New Introductory Lectures on Psychonalysis. (1912)
79 Adler, A. (1927)
 New Problem, Opportunity, Task 145

Tolman80 so disagree with Spence81 as to the task of psychology? Why

are Skinner and Rogers 82 both admirable and meticulous investigators,
both stimulating and creative conceptualizers, so at odds with one
another’s point of view? Why did Maslow83 and Goldstein and Koch84
take their predecessors and their colleagues so to task? Why did some
subjects in my studies argue in utter disbelief when other contributors
presented a conception of mature human behavior which the former
thought was an impossible form of conception? One could go on and
on listing such conceptual disputes in psychology, and one could even
list the same in other fields; for example, anthropology.85 But such
would be of little avail. However, it would be of avail if one could have
an answer which respects the integrity of each of the disputants - an
answer which might lead the way to an explanatory behavioral
framework which maintains the essential dignity of each existing
conceptual system. The answer to which I came was that perhaps they
were all roughly correct - an answer which obviously raised the second
question. How could all of them possibly be correct? By what stretch of
imagination could one fit all of them into the same conceptual
framework - all of the conceptualizers who contributed to these studies
and all of those professionals who have conceptualized as to the nature
of adult personality?
The answer requires some explanation. The explanation suggested is
that most conceptualizers have conceptualized more or less about and
within or across particular systems of behavior; that most have correctly
represented human behavior to the extent that their data and their
phenomenology have permitted them to represent it. This explanation
says that the data of each systematist does not represent an inclusive
sample of human behavior. The answer asserts that the conceptualizer’s
phenomenology has permitted him to systematize only with respect to a
certain system or systems of human behavior, but not in respect to all

80 Tolman, E. C. (1951). Operational behaviorism and current trends in psychology. In

E.C. Tolman. Collected Papers in Psychology. Berkeley: University of California Press, p.
89-103. (1938 in Graves MS)
81 Spence, Kenneth (1944). The Nature of Theory Construction in Contemporary

Psychology. Psychology Review. 51, p. 47-68.

82 Skinner, B. F. and Rogers, C. (1956). Some issues concerning the control of human

behavior. A Symposium. Science. Nov. 30, Vol. 124, p. 1057-1066.

83 Maslow, A. H. (1962) Some basic propositions of growth and self actualization

psychology. Perceiving, Behaving and Becoming. A New Form for Education. Washington,
D.C.: Yearbook of Association for Supervision and Curriculum, Development.
84 Koch, Sigmund (1951, 1956).
85 Kroeber, Alfred L. (1953). Anthropology Today: An Encyclopedic Inventory. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

146 New Problem, Opportunity, Task

systems of human behavior. It says that each conceptualizer is writing

about different levels of human existence, or a different system of
human behavior. It says Pavlov and Eysenck, the more classical
conditioning theorists, have been studying more and describing more
the operation of one behavioral system, one level of human existence. It
says that Spence and Skinner have been describing another behavioral
system, the instrumental or operant system. It says that Mowrer (1947)
in his two-factor learning theory, and the orthodox psychoanalysts are
describing the same system regardless of Mowrer’s long-standing feud
with the orthodox analytical people.86 The answer says that Mowrer and
the orthodox psychoanalysts have been describing still a third level of
human existence. This explanation says the Freudian-Mowrer human
being can be a very different human being than the predominantly
instrumentally conditioned human being who, in turn, is a quite
different human being from the predominantly classically conditioned
human being. And this explanation will say later that most human
beings are combinations of these systems. According to the answer,
Adler, because of his phenomenology, may have come upon yet another
system of human behavior, the interpersonal theorists another, and
Rogers and the self theorists still another system, another level of human
existence. Thus, I thought that it was not at all fanciful to make the
assumption that, by and large, all conceptualizers were correct, but
systemically bound. And I thought, once this assumption was made, that
my task as a model builder was laid out before me.87

The Task

Now my task was to develop, within the ways of scientific thinking

extant, if possible, an overall model which would order the systemically
86 CWG: In fact, Rokeach in his Open and Closed Mind brings forth the evidence that the
closer the systematic form be belief the more vehement the conflict between those
possessing such beliefs.
87 CWG: Again, I should point out that the thinking of many was converging in this

direction to the late fifties and early sixties. Myer Maskin (1960) writing on
Adaptions of Psychoanalytic Technique in Specific Disorders, in Jules H. Masserman, (Ed.).
Science and Psychoanalysis, Vol III “Psychoanalysis and Human Values.” New York:
Grune and Stratton, p. 321-352, point out that Jung, Rank, Freud, Sullivan et al.
based their theoretical-models on certain types of behavior. And Morris I. Stein
(1963), writing on “Explorations in Typology” in R.W. White (Ed.) The Study of
Lives. New York: Atherton, p. 280-303, called attention to the problem solving
behavior of some subjects he had studied. He said, in essence, one subject seemed
to follow the principles of reinforcement, while another seemed to follow the
principles of Gestalt psychology.
 New Problem, Opportunity, Task 147

centralized behavior which I had observed. I had to develop a model

which would enable one to see the totality of human behavioral systems
in their proper relation to one another.
One observation is pertinent to this task. The data seemed to lend
itself to hierarchical form. It seemed that the systems for
conceptualizing mature human behavior were ordered on a scale
running from considerable rigidity and dogmatism to less rigidity and
dogmatism, on a scale from autistic thinking through absolutistic
thinking to a type of relativistic thinking. Therefore, Maslow’s88 thinking
on need hierarchies and Goldstein’s89 on behavioral hierarchies was
recalled. I tried to order my data within Goldstein’s thinking and the
Maslowian “hierarchy of need.” In fact, my first two published papers in
1962 and 196490 were cast in Maslowian terminology. But when these
papers were read at conventions, questions from the floor caused me to
doubt that Maslow’s hierarchy as stated by him, or as revised by Ann
Roe,91 really handled some of the data I had collected. Therefore, it was
necessary to research my data further so as to clarify what was the
problem. It soon became apparent that the problem lay in the breadth
of the Maslowian hierarchy, in his belonging and self-esteem need
systems, in the lack of a cyclic factor in his hierarchy, and in the need for
systems beyond self-actualization. I had by now eight levels; Maslow had
five: the physiological, safety, belonging, self-esteem and
self-actualization.
My data had, by this time, four systems in which belonging was
salient. It had three systems in which self-esteem was a central factor. The
central factor of valuing others, though in a different way, in each of my
four belonging systems, and the valuing of self in the other systems,
though again different in each of the three, alternated with one another.
This problem could not easily be resolved through the Maslowian
hierarchy. For example, my research indicated three quite different
self-respect systems: the self to hell with others, the self but be rational about it
but don’t feel guilty about or ashamed of experiencing it, and the self so long as
others are also taken care of. My valuing others systems were valuing one’s

88 Maslow, Abraham. A. (1943). Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review. 50, p.

370-396.
89 Goldstein, Kurt (1940). Human Nature in the Light of Psychopathology. Cambridge, Mass.:

Harvard University Press.

90 Graves, Clare W. (1962). Proceedings of the Third Annual Value Analysis Conference,

Schenectady, N.Y.: Value Analysis Inc., & Graves, Clare W. (1964). Proceedings of the
Fifth Annual Value Analysis Conference, Schenectady, N.Y.: Value Analysis, Inc..
91 Roe, Anne (1956). The Psychology of Occupations. New York: Wiley.
148 New Problem, Opportunity, Task

elders, valuing one’s higher authority, valuing one’s peers and valuing
one’s existential world.
Also, I had trouble with the meaning of Maslow’s physiological or
survival needs and the safety needs. The psychological need to survive,
according to my data, became central only after cognitive awareness of
the self came to be. It was, therefore, not the lowest-level need system.
And safety was a marked element in the first three belonging systems,
not just the second and not to the adjust-to-existential-realities subjects.
According to my data, the express self but not at the expense of others
behaved in many respects like Maslow’s description of the
self-actualizing person. But, some of my so-called “self-actualizing”
people changed in the course of my investigation to a new conception
of maturity. And late in my basic studies, this same conception of
mature behavior started to appear as the original concept of some
subjects. When this previously not seen and unforeseen form of
behavior appeared, obviously it was necessary to question what I then
thought Maslow meant by the self-actualizing person. And it became
necessary to accept the possibility that the human is an open system
from whom higher and higher levels of behavior will forever emerge.
Therefore, it was necessary to look beyond Maslow for a system for
rationalizing my data. As a result of this failure, and what I have related
about my data, I made another series of assumptions and added to them
the twist of open-endedness.
I assumed that conceptions of mature human behavior, like any
other behavior, grow and change with time. Like many other
phenomena, such concepts may progress, fixate, or regress. It was
assumed that there is something inherent in man which is triggered into
operation as one or another behavioral system, in one or another form,
under certain life circumstances. It was assumed that mature behavioral
systems are growth phenomena which tend to develop through a series
of definable but inclusive stages by an orderly progression from less
complex to more and more complex stages. And, like any other growth
phenomenon, it was assumed that once growth starts, there is no
assurance that subsequent stages will emerge. Growth, such as studied in
these investigations could, like a seed, progress on and on through its
preprogrammed stages; or like the seed, it could become stunted, or
even reorganize and take on a form not usually of its nature. And,
finally, it was assumed that just as the seed will not grow to its higher
form in adverse circumstances, so too, is man’s adult behavioral form
limited by the life circumstances in which the human lives. These
assumptions put before me the broader aspects of my task; but it was
 New Problem, Opportunity, Task 149

still necessary to find a system of thought which would enable me to

construct a model of human behavior which fitted the data and the
assumptions.
Since a schematic basis for constructing such a model satisfactory to
me could not be found in the older worlds of philosophical or scientific
thought about behavior, a thorough review was made of the
requirements of the needed way of thinking. The data indicated that the
same phenomenon - conception of mature human behavior - must be
thought about at one and the same time as an open system tending to
change to another form, and as a closed system tending to alter only
within the established form. The data suggested that one must think of
levels of psychological maturity moving on a scale from low complexity
to higher complexity. It indicated that one must think of a tendency
toward organizing, stabilizing around a certain central core, and re-
organizing around a different central core, possibly ad infinitum.
One must think of a conservative tendency - a tendency to maintain
the existing structure - alternating with a reorganizing tendency - a
tendency to alter the existing structure. This requirement was present
because subjects who produced conceptions which were later called an
even numbered system in the hierarchy of systems centralized their
conceptions of mature personality around the need to conform to some
established order. But what they conformed to was not the same in one
even numbered system as that to which they conformed in some other
even numbered system. Yet the central conforming tendency was always
there.
And the same phenomenon was present in the conceptions which
tended to centralize around altering the established order. These
concepts, later numbered by odd numbers, could be called non-conforming
concepts of mature behavior. Yet, just as that to which one conformed varied
in the even-numbered systems, the nature of the non-conforming
mature behavior varied from one odd-numbered system to another odd-
numbered system. Thus, as I searched among the forms of scientific
thinking and came upon the ways of thinking of the organicists and the
ways of thinking of the General Systems theorists, it seemed natural that
my data and my thoughts about the data made sense within the thought
of Murphy, the organismic thinkings of Goldstein, Maslow revised, and
the General Systems people. Therefore I proceeded to follow this train
of thought to see where it might lead.
As a means of setting course into this train of thought, I shall cover
in paraphrased form, with additions of my own, the thought of Gardner
Murphy, who said in essence:
150 New Problem, Opportunity, Task

In the past our theories of personality and culture seem to

have been based more on a part than on the totality of man’s
behavior. Therefore, barely in concept and barely in model
can we be said to have solved the essential starting point from
which a psychology - any kind of psychology - including a
psychology of personality and culture can be written. A
lingering aspect of this problem is that we do not know yet to
what extent the principles operating in personality and culture
are identical with general principles which operate elsewhere
in the universe. Yet we continue to take one set of assumed
general principles, those of classical physics, and continue to
generalize them to develop most psychologies of man. We do
this though it may be that some other set of general principles
is more appropriate to our task. We have assumed that inert
and purposeless matter somehow pushed and pulled until,
quite fortuitously, it developed living forms and that these
living forms reacted in accordance with physical properties
until behaving man, as we know him, appeared. Having
started with a purposeless and feelingless universe, and having
striven to be scientific, we have come almost to deny the
existence of these typically organismic behavioral modes. This
we have done though the relation of purpose and feeling to
the world of physics in almost as obscure as it was in the sixth
century B.C.
Now, however, we are beginning to see, as the intellectual
climate changes, from nineteenth century to twentieth century
thinking, that our explanations of human behavior must also
begin to change. We see the need to look at personality in a
more extensive way. We are beginning to see that personality
will be fixed only when man’s intellectual climate ceases to
change.
Today, these changes seem to evidence that one could
conceive that human personality may best be understood as a
set of systems, as a series of expressions of the irritability of
the changefulness of biological organization. And we have
started to see that a different set of general principles, possibly
those of General Systems Theory, are more appropriate than
those of classical physics. But, we have not organized this
perception into a model which covers the broad spectrum of
adult personality. We have not used it to develop a model
 New Problem, Opportunity, Task 151

which includes all forms of adult personality that are old, all
forms that are current and all forms that might come to be.
We have, nevertheless, made a start. We are truly
beginning to regard adult personality not as a state or form of
organization but as a direction of development. We now see
adult personality less as a recognizable cross section and more
as a multidimensional trend phase of a complex
developmental process. This approach to adult personality
cautiously and modestly makes the most of similarities
between cosmic evolution and human evolution with special
reference to the principles of organization, centralization,
differentiation and integration. This start takes note of the
specialized ontogenetic growth and differs from other
characteristic types of species development and from inorgan-
ic development. In this new view, it is natural and proper to
give a specific form of adult personality context by stating its
relation to the whole. It is equally proper to suggest the nature
of the whole by reference to any specific part. In this new way
of thinking, the fact is that a form, any form, of adult
personality is relevant to trying to decide what the universe,
personality, may be. In this way of thinking forms of
personality organization beyond those emphasized in past or
current personality organization may well lie ahead. This is so
because in this new frame of thought, adult personality is
relative. It takes on a different form when the
organism/environment complex changes as space and time
change. But this is not the sterile, culturally relativistic view of
personality. It is more. It is more because another principle is
relevant.
This other principle is the one of hierarchy. We do not
have just culturally relative systems. We have instead, an
ordered hierarchy of systems within and across culture, each
earlier appearing system in the course of development,
subordinated to and resting within. As we change our fixation
upon adult personality as a state of form or organization and
as we replace it with a conception of personality as a direction
of development our approach to the myriad of psychological
problems, also, changes. Still newer functional principles will
be derived. New principles of and for personal and group
evolution will appear and new forms of interaction between
people will be observed. A changed concept of psychological
152 New Problem, Opportunity, Task

health will develop and there will be a reordering of our

knowledge of psychopathology. New types of contact with
the cosmos will be released and new ethical concepts will be
formulated. New insights across academic disciplines will
emerge and some old barriers to interdisciplinary study will
disappear. Basic research will of necessity change its form and
new applications will become available and adult personality
and the process of cultural evolution will be more understood.
The future course of adult personality research, within this
new and developing point of view, will not follow a
continuation of the methods borrowed from physics,
physiology or the older psychologies. But, it will not view the
older methods as outmoded. Rather it will see them as more
narrow, the newer as the more encompassing.
The newer methods which will be developed will bring us
better time/space definitions of adult personality and will lead
us into a more adequate evolutionary and cultural definition
of man’s being. Yet, even with these changes, two types of
research and two types of theorization will continue in
psychology. One will be that type which attempts to
systematize and verify present day conceptions. The other will
grope into the conceptual world beyond our past regions of
effort - an aim which now became the purpose of this book.92
Thus, with Murphy’s words and mine latched together, I turned to
General Systems Theory for further aid. Overall, General Systems
Theory promotes the appearance of structural similarities or
isomorphies in different fields. It looks for correspondences in the
principles which govern the behavior of entities which are intrinsically
widely different. In particular, as it has reference to the data of the
studies reported, it permits one to view behavior as an ordered
revolution from some less organized state to some more organized state,
and as being reached from different initial conditions. It allows one to
think of adaptiveness as a series of step functions defining a system.
According to General Systems thinking, a personality system arises,
moves in a certain adaptive direction, and, after a certain critical
condition is reached, the system jumps and moves to a new way of
being. This form of thinking allows one to conceive of this movement
as being from homogeneity to heterogeneity. It allows one to think of

92 Paraphrasing Murphy, Gardner (1947). Personality: A Biosocial Approach to Origins and

Structure. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers.
 New Problem, Opportunity, Task 153

states which strive to maintain the conditions of that state while at the
same time, under certain conditions, it allows one to think of these
states reorganizing and taking on another form. Since this way of
thinking seemed to correspond so well with my observations and my
thinking, I began to lean toward General Systems Theory. But I was still
faced with some lingering conceptual problems before creation could
begin.
With this in mind, I felt I must search for the “essential starting
points” toward the solution of the conceptual problems. Then I must
seek some insight that would combine these clues into the beginning of
a revised conceptualization of first, human personality and later,
individual psychology. Then, if that could be accomplished, I must begin
to consider the general form that the more inclusive conceptualization
might take.

Some Lingering Conceptual Problems

One place where I searched for the “essential starting points” from
which a more inclusive adult psychology can be written is the lingering
aspects of some age-old psychological problems of which Murphy said,
as I related earlier:
“We do not know yet to what extent the principles
operating within man [in the psychosocial world] are identical
with the general principles which operate elsewhere in the
universe.”93
Yet, we continue to take one set of general principles, those of
classical physics, and generalize them to develop most theories of
culture and personality. We do this though it may be that some other set
of principles is more appropriate to our task. Or, we take other
proposed, but far less established sets of principles - those of the
Drieschien94 organicists, the Bergsonian95 vitalists - and strive to develop
some theory of man’s behavior based on them. But most psychological

93 Murphy, Gardner (1947). Personality: A Biosocial Approach to Origins and Structure. New
York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, p. 916.
94 Driesch, Hans (1925). The Crisis in Psychology. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
95 Bergson, Henri (1946). Creative Mind. New York Philosophical Library. Bergson, Henri

(1944). Creative Evolution. Modern Library. Bergson, Henri (1955). An Introduction to

Metaphysics. The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.. Bergson, Henri (1912). Matter and
Memory. London, George Allen & Co..
154 New Problem, Opportunity, Task

and cultural authorities work from the former, not the latter. Again as
Murphy says:
“It is often assumed … that inert and purposeless matter
pushed and pulled, until quite fortuitously, living forms have
developed, and that these [living forms] have reacted in
accordance with [classical] physical properties until [behaving]
man as we know him appeared. Having started with a
purposeless and feelingless universe, we are confronted with a
thinking and feeling entity; we have tried either to deny the
feelings and the thoughts or to derive them from the inert,
non-sentient attributes described by physics.”96
Murphy goes on to relate how having striven to be scientific, we
have come a1most to deny the existence of organic behavioral modes.
This we have done, it seems, because along the way we got lost in a false
conception of the whole and a metaphysical conception of the concept
of purpose. We lost our way when mechanism as an explanation failed
and when Driesch’s monumental work erroneously replaced the failing
concept of mechanism with the untestable concept of vitalism. But,
perhaps we can find our way again because Spearman’s97
reconceptualization of the concept of the whole may point the way to a
more adequate conceptualization of the behavior of adult man and the
nature of his cultures. With Spearman’s conceptual change we may be
able to see our way out of both oversimplified mechanism and
unscientific vitalism, at least so far as personality and culture is
concerned.
For Driesch, the whole meant the typical end result which is the
highest form of organization, and purpose was the subliminal striving
toward the ultimate totality that the organism could become. In my
mind, it was Driesch’s conception of the whole which led organismically
minded psychologists and many anthropologists into trouble with the
concept of purpose. And, partially, it was our failure to develop an
adequate concept of purpose and an adequate concept of the whole
which fed our illusion both as to the nature of adult personality and our
cultural ways of life. These problems led us astray when we tried to
reconceptualize after the mechanism failed. The Drieschian concept of
the whole led us to conceive of the mature adult personality and of the
Utopian society as a describable, achievable state or condition - a

96 Ibid (Murphy, 1947, p. 917).

97 Spearman, Charles E. (1927). The Abilities of Man: Their Nature & Measurement. New
York: MacMillan.
 New Problem, Opportunity, Task 155

conception which can be seen to be a myth when we conceive of them

within Spearman’s reconceptualization of what is the whole.
The whole, according to Spearman, is something quite different
from Driesch’s whole. To Spearman, the whole is the momentary total
state of the system. It is not the typical end-state to be reached in the
future. It is not the ultimate psychological or cultural state toward which
man is striving, nor is purpose some magical striving for that distant, but
theoretically achievable, highest form of organization. The whole,
according to Spearman, is that maximum condition of harmonious
organization which a given organism, in given conditions, can possibly
achieve in these conditions. In the human, it is the organization that can
now become a human being - what he is now and living in the
circumstances he is in now. Purpose is the dynamic activity toward
organization, as organization is now possible. It is not striving to
become the ultimate perfect state. Becoming is something that happens as a
result of dynamic possibilities. It is not something sought in some odd and
mystical way. The whole is the organization that a personality or culture
has come to be to date, a human being what s/he is, and living in the
conditions that s/he is in. And, psychological or cultural maturity is the
most harmonious organization of the current state, not the best possible
organization that could ever come to exist.
With these conceptual changes, we can now begin to see that
personality and culture can be conceived in a very different light. We can
begin to see why Murphy said, as was related before, that they will be
fixed only when man’s intellectual climate ceases to change, only when
knowledge no longer accrues to change the conditions of human
existence; 98 that the rapidity of these changes are so manifestly apparent
that only arrogance could conceive that man’s personality will ever be
discovered with finality, or that the best cultural system - democracy,
communism, or whatever it might be - will ever come to be. And we can
begin to see some basic criteria which a model of mature personality
must meet to reflect the light transmitted in my studies. There are, at the
least, ten of these basic criteria.

1. A model of mature personality must not concentrate on

some one element of mature personality as if it could serve
as a standard for evaluation of all behavior of the
biologically mature human.

98 Murphy, Gardner (1947). Personality: A Biosocial Approach to Origins and Structure. New
York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, p. 917.
156 New Problem, Opportunity, Task

2. It must represent the phenomena observed. It must allow

one to seek knowledge of that being represented. It must
not destroy or distort the observation of the phenomena in
order to try to fit previously established forms for
explaining the phenomena and it must not set up mature
personality as transcendent and exalted above human lives.
3. It must provide the possibility for explaining, within its
confines, all existing intellectually substantive conceptions
of mature personality because different well-founded
conceptions of what is mature personality exist and are,
therefore, a part of the data which any model must
represent.
4. It must include within its form the possibility that the
mature personality can exist. That is, that behavioral
possibilities are finite. And it must include at one and the
same time, that the emergence of newer and newer
concepts of mature personality are forever possible - that is,
that behavioral possibilities are infinite, not finite.
5. It must represent that certain people do believe that they
know what is mature human personality, and it must
explain why people believe so and why they express, and
why they defend, widely divergent conceptions of mature
personality.
6. It must allow one to develop, test and revise hypotheses
and it must allow for refinement or discarding of aspects of
the model as the data from the generated and tested
hypotheses comes in.
7. It must allow one to describe the conceptions of mature
human personality in some orderly way.
8. It must allow one to systematically seek the nature of adult
human personality.
9. It must allow one to seek explanation for the emergence of
behavioral systems.
10. It must allow one to explore for directionality of change
and it must allow one to seek the conditions which
determine such change.

Thus, as Gardner Murphy says:

“The task of writing a serious essay on the development
of human potentialities consists largely of the capacity to
perceive and describe the ways in which human nature
 New Problem, Opportunity, Task 157

transcends and fulfills itself by moving beyond the specific

components which today constitute it.”99
Or, as John Seiler states, the task of one who seeks to conceptualize
mature human behavior is to portray how…
“We seem to stay on plateaus of considerable stability for
long periods, following accustomed patterns of behavior and
thought. When the time is ripe - when that still somewhat
mysterious condition of “readiness for change” arises - we
leap up a steep incline of new, formerly untried behavior. This
is a perilous time, because unfamiliar terrain makes us unsure
of our direction and, often, we try routes which lead nowhere.
We feel quite disoriented - sometimes exhilarated by the
altitude, sometimes frightened and alone. If we don’t slip and
fall back, we find our way to a new plateau which, though it
has some similarity to the old, displays many new
characteristics. In time, we become as familiar with the higher
elevation as we have been with the lower. We may stay on the
new plateau for a considerable period of time, increasing our
familiarity with it, and, in the process, our effectiveness. At
the same time, we increase our sense of the limitations of our
new patterns of behavior and thought, until we are ready to
move on, once again.”100
How this task was carried out is that to which I now shall turn.

99 Murphy, Gardner (1958). Human Potentialities. New York: Basic Books Inc., p. 323.
100 Seiler, John A. (1967). Systems Analysis in Organizational Behavior. Homewood, IL:
Richard D. Irwin, Inc., p. 195.
158 The E-C Model
 The E-C Model 159

CHAPTER 6

The Emergent Cyclical Model

The literature, the arguments of theorists, and the accumulated data

clearly indicate that a theoretical need is present in the late twentieth
century psychological world. It is the need for a reconceptualization of
personality, culture, and the concept of maturity. This
reconceptualization should depict in one model why and how the
concepts of personality, culture, and maturity develop and change with
time as environmental conditions, accruing knowledge, and current
human activity alter the conditions of human existence for better or for
worse.
Lately, efforts to meet this need have started to come to be.
Investigators and theorists have come to perceive that personality and
culture perhaps can be seen as sets of hierarchically ordered systems, as
a series of emergent step-like expressions of the character of the human
organism interacting with the established sociocultural conditions and
the current state of environmental affairs. At this time, some are
suggesting that the principles of General Systems Theory are more
appropriate for conceptualizing these phenomena than principles like
those of classical physics or vitalism. But according to my data, this
movement toward a General Systems theoretical base is only in its
beginning phase. It has not got beyond General Systems thinking to the
specific concepts needed to build a model which strives to meet the
discontent of others and explain the unrationalized data from my
160 E-C Model

studies. This situation requires that concepts be developed to portray the

needed conceptual system. So, it is to that task that I shall now turn.

Basic Concepts for an

Emergent Cyclical Double-Helix Model

The first need is for a concept which represents time in a

psychological, not a chronological sense. This concept should represent
time in terms of the existential problems faced at the time the person is
living rather than clock or calendar time. It should represent that
existential problems normally arise in an ordered hierarchical way. (See
Exhibit XI, p. 183) And it should represent that these problems can
remain relatively constant, that old problems can reappear and new ones
develop. Time, in this sense, I shall call Psychological Time.
A second and coequal need is for a concept which represents the
character of the particular environmentosocial conditions the human is
faced with in one region of geographical space in contrast to other
regions of geographical space. These conditions I shall refer to as the
Psychological Space for human living.
A third need is for a concept which expresses that a general, yet
variable, resultant arises when certain organismic and environmentosocial
forces of a critical amount meet at a particular moment in psychological
time and in particular conditions of psychological space. This concept
must allow for the normal pathological under- and over-development of
a system. It must express that conceptions of what is personality,
culture, and maturity grow normally and generally by quantum-like
jumps in a hierarchical, step-after-step fashion according to an
organismic developmental blueprint. It must express that these
phenomena do not always achieve the form that normally appears later,
and that their development may fixate, regress, and possibly take on a
form not usually of their nature, or that the form may be not pure but
mixed. The concept coined to meet this need I will call the Levels of
Existence, a concept which fits well three conceptual needs indicated by
the accumulated data:
1. The need to represent the psychology of the mature human
organism as an emergent growth phenomenon changing as
psychological time and psychological space change.
2. The need to represent this growth phenomenon as a double
helix with intermediate forms developing in a saltatory
 E-C Model 161

(leap-like) fashion on the way to later and later appearing forms

of maturity, personality and culture.
3. The need to represent that a form might fail to emerge, might
underdevelop, might overdevelop or that regression might
occur.
At this point several other conceptual problems remain. One is the
need to conceptualize the dual complex of determinants which provide
the potentials in the double-helix. One of these sets of determining forces
must represent the environmental side of development. The other needs to
represent the organismic complex. The environmental side I shall
conceive in terms of the living problems created by being a member of
the species Homo sapiens, a member of a group, or an individual living in
certain and not other conditions for existence. These problems I shall
call the Life Problems of the species, group or individual. The other set of
determinants, those which arise from the organismic factors in
development, I will designate as the Neuropsychological Equipment for Living
of the species, group, or individual.
Then there is the need to conceptualize that the problems of living
of the species, group, or individual fall into six hierarchically ordered,
hierarchically prepotent101 sets of problems - six subsystems - which, as
they are solved, spawn six sets of higher-order problems for living. To
designate these potentials on the environmental side of the double-helix,
I shall use the first six upper case letters of the first half of the alphabet:
A, B, C, D, E, and F. And I shall prime and double prime these letters
to designate higher order derived problems of living. Thus, I will
conceive that the problems of living be symbolized by the letters A, B,
C, D, E, and F, then A’, B’, C’, D’, E’, and F’.
Following this is the need to conceptualize the organismic side of
the double-helix, the neuropsychological equipment for living of the
species, group or individual. This conceptual aspect must show that the
organism’s equipment for living is organized into coping systems: systems
which activate the coping systems, systems which support the coping
systems, and systems which elaborate the six basic coping systems into
higher-order coping systems. The conceptual aspect must show that the
coping systems are dynamic neurological systems which are organized in

101 CWG: Prepotent - the problems of the first level take precedence over those of the
second level; those of the second level take precedence over the third, etc. At any
level, the problems of that level are more powerful than those of the preceding
levels.
162 E-C Model

parallel with the problems for living. It must also show that the
elaborating systems are built from originally uncommitted cells.
To accomplish this, I have chosen the upper case letters of the
second half of the alphabet. The letters N, O, P, Q, R and S were
chosen to represent the basic dynamic neurological coping systems.
These letters N, O, P, etc. will be primed and double primed, etc., to
signify higher order coping systems built upon the six basic coping
systems. The letters X, Y, and Z will represent, respectively, the activating
systems, the supporting systems, and the elaborating system. Thus, the organism
will be conceived to consist psychologically of N, O, P, Q, R and S then
N’, O’, P’, Q’, R’, and S’, plus X, Y, and Z.
From these conceptual decisions the need arises to represent not
the overall potentials in the double-helix, but the momentary operants in
each of the two sets of determining forces. To represent these
momentary operants on the environmental side, I will use the phrase The
Conditions OF Exsitence of the species, group or individual. The
conditions of existence are the totality of environmentosocial forces
setting the scene in which psychological being takes place.
To represent the momentary operants on the organismic side of the
helix, I will use the term The Conditions FOR Existence. The conditions for
existence thus are the activated psycho-neurological coping systems, the
cognitive capacities, and the temperamental dispositions of the species,
group, or individual.
Following from this decision arises the need to conceptualize the
psychodynamic resultant of the momentary operants in each of the
major force fields in the double-helix. On the environmental side, I will
call this resultant The Existential Problems of the species, group or
individual. On the organismic side, I will designate the resultant of the
activated coping systems, the developed cognitive capacities, memory
traces and the like and the temperamental disposition as The Existential
Means for Living of the species, group or individual.
When the momentary resultants of each side of the double-helix are
conceptualized as the existential problems of living and the existential
means for living, there is a need to represent the psychodynamic
resultant of the interaction of both sides of the double-helix. This
resultant I will designate as The Existential State of the species, group, or
individual. The existential state is the force field which must be
discerned if one is to understand the psychological nature of the species,
group, or individual. The existential state is that which produces the
levels of existence of the species, the psychological positioning and
organization along the double-helix of a group, and the psychosocial
 E-C Model 163

positioning and organization along the double-helix of the individual or

culture.
And finally, there is the need to distinguish conceptually between
certain gross classes of levels, between the levels of the first spiral of
psychosocial development and those levels which appear later in
psychological time. The first six together I will call The Subsistence Level
Systems. Those of the second spiral I will name The Being Level I Systems.
Those of later spirals, should they come to be, would be designated as
Being Level II Systems, Being Level III Systems, etc.
Now, with the problem of specific concepts for a general systems
model of adult psychosocial development resolved, it is time to sketch
out a model which seems dictated by the information of others and the
data resulting from my studies. It is time to take the concepts presented
above and fashion them into a double helix model of the psychosocial
development of the adult human being, the emergent cyclical model of adult
human personality, culture, and maturity.

The Psychological Life Space of Emergent Cyclical Theory

In this section, the psychological life space of emergent cyclical

theory is developed from the data and writings of others, my data, and
the concepts defined at the beginning of this chapter. The theory is
illustrated through a series of graphic designs and tables which depict
personality, culture, and concepts of maturity as a double helix
derivative of environmentosocial forces and the neuropsychological
potentials in the organism. I begin with Exhibit IV [p. 164. See also
Exhibit XIV, p. 193].
Exhibit IV is a broken-line ellipse which represents all conceivable
forms of human behavior. The region within the broken lines represents
all the systemic forms of adult behavior which have emerged at the time
this book was written. The broken-line aspect represents the possibility
that new adult behavioral forms will appear in the future which are,
psychospatially, beyond those which have appeared to date.
Within the ellipse, but outside the representation of the brain cross-
section, are regions A, B, C, D, E, F, A’, B’, etc., which represent the
hierarchically ordered problems for human existence, the different
conditions of human existence which a person may face in his or her lifetime.
The conditions for human existence vary from those which produce and
provide for simple subsistence needs (the problems of living A), to
those which produce ever more complex conditions for existence
(problems B, C, D, etc.). These conditions interact with the N, O, P,
164 E-C Model

etc., forces arising from the neuropsychological structures of the

organism Homo sapiens.

Exhibit IV

The neuropsychological potential of the adult human being is

represented by the schematic of the horizontal median brain cross
section. The brain as conceived consists of a series of hierarchically
 E-C Model 165

ordered dynamic neurological coping systems, à la the thinking of David

Krech,102 and three other major neuropsychological systems X, Y, and
Z, the activating, supporting, and elaborating systems respectively. Each
of the dynamic coping systems A, B, C, etc., is a region which operates
according to its own laws. For example, each system has its own laws
for learning, a point which will be elaborated later in each chapter in
Part II.
It is conceived that each system is connected by a pressure-type
neurochemical switching subsystem X which has the capacity to be off,
partially on, or fully on. Its operation follows a J curve. As conceived,
the lowest order coping system, N, possesses all the neurological
equipment necessary to maintain the life of the individual and
perpetuate the species. Each of the higher order dynamic coping
systems contains different neuronal equipment which is specifically
structured to sense and cope with each set of new and different life
problems. The problems arise in hierarchical order, and the coping
system can be triggered into operation if the associated conditions for
existence come about.
If a higher order system is to be activated, increments of
psychochemical force must be built up. For a time as these increments
accumulate, a pressure-like valve opens very slowly. Then, when a
critical amount of pressure from a particular composition of chemicals is
reached, there is a spurt-like movement to dominant control by the laws
of the next qualitatively and quantitatively different dynamic neuro-
logical system. The quantitative differences are represented by the size
of the N, O, P, etc., regions. Varying forms of cross-hatching represents
the qualitative differences.
It is important to note, on the A, B, C side that there are widely
varying environmentosocial conditions of existence. On the N, O, P ...
X, Y, Z side, there is widely varying capacity for sensing, reacting to, and
coping with life’s different environmentosocial conditions. On the A, B,
C side, food and water may be readily available, or either or both may be
most difficult to procure. Social mores and customs may also vary
widely. On the organismic, the N, O, P ... X, Y, Z side, one person may
have extraordinary equipment in the form of energy or capacity for
coping with particular A or B or C, etc. problems. These general and
specific aspects establish thema for existence and schema103 for existence.

102 Krech, David, & Crutchfield, R. (1948). Theory and Problems of Social Psychology. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
103 Bartlett (1932).
166 E-C Model

From this hypothesized life space, we see that psychosocial

development AN, BO, CP, etc. results from the interaction of A, B, C
with N, O, P. And we see that, in general, AN states are AN states and
BO states are BO states; they are the same qualitatively from one culture
or one human being to another. But they can vary significantly, in a
quantitative way, from one culture or one human being to another.
It is important to note, on the A, B, C side that quantitatively the
same general conditions for existence (amount of food available for
consumption and its nutritional value, etc.) can be present in
environmentosocial conditions which otherwise vary markedly. One
person might receive no more food or no better food, nutritionally, than
some other person, but the first might live in a warm and sympathetic
atmosphere, the other in an emotionally cold and hostile world. Failure
to consider these quantitative-qualitative differences in each of the
major dynamics could lead one to overlook the breadth of meaning in
the concepts conditions for human existence and conditions of human existence.
If a person misses this breadth of meaning, s/he may not
comprehend why some people move to later levels of existence even
when, on the surface, it looks as if they are living in poor conditions of
human existence. Also, one might not comprehend why others do not
move when conditions appear to be good. Many ghetto people, many in
the world’s disadvantaged lands might seem on the surface to be living
in conditions too poor for movement unless the broader meaning in
these two basic dynamics is understood.
So emergent cyclical theory represents psychosocial development as
an environmentosocial-organismic field varying both quantitatively and
qualitatively from one psychosocial system to another. Systems of
personality and culture and concepts of maturity are only momentary
systemic organizations of existential states in their current environ-
mental circumstances. In emergent cyclical theory, concepts of person-
ality, culture, and maturity depict the organization around a point in the
flowing process that is human life. They represent where a species, a
culture, or a person’s development is now. But the point around which
organization takes place or the form of the organization are not
necessarily destined to remain as they are at any moment in time. On the
other hand, they may fixate as they are. Thus, by focusing on the
psychological life space of the species Homo sapiens, it is possible to see
what have come to be the basic aspects of the emergent cyclical model
of psychosocial development.
 E-C Model 167

The Basics of the Emergent Cyclical Double-Helix Model

Exhibit V (p. 168) presents, in one diagram, the basic aspects of the
emergent cyclical model of adult psychosocial development. It shows, as
Exhibit IV says, that psychosocial systems develop as resultants of the
interaction of a complex of two sets of determining forces: (1) the
environmentosocial forces, the problems of living of the species, group, or
individual - the forces, A, B, C, D, E, F; - A’, N’ etc. and (2) the
organismic determinants, the forces N, O, P, Q, R, S; - N’, O’ etc. plus
X, Y, and Z, the neuropsychological equipment for living of the species,
group, or individual.
Existential problems A, the living problems associated with the
environmentosocial conditions for satisfying or not satisfying the
imperative, periodic, physiological needs, activate the neurological
equipment N. This equipment, the first level neuropsychological
equipment of the first spiral of existence, is structured specifically to
sense and cope with life problems A. So if an adult exists in
environmentosocial conditions A, the psychoneurological system N is
activated within his or her brain. The person’s existential state under this
set of conditions is the AN state. A person in this state is to be known,
comprehended, and managed through the dynamics and principles of
the AN psychosocial system. This person cannot be known,
comprehended, or effectively managed by the principles of any other
existential state, any other level of existence.
168 E-C Model

Exhibit V
The Basic Complex of Emergent Cyclical
Psychosocial Development Theory
 E-C Model 169

Table III

Designation of Levels of Existence, Existential State

Nature of Existence per Level and Existential Problems per Level

Level of Existential Nature of

Problems of Existence
Existence State Existence
Second Accepting existential
B’O’ Experientialistic
Being dichotomies
First Restoring viability to a
A’N’ Cognitivistic
Being disordered world
Sixth
FS Personalistic Living with the human element
Subsistence
Fifth Conquering the physical universe
ER Materialistic
Subsistence so as to overcome want
Fourth Achieving everlasting peace of
DQ Deferentialistic
Subsistence mind
Third
CP Egocentric Living with self-awareness
Subsistence
Second
BO Tribalistic Achievement of relative safety
Subsistence
First Maintaining physiological
AN Automatic
Subsistence stability

As A and N interact, the resultant is the automatic psychosocial way

of living. This is a general way (thema) which can be specified into many
particular forms (schema) of problems A, and many variances in the N
neurological system. If the psychological space conditions provide
relatively automatic and relatively continuous solution of the problems
A, then a significant resultant occurs. Living will continue at the AN
level forever with minimal activation of O, P, Q etc., neuropsychological
equipment. (An example is the Tasaday of the Island of Mindanao in the
Philippine archipelago.104) This is so because the N neuropsychological
system is specifically structured to contain all the equipment necessary
to maintain individual life and perpetuate the species when psychological
space activates primarily the N neurological system. In appropriate
conditions, an individual lifetime can be lived out and the species
perpetuated through the automaticity of the N system and without O or
any other neurological subsystem more than minimally activated.
If system N is deficient in some respect, which indeed is possible
because of genetic, embryological, accident, or disease factors, then life

104 Ibid, Nance.

170 E-C Model

will cease unless it is supported by artificial means. (This is done with

the severely retarded, seniles, and some damaged by injury or disease.)
This, as I have said, is because the N neuropsychological subsystem
contains the structures for sensing and coping with the imperative,
periodic, physiological needs.
On the other hand, if living by the ways of a particular AN form for
existence changes the conditions in psychological space, if it depletes the
food or water supplies, or if other social or environmental changes
threaten the relatively automatic satisfaction of the imperative needs,
then survival is endangered. In such circumstances, the very process of
existing changes the facts of existence and generates a new sub-set of
existential problems. Such changes create the problems of living B, the
second level set of existential problems of the first spiral of existence.
These are the problems of establishing safety and security in a region of
psychological space which previously provided a relatively unthreatening
world. (See Table III, column 4.)
To sense, perceive, and learn to deal with these new problems of
existence, life problems B, neuropsychological equipment O must, first
of all, be present in the organism. Sometimes it is not. (Recall the
psychosocial definition of an ‘idiot:’ one who cannot sense or avoid the
ordinary dangers of life.) If O is not present, or if it is disordered, then
again life will cease unless it is supported by artificial means. If the
neuropsychological system O, which consists, in certain major respects,
of equipment for sensing and taking action in respect to danger, is
present, it must be properly activated. Proper experience (the experience
is specific to each subsystem) will activate the O neurological system and
result in movement toward the BO existential state. Otherwise the usual
psychosocial development does not occur. If system O is present and if
it is properly activated to a critical degree, the human jumps to his or her
second form for existence, the BO nodal state.
When the BO state emerges, the AN system is now embedded in
and subordinated to it (Exhibit VI). There is now, when the BO system
emerges, something old and something new in the adult’s psychosocial
makeup.
But now the question arises: What are the details of this change
process? The research I have done and the work of others suggests that
six factors control the process of change from one existential state to
another. The first is obvious. It is neuropsychological potential. For change to
occur, the higher order system must be present in the brain. But let us
 E-C Model 171

Exhibit VI

not pass by this point too quickly. To understand and manage some
biologically mature adults - mild mental retardation, for example - we
must recognize that their personalities will always be a variant on the
AN existential state no matter the conditions for existence in the
environmentosocial world.
If potential exists and if the other conditions are present, then the
AN state changes to the BO system and psychosocial behavior becomes
of another order. The five other conditions are:
1. There must be a resolution of the existential problems of the level
where one is. This is necessary to produce free energy in the
system through which change can be ready to occur.
172 E-C Model

2. Then dissonance, which can arise from inside or outside the

person, must enter the field. There is no reason to change if
dissonance does not occur. This dissonance arises from the
creation of new existential problems in the field by living the
AN way or by relative uniqueness in neurological equipment.
3. When dissonance occurs, some insight as to how to behave in
order to meet the new problems B of existence must develop.
This occurs when the X system, the activating system, produces
the complex of organic chemicals necessary for activating the
next level neuropsychological system, the system Q.
4. Then there must be removal of barriers to the implementation of
the insights which have developed.
5. And finally, there must be consolidation of the new ways for being so
that survival can continue under the new conditions of
existence.
The problems of existence which must be solved and the
dissonance factors are specific to each of the levels. So are the insight
factors and the barriers which must be removed.
If, as time passes, living by particular BO ways solves the problems
B and from their solution creates dissonance in the form of problems C,
then neuropsychological equipment P must be present and activated for
the now-needed insights to develop. And the barriers to their
implementation must be removed for psychosocial, not physical,
development to continue. This is because the activation of neuro-
psychological structures P is not imperative for human survival.
P equipment is quite different from N or O equipment, as is the
equipment of any other higher-order neuropsychological system. If
equipment P is activated and the barrier factors are removed, the person
begins to rapidly consolidate his or her progression to the next level of
existence and begins to produce the next level of problems, problems D,
and the process continues ad infinitum.
Careful consideration of this aspect of this conception of adult
psychosocial development clarifies why I said earlier that there is, in
emergent cyclical theory, no such thing as psychological maturity or
Utopian society. Constant solution of existential problems, constant
creation of new existential problems, and constant activation of more
complex neuropsychological systems explains why emergent cyclical
theory says that neither the mature way of being nor the Utopian society
can ever come to be. The eradication of today’s problems cannot result
in the ultimate form for existence. It can serve only to produce the next
set of existential problems.
 E-C Model 173

Exhibit II-3-i represents the life problems as A, B, C, D, etc., and it

depicts that the neuropsychological equipment is conceived as coping
systems N, O, P, Q, etc., which operate in parallel with the life
problems.
Exhibit II-3-ii and iii shows that each set of determinants - the
problems of living and the neuropsychological equipment for living - are
hierarchically and prepotently organized. And Exhibit II-3-iv shows that
their resultant, existential states - AN, BO, CP, DQ, etc. - are also
hierarchically and prepotently organized. But the diagram does not show
two important factors which need to be considered.
One is that the problems of existence are plural, not singular. So
living may produce solution of some but not all of the existential
problems of a level. Therefore, partial psychosocial leaps are more the
rule than total leaps to the next level of existence.
Secondly, the particular form of the AN, BO, CP state is
determined in part by the particular problems of the particular
psychological space in which living takes place. The particular character
of the general N, O, P, etc., neuropsychological equipment for living of
the species, group, or individual also determines them. This is important
because it is through these aspects of emergent cyclical theory that one
sees how this classification system is not a typological theory. It
approaches such only in pure theoretical form which, of course, does
not exist in the real world.
Section 3-v of Exhibit II depicts that the life problems are organized
into sets of problems. But the exhibit, per se, does not explain why they
are conceived as A, B, C, D, E, F - then A’N’, that is as first order
systems, second order systems, etc. They are so conceived because the
human as s/he learns to solve the problems A, B, C, D, E, and F creates
a new and higher-order set of survival problems. (For example, learning
to survive through the use of fire, that is, fossil fuels, has created a new
survival problem: How to live when all fossil fuels are exhausted.) These
problems are the first level problems of the second spiral of existence
(Exhibit II-3-v). Thus, if these are the beginning problems of a new
spiral of existence and if the development of neuropsychological
equipment parallels the development of existential problems, then the
theory must allow for second order equipment, N’, O’, P’ to develop ad
infinitum. This, I propose, is accomplished through the elaborating
system Z.
The existence of an elaborating system in the organism seems well
supported by experimental evidence. Much data suggests that when the
total brain is laid down in the young organism, many cells in the brain
174 E-C Model

are not originally committed to systems N, O, P, Q, R, S, or systems X

and Y. They are in system Z. The existence of a Z system is important
because it offers an answer to the question Alfred Russel Wallace asked
of Charles Darwin: ‘Why does Homo sapiens have such a big brain? Why
does the brain contain far more cells than are necessary for survival of
the individual and perpetuation of the species?’
Emergent cyclical theory says the human has originally many
uncommitted cells so they can be used in conjunction with the basic
coping systems to develop the higher-order coping systems N’, O’, P’,
etc., of the later appearing levels of existence. The A cells combine with
some uncommitted cells to form the A’ system for coping when the
survival problems of the second spiral of existence are produced by the
combined results of having lived the AN, BO, CP, DQ, ER and FS ways
of life. Homo sapiens has a large brain in order to be able to develop new
coping systems for dealing with new existential problems, that is, in
order to develop Being Level Systems I, II, III etc. (Exhibit II-3-vi).

The Psychosocial Double Helix

Exhibit VII shows that the psychosocial double-helix results from

the continuing interaction of the emerging problems of human life and
the hierarchical ordering of the neuropsychological equipment of the
species, group, or individual. This continuing interaction produces, in
order, the existential states of the first spiral of existence and those of
the second spiral which are now beginning to appear. Theoretically, this
spiraling can continue for as long as Homo sapiens exist because the
elaborating system Z in the human brain is essentially infinite. (The
brain contains 100 billion neurons [“11 or 12 billion cells” in 1977 text],
with each brain cell having a potential capacity of some 10,000
interconnections with other brain cells.)
In Sections 2, 3, and 4 of Exhibit VII, we see the basic determinants
specified through one model to the species Homo sapiens, a group of
Homo sapiens, and an individual member of the species.
Section 2 of Exhibit VII shows that a unique set of life problems
arise because of the very existence of Homo sapiens, and that the existence
of Homo sapiens is maintained by the unique equipment for living of the
species. The problems of living produce the conditions for existence of
the species. The unique equipment provides the human with unique
existential means. The existential problems of the species interact with
 E-C Model 175

Exhibit VII

the existential means of the species to produce the hierarchically ordered

existential states of the species. From these states arise the levels of
existence, and from them the many kinds of cultural ways of man and
the personality variables which have appeared or may some day appear.
Section 3 of Exhibit VII shows that this same model can be used to
describe, explain, and explore a group of individuals organized into a
culture. Membership in a particular group, at a particular moment in
176 E-C Model

psychological time, in a particular region of psychological space creates

the particular life problems of the particular group of people. The
equipment of a particular group may vary quantitatively from the
equipment of members of another group and might even vary
qualitatively. These probably different life problems of a group, and the
possibly different neuropsychological equipment of group members,
would and could produce different conditions of existence of the group
and different conditions for its existence. Such could produce different
group existential problems and group existential means. This could
result in varying existential states for each group that exists. Thus, one
could account for the many differences in social institutions and
similarity in the personalities of group members.
Section 4 of Exhibit VII utilizes the same basic concepts of the
emergent cyclical double-helix model to depict the psychosocial
development of the individual. The life problems of the individual in
need of solutions produce the conditions of existence of the individual.
The person’s individual neuropsychological equipment produces his or
her conditions for existence. The conditions of existence of the individual
produce the existential problems of the person. The conditions for
existence of the individual provide the existential means for him or her
to live. The latter two, the existential problems of the individual and the
existential means of the person, interact to produce the existential state
of the person. His or her existential state causes the development of the
personal organization of the levels of existence. This personal
organization of the levels of existence determines the particular
institutional behavior of the person and his or her personality variables.
Exhibits VIII, XIX and X elaborate some of the aspects of
emergent cyclical theory previously covered. They illustrate certain
aspects which cannot be seen through the previous diagrams. Exhibit
VIII, particularly, shows that psychosocial development is, overall, a
complex wave-like phenomenon. It is not, as previous words may have
led you to believe, a discrete step-after-step movement that takes place.
Slowly the movement begins. Then it picks up pace until it reaches a
new nodal state, tarries at this stage for a while, then slowly (but never
completely) recedes.
But Exhibit VIII is the representation of the sum of many sub-
problems at a level that activate the many co-related neuropsychological
subsystems when psychological space changes. For example, different
sub-problems of the class A activate different structural parts of
subsystem N. Thus, the wave illustration actually represents the average
 E-C Model 177

of all the movements in a particular phase of development. (See Exhibit

VIII.)

Exhibit VIII
178 E-C Model

of the ER system. At this point most behavior is ER, but DQ, CP, BO
and AN behavior are present in decreasing amounts. FS behavior is also
present in amounts about equal to DQ, whereas A’N’ behavior has
barely emerged.
The reason for the heavy lines of the AN and BO and A’N’ and
B’O’ illustrate that movement to the second spiral of existence is not a
complete break from the past. It is only a higher-order move in the
complex spiral of life.
Overall, psychosocial development can indeed be seen as a complex
wave-like phenomenon. But development does not occur in the smooth
and flowing manner suggested by Exhibit VIII. It is more a spurt-like,
plateau-like, more a progressive, steady state, regressive movement in
which certain demarcation points can be identified in the flowing
process. As systems of personality and culture come and go with
changes in psychological time and alterations in psychological space,
four demarcation points can be readily distinguished. This progressive,
steady state, regressive development and the four demarcation points are
shown in Exhibit IX.
The progressive, steady state, regressive path of development is
shown in Exhibit IX by the line diagram of systems AN through B’O’
The four demarcation points are indicated, for each successive level of
existence, by the lower case letters a, b, c, d, and by priming and double
priming them.
Lower case a, a’, a’’, etc., indicate periods of steady state functioning
as represented by the plateaus in Exhibit IX. These periods exist when
coping means are adequate to meet current existential problems. (These
steady state periods, a for system AN, a’ for system BO, etc., are shown
as they represent the existential state of the species, not the individual.
In the individual, in the modern world, the time scale is reversed.)
During a, a’, a’’ periods, ways to cope with the existential problems
produced by the psychological space are adequate.
When points b, b’, b’’ are reached, a change in psychological space
has taken place. The change has produced new problems of existence
and old ways are no longer adequate to the tasks of living. So points b,
b’, b’’ stand out as times of crisis in the developmental process. They
denote times when feelings of cognitive inadequacy arise as one
attempts to solve newly appearing or newly created existential problems
by old coping means. Such attempts produce states of anxiety and rigid
functioning. As the anxiety increases, so does the rigid functioning. This
 E-C Model 179

Exhibit IX
180 E-C Model

results in attempts to make older and older coping ways solve the newer
and newer existential problems.105 Thus, at points b, b’, b’’ regression
often takes place. During these times, depending on the amount of
stress induced, fixation may occur. So, this is one place in the
developmental process where pathology is apt to break out.
Functioning of a quite different character, susceptible to different
kinds of pathology, arises at developmental points c, c’, c’’, etc. At these
points, the dissonance created by the inadequacy of existing coping
means has started the production of new chemicals in subsystem X, the
activating system. These new chemical constituents have started the
activation of the next set of neuropsychological equipment. This
produces new ideas for coping which are able to solve the new
existential problems. But these new insights may be blocked from
implementation by the conditions in psychological space. Points c, c’, c’’,
etc., are points at which a subjective state of anger and considerable
labile functioning may occur. So this is another point in the
development process at which fixation is apt to occur and from which
regression to earlier forms of behavior might take place.
If conditions are right, if they provide for one to implement the new
insights into action, then movement takes place to points d, d’, d’’. As
new insights develop and provide new coping means, and as barriers are
removed, the new existential problems are resolved. This results in very
rapid movement and a quantum leap to the next steady state of being,
the next level of existence.
To repeat, Exhibit IX applies, time-wise, to the species and not the
individual. It illustrates, in one aspect, the length of time it took
humankind to develop each new steady state a, a’, a’’ for human
existence. It took a longer period of time for Homo sapiens to move
through the AN state of existence to the BO state than it took for
movement from BO to CP. The leading edge of DQ existence took still
less time to appear than the leading edge of the CP state. But this aspect
of emergent cyclical theory can be viewed better through the diagram of
Exhibit X.
Exhibit X shows a series of increasingly large quasi-concentric
circles. The first, as illustrated, is confined to the lines of the
“normal-sized” head. It represents the AN psychological space, the
space in which all Homo sapiens lived until about 40,000 years ago. At that
time changes in the conditions of human existence, probably climatic,

105 CWG: Emergent cyclical theory sees the developmental process as Mehrabian sees it,
except that he does not identify the systems or the determinants. [See: Mehrabian,
Albert (1968). An Analysis of Personality Theories. Prentice Hall, p. 143-152.]
 E-C Model 181

apparently triggered the appearance of the leading edge of BO thinking.

This resulted in a considerable increase in the psychological space of
Homo sapiens.
About 10,000 years ago, a new set of existential conditions -
probably population numbers - came to be. As a result, the P system in
the brain was activated in the leading edge of humankind. Another
increase in psychological space occurred as the CP state of existence
emerged.
Exhibit X
182 E-C Model

Then about 4,000 years ago the D problems, probably full

awareness of the fact that one must die, arose, activated the Q system,
and produced another increase in psychological space. About 600 years
ago, the conditions of existence for the leading edge of mankind
changed again. He became aware that this is the only life he would ever
have. These conditions activated the fifth level neuropsychological
system, the R system, and the human began to operate in the ER
manner.
But with the beginning of the realization that one is not an
individual independent from all others, about 80 years ago, the psycho-
logical space changed again. The leading edge of humankind started its
move to the FS state of existence.
And it was just some 30 years ago106 that psychological space started
to show its greatest change to date. This is portrayed by the A’N’ system
of Exhibit XII [p. 187]. It occurred when, for the first time in his
existence, the leading edge of mankind truly realized that man is an
interdependent, not an independent organism.
Exhibit XI illustrates, in a sense, all that this chapter has said to date
about emergent cyclical psychosocial developmental theory. It lists in
the horizontal table the first seven levels of existence - AN, BO, CP,
DQ, ER, FS, and A’N’. Next to the letters designating each of the states
is a thumbnail summation of some basic aspects of each associated
existential state. The diagram shows that at the AN level, survival is on
an automatic basis. There is no conscious awareness of self as different
from any other human or any other animal. There is no differentiation
of others, no differentiation between the inner and the outer world.
At the BO level, self is subsumed within others. Living is centered
on sacrificing self to the “clan”, “tribe,” or group of others. The idea ‘we
as the group are one’ is all-important, and the focus of life is on the
attempt to control the inner self and come to peace with it.
When the CP system comes to be, consciousness of the self, as an
identity, emerges. The person perceives that caring about others
interferes with one’s own existence. ‘I, myself’ emerges to be life’s
central concern. Others matter only inasmuch as they interfere with me.
Overtly, in this state these become an ‘express self, to hell with others’
existence. The focus of living shifts to the external world and how to get
control over it, so “I” can survive or at least go down to death glorified
in the eyes of others.

106 This was written in 1977, putting the approximate rise of A’N’ at the end of World
War II and the beginnings of the nuclear age.
 E-C Model 183

Exhibit XI

At the DQ level, faith prevails. “That which powerful others

prescribe and want will make life what it would be for me” is the center
of life. “Sacrifice self now to get later” becomes the thema for existence.
One’s higher power is the designer and the determiner of life. So, the
focus for living shifts again back to the control of one’s inner world and
184 E-C Model

how to come to peace with all that is inside but cannot be expressed
except in the way of the higher power.
The ER system again shifts its focus to the external world and how
to gain control over it so one can acquire that which fulfills “mine own
self interest.” This system pretends that “mine own self interest” is really
the interest of others. This is a characteristic of this expres self system
which is different from the CP expres self system.
At the FS level, return is made to a sacrifice-self theme. But it is a
“sacrifice now to get now” theme, not a “sacrifice now to get later”
theme (DQ). The self, at this level, is a strong part of the total system,
but the focus is again on knowing the inner world. The FS focus is
different from AN and BO systems in which the idea of self had not
emerged to a dominant position. It is also different from the CP external
focus on the world and how to get around it, or the ER external focus
on how to gain control over it. It has the inward focus of the DQ world
but not on how to come to inner peace with the absolutistic
prescriptions of authority. FS thinking seeks an even trade in life: ‘If you
win, I win. If you lose, I lose.’ And central to it is: ‘Whoever wins,
whoever loses, let us not fight about it because that will only rob me of
the time I need to come to know my inner world.’ This dictum is lived
to excess, as are all the dictums of subsistence level systems, and it is
these excesses which lead to the emergence of the A’N’ system, the first
system of the second spiral of existence.
The A’N’ system arises as a result of the excesses of the subsistence
ways of living, as a result of over-denial and over-expression. Over-
denial has led to the rape of self. Over-expression has led to the rape of
others and of the world. This rape of others, the world, and the self has
put sheer existence in jeopardy just as it was when human life began. Six
ways of being - AN, BO, CP, DQ, ER, FS - have worked toward an
epitome for living based on the total expression by the individual. Now,
in the minds of some, this vision of life is perceived to doom Homo
sapiens to go out of existence. So a new basis for living, the interdependence
of all things, emerges as the perception upon which to start human life
all over again. As Mumford says, the sum of all our days is but a new
beginning.107 The totality of this is shown in the two curves of Exhibit
X.
In Exhibit XI, the solid line curve illustrates that as the human
solves the problems A he gains the skills and knowledge through system
N which are necessary to cope with problems A. But it shows that what

107 Paraphrase of Lewis Mumford’s (1956) optimistic remark, “The sum of all man’s days
is just a beginning.” (Transformations of Man. p. 249).
 E-C Model 185

accumulates from the solution of problems A creates problems B, etc.,

ad infinitum. These two curves are an abstraction superimposed on the
progressive, steady state, regressive curve of Exhibit IX to remind the
reader of the actual process of development.
In Exhibit XI, the [dashed line] − − − curve shows the accretion of
new problems created by the current means for problem solving. The
[dot-dash-dot] • − • curve shows the accumulation of knowledge and
skills required for solving newly created problems. Life begins with the
slow development of the skills and knowledge needed to solve problems
A. As the skills and knowledge are accumulated, it begins to produce
problems B. Thus, early in the process of living the AN way, the
problems created are not in excess of the coping capacity of
neuropsychological system N. So the person continues in the steady AN
state. Later in psychological time, the ascending new problem (− − −
curve in Exhibit XI) begins to exceed the capacity of the N system to
cope. So a critical point in development is reached. It is shown at the
end of each steady state by the double-headed arrows. When the spread
between old problems solved and new problem accretion reaches a
critical degree, there is a regressive attempt to force old ways to solve
new problems. Forcing old solutions on new problems fails. The failure
creates the dissonance which stimulates the activating system X to
produce the chemical constituents necessary to activate higher level
coping systems. These higher-level coping systems contain the kind of
equipment necessary to deal with the kinds of excess problems created.
Thus, the higher level is activated and the progressive, steady state
development continues ad infinitum.
The exhibits presented so far illustrate the emergent side of
emergent cyclical theory but they show nothing on the cyclical side.
Exhibit XII is presented to fill this gap. Exhibit XII is, of all the
illustrations presented, the one most pregnant with meaning. Therefore,
I shall begin the narration in respect to it with some words about its
derivation.
Exhibit XII derives from some of the data reported in Chapter IV.
In particular I refer to the data which said:
1. Conceptualize adult psychosocial behavior as a hierarchical
series of six upon six subsystems - the conceptions of maturity
data.
2. Conceptualize adult psychosocial behavior so that each
odd-numbered system in the hierarchy is more externally,
more “change-the-environment” oriented and so that each
186 E-C Model

even-numbered system is more internally, more

“adjust-to-the-environment” oriented – the “express-
self/deny-self” data.
3. Conceptualize adult psychosocial behavior in a systemically
alternating, cyclical, wave-like fashion allowing for repetition of
general thema in a new and different way in every other system
- the “change and organizational data.”
4. Conceptualize psychosocial behavior so that every other
system is similar to but at the same time different from its
alternate - the “conceptions of maturity and change” data.
5. Conceptualize psychosocial behavior so that each system has
its system specificness, so that each system has a quality all its
own - the “interaction and learning” data.
6. Conceptualize psychosocial behavior so as to allow for
quantitative variation in some dimensions -the
“authoritarianism and dogmatism” data.
7. Conceptualize psychosocial behavior so as to allow for little or
no variation in certain dimensions, the “intelligence and
temperament” data.
8. Conceptualize psychosocial behavior so as to show increased
degrees of psychological space in each successive system and
particularly to show marked changes in psychological space
every seventh system in the hierarchy of systems - the
“freedom to behave” and the “problem solving” data.
Examination of these results indicates that a model of personality,
culture and conceptions of maturity requires representation through two
basic components in the mind of man (items 2, 3, and 4 above). So, in
Exhibit XII, the broken line and the solid line represent these two
components. The broken line represents the development of the mental
component “focus on the external world and attempt to master it.” The
solid line represents the development of the component “Focus on the
inner world and attempt to come to peace with it.” But whence come
these two components? Emergent-cyclical theory proposes they derive
from the two hemispheres of the brain. The externally focused
component derives from the left hemisphere, the inner focused
component from the right hemisphere. The recent experimental
evidence which indicates that the two hemispheres function in different
 E-C Model 187

Exhibit XII

ways supports this.108 So the dotted line, when in the upper position,
represents domination of conceptual thinking by the functions of the

108 Sperry, Roger W., Gazzaniga, M.S. and Bogen, J.E. (1969). Interhemispheric
relationships: the neocortical commissures; syndromes of hemisphere disconnection.
In Vinken, P. J. and Bruyn G.W. (Eds.), Handbook of Clinical Neurology (p. 273-290).
Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co., 4. Gazzeniga, M. S. (1970) The Bisected
Brain. New York: Appleton. Ornstein, R. (1972). The Psychology of Consciousness. San
Francisco: Freeman Co.
188 E-C Model

left cerebral hemisphere. The solid line represents domination by the

functions of the right hemisphere.
But how can one represent the aspect of data 2, 3, and 4 which
requires that systems of psychosocial behavior show an alternation
between “externally oriented change systems” and “internally oriented
come to peace with what is” systems? This is represented by the two
curves in Exhibit XII developing by periods of spurt and plateau. As the
two components vary in their rate of development, they produce a
hierarchy of alternating systems. Systems 1, 3, 5, and 7 -existential states
AN, CP, ER and A’N’ respectively - are externally oriented change
systems. Their focus is on the external world and how to master and
change it. System control and domination within each odd-numbered
system is exercised by the left cerebral hemisphere. The even-numbered
systems, 2, 4, 6, and 8 - the existential states BO, DQ, FS, and B’O’ - are
internally oriented. This internal orientation is focused on achieving
internal peace and dominated by the right cerebral hemisphere.
The spurt-like, plateau-like development of the two components
produces the wave-like repetition of theme variation on theme required
by my data. This alternation of growth of the components also
illustrates the similar and dissimilar aspects of every other system.
The odd-numbered systems are represented by the broken line to
indicate the tendency of these odd-numbered systems - AN, CP, ER and
A’N’ - to be more loosely bound. The even-numbered are represented
by the ascending solid line to indicate that each even-numbered system
– BO, DQ, FS, B’O’ - is more tightly bound. The odd-numbered
systems are more change systems. The even-numbered ones are more
conservative.
The transition to new systems produced by the alternating, spurt-
like, plateau-like development of the two basic components plus the
nature of the cross hatching within each area of conceptual space
represents each system to have a quality all its own. These represent-
ational requirements are also required by the data.
The data demand that one conceive of systemic development so
that it shows increased degrees of behavioral freedom at each successive
level in the hierarchy. This concept is included in Exhibit XII. It is
included by allowing the space defined by the alternating lines to
increase in size in each successive system. Also, the data demands that
some dimensions of personality or culture be shown to vary little over
all systems. The constant form of the systems illustrates this concept.
Looking further at Exhibit XII, we see that each even-numbered
system is only slightly larger than its predecessor, but each
 E-C Model 189

odd-numbered system expands more over its preceding even-numbered

system than the even expands over the preceding odd. This is included
in the diagram to illustrate two things:
1. that the increases in conceptual space are greater in the
odd-numbered systems and less in those that are
even-numbered, and
2. that the odd-numbered systems are “growth, change the
environment” systems while the even-numbered systems are
“consolidating, adjust to the environment” systems.
But note also in respect to the increase in psychological space of
each system the difference of the seventh system from all the preceding
systems. The seventh system, the first system in the second spiral of
existence, is proportionately much larger over FS than ER is over DQ.
This portrayal indicates a marked expansion in psychological space, in
conceptual and behavioral possibilities when this system emerges.
The A’N’ system is represented to contain more psychological space
than the sum of the six systems which precede it. This is required by my
data. The part of my data referred to indicates that the A’N’ existential
state is much less rigid, far less dogmatic, etc., than earlier appearing
states. Of all the subjects studied, the A’N’ subjects, solved problems
not only much more rapidly but they also found more answers than all
the others added together. Relative to the others, the rapidity with which
A’N’ subjects could change their point of reference was almost
unbelievable. Their differences from others were so obvious that I said
in an unpublished 1961 paper, read at several meetings, that this
signified something markedly important to personality and cultural
theorists. I said:
As man moves from the sixth level to the seventh,
freedom to know and to do, a chasm of awesome
significance is being crossed. The bridge from the sixth level
to the seventh is the bridge between similarity to animals
and dissimilarity to animals.
Once we are able to grasp the significance of passing
from the level of belonging to the level of to do and to
know, we will see that we are able to explain the enormous
differences between man and other animals. It will be seen
that at this point we step over the line which separates those
needs we have in common with lower animals and those
needs which are distinctly human.
190 E-C Model

Man on the step of the seventh level is on the threshold

of the emergence of his human being. He is no longer just
another of nature’s species. He is now becoming a human
being. And we in our times, in our moral and general
behavior, are but approaching this threshold. Would that we
not be so lacking in understanding and would that we not
be so condemning that by such misunderstanding and such
condemnation we block man forever from crossing the line
between his animalism and his humanism.109
At another point in the same paper I said (slightly changed to update it):
Modern man, at this moment in his history is
approaching his great divide, the point between lower and
higher behavioral systems. Across this psychological space
he can become what only man is to be and his behavior can
begin to be uniquely human behavior. It will be behavior
that is good for life, not after life; that is good for all beings,
not just for self; that is good for him, not just his boss; that
is good for him not just his ego.
On the other side of development he may be the doer
of great things or lesser things. He will become infinitely
himself. If ever the human leaps to this great beyond, there
will be no vassalage, no peonage in behavior. There will be
no shame in behavior for man will know it is human to
behave. There will be no pointing of the finger at other
men, no segregation, no depredation, and no degradation in
behavior. The human will be striding forth on the beginning
of his humanness rather than vacillating and swirling in the
turbulence of partial blocked human behavior arrested
forever from playing itself out on the sands of time.
Exhibit XII, as drawn, shows the developing B’O’ system as the last
system in the hierarchy at this moment in time. However, it is essential
to note that the double-helix conception allows for the development of
systems beyond B’O’. This illustrates another significant way in which
the emergent cyclical conception of personality is different from many
other conceptions. With the exception of John Calhoun’s conception,110

109 The source document has not been been found. However, these words were read at
the 1971 Annual Meeting of the Association of Humanistic Psychology from “Levels
of Existence: An Open System Theory of Values,” and appear in that paper wherein
Dr. Graves cites the original date as 1960 rather than 1961.
110 Calhoun (1968, 1973).
 E-C Model 191

B’O’ is a system beyond any suggested by others who think in a systemic

fashion. And it is a system, along with the A’N’ system, which says that
any conception of personality, culture, and maturity must be open
minded.
The limited data I have on the B’O’ system suggests that the central
core of the B’O’ existential state is: “One shall adjust to the existential
realities of one’s existence.” One shall automatically accept the
existential dichotomies of life of which Erich Fromm writes.111 This
central core is amazingly like the core of the second level of existence,
the BO existential state. Similarly, A’N’ is more like the AN state than it
is like any of the five other subsistence level systems. Yet the B’O’ state
is unlike the BO state, just as the A’N’ state is unlike the AN state. Thus,
Exhibit X illustrates that the A’N’ state is the beginning of a second
spiral, a psychospatially very different spiral of existence, as the double-
helix model suggests.
Thus we come almost to the end of the diagrammatic representation
of emergent cyclical theory. All that is left is to present a diagram which
identifies the major systems and subsystems which research should
attempt to examine. These nodal systems and their entering and exiting
subsystems are shown in Exhibit XIII.
The nodal systems - AN, BO, CP, DQ, ER, FS, A’N’, and B’O’ -
have been designated before. But no words have been offered as to how
the sub-systems are designated. The exiting sub-states and the entering
sub-states are designated by a combination of upper case and lower case
letters. In the case of the exiting states, the designation is BO/cp,
DQ/er, etc., indicating a transitional system in which the BO
component is stronger than the emerging cp component. The entering
states are designated as bo/CP, cp/DQ, dq/ER, etc. This indicates a
subsystem in which the bo component is subordinated to the
strengthening CP component.
With this designation of the nodal systems and the subsystems,
basic emergent cyclical theory has been presented. Now it is time to turn
to a description of each of the existential states, the levels of existence of
the organism Homo sapiens.112

111 Fromm, Eric (1941). Escape from Freedom. Holt Rinehart and Winston.
112 At this point there is a break in Dr. Graves’s writing, explained on the pages which
follow.
192 E-C Model
 E-C Model 193

Exhibit XIV
194 Section II
 Section II 195

Section II

The Levels of Existence

along the Existential Staircase
We thought long and hard about whether to include the next part or
not because we wanted to remain true to the work, the words and the
manuscript. Dr. Graves either never completed most of the chapters for
the following section, or they are lost. His widow believed he had not
written them because, with his damaged eyesight, it became too
burdensome to continue. He did complete some of the AN chapter, and
one sample of his intended approach to the transition states does exist
(the transitional DQ/ER chapter sub-section which is included within
the DQ chapter, essentially intact). Thus, the chapters on from AN to
B’O’ are reconstructions by the editors from Dr. Graves’s own writings
with emphasis given to the phrasings of his later papers and summaries.
His table of contents made it clear that Dr. Graves wanted to
include chapters on these levels of existence. Thus, the words in this
section are those of Dr. Graves; only needed conjunctions have been
added. However, the arrangement of ideas and the placement of
sentences and phrases, compiled from various sources, is by the editors.
Many of the unpublished source documents are available online at
www.clarewgraves.com for anyone wishing to search for specific
phrases in the original context and are cited in the bibliography. A great
many ideas appear in multiple papers over the years with only slight
196 Section II

differences in wording, while others changed significantly as the theory

evolved. Some of the comments included here come from transcriptions
of recorded presentations and seminars. In addition to online
documents, readers might want to locate a reprint of Dr. Graves’s paper
summarizing his views on management at the time from the Harvard
Business Review (1966), as well as his preliminary remarks on theory in the
Journal of Humanistic Psychology (1970). Both of these should be viewed as
works in progress, however.
The reader should be fully aware that this section is a compilation
by the editors and not as organized by Dr. Graves. It is surely not what
he had expected or hoped to produce, yet the work is so powerful, even
in this reconstructed form, that we could not let it remain unexplored.
Thus, the next eight chapters are included to elaborate on the important
part – the theory in Sections I and III. The essence of the point of view,
and the basis for further work, appears in those sections and stands up
well without these details and illustrations. The reader should also keep
in mind these cautionary words from Clare Graves’s 1977 preface on
page 25:
So the theory presented herein is not the product I had
envisioned. It is a sketch with gaps and expressive deficiencies
within…In one sense, I apologize to those who sought more
than I was, in pre-accident days, of a mind to scatter. On the
other hand, I do not apologize, because then I did not feel that
I was ready to stand on what I, too early, might have said. But
now, even within my problem, I am ready to stand on what I
say herein, but not on what I said before except in a basically
general sense. What I said before was a part of an effort which
produced the product contained herein. Even today it is not a
finished product. Obviously it is incomplete and obviously
there will be gaps and errors in my thinking. But when I say ON
THESE WORDS I STAND, what I mean is this: If my
conception of adult behavior is to be torn to shreds by criticism
and even demolished by subsequent research, let it be the basics
of the emergent cyclical levels of existence theory of adult
behavior as I am able to present it herein that be criticized and
torn apart. Let it not be that which I said or wrote while trying
to conceive what is presented within the covers of this book.
And let it not be the specifics of the conception that criticism
dwell upon.
 Section II 197

Over the years, many people who have adopted the Gravesian point
of view have concentrated on the content of the levels – more as a
typology and categories for differences – rather than focus on the E-C
theory, itself. It was the emergent cyclical levels of existence perspective
and the double helix, described in Section I and defended in Section III,
which are the essence of this work. It is those chapters which are “The
Graves Book.” The next eight chapters are icing applied to his cake,
made from ingredients he left and used with some consistency. They
are, nonetheless, only our best approximation of what he might have
baked. One of the motivations for making this text available is to
suggest that further research and study is needed, how it might be
pursued, and to make the basis of Dr. Graves’s thinking available to
those who choose further to explore human behavior – what it is, and
what it is meant to be.
198 Section II
 AN 199

CHAPTER 7

The Autistic Existence – The AN State

113

The 1st Subsistence Level

The AN - Autistic, Automatic, Reactive Existential State

Theme: Express self as if just another animal according to the dictates of

one’s imperative periodic physiological needs.

Alternative theme: Express self as if just another animal according to the

dictates of one’s imperative physiological needs and the environmental
possibilities

113 In some of his writings, Dr. Graves used a hyphen to separate the letters in the pairs:
A-N, B-O, etc. In other work he did not: AN, BO, CP, etc. The hyphen suggests and
reinforces the link between the double-helix components. He used that in his later
handouts. However, he did not include the hyphen in the 1977 manuscript and this
text will adhere to that style for consistency. Readers should also note that Dr.
Graves made it clear that his descriptions of the AN state were based on library
research and, for obvious reasons, not from written conceptiosn.
200 AN

Emergent cyclical theory depicts essentially eight major conditions

of human existence that have or are emerging in man’s history to date
with a description of the characteristics of the human who typically lives
within the confines of one of these levels of existence.
The first one is designated the AN level. The AN system is one by
which all lived 40,000 or more years ago. It still exists in viable and
functioning form today, though most often it is found in pathological
cases. It exists in those conditions of existence which provide for
automatic satisfaction of the A level problems of existence.
The A stands for the first set of conditions of human existence in
which the human being lives. The N stands for the neurological system
that is activated to deal with particular problems of existence
confronting the individual. To have fixated into this form as a viable
existence, the human conditions for existence must have provided for
the automatic satisfaction of the imperative, periodic, physiological
needs - the “A” - the individual and race survival problems of existence.
Necessary information for survival of individual and species is sensed,
processed, and reacted to through the automatic system and stored
through the learning process of habituation, the learning equipment
which automatically signals the on-off character of the degree of need.
The “N” neuropsychological system, the neuro system specifically
attuned to processing imperative, physiological need information,
responds only to change in intensity of the imperative need and not to
patterning.
According to E-C theory, this earliest-appearing system is based on
the human’s reaction to the presence or absence of physiological
tension. The person, motivated only by the degree of satisfaction of the
imperative, periodic physiological needs such as hunger, thirst, and sex is
aware only of the presence and absence of tension. I sometimes call it
the Autistic State, meaning that the person who lives at this level lives in
a need-satisfying, wish-fulfillment manner; that the person is aware only
of the presence and absence of tension. Sometimes I have called it the
Animalistic Existence – humans behaving much as other animals do –
and sometimes the Reactive Existence, for the individual just reacts to
these tensions in the manner that will automatically take care of
satisfying the particular need that has arisen out of the, to use a German
term, urangst of the individual in this particular moment that he or she is
living.
The absence of pain, that is tension, is what is good. Its presence is
that which is bad. That which automatically reduces tension is good.
That which increases the tensional level is bad. The tension arises and he
 AN 201

automatically reacts in the direction of doing what he or she has learned

will satisfy that particular tension. This is a process where the person
learns to shut off stimulation. When he gets enough he stops. He learns
to shut off and lives a life wishing for the cessation of that tension.
Effort is expended in response to immediate needs or desires if awake,
and he plays when surfeited.
As in infra-human animals there is no true self-awareness – no
awareness of self as separate and distinct from the other animals, and no
awareness of self as differentiated from others in this automatic
reflexological existence. At the automatic level man is, by and large,
unaware of his own subjectivity. He cannot distinguish his actions from
environmental consequences. He is so little aware of what is going on
that he tends not even to recognize that which is new or frustrating. He
has no energy to mobilize into anger or fear, or hate or jealousy. He
behaves more like the behaviorists’ imprinted duckling than he does a
‘human being.’ Place a stimulus to which he is imprinted in front of him
and he automatically responds so long as it is present. Put others in their
place and it is as if they were not even there.
As in infra-human species, there is only a home territory concept of
space, and imperative need-based concept of time, cause, space, and
materiality of a very limited character. They don’t know ‘over the hill’ or
‘over yonder,’ or ‘down the river’ or ‘down the stream;’ they have no
concept of that nature. They live in some cave or depression they’ve
found and crawled into. There is no concept of God, the gods, the
universe or the like. This person lives as a herd, a herd of 12 to15
human beings in a group. They make no organized planned work effort.
They show no concept of leadership. The only time they expend effort
is in response to immediate need or desire. There is no formal
organization or management of people who operate at this level. This
man is not aware of his existence; he has no excess energy with which to
plan, to organize or to foresee the future.
Life is either grubbing for that which will maintain the spark of life,
or in the pathological cases, a signaling to the world of others “I am in
need and if I am to continue to exist, then you must adjust to my
signals.” This, therefore, is the first of our ‘adjustment of the
environment to the organism’ systems. Here man is striving to get the
world of other people to adjust to his basic imperative needs, a matter,
at this level, which is vital to his existence. For if they cannot be made to
adjust, then he in this existential state ceases to be. He is soon dead.
Man the species, or man the individual, does not have to rise above
this level to continue the survival of the species. Man can continue the
202 AN

survival of the species through the purely physiological aspect of the

process of procreation existence. He can live what is for him, at the AN
level, a productive lifetime - productive in the sense that his built-in
response mechanisms are able to reduce the tensions of his imperative
physiological needs - and a reproductive lifetime. But this level of
existence seldom is seen today except in rare instances or in pathological
cases.

Examples of AN Existence

This is the level of adult human behavior at which energies

expended in the process of procuring food and conducting the tissue
building and maintaining processes, the anabolic processes, are barely
more, if more, than equivalent to the energies expended in the tissue
destroying processes, the catabolic processes. There are no energies to
activate man’s usual psychological processes. There is energy for barely
more than a physiological reflexological state of existence, only a
sufficient amount for attendance to living in the most narrow sense of
the phrase. The cells of the higher brain, if present, are alive but with the
exception of those ‘automatic’ imprintable systems, there is little or no
activation of cognitive brain substance. Even Pavlovian classical
conditioning brain substance is minimally operant, and the intentional
instrumental learning system just does not operate. Therefore, the
behavior displayed by a person or group at this level is almost devoid of
what we normally call human experience.
Man does exist at the bare subsistence level, but to say that he who
is at this level actually “lives” would be to do him a grave injustice. He is
alive - yes - and those neurological systems which maintain his
physiological processes are operant; but existentially this can hardly be
called human life, for it is a state of psychological non-existence.
Cognitively, affectively and otherwise man at this level is almost without
those experiences known to higher-level humans.
Today, this is the world of the adult psychological infant, possibly
the world of the simplest of food gathering cultures, the world of the
severe senile deteriorate, the world of he who has regressed severely
under the stress of war, the world of he who has been kept alive by the
compassion or guilt of his fellow man. At the extreme, he is more
animal than human; barely more, if more, than a living vegetable. In fact,
for many at this level it would be more appropriate to refer to them as in
a state of vegetative existence.
 AN 203

In this state of being, the person does not have any awareness of
his- or herself as being different from any other person, as being
different from any other animal, as being different from a log or a tree
or a rock or anything else. It’s just a condition in which the individual is
one with the world; but they will now and then perceive themselves as a
little different. It’s a state which is found rarely in the current world.
The research that came out in the mid 1960s corroborated that this
state of existence does actually live on the surface of the globe at this
particular time, and one finds them in the natural state, in a healthy state,
and in the mature state in the Tasaday of the island of Mindanao in the
Philippine Archipelago.114 The Tasaday are people who have survived
because of their particular conditions of existence - living way back in a
verdant, rain forest, far and away from any other human being. The
forest provides a continuous supply of food and water. There are natural
limestone caves, so it naturally provides shelter from any inclement
weather. They find a cave and they just move in.
People living at the first level of human existence - living the nodal
way that is the way that maintains life and continues for them - don’t
need tools. They just go out in the stream and pick up a crawdad. Food
is there to be gathered, to be plucked, to be picked. They don’t have any
concept of leadership; they don’t have any concept of time; they have no
concept of space other than the immediate little region in which they
live. They live through the automatic equipment of the N neurological
system which is specifically attuned to processing the imperative
physiological needs. These people who are centralized at and have been
living forever at the first level of existence have not gone on to higher
levels of existence because they live in those verdant conditions. There
has been no reason for them to go on.
They are not like other people who operate at lower levels of human
existence who live, for example, in the Kalahari Desert115 where it is
necessary to search continuously for food. People like those who live on
the Kalahari Desert have to find a more adequate way of existence than
those who are like the Tasaday. So they at least begin movement out of
the first level to the second level of existence; but these are only some
examples of people who live at or close to the first level of existence
today.
Sometimes people who once operated at considerably higher levels
have had their conditions of existence worsened. Hence, their higher
level systems were deactivated, turning on again and foreforcing the

114 Ibid, Nance.

115 Thomas, Elizabeth Marshall (1959). The Harmless People. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
204 AN

lower level systems. An example of this are the Ik, the nomadic African
tribe that was forced out of its natural habitat into a static life in
mountainous country insufficient to provide sustenance to meet even
their periodic physiological needs or to enable these people to solve
their problems of existence.116 They have regressed probably to about
the lowest level of human living that we have today.
It simply indicates, as I see it, that down underneath it all, if the
human being is to survive, he must do whatever he can to survive. The
human being is pretty bright. If it’s necessary to steal the food out of the
baby’s mouth as the Ik does, do it. Now, lets get down to earth here, lets
get down to the level which we were talking about and here, now, the
lowest part of that level. At the first level the person does not
differentiate self from any other animal. An animal gets hungry enough
it will take what it must to live. A human will do the same thing; it’s
another animal; the Ik do that. Those who have written of the Ik - these
are not my words - have described them as the most despicable human
beings on the face of the globe.117 They are simply trying to stay alive as
human beings, and losing the battle.
Karl Jaspers related a regressed case of this kind in his book, General
Psychopathology. A World War I German soldier related the state of mind
to which he was reduced by the conditions for existence in which he
was living. The soldier said:
“We were reduced to having to wait and see. We were in
immediate danger but our minds froze, grew numb, empty
and dead. One gets so tired, so utterly weary. Thoughts
crawl, to think is such a labor and even the smallest
voluntary act becomes painful to perform. Even talking,
having to reply, get ones thoughts together jars on the
nerves, and it felt as sheer relief to doze and not to have to
think of anything or do anything. The numbness may
indeed grow into a dreamlike state, time and space
disappear, reality moves off infinitely far, and while one’s
consciousness obediently registers every detail like a
photographic plate ... feelings waste away and the individual
loses all touch with himself. It is you who sees, hears and
perceives or is it only your shadow?”118

116 Turnbull, Colin M. (1972). Mountain People. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
117 Ibid, Turnbull.
118 Jaspers, Karl (1964). General Psychopathology. University of Chicago Press, p. 368-369.
 AN 205

Obviously, in the jargon of the day, this man is not ‘with it.’ He is
not aware of time, space or materiality. There is no reality for him as
many of us know reality. His psychological processes seem to have
disappeared for, as he says, “our minds froze, grew numb, empty and
dead.” Intentional behavior is gone as is shown when he says,
“Thoughts crawl, to think is such a labor and even the smallest
voluntary act becomes painful to perform.” All that operates in this state
is basic reflexological behavior. Even emotions and one’s concept of self
disappear for as he says, “…feelings waste away and the individual loses
all touch with himself.”
Quite obviously this is the AN state in one of its pathological forms.
But do not make an error at this point, for automatic behavior does not
arise only from psychopathological or physiopathological conditions of
existence. This is a normal state of existence, at least in our world today.
This assertion is not one which it pleases me to make, for as you shall
soon see, it need not be a normal state for man’s being because there is
much we could do about it. But for the moment, such regrets are not
germane, for the AN state of existence is the life state of many non-
pathological beings in our world today. So we must know its character if
ever we are to take appropriate steps to lift man from this inhumane,
human state of existence.
How many million adults in this world live at this level we do not
know, but the lady whose case shall now be cited exists, lives, and is
reproducing within the upper reaches of this state of human existence.
First, let us examine the conditions for existence which surround her
being today.
Mrs. G. is the case. (Note: this was a white family.) She and
her family live in one of the many decaying tenement row
houses facing on the pock marked and trash littered pavement
of __ St. The gutted sidewalk in front of the G. home is
cluttered with broken glass that has collected throughout the
litter of battered tin cans and soggy bags of garbage “air mailed”
from the windows above. Worn dips in the steps of a wooden
stoop and a swaying hand-railing lead into a hallway where the
grit and grime underfoot and on a creaking stairway to the
second floor also cling to the rickety banister.
Grease coated walls in the kitchen and the damply dirty top
of an outsized television set, long inoperative, revile the hand.
The odor vaguely sensed but undefined in the hallway and up
the stairs is unmistakable now. It is the smell of urine, dried and
drying in the bare mattresses and in the sagging, stuffing-spilling
206 AN

sofas that are beds at night. The stench is present in the

rumpled clothes that fill corners of the rooms and cover the
floor of a bedroom. Nor are the fetid odors of cooking and the
atmosphere of damp rot compounded by faulty plumbing
dispelled by the open windows. There is no hot water to clean
the clothes effectively or to cut the grease on top of the stove
and the tabletop and in the skillet and in the scattered plates and
dishes.
These conditions for human existence in both the German soldier
and in Mrs. G’s world certainly approach the A conditions hypothesized
to trigger only the operation of the N neurological system. And, as we
read further we will see how familiar is the psychology of our soldier
and Mrs. G.:
Next to the sink in the kitchen is a water heater. It would
probably work, Mrs. G. thinks, because there is a hot water tap
above the sink. But she ways, “We haven’t got it hitched up yet.
Maybe my husband will call the landlord or try to do it himself.”
Notice the automatic registering of the world in Mrs. G’s case - the
same automatic registering of which our soldier wrote. But, notice also
the absence of volitional behavior which the soldier said was too painful
to even try. Going on we find:
Mrs. G. is only vaguely sensitive to the squalor of her home.
It has been this way for as long as she can remember. She would
like things to be better, but she can’t change things. She has no
resources to call upon that might bring change.
Our regressed soldier said:
“our minds froze, grew numb, empty and dead. One gets so
tired, so utterly weary. Thoughts crawl, to think is such a labor
and even the smallest voluntary act becomes painful to perform.
Even talking, having to reply, get ones thoughts together jars on
the nerves and it is felt as sheer relief to doze and not have to
think of anything or do anything.”
Are these not very similar existential states? Are not Mrs. G’s
conditions for existence but a little better than our soldier’s? But is her
psychology substantially different? Our soldier says, “the numbness may
indeed grow into a dream like state, time and space disappear, reality
moves off infinitely far.” Our reporter says of Mrs. G.:
 AN 207

It is early afternoon but the children are only half-dressed. A

three-year-old girl is wearing one of her brother’s dirty undershirts
and nothing else. None of the children is wearing shoes. Their
feet are black with grime and look misshapen. The long hair of
the girls is dirty, crumpled and knotted. There is no comb to be
found today. Not even in the bedroom where a seven-year-old
boy in a faded Cub Scout shirt lies sleeping. Mrs. G. is surprised
to find her son asleep in the room. She thought he had eaten
breakfast with the rest of the family and gone out to play -- one of
the children starts toward the door to go outside -- “put shoes
on.” Mrs. G. tells her daughter. The child finds one laceless shoe.
She goes out barefooted. Her mother is not looking.
“I don’t even know the name of the woman next door. We
lived here two years. No one lives on the first floor of this
building. Those rooms come with the rent.”
Certainly Mrs. G’s mind has little comprehension of time, space and
reality. But, again, let us not make an error. Mrs. G. can and has lived a
reproductive lifetime at this level. She has 13 children, 13 children who
are growing in this channel of human existence and who will be, at
adulthood, in this level of existence unless their conditions for existence
are changed.
This is the automatic, physiological reflexological, bare subsistence
level of human behavior. It is the AN existential state in operation. This
is the second to the lowest level of human living that we know of. The
other one: it’s a person maintained by machines, whose brain is
essentially dead, but the body is kept alive. But people, like Mrs. G., are
not idiots nor deteriorates who are necessarily bound to this form of
existence. They are simply adult human beings who have taken on the
form of existence which has the greatest survival value for them in their
world; but they are also ones who are arrested at this level because
certain societies will not do what is necessary to overcome the reasons
for the arrestment.
Man at this level is an amoral being. Ethical thinking is not a part of
his life, and God or religion is not there to be:
“In the moral sense this is an amoral system. There is no
should or ought in behavior because man when centralized at
this level does not operate cognitively. He only reacts. He does
not think or judge or believe. Today, this value system, as the
dominant system in man, is more theoretical than actual, more
transitory than lasting. This is so because if man is to stabilize
208 AN

at the first, or any level, two conditions of existence would

have to obtain. The external world would have to continue in a
relatively undisturbed state and the cognitive component
would have to be absent or inoperant. The latter might exist in
the severely retarded, or during severe conditions of stress in
infancy, but it is hardly conceivable in a mature, healthy adult.
And even if the cognitive component were not operant, one
can hardly conceive of a static external world, for nature is
always indifferent to man’s fate. Thus, these very conditions of
human existence, the presence of an indifferent but ever
changing external world and man’s emerging cognitive
component, inevitably challenge man to seek a higher level of
living and a new and different value system. But, no man will
ever be without some reactive values.”119
Emotions play practically no role in his behavior; thus problems of
the antisocial or immoral kind do not stem from automatic man. But
this does not mean that this level presents no troublesome problems for
higher level man today. Therefore, we must consider what its way of
operation means to the totality of mankind.
Possibly, this automatic existential state is the product of some
men’s progression to at least the fourth, the “saintly” level of human
existence. For it is very possible that the guilt which comes to be in man
when he arrives at the fourth level has led him to create this possibly
artificial form of human existence. When man at the third level becomes
aware of life, and when at the fourth level he transcends living only for
his self, he perceives as a part of his duty in life that he should care for
“God’s children.” So he institutes saintly ways, “alms for Allah,” welfare
systems, institutions for the mentally retarded and the deteriorates which
may, in reality, be the source of this AN existential state. Thus, today,
any comprehensive, systematic framework for representing adult man’s
existential forms must include, within its body, room for this possibly
artificially instituted form for existence.
If this is so, man in his fourth level “beneficence” has created here a
problem of monstrous proportions. Assuming, as I do, that this state of
existence is more artificial than natural, what does it mean that it has
come to be? First of all, it means that much to the disbelief of some, our
welfare programs have been successful - successful in the sense that they
have made it possible for first level people to live rather than to die. But

119Graves, Clare W. (1970). Levels of Existence: An Open System Theory of Values.

Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Fall 1970, Vol. 10, No. 2, p. 131-155.
 AN 209

they have been far from successful in enabling people at this level to
move up to higher levels of existence. In fact, the very psychological
state, the fourth level state, which brought this level into being and its
parent and its offspring, third and fifth level psychology, have almost
assured us that the AN state of behavior will be with us for some time.
As I have said, it is the guilt of fourth level man which causes him
to institute the automatic existence into being as a state of human
affairs. And it is another aspect of fourth level psychology which
contributes to locking people like Mrs. G. into this inhumane AN state
of existence. In the saintly, sacrificial system one of its systemic
peculiarities is that the belief in the sacredness of life is coupled with the
belief that it is wrong to tamper with the established order. Therefore,
saintly sacrificial man, fourth level man, is on the one hand driven to
create those institutional ways which keep marginal humans alive,
though only in a state of psychological non-existence. While on the
other hand, he is disposed not to tamper with that which has been
decided, namely that it is his duty to keep them alive, but wrong to give
more than needed for that. Thus he provides for the sustenance of life,
but not for life’s being or its growth.
Third level man, egoistic man, also contributes to the continuance
of, rather than the emergence from, this state of existence. In his
exploitative way, he wrings from their slum existence all that he can in
the way of exorbitant rents, rigged food prices, poor food, etc. He steals
from these people any chance which they might have, within existing
institutional ways, to extricate themselves from this dungeon of life. But
it is not the obsequious condescension of fourth level man or the
exploitative rapaciousness of egoistic man that is most to blame for the
continuance of this inhumanly condition. The arch criminal is fifth level
man.
From his lofty position of relative worldly success and occupational
superiority, he looks down in sneering condemnation on man at the first
level. “If he had any gumption, he’d take himself in hand and get out of
his conditions,” says materialistic man in haughty condescension. “I did
it. Look at me. I made it up here on my own. If he had anything on the
ball, he would do it too.” This belief of fifth level man that he made it
on his own is one of the prime reasons why many of our poor are left to
wither and die at the first level of existence. That this false belief exists
in the mind of independent, materialistic man is a fact; but never was
any human more deluded than he who professes this unfounded belief.
Fifth level man did not get there on his own. Only his blindness enables
him to think he did. Fifth level man was brought to the materialistic
210 AN

doorstep because the humans who preceded him in man’s historical

development worked hard to move man through the lower levels of
human existence. Humans who lived earlier in man’s times solved the
problems of the first four levels of human existence long before the
night this self-righteous, smugly superior fifth level man was conceived.
He did not get to the fifth level on his own. He was born on the
threshold of that level and his family reared him in the channel of
development which permitted him to emerge in adulthood ready to
complete no more than the end of the transition from the fourth level to
the fifth by his own efforts. Thus, he who is so scurrilous toward those
who cannot do for themselves did not arrive at his high station for the
reasons which he believes. He got most of the way there because he did
not have to solve the existential problems faced by many people in a
poverty stricken state.
As a result of this false belief, fifth level men in their haughtiness
and fourth level men in their righteousness have been the main forces
blocking the needed revisions in our welfare systems. People operating
at these levels are prone to want to throw out most forms of protective
maintenance, such as our welfare system. In fact, on a February 26,
1970, television program, Wilbur Mills of the House of Representatives
said in essence: ‘I believe a guaranteed income is wrong. I must go and
pray and see if it should be.’120 Such attitudes we must circumvent if we
are to effectively manage in the AN state of existence so that higher
states of being can emerge. We cannot promote emergence from the
AN state so long as righteousness and haughtiness are roadblocks in our
way.
Some validity is given to what I have been saying by the following
letter sent to the editor of the Schenectady (N.Y.) Gazette on March 7,
1970121:
I would like to add my vote for the stand taken by
Mr.___ regarding the welfare situation. While it is true that
we are commanded to be our brother’s keeper and that we
should not neglect the poor, the Scripture tells us we will

120 Moynihan (1972) p.425: “On February 26 [1970] the committee [House Ways and
Means] decided to report a bill and directed the staff to prepare a formal draft. In a
news conference Mills said he was "going into retreat" to think through his own
position, but added that even if he decided to vote against the measure on the floor,
he would not lead a fight against it. On the other hand he would not be floor
manager.”
121 Schenectady Gazette. Letters to the Editor. March 7, 1970, p. 14. Signed “Name

Withheld.” Writer unknown.

 AN 211

never be able to eliminate them - the poor ye will always

have with you. It is possible to so persecute and tax the
middle classes that the whole humanity will be low if a
preacher is commissioned to preach, let him to do that very
thing with all his heart. If he preached with dedication and
conviction and left the social gospel to the do-gooders, he
would receive fruits for his efforts and there would be no
need of welfare as we see it today.
There should be a definite distinction made between
those who can not work and those who will not. The Bible is
unmistakenly clear on this point: he who will not work let
him not eat. It is getting all out of hand when those who
have not and will not contribute to society DEMAND the
same benefits as those who have spent 40 years in laboring
before they earn retirement.
Obviously those who possess such attitudes are the ones who are
maintaining first level man in his arrested state today. And obviously, as
now you shall see, this state of mind is contrary to the principles for
managing the growth of man out of the AN state of existence.

The Management of the Automatic State

For automatic man, AN man, to emerge he must be managed by the

principles of nurturant management, i.e., management concerned only
with the maintenance of viability of life, management which seeks to
provide unencumbered ministration to the human’s imperative, periodic,
physiological needs which are the only principles congruent with this
state of existence. Failure to nurture will result in death of the managed.
There are virtually no ANs in the American work force. The first
level is of less concern to the industrial or business manager in the
United States than to officials who are trying to manage the
government’s attack on poverty. It is the behavior level at which man’s
energies are consumed in the process of staying alive, in maintaining a
balance between catabolic and anabolic processes. Man’s behavior at
this level reflects only a vague awareness of his existence. He is aware of
little more than the problems of sustenance, illness, reproduction, and
disputes. As one man described this, he must be seen as akin to the
neonate, the newborn baby, which has no resources to come by that
which it needs in order to maintain its existence. And like the newborn
baby, sustenance must be brought to him in sufficient amounts and in
212 AN

proper form if he is to gain that excess energy in his system necessary

for him to take on a higher state of being.
To be specific, let me reiterate the two current practices which are
quite at odds with the principles of nurturant management. Any kind of
food-providing service which does not bring daily to these people that
which they need to eat or to achieve vibrant health, not just existence, is
just not going to do the job. Secondly, any kind of medical services
which do not bring needed services to the door and into the home of
these first-level people will be insufficient. And, thirdly let us look at our
slum clearance practices.
First level man lives in a psychological world of no time and no
space. He lives in a world where he behaves as an imprinted organism.
Put a week’s supply of food before him, at the beginning of a week, and
he will just eat his way through it until none is left for later days in the
week. Asking him to go to ‘City General Hospital over on Thataway and
Faroff Avenue,’ when he has no comprehension of space, is ridiculous.
Ask him to allow his home to be torn down and to move to some new
area while his old area is to be rehabilitated is to threaten him beyond
belief.
We must consider in addition to that above that even the New
Jersey plan, the supplemental income plan, which guarantees a family a
certain income if the paycheck does not reach that level, a plan which is
a tremendous step forward in welfare planning, 122 is far too
sophisticated for application to first level man. We must devise means
which will utilize our usable young people in an all-out attack upon a
problem of these dimensions. But even should we come to direct
ourselves toward the use of nurturant managerial principles for first
level man, we will only have stopped compounding the problem; we will
not have righted it because, unfortunately, unless there is some
remarkable biosocial breakthrough, we are faced with residual AN
problems for a long time to come. This we now know because biological
evidence tells us that when nutrition has not been good through
pregnancy and the first six to eight months of life, cells just don’t divide
as they might. There just is not as much higher-level potential in those
who have been nutritionally deprived as in those for whom life has been
better. Thus, we must begin to think of both long-term, and shorter-
term approaches to the problem of the AN existential state.

122 See Theobald (1963), Moynihan (1973) and Pechman and Timpane (1975).
 AN 213

Transition

Fortunately for most humans who are living in this state today, the
short-term attack can enable then to emerge out of the AN state. So we
should concentrate our efforts in these directions to get the process of
emergence underway. Then we can turn to their higher level human
problems which come to be, problems which will become apparent to
us as we proceed on through the levels of human existence.
No man will ever be without some reactive values123 because he is
always a physiological organism. When first-level man experiences
change in the conditions of his existence, this challenge to his automatic
state of being may change his focus on life and a new form of existence
may develop. We say ‘may’ because the potential for change must be
present in order for it to occur. Depending on the current conditions of
his existence, reactive values may dominate his existence or they may be
subordinated within emerging higher-level value systems. So long as the
human lives in a completely provident, relatively unthreatened in respect
to the satisfaction of the basic needs kind of world, the human has no
reason to enlarge his or her conceptual space and move beyond this
level of being.
As soon as man solves the problem of physiological existence, as
soon as he can satisfy his imperative needs with a minimum of energy
expenditure, he switches, if challenged, to solving the problem of
survival in the broader sense of the word. He switches from basic
manipulation of his world so as to provide protection from physical,
animal, and human violence. If such happens, a new system begins to
arise as man strives to reassure his state of physiological existence. He
moves to the level of animistic living, the second subsistence level of
behavior.124 Man’s quest is no longer for simple physiological existence.
He seeks now a primordial form of existence which he can control,
not just one of automatic reactivity. He proceeds into a limited sensory-
motor exploration of his world. From this exploration he finds himself
rewarded or punished a la the principles of operant or instrumental
conditioning. The effects of this operant conditioning are interpreted by
a weak and undifferentiated cognitive component in an ego-centric way.

123 Much of Dr. Graves’s early approach was values-based. Thus, the terms “values” and
“value systems” were used to describe what later became a level of psychological
existence. This language was commonplace among many who tried to apply the
Gravesian point of view.
124 “Behavior” is another word extensively used by Graves in his writings and often

interchangeably with value system.

214 AN

This weak cognitive component now perceives self as alive and as

possessed of feeling – a state which is projected onto the conditioning
objects in the external world. And, since man at this level feels pleasure
or pain from his manipulation, he projects that the objects in the world
also feel pleasure or pain from these same manipulations. To him
objects feel, think, and act just as he feels, think, and acts. On this
perception man structures his second form of existence and out of this
structuring develops his second level value system. The adjustment of the
organism to the environment component swings to ascendancy.
As soon as man, in his food-gathering wanderings, accrues a set of
Pavlovian conditioned reflexes which provide for the satisfaction of his
imperative needs, and as soon as he, in his wanderings, comes upon his
“Garden of Eden,” that place in space which is appropriate for his
acquired Pavlovian behavior, he slides almost imperceptibly out of this
stage into the second existential state, an established form of human
existence, the tribalistic way of life.
And what I am saying to you is this: When you are working with the
AN system, what you are attempting to do is not to get production or
learning or anything like that out of the individual. That is not what the
transition from the AN to BO is. The transition from AN to BO is the
transition from the ragged edge of ‘alive’ into viable physiological life.
 BO 215

Chapter 8

The Animistic Existence – The BO State

The 2nd Subsistence Level

The BO - Animistic or Tribalistic Existential State

Theme: Sacrifice self to the way of your elders

Alternative Themes: ‘Sacrifice one’s desires to the way of one’s elders’

and ‘sacrifice self to the traditions of one’s elders, one’s ancestors125]

125 At the time of most of his writings, Dr. Graves had only theoretical contact with
mature adult humans at the second level. Like AN, his descriptions of this state were
derived primarily from library research. There were no BO conceptions represented
in his data. Later in life he had experiences that put him more closely in touch with
this level and validated what he had concluded earlier.
216 BO

If the person by the very act of living successfully the first-level way,
then by creating these new problems of existence by the first-level living,
is to stay alive as a human being, there must be activated the second-
level system; and so you have the second milestone on the map of
human existence: the movement of the individual to the second level.
This is variously called the BO State, the Tribalistic State, the
Animistic State, Second Level, and the Second Subsistence Level where
we use different terminology for different purposes. This state first
appeared approximately 40,000 years ago when cataclysmic climatic
conditions changed markedly the source of food, water, shelter, etc., for
humans. If one had the means with which to count, this would probably
be the dominant system on the surface of the globe today.
Now the second level of human existence is quite a different kind of
being. The human’s brain is beginning to awaken and, as it awakens,
many stimuli impinge on his consciousness but are not comprehended.
The second level of human existence or the BO level – the animistic
existential state - is a state produced when the B problems, that is safety
and security and assurance problems, activate the second or the O
neurological system that is specifically attuned to picking up,
transmitting, and dealing with conditions which threaten one’s existence
- satisfaction of the non-imperative, aperiodic, physiological needs such
as needs to avoid pain, cold, heat, etc., and escape harm from various
dangers. The individual at this stage has progressed beyond a bare
physiological existence.
This person, unlike the person at first level who lives very automatic
form of existence and who has a very limited inner life, has a very full
inner life, one which is full of indwelling spirits. The person at this level
thinks animistically. Here he lives in a primeval world of no separation
between subject and object, a world where phenomena possess no clear
contours and things have no particular identity. He thinks in terms of an
indwelling spirit of life in all things, animate or inanimate. Thus, the
adult at this level is full of magical beliefs and superstition. Here one
form of being can be transmuted into another for there is
correspondence between all things. He thinks of the transmutation of
self to other animals to other objects and the transmutation of other
animals and objects to self and in terms of the continuing existence of
disembodied spirits capable of exercising benignant or malignant
influence. Yet he doesn’t see self as one with all other human beings. He
thinks in terms of there being a transmutable spirit in self, in others’
selves, in animals, floods, stones, earthquakes, etc., and uses such to
invoke continuance of what is, to ward-off harm, bring about favor, or
 BO 217

control the unexpected. So the tree is alive and the tree has a spirit, and
panther has a spirit and all the other animals have a spirit. “The stone
did it to me.” “The earthquake hurt me.” “Why, mama, did that stick
whack me?” They think that there are answers to those things. They
think spatially in an atomistic, not wholistic, manner; thus, a name for
each bend in a river, but none for the river.
The BO thinks ritualistically, superstitiously, and stereotypically. He
lives by the prescriptions of totems and taboos, thus tries to manage life
by incantation, using such to invoke continuance of what is or to control
the unexpected. He strongly defends a life he does not understand. He
believes that his tribal ways are inherent in the nature of things, thus is
unchanging and unalterable, fixated and tenacious as he resolutely holds
to and perpetuates things “as they are.” At this level, man seeks social
(tribal) stability. He also explains existence in a dichotomous way –
good-bad – with only a dim awareness of a self merged with others. The
individual is subsumed in “tribe.”
They never question their way of existence: “This is the way one
lives - that’s all there is to it. You never raise any questions about it. You
just live this way, the way the tribal elders have taught you to live; never
in any way whatsoever do you change it.” They have a ‘Great Spirit’
poorly defined concept as to why things are the way they are. They have
a moderately increased degree of awareness in comparison to people at
the first level of existence, and so they are aware that things do happen
to them that help them or hurt them, that harm them or do not harm
them, and so they try to propitiate the spirits in various rituals which
they develop to continue to do the things that do them good and to get
the spirits to bring a halt to the things that do them harm. They tend to
fixate and hold tremendously to a totem and taboo way of life and work
forever as if they were entirely restricted in their degrees of freedom by
the particular taboos that are present in the world of which they are a
part.
At the second subsistence level, man’s need is for stability. He seeks
to continue a way of life that he does not understand but strongly
defends. This level of man has just struggled forth from striving to exist
and now has his first established way of life. This way of life is
essentially without ‘awareness,’ thought, or purpose, for it is based on
Pavlovian classical conditioning principles by association without
conscious awareness or intent. This learning without awareness,
elder-dominated by the controller of lore and magic, produces the
fixated, tenaciously-held-to, totem-and-taboo, tribalistic way of life.
218 BO

So pervasive is the power of second-level values that they take on a

magical character and force the person to observe them through
ritualistic behavior. They tie the person to their meaning for him and
result in over-reactional emotional response when questioned or
threatened. As a result he holds tenaciously to unchanging and
unalterable beliefs and ways, and strives desperately to propitiate the
world for its continuance. Therefore, BO man believes his tribalistic way
is inherent in the nature of things. The task of existence is simply to
continue what it seems has enabled “my tribe to be.”
At this level a seasonal or naturally based concept of time comes to
be, and space is perceived in an atomistic fashion. Causality is not yet
perceived because he perceives the forces at work to be inherent, thus
linking consciousness at the deepest level. Second level man values that
which experience or social transmission says will bring him the good will
of his spirit world - traditionalistic values. He shuns that which will raise
his spirits’ ire. Here a form of existence based on myth and tradition
comes to be, and being is a mystical phenomenon full of spirits, magic
and superstition.
This person, having now experienced in his or her existence both
the good and the bad of life - the good which enabled him or her to
solve the problems of the first level of existence, and the bad having
produced the problems of the second level which he was not ready to
cope with, develops beliefs that things are either benignant or malignant,
that they are for-you or against-you. He becomes very highly
superstitious and believes that the whole world is filled with good and
bad spirits which must be appealed to or avoided in order to stay alive,
using such to invoke continuance of what is or to control the
unexpected.
These people develop a way of living motivated on safety and
security needs. They develop a way of living which is based upon
supplication to the good spirits and forgiveness from the bad spirits.
It’s just one great big magical superstitious world in which they live.
Now, they are quite different from the people at the first level. In fact
they do have the beginning of what one might call religious beliefs; and
they also have the beginning of very ritualistic ways of life. You do not
have organized religions or religious groups, per se, at this particular
level, as we think of an organized religion with set of dogma, or
something of that nature. But, certainly, you find a great deal of this
kind of thinking incorporated into the versions of Catholic religion in
Texas, for example.
 BO 219

You see, when people at the first level get hungry, they just wander
out and eat and they drink and they never have to have any set ways of
doing it, because you walk out on this bush over here and eat, and go
down to this stream here and drink, and crawl in that cave over there; so
you don’t have to have any set ways of life. But people at the second
level have experienced loss and deprivation, and they know if they are to
stay alive, to stay safe, and to stay secure, they’ve got to have some way
of doing this, so they develop ritualistic ways full of totems and taboos
which is their way to control by incantation and of assuring themselves
that they are going to continue to have that which is necessary to take
care of their basic needs.
If the person in this world lives the tribalistic way and is successful
in this way of living as have been so many people in Africa (even up to
recent times before the European man went there and started really
disturbing things), they just go on living in that way. Many people on the
surface of the globe today in the Amazon, on Luzon, and the like go on
living in this way because they don’t have to live any other way to stay
alive. I found them in the tobacco hills of Virginia, in the coal-mine
country of West Virginia, in the Arkansas hills, up in Northern Maine,
with some of the French Canadians back in there. And I found them in
Indian tribes in America and Canada.
The prime end value at the second level is safety and the prime
means value is tradition. They are valued because here man’s elders and
their ancestors, though they cannot explain why, seem to have learned
which factors foster man’s existence and which factors threaten his well
being. Thus, man’s thema for existence at this level is “one shall live
according to the ways of one’s elders,” and his values are consonant
with this existential thema. But the schematic forms and values for
existence at the second level are highly varied due to different Pavlovian
conditionings from tribe to tribe, group to group. Each traditional set of
phenomenistic values are tribally centered, concrete, syncretic, labile,
diffuse, and rigid. The tribal member is locked into them and cannot
violate them. At this level a value-attitude may contain several meanings
because of the conditioning principles of generalization and
differentiation. To the more highly developed man, the values may
appear quite illogical. Here circumstances force the individual into a
magical, superstitious, ritualistic way of life wherein he values positively
that which will bring forth his spirit’s favor. He shuns that which
tradition says will raise his spirit’s ire.
These people learn not by the process of habituation but
predominant learning is by classical Pavlovian conditioning, Pavlovian
220 BO

reflexes - learning by association in time or place without conscious

awareness or intent - a temporal overlap between innate reflexive states
and the appearance of a concurrent stimulus condition. The simple
straight-forward association between this and that causes them to learn
what is going on, and so their learning takes place without knowledge in
themselves, without awareness, and so they believe that whatever they
experience is it, and that is all there is to it; nothing is learned by thought
or logic.
At this second level, the neurological system is activated by changes,
particularly sudden changes, in the mode or intensity of the stimuli
associated with one of man’s innate reflexive networks. This system, as
the first, is not open to verbal assessment. Pavlov, Hudgins,126
Menzies127 – Doty128 – Gerato129 – have demonstrated that there is a
system in the brain where learning takes place without consciousness,
intelligence or motivation. This is the BO system where conditioning
follows the stimulation of certain sensory neurons in the brain. When
followed by a specific motor or glandular response, when repeated
sufficiently, the sensory pattern drives the motor-glandular response.
Learning in this system is a consequence of many repeated stimulus-
response experiences; no reward, no punishment, no intention, no
consciousness, no intelligence, no motivation, is required on the part of
the subject to affect behavioral change in the O system. Generally
speaking, what I have found if you look at it culturally is that your
hunting and gathering societies are societies in which the larger majority
would evidence themselves to be operating in the BO state of existence
and there would be a few, a minority, who would be beginning to see
the life in the CP form.

Management of the state

The person centralized at BO is manageable within limits, but the

limits are strict. A manager can get productive effort from the second
level person only when the work is not negated by his superstitions or
taboos; since his world is so replete with them, work effort is often
spotty and sporadic. The model is the “friendly parent” who works
alongside, shelters the person, makes the work fun and pleasant, and,

126 Hudgins – not yet identified or sourced

127 Menzies, R. (1937). Conditioned vasomotor responses in human subjects. Journal of
Psychology. 4, 75-120.
128 Doty, R.W. (likely, but not confirmed as correct reference).
129 Gerato – not yet identified or sourced.
 BO 221

above all, respects and observes the taboos. The manager must accept
the individual’s style of life and accommodate to it. He must adopt the
person’s way of thinking and acting. Then, after being accepted, the
manager can get work done by presenting a model of what is desired
which the person can then imitate. Extreme force is necessary to get a
person to operate contrary to traditional ways, and even then it most
often fails. Subordinates at the BO level must be isolated from anyone
in the work group who will not accept the individual’s way of life, who
scoffs at the taboos, and who wants to be competitive.
But even if these approaches are followed, productive effort is very
limited. Here, again, are employees who do not meet the needs of the
typical U.S. enterprise - not unless the manager has a long-time, slow-to-
accomplish goal in mind. Productive effort is limited in terms of typical
industrial thinking because, in the relatively unawakened mind of the
second level person, the concepts of time, space, quantity, materiality,
and the like are woefully wanting. The close and immediate supervision
required, the limited time span of work that can be expected, and other
necessary accommodations do not provide a formula for productive
effort. The portion of employees at this level in the American work
force is less than a few percent. They find the job experience
tremendously frightening in most situations and actively avoid it if at all
possible. However, when properly managed, employees at this level will
work hard and long. Understanding this level is important to
organizations such as the Peace Corps.
Mismanagement at this level causes the subordinates to flee from
the manager and organization. No attempts at disruption or sabotage
will be made on the mismanaged persons’ part. However, if the manager
or organization attempts to coerce the second level person to a desired
work behavior, the pressured individual is likely to “exorcise” the evil
now so readily apparent.
We come now to a very important point. To a degree, managers can
“negatively motivate” second level people by using (or threatening to
use) sheer naked force; force will work so long as it does not come into
conflict with strong second level taboos. However, it will not work with
first-level people. They do not have enough energy to care about threats.
Here is our first example of the necessity to use different forms of
management with people who are at different levels of existence.
At this level man’s welfare need is for protection from the evil
spirits that can be accomplished only by accommodating to the way of
life laid down by the elders of the tribe-like group. It is the tribal group’s
welfare that is important, and the individual does not count. Here the
222 BO

welfare worker must be as one of the group knowing all of its

peculiarities and here he must work within, not against, the group’s
belief in malevolent magic.
The traditionalistic, tribal ways continue forever except as force now
and then breaks and replaces old ways. The prime end value at this level
is safety and the prime means is tradition. Man at this level becomes
social, in the sense of being dominated by the traditions of his tribe.
Things are valued because man’s elders and ancestors seem to have
learned what fosters man’s existence and what threatens his well-being.
Thus, the theme for existence at this level is “one shall live according to
the ways of one’s elders.” The individual follows a magical,
superstitious, ritualistic way of life.
Though these values seem mysterious, peculiar, odd, and
unexplainable to some higher-level men, they do order man’s BO state
of existence. Eventually, however, the time comes when these values fail
energetic youth who have not experienced the problems of their elders,
or when other ways of life challenge the values of the tribe. Thus,
boredom or challenge may lead man to attack the values of his first
“establishment” and thus lead him on to the next level of existence.
Living the tribalistic way where you are hemmed in by totems and
taboos which, for example, say that even if you are starving to death you
dare not eat this or dare not drink that because if you do, you are going
to die, get themselves into very serious difficulty and create this third set
of problems for a human being in his existence.
More by chance than by design, some men achieve relative control
of their spirit world through their non-explainable, elder-administered,
tradition-based way of life - a way of life which continues relatively
unchanged until disturbed from within or without. When the established
tribal way of life assures the continuance of the tribe with minimal
energy expenditure by solving problems N by neurological means A, it
creates the first of the general conditions necessary for movement to a
new and different steady state of being. It produces excess energy in the system
which puts the system in a state of readiness for change. But unless another factor
such as dissonance or challenge comes into the field, the change does not
move in the direction of some other state of being. Instead, it moves
toward maximum entropy and its demise since it becomes overloaded
with its accretion of more and more tradition, more and more ritual. If,
however, when the state of readiness is achieved dissonance enters, then
this steady state of being is precipitated toward a different kind of
change. This dissonance arises usually in youth or certain minds not
troubled by the memories of the past and who are capable of newer and
 BO 223

more lasting insights into the nature of man’s being. Or it can come to
the same capable minds when outsiders disturb the tribe’s way of life.
When such dissonance occurs it does not immediately produce a
movement to a higher state of being. Instead, it tends to produce a
regressive search through older ways before new insights come to be.
This is a crisis phase for any established way of existence and is always
the premonitor of a new state, provided three other conditions come to
exist. The first of these three conditions is insight. The capable minds in
any system must be able to produce new insights or be able to perceive
the significance of different insights brought to the system’s attention
from outside sources. But insight alone does not make for change since,
“full many a flower is born to blush unseen and waste its freshness on
the desert air.”130 So there must also be a removal of barriers to the
implementation of the insight - a matter not easy to achieve for, as can
be seen, a period of confrontation arises. Then, if the insight can be
effectuated through the removal of the barriers, the consolidating factors
come into play enabling the new steady-state of being to be born.
When, at the BO level, readiness for change occurs, it triggers man’s
insight into his existence as an individual being - as a being separate and
distinct from other beings - and from his tribal compatriots, as well. As
he struggles, now intentionally since the operant or instrumental
conditioning systems are opening, his need for survival comes to the
fore.
With this change in consciousness man becomes aware that he is
aligned against predatory animals, a threatening physical universe, other
men who are predatory men, and even the spirits in his physical world -
those who fight back for their established way of existence, or against
him for the new way of existence he is striving to develop. Now he is
not one-with-all, for he is alone, alone struggling for his survival against
the “dragonic” forces of the universe. So he sets out in heroic fashion
through his newly emergent operant conditioning learning system to
build a way of being which will foster his individual survival.
Second-level values bring some order, albeit peculiar, to man in this
undifferentiated cognitive state. They provide positive and negative
landmarks for survival when he lives a regionalized, isolated, relatively
undisturbed existence. But again nature provides no assurances, and
man’s developing cognitive component provides him no peace. As these
values break down, man becomes a savage in the truest sense of the
word. He attacks this world and all its beings as he demands that they be
ordered to his personal needs. The wanton destruction in the awakening
130 Gray, Thomas (1751). “Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard.”
224 BO

Congo131 and the fire scarred ruins of American cities (1960s)

demonstrate well this type of “breakdown of values.” We have seen it
also in “The Blackboard Jungle.”132 But savagery it is not; it is the plea
of a desperate man – a man despairing the inadequacy of second level
values. Man ceases to value that which has not provided, and his
cognitive component perceives that there must be something more to
life than to value that which provides only a miserable existence.
Now he is not one-with-all, for he is alone in his struggle for his
survival against the “dragonic” forces of the universe. As this quest
begins and takes hold, this searching man is accused of a breakdown in
his moral and ethical ways. So he sets out in heroic fashion through his
newly emergent operant conditioning learning system to build a way of
being which will foster his individual survival - the CP existential state.

131 See: Legum, Colin (1961). Congo Disaster. Baltimore: Penguin.

132 Hunter, Evan (1954). The Blackboard Jungle. Simon & Schuster; see also: Richard
Brook’s 1955 film adaptation with Glenn Ford and Sidney Poitier.
 CP 225

Chapter 9

The Egocentric Existence – The CP State

The 3rd Subsistence Level

Theme: Express self, to hell with the consequences, lest one suffer the
torment of unbearable shame.

Alternative Themes: ‘Express self but to hell with others lest one suffer
the torment of unbearable shame’

Derived from the ‘Express self, to hell with others’ Conceptions

“Thou shalt express self at all cost rather than suffer the
unbearable shame of loss of face. Thou shalt express self
at all cost in order to be praised as one who will live
unashamed forever in the mouths of men.”
226 CP

The egocentric existential state arises when the achievement of

relative safety and security produces “P” problems of existence, the
problems of boredom in a being as intelligent as the human, boredom
from living an unchanging elder-dominated, ‘shaman-controlled’ way of
life. The accumulating problems from living in this way produce
expressive and survival problems for those whose capacities enable
them to perceive the threats to the existence of their new-found selves if
the old ways don’t change. These problems activate the P system, that
psychoneurological system which possesses the tissue specifically tuned
to sense consciousness, and consciousness of self, and has the capacity
to experience the feeling of shame. These survival problems activate
awareness of self as a possibly powerful being separate and distinct from
others; therefore, man no longer seeks merely for tensional relief or the
continuance of his tribe’s established way of life. He now feels the need
to foster his own individual survival – a need which cannot dominate
him until he becomes conscious of himself (as happens at this level). He
now seeks a form of existence which he can control for his personal
survival. He proceeds to explore his world and begins to manipulate it
intentionally rather than merely passively accept it. This activates the
risk-taking, chronological time and space perceiving equipment of the
human. They experience the awakening of “selfism.”
With this change in consciousness, man becomes aware that he is
aligned against other men who are predatory men, those who fight for
their established way of existence, or against him for the new way of
existence he is striving to develop, against predatory animals and a
threatening physical universe. In the CP state man must solve the
problem of survival as an individual. So, he sets out in heroic fashion,
through his newly emergent operant conditioning learning system, to
build a way of being that will foster his survival and to hell with the
other man.
They show a dominant-submissive type of psychology. They show
stubborn resistiveness to power exercised by others, but obeisance to
others when overpowered, when they are afraid, or until power over self
is lost. The person on top of the hierarchy runs the show and the next
person down bows to the top while the third person down bows to that
one and right on down the line. The third person shows the tendency to
try to make the fourth submit. The third always submits to the second.
Thus, they think in terms of haves and have-nots.
Both the authoritarian and the submissive develop standards which
they feel will insure them against threat, but these are very raw
standards. The submissive person chooses to get away with what he can
 CP 227

within the life style which is possible for him. The authoritarian chooses
to do as he pleases. He spawns, as his raison d’être, the rights of assertive
individualism. These rights become, in time, the absolute rights of kings,
the unassailable prerogatives of management, the inalienable rights of
those who have achieved positions of power, and even the rights of the
lowly hustler to all he can hustle.
This is a world of the aggressive expression of man’s lusts - openly
and unabashedly by the “haves,” more covertly and deviously by the
“have-nots.” But when this system solidifies into a stable feudal way of
life, it creates a new existential problem for both the “have” and the
“have-not.” Each must face that his conniving is not enough, for death
is there before the “have,” and the “have-not” must explain to himself
why it is that he must live his miserable existence. (As we shall see, out
of this mix eventually develops man’s fourth way of existence, the DQ
way of life.)
Thinking at this level is totally self-centered, that is, egocentric in
fashion. It is in terms of controlling or being controlled, in terms of
intentions to assure that self will receive or be deprived, and to insure
that self will always receive. Raw, rugged, self-assertive individualism
comes to the fore. This is the level where “might makes right” thinking
prevails. Every act they perform has as its intention ‘taking care of me’
with intentions to assure that self will receive, and to ensure that self will
always continue to receive.
The individual thinks in terms of struggling to gain one’s own
satisfaction – ‘to hell with others.’ If you are aware that you live, and you
believe in your own separate existence, and that the world is out to get
you, then the only logical way for you to behave is in terms of snaring,
entrapping and acting to avoid being caught while taking advantage of
others. Because they see life in a very person affective way, inwardly
they are a cauldron of strong negative emotional feelings such as shame,
rage, hate, disgust, and grief. One of the most interesting aspects of
human existence which stands out at this third level is that there is no
guilt. The person operating at the third level of human existence, or any
level below that, cannot feel guilt. He has no capacity to feel it.
Whatever guilt is as a feeling in a human being, it has not yet been
activated. So, the human being at the third level can do anything, no
matter what it is, no matter how horrendous, how ornery, how onerous,
and still feel that he is doing right. You have to arrive at the fourth level
of human existence for the capacity to feel guilt to develop. At the third
level, they don’t give a damn about anyone else. They live by the credo:
‘to hell with others; it is I who is important.’ Really, when you look at it,
228 CP

these are not terribly pleasant human beings; but it is a very necessary
stage of survival.
Coexistent in this person is the tendency to revel in hedonistic,
pleasure-seeking pursuits to an orgiastic degree. They show strong
emotional reactivity to the actions of others who are pleasing or not
pleasing to their selfish desires with a generalized ‘you are with me or
against me’ emotional response to others. They just smother you when
you do something that pleases their selfish desires, and in the next
moment they’ll turn on you and pulverize you when you do something
which does not satisfy them.
The person in the egocentric existential state lives a peculiar
two-fold aim in life: to win or, at least, go down in the glory of having
tried and live forever in the mouths and legends of others. As they put it
over and over again, “I may die but by god they’ll remember me. I will
go down in the mouths of men as having been somebody.” Thereby,
they express such with no consideration of others. This spawns an
exploitative form of management since there are no true two-way
interpersonal relations.

Examples of the Egocentric Existential State

These are examples of people who are, in my way of thinking,

operating at the nodal third level:
Conception #1 –
“Life is a jungle - one god-damned great big jungle. It is survival
of the fittest and that is all. Anybody who does not recognize
this is not or will never be a grown up person. Life is
competition, it is fight and struggle and get and take and hang
on. Some they have got it to fight there way through it and
some they just don’t have it. The grownup he survives, or go
down big in trying he’s got it. He is the guy who fights to get
what he needs and he keeps after it till he gets it. If he wants
some chick he don’t take no. He wears her down. One thing
about him is he don’t chicken, he don’t let fear stand in his way.
If it has got to be done he does it he don’t stay to think, he just
does it. It don’t matter who gets hurt thou it best it ain’t him.
There ain’t no reason for him to feel guilty cause a man’s got to
live ain’t he. This ain’t no picnic world in which he live. It better
he do what have to be done cause he can’t hold his head up if
he ain’t a man. That’s the way life is any grown guy know it. He
 CP 229

know its him or me and it sure ain’t going to be me if he’s

healthy. He gets what he can from this world and no one
pushes him around, even if the dice is loaded its up to him to
make them shake his way. If he don’t what kind of man is he.
Now don’t you set me down Doc for saying this. You said to
put down what we believed. I believe this and don’t you ever
forget it.”
Conception #2 -
“Psychologically mature human behavior is that mental
behavior that enables a human being not only to survive
but also to succeed and win over his environment. The
psychologically mature person is the one that fate has
endowed with the natural human qualities to rise above the
conditions of his being and to impose control over it and
modify it as he sees fit regardless of what others think.
Being an animal, the human being possesses certain natural
qualities normal for his species. He is temperamental and
impulsive, and thus given to violence, passion,
stubbornness and irrational actions. He desires to mate but
not just to produce children. He fights life as it is and he
works most to survive.
He senses that he is alone and endangered and seeing
strength in numbers, he seeks to fit others to the needs of
himself. The drive for self-preservation is instilled in him
and the only way to be what he is, is to be selfish, placing
his needs before all others with the “possible” exception of
his own family. He must overcome his fears and inhibitions
to his won satisfaction.
He must fulfill his primal lusts and desires. A human being
free from guilt and frustrations closely approaches the ideal
of the mature personality. Unhampered expression of the
impulses might lead to his destruction but it is necessary to
his health. He must not temper his striving for pleasure. He
performs when he is motivated for not to do would leave
him less than a man. He is free from the threats and
negative reactions of others and does not fear for his own
psyche. In other worlds he is confident of being a law unto
himself, the source and inspiration of all of his actions and
of good for others.”
230 CP

People who begin to think in the CP fashion are ones who are, for
the first time in existence, becoming consciously aware of the fact that
they are alive as human beings.
“Now aware of the need to foster his individual survival, there
comes to stage center, in his existence, his need for survival - a
need which cannot dominate man until consciousness of self
emerges as it does at this level. Concomitant with the
emergence of self-awareness and its bedfellow, the need for
survival, is the emergence of the intentional, the operant, the
instrumental learning system. Also, man begins to adjust the
environment to his needs and seeks a primordial form of
existence which he can control for his personal survival, not just
one of automatic reactivity.”133
They know they live. Conscious awareness is a characteristic which
comes into being in the third system of human development. It is not
there prior to that period of time.

Origin of the Egocentric State

The egocentric existential state emerges from living in the tribalistic

way where you are hemmed in by totems and taboos. They get
themselves in a very serious difficulty and create this third set of
problems for a human being and his existence. At this level the energy
previously devoted to finding ways to satisfy man’s physiological needs
and to the maintenance of tribal ways, now released, awakens him to the
recognition that he is a separate and distinct being. As a result, man’s
quest is no longer for tensional relief or the continuance of his tribe’s
established way of life. Although I have no explanation of why the
human being is structured as he or she is, the data says that at the third
level - whatever tissue it is in the brain of a person - which enables him
to be aware of the existence of self is activated. So, at the third level the
individual has developing in his- or herself his first real comprehension
of the fact that he or she lives as a person, that “I am a self. I am
something that is separate and distinct from the other things that there
are in this world of ours.” This person having just developed - or just
developing - this full awareness of his existence, develops a new way of

133 Graves, Clare W. (1970). Levels of Existence: An Open System Theory of Values.
Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Fall 1970, Vol. 10, No. 2, p. 131-155.
 CP 231

life which we call the Egocentric Way of Living which is centered upon
the power of self.
This Promethean, CP way of life, within the Levels of Existence
point of view, is based on the prerogatives of the haves and the duties of
the have-nots. Ultimately when this way of life, based historically on the
agricultural revolution, is established, life is seen as a continuous process
with survival dependent on a controlled relationship. Fealty and loyalty,
service and noblesse oblige become cornerstones of this way of life.
Assured of their survival, through fief and vassalage, the “haves” set
forth on their power with life based on the right way to behavior as their
might dictates it - as dictated by those who are in power. Ultimately, a
system develops in which each acts out in detail, in the interests of his
own survival, how life is to be lived; but hardly more than ten percent
ever achieve any modicum of power. The remainder are left to submit.
History suggests to us that the few, and there were few in the
beginning, who were able to gain their freedom from survival problems
not only surged almost uncontrollably forward into a new way of being
but also dragged after them, to the survival level, tribal members unable
to free themselves of the burden of stagnating tribalistic existence. And
history suggests that the few became the authoritarians while the many
became those who submitted. The many accept the “might-is-right” of
the few because by such acceptance they are assured survival. This was
so in the past and it is still so today.
Additionally, each successive neurological system in the brain is
activated by a specific set of chemicals, some of which we have fairly
good knowledge of at this stage of development, and some of which we
do not. This is akin to the atomic table of elements of chemistry wherein
scientists laid out a picture of all of the elements that might exist in this
world of ours, and said some had been discovered and some had not.
Once reaching the egocentric existential state, the individual has a
new physiology. This is a new psychological being, a different
psychological being endocrinologically. One of the major differences
between the CP and the DQ systems is the ratio between noradrenaline
and adrenaline in the individual.134 We have pretty good evidence at this
stage of the game that something in the noradrenaline chemical family is
the neurological activating force at the third level. Something in the
adrenaline family is the activating factor at the fourth neurological
system. We can change a person temporarily from behaving in the third

134 Lee, William R., Cowan, Christopher C., & Todorovic, Natasha, (Eds.) (2003). Graves:
Levels of Human Existence. Transcribed lecture by Dr. Graves at the Washington
School of Psychiatry. Santa Barbara: ECLET Publishing.
232 CP

level fashion to begin to show behavior of the fourth level of behavior

by simply changing the amount of noradrenaline and adrenaline in the
system of the person. Right as I inject the adrenaline into the person in
order to increase the ratio of adrenaline to noradrenaline, I will get the
concomitant neurological activation and the concomitant change in
behavior.
Although we immediately think of purposefully influencing this
ratio, and although we can change a person temporarily, we cannot hold
a person there. As with any developmental process, you don’t produce it
permanently by this method. These experiments are doomed to fail;
that’s not the way development takes place. So, you might temporarily
get a higher level manifestation, but manufactured attempts will not
hold permanently.

The First Truly Expressive System

Now, this is the first of the truly expressive systems and it is very
different from that sacrificial type second system that we talked about in
the previous chapter - the power of self to do this or to do that. It’s the
person who believes that being different from other animals, from
inanimate things - that there is something very special about the self,
and so the person develops this very egoistic way of believing and values
anything that contributes to the self, and disparages anything that
doesn’t contribute to the self. If you look at the person at the third level
in terms of his or her typical behavior, the person behaves in a manner
to ensure that the self is not going to be controlled in terms of:
struggling to gain freedom from others; to gain one’s own power; one’s
own satisfaction; and, therefore, he or she ensnares, entraps, outwits,
lives by outwitting others, by avoiding being caught at the time that he
or she is very openly taking advantage of others. He behaves in terms of
stubborn resistiveness to the idea of anything stronger than the self,
anything better than the self, but shows obeisance when overpowered.
What is the psychology of this level? Well, it is a person who is
given to impulsive, uncensored expression of his impulse life. You are
dealing with a person who has a very marked tendency to frequent
manifestations of uncontrolled hostility. This is a person that is full of
the tendency to show concrete assertive negativism – “I’ll do what I
want to. To hell with you. If you want to stop me, stop me, buddy!”
You are dealing with a person who is, at the least, passively resistant to
what you are trying to do, so you’ve got to push him on all the while.
‘Tie him down’ psychologically because he has a very strong tendency to
 CP 233

believe that any suggestion you are going to make to him is an attempt
to subjugate him, so you just tie him in here and say: “Now look, yes, I
am going to subjugate you, that’s just what I am trying to do.” You are
trying to get this person to get control over his impulses. That is to
become subjugated. If you don’t lay down the rules, say what is going to
happen, and see to it that it does happen, you are just never going to get
this impulsiveness in this individual controlled.
You are dealing with a person who lives right here, and right now,
and seeks immediate gratification, a person who is always saying:
“What’s in it for me?” If the person seeks immediate gratification, and if
the person, in seeking that immediate gratification, does what you want
the person to do, you’ve got to have somebody there to gratify them
immediately - something there that is in it for him. This is why it is so
important to get as close as you can in training to an individual
relationship.
He thinks in terms of self-centeredness, in terms of controlling or
being controlled, in terms of struggling to gain one’s own satisfaction –
to hell with others. This thinking is raw, impulsive, amoral, and
uninhibited in character. There is no feeling of guilt; but there is a strong
element of shame. There is a driving concept of heroism in this system.
If the dragon is there, one must join battle with it even if one dies in the
struggle, for less would make one less than a person.
This person believes humans exist in three classes: (a) the strong,
far-seeing, anointed ones; (b) the desirous, motivated, but not far-seeing
ones; and (c) the inherently weak and lazy masses who need and prefer
directions. This system takes its form because of the normal distribution
of risk-taking potential and the normal distribution of operant,
intentional learning capacity - the dominant learning mode of the “P”
neurological system. Through the exercise of strong risk-taking
tendencies and superior capacity to learn by operant, instrumental or
intentional learning, some are exceedingly successful, some moderately
so, and many hardly at all.
The CP conditions for existence produce a fearful, insecure world
for all. The power ethic prevails. There is open and unabashed
aggressive expression of individual lusts by the ‘haves,’ more covertly
and deviously by the ‘have-nots.’ It is a world driven by man’s lusts and
is seemingly noteworthy for its lack of a “moral sense.” But this is an
error, for at this level, where man is led to value the ruthless use of
power, unconscionably daring deeds, impulsive action, volatile emotion,
and the greatest of risk, morality is ruthlessness. It is the inhumane eye
for an eye, tooth for a tooth variety, since he values conquest in any
234 CP

form and even war as the epitome of the heroic effort, as the entrance
to immaterial Valhalla.
Driven by the need to maintain his existence, CP man manipulates
his world and egocentrically interprets the reward or punishment
feedback as good or bad for himself, which is his major consideration.
He perceives that many people try but few succeed and, as a result, he
comes to believe that the heroic (e.g., Homeric) deed is the means to his
survival. He values heroism as the means, and the epic hero becomes his
most revered figure. To the hero or victor belong the spoils and the
right to exercise greed, avarice, envy, gluttony, pride (and sloth if not
being heroic), for he has shown through his deeds that the gods or the
fates see him as worthy of survival. Might is right. He who wins has a
right to loot the world to his own ends and those who lose have a right
only to the scraps that a hero may toss their way.
The power ethic reveres he who can tell time what he wills
and mean it, he who shows no fear of the world’s wrath and
assurance of its favor. Right is demonstrated in violent action
- an aspect of this ethic which many see today, but few
understand. In the power ethic, the more daring and
horrendous the act of man, the more it is revered. It does
not matter, within the power ethic, whether a man has plans
for replacement of the system which he attacks. The heroic
thing is to attack the system and if there is nothing present to
be attacked then, if he is truly a hero, he will create a dragon
to be destroyed, for even if he should die in the course of his
attack, he is assured that he will live - live on forever in the
words of men.135
This is not an attractive value system from other frames of
reference, but for all its negative aspects, it is a giant step forward for
man. Some men, in their pursuit of power, do tame the mighty river, do
provide the leisure for beginning intellectual effort, do build cities, do
assign occupational positions that directly improve the personal lot of
some and indirectly spill off to the betterment of the miserable many.
They are very necessary people. They are the ones who, because of their
awareness of themselves, will do anything that is necessary to alter the
world or other people in order to try to stay alive. So, in terms of
progress, they were very important to building ancient aqueducts, to
building the ancient roads that enabled other humans to travel.

135 Graves, Clare W. (1970). Levels of Existence: An Open System Theory of Values.
Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Fall 1970, Vol. 10, No. 2, p. 131-155.
 CP 235

Learning in the Egocentric State

If we look at working with this system in an educational capacity we

need to understand the qualities of the teacher that must be present to
ensure learning takes place. Your teacher must be a person who
accentuates the positive, and ignores the negative. This person never
punishes. The person stops behavior, but doesn’t punish for its
happening. If a person makes an error, or if he is in the course of
making an error in what he is learning, then this teacher just stops the
individual. He doesn’t give any punishment if an error is made. He has
the patience of Job, and says: “Do it again. Start it again.” If the person
makes an error, he stops him and says, “Start it again.” He just keeps
going until he gets the positive response, and then he rewards. And
generally, it is better here if you can have some kind of extrinsic reward
that you can immediately give upon the achievement of the desired
behavior.
You better know B. F. Skinner’s operant conditioning to handle
this. Remember, Skinnerian principles say that if you really want to teach
a person to learn something, reward has got to come immediately after
the response, and immediately generally means almost in the
thousandths of a second after the response; awfully soon after the
response is made, or this guy is not going to learn to do it.
You need a teacher who has, as one of his or her fundamental
beliefs, that you must keep a person busy and focused every minute and
that idle hands get into trouble. The teacher has to believe that
boredom is the human being’s worst enemy. You need a teacher who,
when the learner tries to gain some end by devious means, by lies,
simply says, very quietly, “Who are you kidding? What do you think you
are trying to get away with? Now, cut it out. Let’s get back to work, no
more of that monkey business.” And he drops it right there. He never
goes into “why did you lie?” Never goes into the reasons for the
deviousness. He never starts to preach and never remonstrates. He just
signals to the person: “I know you are lying. You are not kidding me.
Now cut it out. Let’s get back to work.”
You need a teacher who is perfectly at peace believing, that if you
have to discipline you just do it, and you never get into a discussion as
to why you did it. You never get into a discussion as to what led up to
the necessity of the discipline. So, you need a teacher, who, if there
must be discipline they’ll just discipline, and that’s it. And, say no more.
You need a person who in his own nature is highly structured and
236 CP

requires high structure in everything that he has anything to do with.

Every detail is worked out. Every minute is laid out in a lesson plan, and
it may be laid out in ten-minute sections or the like. He moves from one
ten-minute plan to the next ten-minute plan like clockwork, and keeps
going in that particular way.
Not only must the person be highly structured, but he must
prescribe in advance the limits within which any kind of behavior is
provided. It is, if you are doing the simple task of teaching these people
to write, you have this as the sheet of paper and the teacher would say:
“I want a margin of an inch and a quarter, inch and a half here. I want
so much here. I want you down this far from the top, and up this far
from the bottom.” By God, if you started elsewhere the teacher would
yank it out of your hand. Well, this is what you’ve got to do. Now, you
structure it just like that, and if the kid starts to write outside the margin,
you just come up take the paper away and say to him, “start over.” He
starts another piece of paper and if he doesn’t follow instructions you
take it away and start over again.
You have to do that. Why? Well, we said this, the person here has
such a short attention span, by having everything structured, you never
give him a chance to get away. You are always putting something in
front of him, and you are always holding him right there. At the same
time this teacher, who insists on setting the structure very, very tightly,
must have the patience of Job to put up with taking twenty papers away
from this kid before he starts to write in there. That kid, in this CP state,
is going to push the limits right down the line. He’ll do everything in the
world before he’ll give in and put that word inside that margin.
You see, what you are trying to teach him is control of his impulse
life; he doesn’t have any control over it. So, even though you have this
very highly structured instructor, he must be able to put up with this
learner trying over and over, and over again to push the limits. He must
have incredible patience to repeatedly deal with the same thing without
becoming upset. You must have a person who does not believe that if
you are open and honest with other people, they’ll be open and honest
with you.
The last major characteristic this instructor must have is that of never
admitting that he made a mistake in anything in his, or her, entire life.
Particularly, never admit it to an underling. Never admit that you made a
mistake. Never let the kid know you are or have been wrong. This kid is
just sitting there for that opening, and if you come in and say that you
did something wrong, that kid is going to ride you up the wall for the
rest of the day. You have had it. You just don’t make those mistakes.
 CP 237

At CP man is activated to learn by stimuli that can be used to satisfy

specific need states such as hunger, thirst, and sex. The means to this
kind of learning is operant conditioning or the “trial-and-error” learning
method; that is, a person learns by making movements which, shortly
after being made, bring about tensional release from the specific drive
state. Learning takes place best when much activity is spent getting to
the reward, the reward is presented soon after the act is performed, and
the need state is very strong. For example, a CP personality can best
learn to spell 10 words if (1) he spends a lot of time at the task, (2) he
gets a candy bar or other food as soon as he has succeeded in learning
how to spell the words, and (3) he is very hungry. The CP personality is
egocentric, impulsive and hedonistic. For him the best answer to any
problem is the one that brings him immediate pleasure regardless of
what happens to anyone else.
Why would you drill? Because, Skinnerian studies show that for any
habitual way of handling a machine, turning a wrench, doing a job, it
must be redone, then immediately rewarded multiple times for it to
become an established habit. So, it’s almost essential to somehow or
another set up training for the CP state, something that’s awfully close
to a one-to-one relationship. It’s why we have such a terribly difficult
time getting these people trained and getting them to function in an
organization. We just don’t have someone there to give them an
immediate reward when they do what we want them to do.
In this state, with cognitive capacity increased but still limited and
the operant learning system present to serve the need for survival of the
individual, man proceeds into a sensory-motor exploration of his world.
He begins to intentionally manipulate his world rather than passively
accept it, and from this manipulation develops his third-level values.
Today, prison is often where you find your prime examples of third
level behavior. It’s a mix, according to the studies I’ve done in prison -
about 33 to 35 percent of any adult prison population. It’s a very, very
difficult system to work with because our penal system is based upon
the idea of punishment. Experiments have been done with mazes in
which a person or an animal, in learning the maze, can learn it by reward
or punishment, or reward and punishment simultaneously. That is, you
can set up lights or bells to be touched or things of that sort in such a
manner that any one of those ways can be used for learning to take
place. If you have people who are operating at the third level, and they
are moving through the maze, they find their way through it only by
positive reinforcement. If you actually punish them, they just go on
making the same error over and over and over again; they do not learn.
238 CP

The conditions of existence mentioned earlier in this chapter

activate the P system, that psychoneurological system which possesses
the tissue specifically tuned to sense consciousness, and consciousness
of self, and has the capacity to experience the feeling of shame. It also
activates the operant or intentional learning system. The egocentric
existential state learns predominantly through Skinnerian operant
conditioning reward principles but does not learn from punishment.
You can’t punish them into behaving as you’d like them to. Can’t do it.
To use the punitive methodology with the CP is to invite uncontrolled,
destructive acts upon the promoter of, or the instruments of the
learning system. You can do it by rewarding them, and our values won’t
let us reward those who break the law or social norms. I don’t know
where they’re going to end up; it’s going to be a mess, for you can’t get
anywhere with punishment. That kind of thinking won’t work.
To put a person who operates in the third level in prison with the
expectation that somehow or another he will learn from that experience
to alter his behavior is in my judgment the most hopeless thing in the
world that you can do. You’ll never get a person who operates at the
third level to change his behavior by punishment. He basically can’t feel
it. He does not feel or comprehend punishment. Or, putting it another
way, the neurological systems in the human organism that have the
capacity to feel punishment are not activated in a person who operates
in the CP state.
The person operating at the third level has a preponderance of
noradrenaline in his system. Now, if this noradrenaline- or third level-
dominated person is working the maze, and he’s demonstrating that he
can learn only by reward, and if he has adrenaline shot into him or her,
immediately that person will begin to learn by punishment. The
activation of the capacity to learn by punishment is a part of the fourth
level system, not the third. These people cannot learn by punishment. They can
learn only by reward; and they can learn only by rewards that are
immediately applied after the desirable behavior takes place. This is
something that theoretically is very possible to do.
What I am trying to say to you is: punishment doesn’t work because
the tissue in the head that is able to feel, to perceive punishment isn’t
activated. In the head you have tissue present, but just having the tissue
does not produce the behavior. You have to have the concomitant
chemistry. If the chemistry isn’t there, the behavior doesn’t come
through even if the tissue that would make it possible for that behavior
to exist is present. What you see in the third level is the tissue, but they
don’t have the chemistry. So, the behavior - learning by punishment - is
 CP 239

not functionally present in the individual. He can’t learn that way. It isn’t
that they are obstreperous; it is that they cannot learn by punishment.
Neurologically it isn’t possible, and chemicals play a role in that
neurological aspect.
We are trying to base our approach to the problem on the idea that
in some way or another, punishing “them” for that which “they” are
doing will produce the desired results. I really don’t see a solution. I see
this as quite an impasse. When you have people operating at the higher
levels, as the American public is, believing honestly in their own mind
that punishment will sooner or later work if we only find the right one,
you are almost doomed to failure when the reality is the punishment
isn’t going to work, no matter which method you use.
It is theoretically possible to use Skinnerian positive reinforcement
techniques to change behavior, provided that you have the things that
you had with Skinner. If you have a rat in a Skinner box, and can control
that rat’s behavior so that it is narrowed down to be able to do only the
things that he can do in the confines of that rat cage, then the limited
number of anything that he or she can do are so few that you can wait
until in the course of his or her exasperation he does what one wants.
Then you can immediately reward it.
But, even in a prison, you can’t do that. It’s just almost impossible
to set up the conditions whereby: a) you get elicited, or spontaneously
appearing, the good behavior; and b) you are able to reward it
immediately. And you can’t teach in any other way at this level. So, it’s
really very, very hard to conceive of any way in our prison systems that
you can really go about the business of rehabilitating those in the CP
state. Theoretically – yes; practically, it is terribly difficult.
That is because this person, the CP, operates by what we call the
intentional learning system. This is the system which learns by reaching
out to do something, intending to do something, which results in reward
or punishment. This person soon gets the idea that some people in the
world have it - what they intend to do turns out successfully - and other
people don’t have it. So, on the societal level, they order the world
according to ‘might is right,’ into those who have and those who don’t
have - haves and the have-nots. They think that is perfectly right
because the gods must be inspired by one person such that whatever he
did turned out successfully; and they must have displeasure with the
person whose action did not turn out successfully.
In the P dynamic neurological system we find a very different
matter from the BO system. In the P dynamic neurological system new
qualities come into play. The elements of reward and punishment, not
240 CP

necessary to the learning in the N system or the O system, are essential

for learning in the C system. The response is more volitional than
automatic, and there is a delayed time factor in conditioning in the P
system, which is distinctly different from the character of the operation
of the O dynamic neurological system. Contrary to the O system where
simple contiguity, not delay in time, is sufficient to establish a bond, in
the P neurological system both the sensory and motor neuron patterns
must persist for reinforcement and thus conditioning to take place. But
this is not the total story.
Much of this, which is related to what I am saying, wasn’t even
known until the mid-sixties. We didn’t know really very much about the
basic structuring of the brain and things of that nature until the sixties,
and the second thing is illustrated in this manner: We have this very
solid evidence that what activates neurological tissue in the brain is
chemical in nature. But it is a horrendous research problem, to try to
sort out what is the specific factor within the noradrenaline complex
that actually activates the tissue, and that enables the individual to learn
by reward and possibly blocks the learning by punishment. Biochemistry
just hasn’t progressed that far. It’s not that people aren’t hunting and
searching, but it’s the enormity of the problem.

Management of the Egocentric State

This third level spawns the first form of management, the first
organized form of management that you find in human behavior. It is
an exploitative form of management. These people are manageable only
through Skinnerian operant conditioning principles. That is, you can
manage them by manipulating rewards. But you are absolutely hopeless
if you try and manage them by punishment.
To manage an individual centralized in the CP system you need a
person who prefers to confront undesired behavior and just candidly
say: “I won’t have it,” but who will not get into any discussion. The
manager must operate dispassionately and simply say, “I told you not to
do that.” Of course, he starts up again and the manager repeats: “I said
not to do that, I told you not to do it.” The guy starts opening his
mouth; the manager puts his hand right on his mouth, and stops him. “I
am not going to discus this, I just told you not to do it. I just told you
not to do it. Stop it!”
Your manager must be a person who accentuates the positive and
ignores the negative. This person never punishes. The person stops
behavior, but doesn’t punish for its happening. If a person makes an
 CP 241

error in what he is learning, if he is in the course of making an error,

then this manager just stops the individual. He doesn’t give any
punishment if an error is made. He has the patience to repeatedly say:
“Do it again. Start it again.” If the person makes an error, he stops him
and says, “Start it again.” He just keeps going until he gets the positive
response, and then he rewards. And generally, it is better here if you can
have some kind of extrinsic reward that you can deliver immediately
upon the achievement of the desired behavior.
Your manager must be perfectly at peace believing that if you have
to discipline you just do it, and you never get into a discussion as to why
you did it. You never get into a discussion as to what led up to the
necessity of the discipline. I’ve seen this very often by coaches who are
trying to handle some pretty rough kids as far as teaching them football
or some ball game. The guy pulls something and he just benches him.
He puts him down at the end and says absolutely nothing. The minute
the guy does it again he yanks him, right in the midst of running a play
in practice. The guy is supposed go out two steps, swing back and come
in. He goes out two steps and swings in, and the coach just reaches up,
grabs him and says: “Take your helmet off and sit down.” That’s it. No
more.
He never asks: “What the hell is the matter with you? You didn’t
remember X.” He just yanks him in that manner. Why? Now,
remember what we said about the CP state? He has a tremendous
tendency to react aggressively. If you yank him out and start saying
something, he and the coach are liable to be in a fistfight in ten minutes
and go at it for the rest of the afternoon. The guy will come right back at
you. We have these requirements for the manager, coach or teacher,
because we have a human being who is unbelievably egocentric, who is
concerned with what’s in it for me. We don’t get into a discussion
because in the person’s egocentrism, in the person’s short attention
span, he can’t hold himself in long enough to listen to somebody else.
He won’t let somebody else finish a sentence.
If we are going to send a CP out to work before the transition to
DQ has taken place, then wherever you plan to place this person, you’d
better align that organization correctly. Get that work organized in a way
that will suit that person, or you are going to end up with a reputation of
sending poor employees to that organization. You don’t have a chance
to win if you don’t manage the person, the organization and the job
correctly.
The tremendously important factor is to plan for disparate work
activities every 20 to 25 minutes. You don’t run much past that. Package
242 CP

your activities in 15 to 25 minute units. They need this variety. They

cannot continue to work if they don’t have it. If I had workers, for
example, operating heavy equipment, I would try and arrange it in such
a way that either every half hour he used the machine to do a different
task or he got on a different machine, rather than keep him on any one
machine for a half a day. I would be switching that person if I were
trying to bring him along because, if you don’t do that, he is going to get
bored pretty soon and, depending upon where he’s working, if you keep
him on it for 45 minutes or so he is going to turn ‘that machine’ to run
somebody off the road just for fun. He is going to get in trouble with it.
So, you’ve got to keep switching tasks continuously and regularly or you
are going to get into difficulty.
The most difficult thing that I have to get across to people who
want to work with those centralized at this level is that I don’t care what
their work process has been. If they want to hire these people - in other
words, if you want to take seriously hiring the hardcore, rough, tough
unemployed – you’d better chop your work up into these units, or you
will never keep these people on the job. The usual routine just won’t do
it. You’ve got to try to at least get somewhere between five to seven
different activities. One good example of a job at this level is an outside
deliveryman’s job: he loads, he drives, he unloads, he takes in, he checks,
and he comes back. You see, he’s got five or six activities in there that
he is switching among as he goes from store to store, house to house, or
office to office. By not keeping them busy and interested, only the
organization can lose. If you run them ten or 15 minutes beyond their
time tolerance, you are not going to have anybody around. They will
simply leave. Now, I don’t know how they are going to leave, whether
they are going to leave destructively, or whether they are just going to
take an earth-moving machine somewhere, leave it running, and go
without turning it off, and without caring.
Welfare wise, to the CP it is my welfare, my individual welfare that
counts. The welfare worker’s task is to develop a program for the rapid
and almost immediate improvement of the particular client or client
family’s existence. There is no postponement capacity in the CP state,
and he is unbelievably frustrated by the slightest inability to do
something right now about improving his state. He wants the worker to
re-order conditions right now that will enable him to show right away
that he can, if conditions are right, be man or woman enough to foster
his own survival.
If you are trying to get this hard-core group in a social program to
get them back into the work force, there is one thing probably above
 CP 243

anything else that you must always keep in the back of your mind: these
individuals normally have a history of having reached out earlier to try to
get into our world, and they never got there. They are absolutely, firmly
convinced in their minds that we have the whole world organized to
keep them out. You are fighting that mistrust to a paranoid degree,
constantly. Every person along the line that you bring in to administer
the program - the physician doing the examination, the recruiter, the
person who is going to supervise them at work eventually and on – must
understand how to work with these people. Operant conditioning
requires numerous positive experiences before these people are going to
buy something. Every human being along the line has got to be selected
so that he provides this positive experience or you are going to lose this
guy somewhere in the process. It’s something that can be designed. We
just don’t stop and think about it this way. We don’t use the E-C
framework to think about it and organize the approach properly.
This level of existence is more familiar to American managers than
the previous two. The desired management style is Tough-Paternalistic.
It communicates to the Egocentric subordinate a two-fold message: (1)
that the manager probably could do a better job, and (2) the
subordinate’s capabilities are respected and, therefore, he may do the
job. A subordinate at the Egocentric level knows how to do the job,
shows pride and personal ability in the task (no matter the degree of
skill, education, or knowledge required), and has to feel free to come
and go as desired.
The manager assigns tasks to subordinates at the CP level in this
“tough” manner – providing enough specific detail to define the desired
end results, establish limits to subordinate discretion, and set the
completion date. The manager keeps out of things unless asked. The
manager’s trust is not blindly total, but based on performance. To
blindly trust an Egocentric is to show you are a weak fool, not to be
respected for your toughness, and to be taken advantage of at will – the
subordinate’s will. The manager must estimate how long the managed
needs to prove the stated competence without resulting in successive
risk or cost. At the end of this period, the performance is evaluated. If
the task is right, the Egocentric is competent in that area. If the task is
wrong or poorly done the Tough-Paternalistic style requires the manager
to assign the employee to a task in line with the demonstrated
competence or dismiss the employee if they are of no value to the
organization. The development of increased competence on the part of
the Egocentric employee is done by assigning that person to an
244 CP

apprenticeship position under a master with no specified training period

or program.
Mismanagement of the third-level person can come about by
applying a management style that is too restrictive - the typical
authoritarian “Theory X” Manager.136 This is a direct affront to the CP’s
pride, a putdown of competence, and a general “getting on my back”
situation. Management of this sort will result in the individual leaving
the organization. However, the parting will usually be violent and often
focused on the immediate source of displeasure – the mismanaging
manger. The departing Egocentric is not coolly calculating the “price”
due for discomfort, but rather immediately expressing individual
frustration and personal hate. If the individual is not able to leave, the
manager will be subjected to a continuing barrage of overt hostility in
which every weapon is used and little restraint is shown.
Another form of mismanagement is one in which the CP
subordinate has no respect for the manager due to the manager’s failure
to establish the tough, competent, ‘no fool’ image. In this case, the
subordinate will do exactly what that person pleases. Or, since there is
no pride in being involved with such losers, the Egocentric will leave to
seek out an organization (or manager) with opportunity for pride and
excitement.
The assumption that humans exist in the three classes, (a) the
strong, far-seeing, anointed ones; (b) the desirous, motivated, but not
far-seeing ones; and (c) the inherently weak and lazy masses who need
and prefer directions, spawns a form of organizational life where the
anointed use the masses to accomplish the anointed ones’ ends through the
direction of the desirous at this level. This is the ‘exploitative’ form of
management which presumes that those of demonstrated superiority
have the right because they were “chosen” to organize and carry out,
through power delegated to the desirous and the efforts of the lesser
ones, whatever the anointed chooses. This management believes that the
world - all its people and all its things - are there to serve the anointed
one’s ends. Only superior power can challenge in combat the
organization’s goals and means.
The anointed one, ‘The Big Boss,’ decides what is to be done, when
it is to be done, where to do it, and provides the means to accomplish it.
The Big Boss selects from the desirous the Work Bosses. The Work

136 See McGregor, 1960.

 CP 245

Bosses decide how it is to be done, who is to do it, and how to get them
to do it, etc.137

Readiness for Change

Interestingly, when the person lives successfully in this CP state and

in living successfully begins to create problems for himself - namely, in
living successfully the person begins to get other people angry at him for
using the others to gain his own satisfaction, and for his ensnaring and
entrapping others. Then this person has created the new problems for
himself or herself. And if he or she is going to stay alive, he or she has
got to begin to shut down a little bit on this egocentric behavior and
begin to think a little bit about other human beings.
The egocentric way of life and its value system creates a new
existential problem for man. The winner cannot but die, and the loser
cannot but wonder why - why he is doomed to his miserable existence.
Each must now face his inexplicable existential problem and find an
answer, a reason for being which coalesces the two. Ultimately, third-
level men see that, in spite of their manipulations, life seems not in their
control. Egocentric values break down from the weight of the existential
problems they create. “What is this all about? Why was I born? Why
can’t I go on living?” says the ‘have.’ “Why can’t I find some success in
life?” asks the miserable ‘have not.’ Eventually they conclude that life’s
problems are a sign indicating that if one finds the “right” form of
existence the result will be pleasure everlasting.”138
Well, as the theory goes, we are equipped by nature to deal with this
problem because, as CP values fail to meet the test of time, both the
‘have’ and the ‘have not’ must explain why their new problems have
come to be. The person begins to realize that his or her own third-level
behavior is beginning to produce difficulty. This produces whatever the
chemicals are in the brain that activate tremendous productions of
adrenaline in the system. When this tremendous production of
adrenaline is produced in the system it activates the tissue in the brain
that is able to experience guilt. And so the person begins to feel guilty
about his or her ensnaring, entrapping, egocentric behavior and begins
to say, so to speak, “Well, I’d better sacrifice a little bit of myself to
others if I am going to get along in this world.”

137 Further details on priniples of E-C management, leadership, and education are
available in other publications. See http://www.clarewgraves.com
138 Graves, Clare W. (1970). Levels of Existence: An Open System Theory of Values.

Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Fall 1970, Vol. 10, No. 2, p. 131-155.

246 CP

Out of this striving, they create man’s fourth subsistence form for
existence from whence emerges his fourth-level value system. Here man
develops a way of life built around his explanation of his ‘have’ and
‘have not’ world as part of an ordered plan. He believes it is meant that
some shall have in life and yet face death, that some shall have less and
that the many shall not have. This shift from the egocentric existential
state is a move to the lasting security level of need. He learns by
avoidant learning. As he moves to this level, he develops a way of life
based on the culminated conviction that there must be a reason for it all,
a reason why the ‘have’ shall have so much in life yet be faced with
death, and a reason why the ‘have not’ has to live his life in a miserable
existence.
Conception of the Transitional CP/dq State
“My conception of the mature personality, as I suspect
are all conceptions, is based on how this world is and the
men we are. Thought there are some who will profess to
disagree with me, if they should really stop to think, they
would agree that there are two facts of life upon which a
conception of mature behaviour must be based One is
men are not born equal, though they are bond dependent
on one another. The other fact is that the strong must use
the weak to fight this world and its other people in order
to survive. Therefore, the mature personality insists that
the world take cognizance of those realities.
To me the mature personality organizes to maintain his
existence and the right way of life taking into consideration
only those he must in order to survive. He sees to it that
he organizes his world so as to improve his chances. He
takes over and assigns roles to those less able to decide
and sees to it they know what their roles are and live by
them. He is meticulously careful to take care of those
lesser ones who can help him so long as they are helpful
but he realizes, because of his superior powers, that they
are more expendable than he in the mundane of lie.
He takes seriously his duties to those who depend on
him but he does not overdo it lest he raise wishes in them
they are not competent to fulfill. He leads theme to do
what is right by outstanding examples in his own life.
 CP 247

He maintains his position in the world as is appropriate

for one of his competence by deed not by word, lest those
who are dependent of him feel they be shamed in the eyes
of others. He feels compassion for the fact that his
dependent ones are not as he, but no undo qualms of guilt
can enter into his decisions. His standards of action are
high for himself and his kind but he readily recognizes the
weaknesses in other men and his need to control them. So,
he, through his superior competence sees to it that other
people are organized so as to maintain the viability of that
for which he is responsible. He enlarges his domain when
it is to his advantage to do so and he is not overly hesitant
as to how, if and when it becomes necessary.
He is ever watchful to his survival making arrangements
whenever necessary, with whom ever necessary when they
become necessary. These arrangements must take into
consideration that the competent people in the world must
care for the ones who are dependent on them.
He realizes that world could soon disintegrate into chaos
if order were not impressed upon it. He knows the
problem of unbridled lust in the lesser ones so he
organizes so that normally the rules of living are quite
strict upon them except as, through his largeness [sic], he
provides them moment uninhibited exultation. It is by
example in his own life that he brings forth the force for
implementing his will. For example, any man worthy of his
name, any woman worthy of being called a lady serves
their human desires but in a manner that is properly
formalized.”
Notice the change that is coming in here. The individual is
beginning to reign in his impulses and shows a beginning concern about
the need for immediate gratification in others and their motivations
around avoiding shame. This particular response shows that this person
is just beginning to make the kind of transition with the response lying
in two worlds. The awareness of guilt is sneaking in and the individual is
becoming aware of, and questioning, unbridled lusts in the weaker. In
respect to societal organization, a sense of order is seen to be required,
but it is an imposition of morality with attempts to enforce formalistic
prescriptions over the weaker and use them to one’s own advantage.
This individual begins to recognize that if you don’t lay down the rules,
248 CP

say what is going to happen, and see to it that it does happen, you are
just never going to get impulsiveness controlled in weaker individuals.
Just note as the individual is moving out of CP into the DQ. Now,
when we are working, we don’t stay with the simple designation of say,
CP, DQ, ER. We have CP, and then the person who is centralized here
– a transitional state - will be shown by upper case CP over lower case
dq - CP/dq - and later by lower case cp over upper case DQ – cp/DQ –
the exiting and entering phases.
In the CP state we had a human being who was unbelievably
egocentric, who was concerned with ‘what’s in it for me.’ We didn’t
allow for a discussion, because in the person’s egocentrism, in the
person’s short attention span, he couldn’t hold himself in long enough
to listen to somebody else. He wouldn’t let somebody else finish a
sentence. The assertion of self was against outside power over him. That
is changing as he completes his transition into DQ.
Conception of the Transitional DQ/cp State
“There is little doubt in my mind as to what makes
mature personality. I learned that at the end of my old
man’s switch and I’m not likely to forget it. The grown-up
learns and particularly he learns nothing comes lest you put
out first. Right is right and wrong is wrong and if you are
going to be mature you better learn it, the sooner the
better. It always has been this way and it will always be
because that is the way it is. My old man learned it from
his and his old man learned it from his father, and my kids
are going to learn it from me because that is the law of the
land.
We were not put on this earth to get something for
nothing. We were not put here to want or to wish for or to
have evil thoughts. We were put here to do right and see
to it that other people do right too. It is our duty to strike
wrong whenever we find it. The mature personality knows
what the rules are and he knows if he violates them he
should get it. Life is a serious business with no place for
frivolousness in it. He knows what he is allowed to wish
for and he knows what is forbidden and he behaves
accordingly. Any mature man has got his duties and he
does them even if he does not want to because it would be
wrong of him not to do so. If he does not the grown-up
 CP 249

knows he should be punished. There is no place for

self-serving sentimentally in becoming of age.
One thing that bothers me about this work is what the
kids said in class about God, heaven and the like. I didn’t
see a mature person seeing God as nice and loving. God is
vengeful, he is to be feared. He is not some nice old
grandfather-like guy. To me it is hell that you have got to
fear more than you look for heaven. God says there are
laws we must live by or He will see to it we pay for it in the
future. That’s what being fully grown is. The mature he is
that guy who watches out for evil that is in us. He is the
guy who learns to keep evil down and strive against it.”

This particular response shows that this person is completing the

transition with the response lying in two worlds – more in DQ than in
CP. Notice that as the CP begins to drop out, this over-aggressive
assertiveness is increasingly modulated because he is learning to bind his
impulses tightly within. While CP learns when positive results accrue
from impulse-driven, self-assertive, great risk-taking ventures, DQ
quivers in fear lest action lead to condemnation/pain; hence, there is an
aim to make the other person feel guilt for being what he/she is. We
have an individual who is increasingly learning from punitive action,
even for thoughts in the heart. Notice the increasing awareness of guilt
with self-sacrificing obeisance rather than the previous heroic
expressiveness.
For all its negative aspects, the CP value system is a giant step
forward. Pursuing power, some men do succeed in taming the mighty
river, or building a city or doing other things that improve the personal
lot of some and indirectly help others. But the CP way of life and its
value system create a new existential problem: The winners (heroes)
must eventually die and their admirers wonder why, and why they
themselves are doomed to a miserable existence. Both winners and
losers seek a reason for their inexplicable fates.
Eventually, they conclude that life’s problems are a sign indicating
that if one finds the “right” form of existence, there will be pleasure
everlasting. Man now comes to believe that the life is part of an ordered
plan in which it is meant that some shall have more and some shall have
less and all shall suffer and die. This conviction leads to the belief that
the ‘have’ and ‘have not’ condition is a part of a directed design - a
design of the forces guiding man and his destiny. Now man moves to
the lasting security level of need and learns by avoidant learning. As he
250 CP

moves to the DQ level he develops a way of life based on the

conviction that there must be a reason for it all, a reason why the ‘have’
shall possess so much in life yet be faced with death, and a reason why
the ‘have not’ is forced to endure a miserable existence. And the answer
comes: Life is a test of whether one is worthy of salvation. Thus, the
saintly way of life, based on one of the world’s great religions or great
philosophies, comes to be. Here man creates what he believes is a way
for lasting peace in this life or everlasting life, a way which, it seems to
him, will remove the pain of both the ‘have’ and the ‘have not.’ Here he
seeks salvation. Out of this mix develops the fourth level of human
existence.
 DQ 251

Chapter 10

The Absolutistic Existence – The DQ State

The 4th Subsistence Level

The Saintly Existential State

Theme: Sacrifice self now in order to receive reward later.

Alternative Theme: ‘Sacrifice now to receive reward later’

The ‘Sacrifice now to get later’ Conceptions

252 DQ

Now, the fourth system - the absolutistic existential state - is

incredibly different from the one which preceded it - almost a polar
opposite. The person at this level believes that the prime value is
obeisance instead of the expressivism of the third system. At this stage
of ordered existence he focuses on adjusting to the world, this time not
as he experiences it to be, but as he has come to perceive it to be. This
sponsors a benevolently autocratic, moralistic-prescriptive form for
managing all life, a way which must be religiously adhered to.
This system appeared, probably in its various forms, about 4000-
6000 years ago when successful CP living, taming the mighty river, and
accomplishments in building and organizing improved the lot of some -
the ‘haves,’ but left the many with a miserable existence. It created the
problem that the ‘haves’ confront when they are brought face-to-face
with death and must give up the successful self-centered existence.
“What is this living all about? Why was I born? Why can’t I go on
living?” asks the successful. The ‘have-nots,’ also facing the awareness of
death, must explain why life has been such a miserable existence. “Why
was I born to live this miserable existence?” asks the ‘have not.’
Each must now face these inexplicable problems and find an
answer, a reason for being which coalesces the two. He explains his have
and have-not world, his life and death condition, as part of an ordered
plan. It is meant that some shall have, that others shall have less, and
that many shall not have. And there is meaning in why man shall live,
why roles are determined, and why men shall die. The answer is: it is
God or nature’s designing. It is what the higher power prescribes it to be
and no questioning of authority is permitted. It has all been planned this
way. It is whatever the higher power says that it is and we must obey.
The reason is to test, in many ways, if one is worthy of everlasting
existence. At this time, he becomes a human awakened to inner man –
physiological self and the external world. The capacity to philosophize
beginning in the “Q” system of the brain is activated and the DQ,
absolutistic existential state is born. This state gives rise to the fourth
level theme of existence for this worldview: Sacrifice the desires of the self
now in order to get a lasting reward later. And, it gives rise to its associated
value system - the absolutistic sacrificial existential system.
This system begins to emerge when a successful CP existence
creates a bi-polar set of problems, the problems of existence D. These
problems result when the self-centered, hedonistic CP existence creates
a problem for the ‘haves’ as well as the ‘have-nots’ because sooner or
later there will be an awful lot of clashing going on. D problems are
products of the increased activation of consciousness of self and others.
 DQ 253

Awareness of these death problems activates the Q neurological system,

a system specifically equipped to experience guilt; to learn through
avoidant learning - punishment; to defer gratification; to control
impulses; and to rationalize. The absolutistic state is a quest for a
permanent peace. As DQ man sees it, that state is the tensionless state.
Thus, his values repeat that which he valued at the animistic existential
state, the absence of tension, but in a new form, a saintly existence.
The third level believes that, in some manner or other, life can go
on forever; but at the entering stage of the fourth level, whatever it is
that creates awareness of death begins to emerge. This is associated with
guilt and plays a very definite role in structuring what we’ve come to call
the absolutistic existential state which is sensitive to the feeling of guilt
and, thus, to disapproval. Those centralized in the fourth system feel
guilt for possessing forbidden thoughts or desires and believe the feeling
of guilt and the act of atonement are the proper responses for wrong
done to others. Those in the DQ state are the ones who struggle to free
themselves from the feeling of guilt at selfishness thorough the
acceptance of hierarchy. They believe in living in a world in which one
person acts and the other person judges. The higher authority evaluates
the struggling acts of the lower without taking the offending person’s
feelings into account.
The time does come when some men question the price they must
pay for the later heavenly life. But historically, as in our time, when this
quest begins man searches for his next higher value system and is
accused of breakdown in his moral and ethical ways, e.g., the attack of
the Romans on the early Christians. The absolutistic existential state
emerges in man when he perceives that basic physiological needs are
being met and will continue to be satisfied, but when he is still
endangered by predatory man, predatory animals, and a predatory world.
There is a flood of free energy in his system released from considered
and continuous attention to maintaining physiological life. He is a
human who becomes frightened by an influx of inner and outer
stimulation he can neither comprehend nor control. He is in a state of
frightened existence. Since he now perceives himself caught in a world
of unpredictability and chaos, he strives with all at his command to
achieve safety and security in this world.
To attain safety and security, he seeks to create an orderly,
predictable, stable, unchanging world – one in which the unexpected
does not happen. As he sees it, only complete denial of this inner world
and complete control of it and the outer world can keep him safe from
the many stimuli of which he has become aware. At the DQ level, he
254 DQ

develops a way of life based on “Thou shalt suffer the pangs of one’s
existence in this life to prove thyself worthy in later life.” This saintly
form of existence comes from experiencing that living in this world is
not made for ultimate pleasure - a perception based on the previous
endless struggle with unbridled lusts and a threatening universe. Not
only did the people begin to believe that in order for existence to
continue there must be control of one’s impulse life, there also
developed the belief that this control must be absolute, that they must
learn the rules for the control of the impulse life of the individual.
Peace in this world relates to safety and security, and the way to
achieve this is to divine the immutable laws of living and submit to and
obey them and, once having found them, let no change take place. Here
he perceives that certain rules are prescribed for each class of men and
that these rules describe the proper way each class is to behave. The
rules are the price man must pay for his more lasting life, for the peace
which he seeks - the price of no ultimate pleasure while living. What one
must do is obey. What one must obey is the power that knows what it is
all about. “This is the way it always has been; this is the way it is today;
and such is the way it shall always be” is the lesson of life to be learned.
People at the fourth level live by the principle, sacrifice now in order to get
later, and this was, in fact, the theme that I found in all of the
conceptions of mature personality that were expressed by what
ultimately became this category of human behavior.
At this level man accepts his position and his role in life. Inequality
is a fact of life. He believes that the task of living is to strive for
perfection in his assigned role - absolute perfection, regardless of how
high or low his assigned station. He believes that salvation will come
ultimately to the man who, regardless of his original position, lives best
by the rules of life prescribed for him. What one wants, what he desires
is not important. What is important is that he disciplines himself to the
prescription of his world.
Thus the prime value of fourth-level man is self-sacrifice. He who
sacrifices best his wants in the way authority prescribes is most revered.
We can see the same represented in the role of the leader and the led at
the fourth level. Both work to establish a valued, protective, supportive
alliance. The leader values the life that enables him, if necessary, to
sacrifice himself in the protection of the followers. Those who follow
value sacrificing in support of the leader. Both live by different schema
varying from the same thema.
Thinking at this level is absolutistic: one right way and only one
right way to think about anything. All others are wrong. In the
 DQ 255

absolutistic existential state, thinking is in a categorical fashion: black or

white, good or evil, all or none, for me or against me. DQ assumes a
right-wrong position in respect to everything, even an either-or
conception of knowledge, and sees weakness in any person who takes a
position and then changes.
This fourth, absolutistic existential state, the saintly way of life,
seems to have given birth to the great monotheistic religions of the day.
The world’s great philosophies also come to be because in all of the
formal monotheistic religions, in some of the much more rigid political
systems, there is this very strong belief, very strong prime value, of
obeisance to authority. This really is very new in human existence. We
just didn’t believe until about 5000 years ago that there is one power, be
it the state or be it the individual or be it what it may - the king, the
God, or what - that a person had to bow down to and behave in
conjunction with. But, it’s a very strong system and it believes that there
is one right way and only one right way to behave.
Earlier forms of fourth-level values are typified in those of Medieval
Europe or the Manchu139 dynasty. In these schema, each man was
assured, if he lived his role properly, that reward would come hereafter.
But after knowledge and technology started to burgeon from the efforts
of the few who achieved a fourth-level existence, the sacrificial value
system took on a different schematic form. It took on the form of
Kantian ethics, the Protestant ethic, or “Mao Think.” These schemata
strove to incorporate empirical evidence with absolutistic thinking. In
this fourth-level schema, man values sacrificing at this time in this life to
gain, at a later time, in this life or in some life after death.
At this level, man does not propitiate the spirits for removal of
threat to his immediate existence; rather, he is on a quest for ever-lasting
peace – Nirvana or Heaven. To man at this level, the means to the end
must fit the end. Thus, they require the giving up of bodily and selfish
desire in the here and now. The saintly, the monkish, the Christian form
of existence must coalesce with whatever is the particular group’s
heavenly end. Typical means values are denial, deference, piety, modesty,
self-sacrifice, and harsh self-discipline and no self-indulgence. In his new
existential state, man’s theme for existence is “one shall sacrifice earthly
desires now in order to come to everlasting peace later.” This theme
gives rise to the sacrificial value system. Man focuses his earthly

139 A document such as the sixteen maxims in the “Holy Edict” of Emperor K’ang-Hi
which lays down prescriptions for good living and a ruler’s path to serve the people
can be found at: http://www.sacred-texts.com/journals/mon/kang-hi.htm
256 DQ

existence on the means to salvation – sacrifice of desire in the here and

now.
At the saintly level (DQ), man develops a way of life based on
“Thou shalt suffer the pangs of existence in this life to prove thyself
worthy of later life.” This saintly form of existence comes from seeing
that living in this world is not made for ultimate pleasure – a perception
based on the previous endless struggle with unbridled lusts and a
threatening universe. Here man perceives that certain rules are
prescribed for each class of men, and that these rules describe the
proper way each class is to behave. The rules are the price man must pay
for his more lasting life, for the peace which he seeks – the price of no
ultimate pleasure while living. The measure of this worthiness is how
much he has lived by the established rules.
Here he reveres the established, the lasting, the unchanging as he
did in the BO state - not the lasting ways of his tribe, but the all-
encompassing ways for all mankind. Man’s search for his Nirvana will
peak in his absolutistic sacrificial values, which if followed, will assure
him that he will achieve the end which he values most, the end that is
known as salvation. This end is the ultimate reward for living by the
values which “the Power” has laid down as the basis of man’s earthly
behavior. These are learned through avoidance learning or Mowrer’s
two-factor learning theory. The most representative schema of this
thematic form of valuing is to value life hereafter in the form of
Nirvana, heaven or the afterlife. He becomes Fromm’s (1955)
“Hoarding Character” or Riesman’s “Traditional Directed Man” and
seeks those earthly ways of being which will provide, at some later time,
that which he values - the reward for living right - the tensionless state.
The absolutistic level can be recognized in those who are very
genuinely highly ideological people, highly religious people. Freud
observed the fourth subsistence level of human behavior just as the
early conditioning psychologists observed the second level.
Caught in an uncertain and fearful world, man at the fourth
subsistence level works to construct an ordered, stabilized, and certain
world in which the feared or unanticipated does not come to be. To live
with his perception that life is precarious, that one exists in a world of
ever threatening stimuli, man creates the constrictive ethic, an ethic
which he must develop in order to deal with his state of frightened,
over-stimulated existence. This is a suppressive, repressive, Freudian-
istically explained ethic. Man in the fourth system values the suppression
and repression of his inner life and a rigid ordering of the outer world.
He prefers isolated local unit political institutions and absolutistic
 DQ 257

authority. The latter is usually divine, but it can be the absolute authority
of nature. This point illustrates a significant aspect of the absolutistic
state.
Of all the value systems that exist, the fourth-level system is one of
the most confusing. This central-peripheral problem can be seen in
many other forms. We can see it in the fourth-level value of hierarchical
dominant-submission human relationships. To avoid this confusion one
must keep in mind the thematic and schematic conception of value. The
schematic representations of fourth-level values oft times appear
diametrically opposed. Thus, they appear to be different value systems.
For example, the Moslems and Hindus, often enemies, share the
same thematic value system within this point of view. The holy wars of
the crusades stemmed from the same value system as the non-violence
of Gandhi or Martin Luther King. They are the same because, centrally,
they are alike in that all of them value sacrifice now for achievement of a
better state later. Doctrinaire Catholicism and doctrinaire atheistic
Communism are mortal enemies, yet within this point of view they are
only polar opposite schema varying from the same central sacrificial thema.
Peripherally, the schematic representations are so different that at many
times in history wars have been fought over whose form of sacrificial
values should prevail.
Time, for the fourth system, has stopped. The world is right as it is,
as he now sees it to be, and should not be tampered with. Normally, he
who is living a satisfying fourth-level existence is almost impossible to
change. It would be like trying to change the political beliefs of an
ardent John Birch society member. Why is it that orthodox communism
has the problems that it has - whose communistic way is the right
communistic way? Was it Lenin’s or Stalin’s? Whose communistic way is
the right one? Was it Mao’s? They all believed in absolutism, but it was
absolutism that’s different.
Now, this is at one and the same time one of the strengths and one
of the great weaknesses of the fourth level, or the absolutistic way of
living. If you believe there is only one right way, and if those beliefs out
there with their different details developed in different parts of the
world, and all have their own “one right way,” then clashes will develop
between these differing “one right ways.” If you agree with it, and bow
down to the higher power that defines what behavior is right and what
is wrong within a system, things are just fine. If you vary, then you have
a very, very difficult time with the fight that ensues. So, this is at one and
the same time the most peaceful and the most warlike of all of the
systems that we have.
258 DQ

As previously stated, the person living in the egocentric existential

state, by living successfully, begins to create problems. The person
begins to get other people angry at him for his entrapment and using
others to gain his own satisfaction. He has to shut down some of his
egocentric behavior and begin to think a little bit about other human
beings. Well, as the theory goes, we are equipped by nature to deal with
this problem. Because, as the person begins to realize that his own third
level behavior (or her own egocentric behavior) is beginning to produce
difficulty, it produces chemicals in the brain that activate tremendous
productions of adrenaline in the system. This activates the tissue in the
brain that is able to experience guilt, and so the person begins to feel
guilty about his/her ensnaring, entrapping egocentric behavior and
begins to say, so to speak, “Well, I better sacrifice a little bit of myself to
others if I am going to get along in this world.” Out of this mix the
fourth level of human existence develops.
At this level, man perceives that living in this world does not bring
ultimate pleasure, and also sees that rules are prescribed for each class of
people. Obedience to these rules is the price that one must pay for more
lasting life. DQ people generally subscribe to some dogmatic system,
typically a religion. These are the people who believe in “living by the
Ten Commandments,” obeying the letter of the law, etc. They work best
within a rigid set of rules, such as army regulations.

Examples of the DQ Existential State140 -

‘sacrifice self for reward later’

Now you come to the person who is at peace with the absolutistic
way of life, who feels comfortable there. Let’s take a look at our first
DQ conception.
DQ Conception #1 -
“This assignment was to develop on our won and in
writing, our personal conception of what is the
psychologically mature person in operation. Dr. Graves, I
have found this to be a most difficult task. It is my honest
belief that what is a mature personality is determined by
that power which determines good and evil in the world.
God created man and God has indicated in His Ten

140 CWG: These are written exactly as the person originally submitted them, complete
with spelling mistakes.
 DQ 259

Commandments the principles by which the human

should live. It is not for me to decide what God
pretended [I believe this is a Freudian slip and she meant
‘intended’]. If God had wanted man to decide he would
have indicated that. He would not have “commanded”.
As a result one cannot easily fulfill this assignment. I have
thought very much about how I could fulfill this
assignment. The only way it can be done is within God’s
design. Therefore, since God did give man free will to
choose, in this context, to be mature or immature, I have
decided the only way I can fulfill the assignment is to
decry [I believe she meant ‘describe’] what I think God
meant by each of his commandments. I do hope for your
forgiveness if wrong of if this does not satisfy the
requirements.
Thou shalt have no other God before me.
This commandment, in operation, questions the right of
man to decide what the mature person is. This
assignment, as stated to us, would place man before God
because it would not be God who determines the mature
personality. The mature personality accepts what God
commands. He does not, in arrogance, take unto himself
that which is not in his domain. The mature knows that
God, in His omniscience, knows best. He lives for this
rule.
Thou shalt not make any graven image.
The dictionary says this means one does not make an
image of God in wood or in stone. This the mature
person does not do. It is one reason why this assignment
is an improper assignment, though I may be wrong, since
the dictionary said no image in wood or stone. It seems to
me if I sculpted my picture of the mature personality, I
would be creating a graven image. This is because God
created man in his own image. Thus an image of the
mature human being would be a graven image of God.
Thou shalt not take the name of thy Lord thy God in
vain.
This is what I have been c/trying to say [she has crying
and has scratched it out and put in ‘trying’]. The mature
personality operates so, as not to take the name of God in
260 DQ

vain. He does not question what is the mature person. He

accepts that it is what God says it is, because God says
that is the road to everlasting peace and contentment.
Remember the Sabbath, keep it holy
The mature personality does on the Sabbath what holy
means. He sets it apart and he devotes it to the service
and worship of God. One sees that self is given to a
sacred purpose.
Honor thy father and thy mother.
The mature personality does by word and deed honor
his father and his mother. He does not criticize his
parents since they are what God intended them to be. To
criticize is to criticize God. The mature is thankful to his
folks for having given him life and the opportunity to
serve God in God’s ways; he is not ungrateful like kids are
today.
Thou shalt not kill
The mature personality does not kill. This is why so
many people are unhealthy. They add to the
commandment, except in the service of God. This is not
right. God commanded, “Thou shalt not kill.”
Thou shalt not commit adultery
This should be the easiest of all to fulfill because God
gave man the will to control his impulses. Man knows
what it is for. It is to produce children. So the mature
personality accepts this even, for example, if the wife is
bares for if that happens, God intends that marriage to
serve him in some other way.
Thou shalt not steal
I have heard some kids say, “How can I serve God if I
am dead?” Therefore, if I am hungry God will not
condemn me if I steal bread. This is not the mature
personality in operation. The mature follows this
commandment even if it means to suffer with the hunger
of children. God tests man in many ways to see if he is
worthy.
 DQ 261

Thou shalt not bear false witness

Some who say they are mature personalities show they
are (not?) through this commandment. They do not
realize that not to bear false witness means not to fail to
tell the truth even if the truth hurts. Its only meaning is
not, “Don’t lie about a person.” The mature personality
tells the truth. He is honest all ways and at all times.
Thou shalt not covet
To covet is to want, to desire. The mature personality
does not covet. He suppresses desire and he does not
question any why others have. If God intended him to
have he would have given to him. If God gives, it is not
because man needs or desires or wishes. It is because God
has to see if it is used to serve God’s purpose. The mature
person does not covet, she accepts.”
We note in this conception of the mature adult personality in
operation the acceptance of prescriptions of higher power without
questioning, acceptance of what is without wanting to change it, with
tests of worthiness to be deserving of peace in afterlife. The tone implies
absolute obeisance to rightful higher authority and the text is filled with
shoulds, oughts and musts. There is no doubt about the source of
rightful authority and guilt is centralized as a theme of existence.
DQ behavior shows a struggle to free self from the guilt of
selfishness thorough the acceptance of hierarchy. He assigns roles which
individuals are required to stay within. In this system a higher authority
has laid down a class-ordered life. On the larger scale, the DQ state
sponsors a benevolently autocratic, moralistic-prescriptive form for
managing all life. Each is to live like father, like son, as prescribed in the
design for living or running the organization. There is meaning in man’s
living, in the way roles are assigned, and why some men shall suffer and
why all men must die. Fourth-level men believe life is a test of whether
one is worthy of salvation, be this salvation occidental or oriental in
flavor. All rewards, all punishments, all duties, all methods of
performing duties are prescribed and must be religiously adhered to. He
thinks in terms of punishment right now, and forever after, for wrong
doing unless one repents.
Stringent ‘Thou Shalts’ and ‘Thou Shalt Nots’ for living are
developed because man lays a strong hand on his impulses and imposes
a rigid order on the world. It is the ethic of the Hindu Mystic, the
Buddhist Monk, and the Christian Saint. An ethic of prescribed rules,
262 DQ

attributed to some Divine-like authority which are the rules of achieving

everlasting peace, everlasting life, be it in Nirvana, Jannah, Heaven, or
the Happy Hunting Ground. Now, take a look at:
DQ Conception # 2 –
“Maturity can be defined as a ripeness as a fruition of
determined potentialities, as a fullness of possible
development. The word and the concept, as I see it, carry
certain moral implications. When we say she or he is mature,
we are passing judgments, the word carries an implied ought;
maturity is good and one ought to be mature.
The mature ought to be what he can be and nothing more.
The cardinal rule of maturity is that an individual must
[n]ever seek vainly and erroneously to comp[l]ete himself
falsely. He must never seek to find (lose himself) in the
material world of things or hide himself in books or
meaningless social activities. The mature individual never
seeks to define himself strictly by roles. This, however, is
only negative advice.
Positively speaking, the mature individual must (ought)
transcend his animal desires and give its geist free range in
order that it might seek the fullest possible actualization of
its ideas.
The mature individual must not repress his animality (here
used in a neutral context) because man is both geist and
body, and in fact they are one. An individual geist can only
actualize itself through a body. The body ought therefore be
appreciated, respected, and cultivated to the fullest extent
possible.
The mature individual must seek harmony between the
symbolic system (as may be manifested by the intellectual
rational ego), must realize its origins and limitations, while
yet cultivating its powers. The mature individual must take
stock of this emotive meaning structures and understand
them. In this way the play of emotions and the subconscious
will not produce existential anxiety in the mature individual
and psychopathological stress will be avoided. The mature
individual must take stock of his emotive meaning structures
and understand them -- as opposed to vain attempts of
others to comprehend, repress or ignore them.
 DQ 263

The mature individual does not seek power or control of

the environment. Since the mature personality realizes that
his geist is but a particular manifestation of the Universal, he
is aware that the same is true of all men.
Since personality is a proves and develops through
relationships, the mature individual must not bother himself
with seeking absolute freedom. For him, it is a meaningless
concept.
The mature individual realizes that the possibility of death
lies always on the horizon and life is here and now. He will
live his life, at any one moment, as if at the next death might
bring an end to the projection of his ideals. This realization
will not bring despair to the mature individual but rather will
intensify his celebration of the joy of becoming. In the fullest
sense, maturity is the ability to Be and Become; to know
communion and realize the inevitability of reunion with the
universal.”
See the black-and-white absolutism? Note the nodal DQ in the
existential jargon. Maturity is prescribed according to a known universal
order, that which differentiates the DQ system, specifically, from all the
other systems is the belief that we are controlled by a divine being, a
divine fixture-creature-being. A person will say, for example, that in the
long run anything that happens in his world will be in line with the
master plan of God. The person in the DQ system apparently has this
conception of the universe: ‘An all-powerful figure, variously named -
all-powerful something or other - planned the universe, laid down the
laws of the universe, and watches second by second as the days and
hours go by as to whether or not the divine plan laid down is being
followed. Then he delivers either reward or punishment on the spot or
tacks this up on a score sheet to ultimately decide whether the person
shall be rewarded or punished.’ You see this in their description of
commandments and directives where musts and oughts prevail, as well
as the seeking of peace and contentment. Despite the existential lofty
jargon, thoughts are redundant, repetitious, categorical, and judgmental.
According to the data, man in our DQ state values suppression and
repression of his inner life and a rigid ordering of the outer world. He
values isolated, hierarchical, local unit political institutions and will
accept at most only a weak confederation of political units.
Federalization he strongly rejects. His believes in some absolutistic,
usually Divine authority, and in hierarchically ordered human
264 DQ

relationships - that he is born into position in life and that he should not
question his authorities’ prescriptions. His authority is emphasized
because the particular source of absolute authority varies from person to
person. He believes that the world is full of dangerous forces stemming
from within man’s nature and existing outside his particular group. For
those who are psychologically sophisticated, an interesting thing is
suggested by the psychology of the absolutistic existential state: fourth-
level man may be man as described within orthodox psychoanalytic
circles.
The person at this level believes in the formation of absolute rules
and their necessity for controlling the impulses of mankind. They show
the capacity, which is not present in the previous system, of true
interpersonal relations developing. Here he thinks in terms of others
being taken into account, as people having needs and feelings which are
different from the others; but such feelings are judged as the right
feelings or the wrong feelings. They begin to show the capacity for pity.
They begin to show that they have definite feelings for other people, but
the way they show it is that they give a great deal of attention to the
person if what the other person does is considered to be right because
they assume a right/wrong position in respect to everything. They just
ostracize or shun or shunt aside the person if they consider the
individual to be doing wrong.
Kindness to his kind is valued, and tolerance toward the
unbeknighted is expected. Life is a serious business here. Only
institutionalized pleasure is permitted. He thinks in terms of tenderness,
of giving, of living with - provided one lives by “my” authoritarian ways.
In the long run, giving is always done in terms of giving now or doing
now in order to get later, but only after one has learned the right. He
values his absolutistic moral laws and the words ‘should’ and ‘ought’ are
repeated often. He assumes an “either/or” conception of knowledge.
Rules are black and white, and only the authority that he accepts (for
instance, his church or political party) is proper in its definition of virtue
and sin. His authority defines both. The DQ system has much in
common with the BO system, but now it is man’s higher authority – the
ultimate authority - that sets the rules for life instead of his elders.
 DQ 265

Learning in the Absolutistic State

So let us, first of all, ask ourselves: if I say that this theory says the
most important factor determining the success of the educational
process is the characteristics of the teacher, then what are the
characteristics that should be in the trainer, or the teacher who is
attempting to teach those in the absolutistic state? This person, first of
all, should have high establishment status. Let me illustrate it to you this
way: in a collegiate setting, your full professor, whether that full
professor is really any good or not, should be teaching the class.
Expertise is not nearly as important in getting a message across as
status. When I am going out among people of this kind and I am going
to be introduced, I get out all of my degrees and everything I’ve done.
When they introduce me they tell the audience that I am on the
National Committee for Marijuana and Drug Abuse, that I am a
consultant to the State Department and to the Health, Education and
Welfare Department, and God forbid, I’ve been a consultant to this
White House, and so on because high status is of the utmost
importance.
If I was setting up a kind of program for these people, I would pick
my trainer who is a consistent minded, direct type of person, not given
to attempts at verbal control. Then, preferably, I would put them into a
residential training setup where they are together day and night and
where the trainer becomes mother and father and everything to them.
Because someone has got to be there in the beginning of this process to
deal with all the fears and all the guilts they have about their inferiority,
about whether or not they’ve got enough on the ball to learn, and all
their guilt for going beyond their parents. This teacher has to be an
incredible father or mother to them. They must provide a basic classical
psychoanalytic education. This education has to be carried on very
much in private just as the psycho-analyst takes the patient into the
sound-proof room and carries on in private and encourages all the fears
and all the feelings that the individual has to come out. The trainer has
to be able to do this sort of thing.
Now, this may not be practical. This means therefore, that you don’t
want to train these people in a short session. It means you might set up
this sort of thing: a three hour training program in which, in essence, for
the first hour the instructor encourages people to go on and to work and
to try to learn that which is difficult. If a trainee begins to doubt, then
turn this over to the other members of the group and say, “Now, you
convince John that he can do it. You people talk with John about that.”
266 DQ

They carry on a discussion. So, you have about an hour or so in which

you encourage the people to learn, and then you review what they have
just learned, or you have to present. It is best that this be presented in a
direct lecture fashion, highly organized with the things broken down to
their finest principles. The people should be immediately examined
upon what they have learned. If they run into difficulty, they should be
immediately encouraged to go on, and toward the end of the session the
trainer deals with any fears that have come up about learning the
material brought up in the middle of the session. So, about two thirds of
your training, with these people, is, in essence, psychotherapy. Only
about one third of it is content. About two thirds of it is dealing with
the anxieties the people have as to whether or not they can learn it.
The Q dynamic neurological system seems, learning-wise, to follow
the O. H. Mowrer two-factor or avoidant learning principles. People at
the fourth level of existence contrast sharply with those at the CP level
because they learn best through punishment rather than reward. At the
DQ level, a person is extremely sensitive to punishment and is
motivated, above all else, to avoid aversive stimulation. Punishment is a
method one should never use if he wants effective, constructive learning
from the impulsive, anger-prone, immediate reward-seeking person
centralized in the CP system. But, when the DQ way of thinking is
dominant in man, the most effective means to achieve desired learning
is through punitive, aversive stimulation. For some reason related to the
presence of an excess of adrenaline in the system, a person centralized in
the DQ state is particularly attuned to aversive stimulation. Learning is
accomplished best by getting him to avoid that which will lead to
punishment. In other words, DQ people learn best when they are
punished for doing the wrong thing, through rote repetition and
instruction, and through a respected authority who provides appropriate
punishment for transgressions.
The curriculum must build on what the person believes and it must
not be very different. If the individual has an absolutistic conception,
that which would influence that person to change, if that person were to
change, would be an authority that the individual respects who had a
slightly different point of view of an unimportant aspect of that person’s
thinking. Any differences must be little insignificant things. That is, a
Catholic authority would influence a Catholic student if that Catholic
authority had a different idea about eating fish on Friday than the
church was professing at that particular time. You would never try to
move a Catholic, a DQ Catholic, in the direction of thinking in an ER
way, at that period in time, by suggesting to them that they should use
 DQ 267

birth control. That’s too hot an idea. In a million years you would stay
away from it. You would just close that person down completely if you
tried to get them to change some of their utmost ideas by hitting at an
idea which is deeply ego involved in the person.
These are the rules for teaching new material or helping them look
at ego-involving issues in different ways: An authority must induce it. An
authority must make a suggestion that is a minor change in the field of
the person’s life and never hit an important ego-involved idea. Close
supervision with a prestigious instructor; it doesn’t matter what the
person’s expertise is, but the person must have prestige in the eyes of the
person or group that you are trying to teach.
You use techniques similar to those you used with CP to teach the
closed DQ. Once the closed DQ has done something wrong, stopping
him from doing it is as far as you go. If you go any further, that system is
tight. That system will blow up on you, and you are going to be in
difficulty. This person has a short attention span because he’s got so
many problems; he hasn’t got any energy left with which to think about
things. So, you’ve got to do the thinking for him.
You have to structure the world for him; at the same time, the
instructor who insists on setting the structure very, very tightly must
have great patience. Not only must the instructor be highly structured,
but also he must prescribe in advance the limits within which any kind of
behavior is provided. For example, if you are doing the simple task of
teaching these people to write, it is for these people that you set up a
structured learning environment with step-by-step instructions. That is,
you have the sheet of paper and the teacher would say: “I want a margin
of an inch and a quarter, inch and a half here. I want so much here. I
want you down this far from the top, and up this far from the bottom.”
By God, if you started elsewhere the teacher would yank it out of your
hand. Well, this is what you’ve got to do. Now, you structure it just like
that, and if the kid starts to write outside of that, you just come up take it
away and say to him start over. The problem you’ll have the first time
you take paper away is he is liable to burst out into tears. He won’t do it
a second time.

Management of the Absolutistic State

One of the first things that I study is the character of the work in
the organization. How do they get the work done? Have they got CP
work in this organization, or DQ work? Or how much CP work do they
have to do, how much DQ? What kind of jobs do they have? That’s the
268 DQ

delimiting factor in an organization. The way you do the work

determines the people you select to do the work, determines the style of
the manager you select to mange them, determines the style of
management that you have, determines the pay system, and the whole
set of the procedures in the organization. If one finds a fourth-level
organization, one implements action by continuous and constant
supervision of those who are to use it. One, so to speak, stands over
people to see that compliance is achieved.
Fourth-level being spawns paternalistic or benevolently autocratic
management. In this system a higher authority has laid down a class-
ordered life. Here management is based on the assumption that people
are born into classes unequal in rank. Those chosen to be born with
more have the vested responsibility to supply for the needs of others
and to regulate them through fatherly concern. These prescriptions must
be religiously adhered to.
At work, the fourth-level person responds to the authoritarian
management style – moralistic-prescriptive. The saintly employee knows
and accepts the subordinate position. The manager’s role, in this
person’s mind, is to provide the routine, structure the task, define and
clarify the regulations, and represent the organization. The routine
clerical and administrative jobs found in the bureaucratic structure of
large organizations are especially attractive to the saintly person. From
this orderliness, and the saintly’s submission to it, comes the individual
security the person seeks and psychologically requires.
Each is to live like father, like son, as prescribed in the design for
living or running the organization. Rules are prescribed for everyone and
all things. Obedience and submission to the “order-of-things” is the
price of a secure, lasting life. The world is seen as predictable, orderly,
and unchanging, based on the predestined order set down by some
external, often extra-human authority. It is one’s duty to accept the
order-of-things, not to question, struggle, or explore. Security comes
through sacrifice and submission. To be properly managed, those in the
absolutistic state must be managed through moralistic-prescriptive
management.
Within this state of human existence the leader-follower relationship
is consistent with the safety motive and the constrictive ethic. It, too, is
a prescribed relationship, a relationship laid down in divine authority.
He who lives at this level believes the role of each human is predestined.
The leader leads because he is born to lead and the follower follows
because his is predestined. Perceiving that position is ordained and
believing that restriction is the proper way of life, the leader and the led
 DQ 269

develop a protective and supportive alliance for the management of

human affairs. DQ behavior shows a struggle to free self from the guilt
of selfishness through the acceptance of hierarchy. Fealty and loyalty,
service and noblesse oblige are the keystones to organization
relationships when both leader and led are at the fourth subsistence
level.
The leader and follower in feudal, agricultural or limited commercial
organizations have similar and congruent values which makes for
viability; but such is not necessarily so in other instances where the
values of the managers are similar to the values of those who are
managed. At work he responds only to a managerial style which is
appropriate for his psychology – only to rigidly prescribed and rigidly
enforced rules.141 Failure to manage him consistently with his
expectations results in work deterioration. This deterioration appears in
the form of neurotic behavior, psychotic behavior, or unconscious
sabotage of the productive effort, 142 and a firm conviction that the
manager is not fulfilling the managerial role of providing order and
regulation. It becomes the DQ’s duty to unseat this manager. Attempts
will be made to recruit others in the work group to the crusade – to root
out ‘evil.’ In the extreme, either the manager goes, thus vindicating the
righteousness of the aroused DQ, or the organization by retaining ‘evil’
is also seen as evil. In this situation management should expect the
conscious, willful commission of acts of sabotage and disruption of the
most horrendous proportion. The resultant organizational chaos
vindicates the DQ through the punishment of evil.
The considerable portion of the American work force at this level
may, to some degree, explain the consistent percentage of personnel loss
(through resignation and transfer) by organizations implementing a job
enrichment program. The subordinate at the fourth level perceives the
job enrichment program as personally threatening and laden with
insecurity. Since this program comes from the highest organizational
authority, the entire system must be full of ‘evil’ (read: lack of order).
The Saintly flees to a haven of structure and order; a ‘good’ organization
that has some moral fiber to it.
Note that the closed personality in this state just can’t take stress.
So, you have the same principles whether it’s neurotic or whether it is a
person who is unalterably closed for biological or other reasons. Try to
construct in your mind the managerial environment that you have set up

141 CWG: What Blake and Mouton call 9:1 management.

142 Graves, Clare W. (1966). The Deterioration of Work Standards. Harvard Business
Review. Sept.-Oct., Vol 4, No. 5, p 117-126.
270 DQ

for that person. Watch them until you see that person in equilibrium and
see to it that you do not vary from that managerial environment for that
person. They need a predictable work setting.
Let me illustrate it in this way: I had a very severe neurotic who was
also one of the best auditors in a bank with which I was consulting. This
woman was so severe that if she had paper on the desk and you just
happened to be walking along and hit that paper and shift it, she would
blow. Now, we’re not going to do anything about that. We don’t know
how to change that kind of closed personality. It’s a serious a problem.
What do you do with this person? We did a very simple thing. We built a
glass cage around her desk so that no one could ever hit her papers. We
just did that simple thing.
Employees in the absolutistic existential state do not respond to
autonomy and participation. When the opportunity for such is extended
to them, they choose autocracy, not democracy - what we would expect
of them? When attempting to get the employee to do something new it
is the authority that must suggest the shift. The authority must accept
that the person will reject the idea in the beginning. The authority must
quietly insist on the person’s considering the idea. The person will
eventually accept it. Then you must consistently supervise the person in
the process of the change.
The important thing is to be able to read whether or not this person
is responding negatively or positively to what you are doing. If you see
that you begin to get negative manifestations, backtrack just as fast as
you can to try to find out what it is that you are doing to mismanage
him. He reveres authority, and he believes the biggest sin that you can
commit in this world is to question authority. But when he has dropped
clues to authority indicating how to behave and authority doesn’t behave
that way, then you’ve got this person in a very serious situation. Now, all
that you have from then on is a build-up of pressure. In any
organization where there are people behaving ineffectively, in at least 85
percent of the cases this is the reason: management is not reading those
people correctly.
Mismanagement at this level is failure to provide firm direction and
structure. Many managers have misinterpreted Theory Y to mean that
the only appropriate style is open, participatory, non-authoritarian,
democratic management (an interpretation McGregor never would have
accepted). This misconstrued Theory Y style of management is the
surest way of mismanaging the saintly level person, a form of
mismanagement so severe that it is guaranteed to produce physically ill
 DQ 271

and withdrawn DQ employees, disrupt organizational life and morale,

and cause a decline in productivity.
If mismanagement continues, you will find that it begins to show
itself in the system being unable to control itself. Namely, the disorder
behavior, the behavior that is damaging to the organization, is going to
increase. It’s going to increase to the point that the individual actually
endangers the very existence of the organization of which he is a part. It
is the DQ who, when mismanaged, will take the ship down with him if
he has to. He’ll do something horrendous, go amuck. Or go after the
people. Now, if this doesn’t work, all he’s got left to do is run from the
situation.
If you have been managing successfully, then DQ management
ultimately gives way, and one of the reasons is that nature does not place
brains solely in the heads of predestined leaders. Some of the led get
their share and some of these ultimately question their slavish existence.
When successful moralistic-prescriptive management frees energy in the
human system and when this increased energy is joined with the
impelling reason of dissatisfaction, dynamic brain systems are activated
which produce insights that propel man to a still higher level of human
existence.

Readiness for Change in the Absolutistic State

Man tarries long enough here to order his existence so that it will
assure his satisfaction at some later time - a way that, it seems to him,
will remove the pain of both the ‘have’ and the ‘have-not.’ Here he seeks
salvation. The rules are the price man must pay for his more lasting life,
for the peace which he seeks - the price of no ultimate pleasure while
living. After security is achieved through the absolutistic rules, the time
comes when some men question the price. When this happens, the
saintly way of life is doomed to decay, since some men are bound to ask
why they cannot have some pleasure in this life.
This DQ to ER regressive disorganization of fourth-level values is
seen by many people as the ultimate sign of man’s depravity. Fourth-
level man sees the ultimate destruction of all that is good in man as
fifth-level wants begin to impel man to seek a new form of existence
and a new value system. As man casts aside the inhuman, overly denying
aspects of the sacrificial ethic, it is as if a feeling of independence surges
272 DQ

up within him. The saints of the church, Godric143, for example, could
no longer stand their saintliness; and the current better-off Russian has
started to employ the profit motive. Overcoming self’s desires had to
give way to what might be termed an Adlerian ‘Will to Power.’144
But when the absolutistic existential state brings a modicum of
earthly security to those who pursue them, their very success creates a
new fifth-level existential problem for man which appears in the crisis
stages between outmoded DQ values and ER values. Through those
prescribed absolutistic rules, the time comes when some people question
the price of sacrificial values, the price of the saintly existence. Why
must life be only a time of denial? He questions why he was born to live
only to find satisfaction later, or in an afterlife.
He cannot have enjoyment in this life so long as he is at the mercy
of an unknown world, the servant of the universe rather than its master,
so long as he does not express his independence from predetermined
fate. Living by order, as in medieval days, seemed for a period of time to
solve the problems of existence, then the plagues came in and upset
people’s lives regardless of whether they lived by the laws or not. People
were faced with this kind of discrepancy that caused them to have to
begin to think in another way. And so, in order to deal with the fact of
having to explain why, even if they live the way ‘my God,’ ‘my Lord,’
‘my Power,’ ‘my Communist leader’ says, things still didn’t go well. They
had to activate another way of thinking. When this question arises in the
mind of man, the saintly way of life, the sacrificial ethic, is doomed for
decay and readied for discard.
When man casts aside the inhuman aspects of his saintly existence
he is charged with excess energy from security problems now solved as
he sets out to build a life for pleasure here and now. As he perceives
this, man begins again to try to adjust his environment to the self and
begins the tortuous climb to the ER level, on through another period of
transition to another level, now slipping, now falling in the quest for his
goal. Such questioning helps to move man to the fifth subsistence level,
the state of materialistic existence. As the ER values begin to emerge
and the fifth level comes to be, DQ man views them as impious and the
ultimate sign of man’s depravity; the new independence of ER man is
exhilarating to people caught up in the new values.

143 Possibly St. Godric of Finchale (1170), a merchant who became a pious hermit and is
still known as composer of some of the oldest English hymns.
144 Graves, Clare W. (1970). Levels of Existence: An Open System Theory of Values.

Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Fall 1970, Vol. 10, No. 2, p. 151.

 DQ 273

DQ/ER Transition

In helping a person make the transition from the DQ to the ER

system, we are trying to get this person who is just another nice, decent,
run of the mill human being to become something distinctive with being
what the society values. And so you have to have as a teacher or
manager a model who represents ‘making it’ in society and getting all of
the trappings of society; moreover, going on beyond there and
distinguishing himself or herself in some manner. This is what the
model person has got to be. And this model must be one who can be
presented to the training people as having achieved outstanding
performance in some way or another so that this person can begin to
tease them on in the direction of outstanding performance. The
outstanding performance has been achieved within the rules of the
game.
So, you need a teacher who has very firm ideas as to how to go
about accomplishing. You need a teacher who can show the people
being trained that: “I started out here where you are. I didn’t know any
more than you do, but look where I am today. Look where I am.” You
have to have a person as a teacher who believes that one should strive
for excellence within what his society defines as excellent, whatever the
society’s ideas of excellence are. This teacher is a teacher who has a
tremendous capacity to exude warmth. It is a teacher to which the
trainee would want emotionally to attach himself. But this person must
be one who has a desire to become genuinely and personally involved
with the learning individual.
In contrast to the previous instructor that we spoke of, this must be
a person of remarkable verbal facility who seems to spend an inordinate
amount of time in direct verbal interaction with people. One of the
characteristics you look for is a person who will talk for hours with
another human being about how desperate is the plight of the Bantu
under Apartheid in South Africa, while sitting comfortably here with the
trainee. One of the characteristics is that they love to talk about
problems of long-term standing, and about what ought to be done
about them, and how something ought to be done about them, but they
keep it on a verbal level - they just talk, and talk, and talk.
You want a person very sensitive to intense human feelings, one
who has great capacity to empathize. One of the beliefs of this teacher
would be that troublesome behavior is the result of emotional difficulty.
In contrast to the previous one, we have a teacher who is most willing to
admit mistakes to subordinates and to the younger. Why? Because you
274 DQ

want the trainee to learn what? That this person got to those heights
after making all of these mistakes. So the trainee says, “I, too, maybe can
get there. I haven’t tried to step out because I’m afraid of making a
mistake. But if he stepped out (or she stepped out) and got there and
made all of these mistakes, my heavens, I too can get there.” You want
this.
The supervision here should be casual rather than strict. You need a
person who is willing to take a chance with a decision by the trainee to
try to do something which scares the living daylights out of the trainer.
The trainer has got to exude: “I trust you. Go ahead, take your chance.”
A characteristic that is highly definitive here is that this trainer is often
talking about “what a great satisfaction I get out of reaching the shy, the
withdrawn, the isolated.” They speak of those who are left out. The
trainer has got to believe that there are no bad children, no bad students,
no bad learners; they get in trouble because of forces beyond their
control.
Now, this trainer must, as a first step to training this person, put an
input into the individual suggesting: “You ought to be different. You
really ought to try to go just a little bit further.” In other words, letting
the reach exceed the grasp. This teacher has to be the impetus to
change. The teacher has to suggest - has to keep suggesting - that the
person try to better himself. You are trying to upgrade a human being
in essence here, and so you are to keep in mind that it is the teacher that
has higher status and high expertise to the trainee, that must encourage
the person to seek to be better. This teacher then must be very, very
careful to interpersonally and privately work with this individual to get
started. If you have a homogeneous group, you can work very well at
the group level here because, if you get a number of open DQs together,
one of the first things the teacher can do to begin to get them to learn in
the direction in which he wants to go is to have them enter into a group
discussion as to how each of them might think of using what the teacher
might be bringing them to become distinguished.
These people love to learn by discussion. The teacher can use
debate methods. The teacher should always incorporate competition
into the learning. The teacher, in this particular situation, works almost
day and night, so to speak, with the trainees in the beginning of the
experience. You have a person who has learned before the teacher came
into the situation that his way or her way of behaving has already been
determined. You are now trying to get this person to believe in his own
self-destiny rather than in a destiny determined by some divine fate or
circumstances, or something of that nature. You are trying to get this
 DQ 275

person to be better than his parents, to aspire to have more then his
parents ever had. And a lot of DQs are going to feel awfully guilty when
you begin to suggest to them that they ought to aspire. So, you have to
have a very close relationship.
To facilitate a transition, the teacher or manager must learn when to
put the group on its own and begin to have them solve their problems
in respect to the subject matter, through their own efforts. In other
words, you go from the first step of the teacher working closely with the
learners through their problems of learning ‘what it is’ and helping them
learn it, to the teacher getting out of the picture, and saying: “Now,
here’s the problem. You help one another handle this,” to the third step:
“Here is the problem. Each one of you work this out yourself.” The
teacher has to withdraw from the situation.
When the teacher gets to the point in this learning situation that he
or she does begin to withdraw, this teacher now has to have a
tremendous capacity to handle feelings in another way, because the kids
will turn on that teacher. The trainees will turn on the teacher, and begin
to be almost irrational in the way they go after the teacher, because they
would have learned by now that whatever the teacher is teaching, is not
as simple as the teacher outlined in the beginning. And the minute they
get here, they are going to get mad because “You led me down a road
here, and you told me there were answers, and now I find out I’ve got to
find the answers that you suggested to me in the first place were there.”
At that point, the teacher begins to move out. The transition, in essence,
has begun.
This value system, like all others, seems not to satisfy man as he
puts it to the test of time. Now you have the person beginning to
independently operate against authority, which is what you were
attempting to do; helping them standing on their own feet, making their
own decisions. Notice these elements in the following conception:
DQ/er Conception (Exiting)
“I shall open my conception with a short statement
which will lay before you the basic facts of what a
conception of mature behaviour should be. The
statement will be about the assignment, that we have
been doing in class and the facts of my conception.
1. This class has been the worst of what I feared I
would run into in college. It has been nothing but
empty-headed theorizing and muddle-headed
hemming and hawing. why we have to spend four
276 DQ

weeks talking about what proper instruction would

cover in one good lecture I don’t know.
2. It seems to me that it would be far more efficient
for the facts of mature personality to be presented
and then cover how to achieve it along with what
happens if one does not. [Note the subtly challenging
reference to authority]
3. Several times I have asked why such nonsense is
allowed, why the time is being utterly wasted and why
the instructor will not tell us what mature personality
is.
4. Therefore, at the risk of incurring the instructor’s
displeasure, sir, my conception is what any clear
thinking person knows mature personality is.
The Mature Personality
1. The mature personality is the clear thinking person
who makes decisions on the basis of fact. The mature
foes not let emotion overrule his reason.
2. The mature personality thinks about the things that
are important, not about a lot of muddle-headed
abstractions. He stands for the tried and true and
against those who through their muddle-headed
thinking would question the established purposes and
virtue of man.
3. The mature personality does not go off on
tangents, he is clearly focused.
4. The mature personality is loyal, he respects those
who know better.
5. The mature personality has “his reach beyond his
grasp.” He works hard, he does not waste time, he
knows that reward should come only from effort.
6. The mature personality sees to it he is known by
his deeds, what he does, not what is said and he
knows that it is right for him to do so.
 DQ 277

7. The mature personality lives by the rules of proper

living and requires that all others do so lest there be
chaos.
8. The mature personality seeks always to better
himself, he is never satisfied with half measures.
9. The mature accepts the laws for living because it is
only through their existence that one can be free.
10. The mature has goals in life, he is not hampered
in his goal seeking or decisions by uncertainties. He
knows where he is going.
11. The mature is open-minded. He listens to all sides
so that when he makes a decision he has all the
information necessary to make the best decision, the
one he knows is right.
12. The mature personality is he who achieves on his
own, through his own efforts, by following the
established rules.
13. The mature personality is one who respects the
established order in life. He is one who knows that
established order does exist and he is one who strives
always to know and to guide his life by that
established order.
14. The mature personality is respectful of his duty
and he does it. If he does not subscribe to what is
being done he seeks to achieve the position where he
can institute right.
15. The mature has the will to work. He does not
waste time, he always finds something worthwhile to
do.
16. The mature controls his thinking. He keeps his
mind on what he wants and off what he should not
think about.
17. The mature strives to express only positive
emotions -- he uses negative emotions only to handle
the evil in the world such as war or crime which he
may need to hate so as to kill the evil.
278 DQ

18. The mature uses up surplus energy in work not in

frivolity or sex or drinking or eating or the like.
19. The mature is undaunted by failure or misfortune.
He believes success comes to he who keeps trying
whatever his troubles may be. Every adversity has a
benefit.
20. The mature is a master of his attitudes. He directs
his thoughts and ordains through self-direction how
to control his destiny.
21. The mature separates fact from fiction, fantasy
from reality.
22. The mature believes the greatest value in life is to
master the negative and animal emotions so as to do
good for people even if they cannot or will not do
good for themselves.
23. And finally--whatever the mature has accom-
plished he recognizes it is not enough. To do right he
must set his standards high and seek ever and ever to
achieve more, so the best be better.”
Now, we begin to get an increase in the ER tendency coming in.
Notice the little change in language that takes place here. He protests
too much about freedom, autonomy, and individuality. There is a sense
of turbulence and intrapersonal stress in self versus authority issues,
while authority teaches the dictates of independence. We still have the
core theme of ‘sacrifice self now for later’ but a self-designated, right-
thinking person prescribes for others with an assertion of self against
the deficiencies and errors of authority. Notice the criticism; we begin to
see a disdain for authority which doesn’t behave like proper authority
should. Increasingly, authority shifts from external towards the inner
authority of self and one’s own right thinking mind.
He wants to listen to all sides so as to learn how to out-argue the
opposition. Now, notice again, this change from absolutism in the
direction of relativism; but it is not over to relativism, yet. There is still
a proper way to live with a no-nonsense, non-theoretical, tangible,
down-to-Earth approach. He rejects the ambiguity of confused
thoughts; but “metaphysical certitude” prevails which is not defined in
moral terms any more. He is struggling for and making the change while
trying to hold onto ever-weakening authority anchors. This is why you
 DQ 279

would make this upper case DQ over ER – DQ/er. He still has that
strong DQ element in him and the absolutism is beginning to disappear.
Here, we came out of a protocol that had a lot of shoulds in it, and
there is still certainty. This is why you would still say that this is
predominantly DQ with ER creeping into it. Now, let’s get over a little
bit further to where the ER is stronger than the DQ:
dq/ER Conception (Entering)
“I should like to preface my conception with a few
words about the way this class is being conducted, and
what I have to say is no shit. It is the straight stuff.
I’m a senior in college but I wonder how I got there.
Maybe they did not want to embarrass the old man
because I sure did not go for the crap those professors
dished out the first three years. In fact, of all the time I
have given to school this is the first class that ever acted as
if there was some respect for the people who don’t think
the way profs or teachers do. This is what education ought
to be, not that poll parroting stuff we always get
demanded. You would think no one knows anything
except profs from the way most of them operate. But that
is enough of that! What I believe mature personality is, is
detailed below.
The mature woman can be seen through her analogue,
the mature animal. She does not look for trouble but she is
ever alert to its possibility. She has her antennae at the
ready.
She takes nothing for granted. There’s no certainties in
the world so she organizes her domain so as to control and
amplify her chances for success.
When others interfere with her domain she does not
necessarily react to destroy or seriously harem them but to
get them under control so as to drive them from her
domain, but react with vigor and fury she can if necessary.
She gets away with what she can which will foster her
chances lest she be considered a fool.
She is friendly with whoever are with her but watchfully
so because she knows it is human nature to take people if
you can.
280 DQ

She is too rational to ask for or take on that which is

certain trouble but she will take advantage of any situation
which is about to foster her success.
She is the one who has control of her world or whatever
her organization is because she is not only one who can
plan but is one who insists on running her affairs. She
takes no shit.
She is able to shift attitudes as necessary. No fear, no
doubt, no shame can stand in the way of her carrying out
what she sees as the best.
She does not get bound up by the old virtues crap
because she knows life is what you make it to be, not what
the sayers say it is. She knows that that which is best for
her is best for all.
The mature does not cast people into molds. She knows
her opinion is a good as anyone’s because nothing is
certain except the certainty of one’s own experience.
The last thing the mature would do would be to let
others manage her affairs. It is she who looks out for
herself and her interests.
She watches her impulses but she has no fear for using
them in her own best interests are endangered.
She does not spend time contemplating who she is or
what it is all about.; She knows and she knows, she knows.
Look at the change. The multiplistic thinking - many ways to do a
thing but one best way - is strong. Diversity is present, but there lingers
the feeling that there is a wrong to be eradicated. Shame and guilt have
decreased dramatically but have not been eliminated. The absolutism is
decreased with awareness of differing value systems, and varieties of
thinking, although she copes with it through atomistic additive thinking
which is argumentative toward, and oppositional to, authority. She
attempts to brusquely cast the shackles of authority aside in favor of the
authority of her own tried-and-true experience. The struggle is within
the self and with authority, not the dragons of CP. Notice the strong
negation of external controls coming in, wariness of others, controlled
expressiveness as opposed to ‘to hell with the consequences,’ and
attempts to remove ambiguity and establish truth through her own
actions to control self and the environment, rather than through
authority or a higher power. In reading this statement one can intuit that
 DQ 281

“the right” is learned by careful testing, not arrogant assault. She is

anxious to grasp things not yet in hand and hungers for an opportunity
to express herself.
I want to go back to the methodology that the instructor uses when
attempting to train the people to move from the DQ to the ER state. I
would suggest that it would be most advisable to have knowledge of and
take advantage of all that David McClelland has done. McClelland is the
master at putting the achievement motive into human beings; and so it
would be very important to learn more about his methodology. It is
spelled out well in a number of his writings.
This instructor uses all of the means possible to reward the person
in front of the group. This is the instructor who sets up prizes to be
won, the stars to be gotten, the Boy Scout Merit Badge, for example.
This is a 4-H145 - “To make the best better” - and all of the training
methodologies that you find in 4-H. All of the methodologies that they
have worked out in scouting over the years are the kinds of
methodologies that are very appropriate. And notice how the
Scoutmaster takes the group off to the woods and he spends the night
with them. He goes into residence with them, so to speak. The 4-H
leader gives his heart and soul to the 4-H youngsters day and night.
There is nothing else in the life of the person. Those are simply models
of this kind of training that have been around for a long time.
This is the human being who responds magnificently to learning
what you measure on objective tests. So, you measure objectively when
you are assessing this individual’s performance. You try to set it up so
that no matter what the individual accomplishes, just as soon as the
individual has learned one thing, you push the individual out a little bit
further, put another goal in front, and you always keep the reach
exceeding the grasp of the individual.
On a child-rearing level we refer to this as ‘accelerated unilateral’
training, where the parent communicates to the child: “I love you, but I
will love you more if you do more, and more. Now that you’ve done
more I’m going to love you more tomorrow if you do more.” He keeps
rewarding the child for doing more, so you just pull the youngster
toward this excellence of performance.
When the expertise comes, the individual can stand on his own feet
against authority and you have accomplished the purpose of this kind of
training. It is important to give thought to the seriousness of this and to

145 4-H is the youth education branch of the Cooperative Extension Service, a program
of the United States Department of Agriculture. Each state and each county has
access to a County Extension office for both youth and adult programs.
282 DQ

consider that the last thing you want to happen is for training to end
here, because you are going to end up with this: It is notorious that
along with moving the person from DQ to ER, the tendency to believe
that “come what may, I must continue to have what I want” temporarily
comes into the individual’s life. It will be more permanent if you don’t
take steps to overcome it. So, they are led into this apparent immoral
behavior. But I can say this with all honesty: I do not consider this
immoral behavior at all, in no way whatsoever. This is normal, natural
ER behavior. Every human being who passes through the ER system
will behave in that manner. That is the norm.
Now, let’s be careful about this. You’ll never get advanced
development without these people. It is the psychology of Richard
Nixon that will make underdeveloped areas developed. You must have
this kind of thinking for it to happen. It is what made, and I say this
carefully, America great. America was built on people who behaved that
way – one’s own self-interest; do whatever you have to in fostering one’s
own self-interest, and spill off a tremendous number of things that
improve the welfare of other human beings. But, if we do not ultimately
train in such a manner that we move people on beyond this, then we get
stalled here. This becomes the norm of living, rather than the means to
the end of solving the problem of undeveloped physical resources.
It takes the ER mind to solve the problem of an undeveloped
physical world. No other mind has ever been able to solve this problem.
But if you leave it there, you ultimately get these very serious social
problems. So is important that you think of the overall business to try to
keep the human being moving.

The DQ to ER Transition and the

Righteous Existence – DQ/er 146

As we turn to the transition of man from a state of submission to

the assertion of his selfish independence we come to what may be, in
the eyes of many, the most dastardly of all I have to say. No words that
I shall ever pen will be more condemned or less hailed than those which
I shall now commit to paper. But be that as it may they must be written
for the future of mankind may rest upon man’s ability to extricate
himself from living within “The American Ways of Life,” those states

146 This section is essentially as Dr. Graves wrote it prior to preparing the 1977
manuscript. The exact year of its writing is unknown.
 DQ 283

for existence which come to be when the ER, the selfishly independent
system of human behavior, begins to emerge.
This statement will be heretical to some, communistic to others and
anarchistic to many. But let me explain what is meant by the assertion.
This world, as we all know, is full of paradoxes, but of all that exist, the
most paradoxical, it seems to me, is the one which arises when man’s
need for independence begins to emerge. As man starts his transition
from the absolutistic form for existence, the ordered, authoritarian,
submissive way of life, and as man moves through the stage of
independence on into the sociocentric ways for being, five definable and
describable states of existence emerge, one after another, in our ordered
hierarchical way. These five states, each of which has a strong flavor of
selfish independence in them, have brought more that is good to man
and more that is bad for him than all states of existence which preceded
them. No states of existence prior to these five have given man more
power over the physical universe, more verifiable knowledge, or a
greater increase in his material welfare than have they. But no states are
more certain to pave the way for man’s demise than these five unless we
can move, at least the leadership of man, beyond these states where man
believes that the epitome of human living lies somewhere with one or
some of the ER states of existence.
I will grant, as you shall see, that it is the psychology of the
existential states which have a strong element of selfish independence in
them which split the mighty atom, waft away disease, and provide the
means for material abundance for man. But it is these same states, with
the same element of selfish independence in them, which lead man to
exploit this world for his own selfish gain. He does so because he is
temporarily deluded to believe that more is always there to be procured
or to be replaced by something created by man’s scientific ingenuity. If
the leaders of mankind - industrialists, presidents, premiers and
legislators - continue, operationally, to deny the negative aspects of the
ER component; if they continue to assert, verbally and behaviorally, that
any or a combination of the ER states is the sine qua non of human
existence, then mankind is in for dire trouble in the future. Nothing can
be more certain to lead to our destruction or to our reduction to lower
level human states of existence than for us to continue under leadership
wherein this kind of thinking directs human lives.
Thus, as we begin a study of the ER states, I suggest for your
consideration that of all the things the world can ill afford, at this time in
its existence, it is an exacerbation or continuance of “The American
Way of Life,” for “The American Way of Life” is an admixture of those
284 DQ

existential states which come to be when the ER need for independence

from authority and nature emerges in man. There are five states of
human existence which have the ER flavor in them.
The first is in actuality more a DQ state than it is ER, for in it the
need for independence is emerging within an absolutistic, authoritarian
submission complex. The ER component is present, but it is
subordinated within the DQ kind of thinking we have just previously
examined. This we will call the righteous way of life, the righteous state of
existence. It is the DQ over er state (DQ/er).
In the second state, the ER need for independence is the stronger
force, but it is still held in tow by the lingering dq (ER/dq). We shall call
it the negativistic way of life. The third of the states is the nodal ER way of
life where man is going hell-bent for his own independent way (ER).
“Clear the decks, full speed ahead, and the devil take the hind most” is
its dictum. The fourth state, the selfish state of existence, comes to be
when man begins to feel an infringement on his being by the wants of
others. It is the ER over fs state (ER/fs). Here man still focuses on
going his own way, but in a manner which, on the surface, appears
concerned with others, but underneath operates to keep others off his
back without feeling hostile to him. The last of “The American Ways of
Life,” one of which we are beginning to see much, is the enticing way of
existence, the FS over er way (FS/er). Here, in this state the last vestige
of selfish independence is hanging on as man begins to become more
concerned with others than himself. Here he behaves so as to get
satisfaction for himself by being the jolly good fellow, the non-party
pooper, and the cooperating colleague that his friends want him to be. It
is these five states, these “American Ways of Life,” that we shall now
examine. We shall explore “The Righteous Existence,” the DQ over er
(DQ/er) state in this section.

The Righteous Existence - Its Existential State

The nodal DQ system is an authoritarian, dogmatic, rigid

psychological state. The system is redundant, doing over and over what
has been found wanting. It is filled with hidden feelings of hostility and
aggression and has a strong element of guilt in its core. It is
conservationistic, strongly driven toward closure, concrete, relatively
simple in cognitive structure, tightly bound and resistant to change with
strong drives within, but even stronger control forces over the drives. It
is a tight, narrowly confined system of limited degrees of behavioral
freedom which gives rise to a very righteous way for living.
 DQ 285

In this transitional state, according to our theory, the component

‘adjustment of the organism to the environment’ is still stronger than
the component ‘adjustment of the environment to the organism,’ but
both are strong. Thus, the person in this state feels a need to express his
selfish needs but in a setting wherein he must submit to authority. In
this state, the avoidant learning system is still dominant, so the person
must learn anew what to avoid so as to express himself the way in which
authority approves. With the need to submit to authority stronger than
the need to assert selfish independence, guilt will be felt when the selfish
desires arise.
Thus, this person’s existential problem is: “How can I handle this
need for independent and selfish expression of all that is in me - desire,
anger from blocked desire, and guilt for desire - in a setting where
independence is forbidden and punished, and desire is akin to sin?” The
answer is: “The Right Way, the way that authority prescribes, the way
authority will not punish, the way that may not gain me overt approval
but at least won’t get me punished.” Do what has to be done, but do it
their way, authority’s way is the answer. “That is the way to solve the
problem,” one’s cognitive powers tell him. “Discipline yourself to
expressing your desires the way authority says is the right way for you to
express them; then you will not have to feel any qualms of guilt about
letting your self through. Set yourself this goal and don’t veer from it,
then you will have created a non-disturbing mix of personal desire and
authority’s demand which enables you to avoid guilt. But remember,
having to express yourself their way, rather than your way, will make you
angry, so include some ways to handle this feeling such as working it off
or condemning he who does not have the discipline you possess.” So, of
this mental state, regardless of the specifics of its source, the way to do
all this becomes “The Righteous Way of Life.”

The Righteous Way of Being

Righteous man is a man we all know. He is no stranger to any of us

for we meet him everyday. He is that righteously conscientious
bureaucrat who won’t pass your automobile license application because
you filled in a blank in legible long hand when the directions said print.
“I am sorry,” he says, pointing at the blank, “you see, it says print.” He
is that TV manufacturer’s employee who says, when your tube quit on
the twentieth day after installation, “You didn’t send in your
manufacturer’s warranty card by the fifteen days specified, so the
warranty is no good,” even though he knows from whom, and when,
286 DQ

you purchased the set. He is one of “The Silent Majority,”147 one of

those righteous achievement-oriented persons who strives to do better
and better, then better and better and better what his authorities
prescribe is the proper thing to do. For example, calling dissenters
names when authority begins the game. He is the loyal selfless employee
who does what he is told to do when he is told to do it, the way he is
told to do it, who sees darned well that you do the same if you work for
him. He is a man of the authoritarian submissive world. Higher
authority rides hard on him and he orders about anyone below. He is
the righteous, picayune, contempt-citing judge; the ever-watchful, ever-
castigating mother; the rigidly moralistic father; the oh so proper
hostess. He is the Marine’s Marine. These people live in any town of any
state in most parts of the most industrialized countries. They are the
rigidly conforming, consistently rule-following persons who live in a
tight little world of never venturing, never daring beyond the
prescriptive injunctions of their external authority,
Righteous man believes in authority and obedience. He organizes
work and living into tight little cells and sees to it that anyone who gets
out of line receives immediately the appropriate punishment. ‘Right is
right, wrong is wrong, and if there is wrong it must stop right now
before it leads to anarchy.’ Of course, right is not what he has decided is
right, or what he has learned or what the evidence shows is right. Right
is what his authority says it is. This human has a policy about policies, and
rules about rules. He will allow no deviation, not any deviation from the
letter of the law and he believes in strict, immediate and righteous
indignant enforcement when deviations arise. ‘Produce, and produce it
my way or perish’ is his game. “We don’t let anyone get away with
anything around here,” and “We do it by the book,” are two of his
favorite phrases.
I recall a recent experience with one of these proper, always correct
human beings. It was the day of a home high school football game and I
was helping some students get ready to serve refreshments. Soda was to
be sold on this hot afternoon and it had to be cooled. But the barrels the
administration had provided were full of holes. They could not contain
the cooling waters of the melting ice. So I went to the school custodian
to borrow the empty plastic barrels sitting unused in the school
cafeteria. I rang the bell from behind the seven-foot iron gate protecting
the custodian’s inner sanctum from predatory souls like me. Growling,
he came to the gate, castigating me for breaking the rules by even
approaching the gate. When I explained the problem - what was desired
147 From President Richard Nixon’s 'Silent Majority' speech of November 3, 1969.
 DQ 287

- and that the boys were selling the soda to purchase a new movie
projector and camera for the school, he looked at me disdainfully and
said: Permission to let me borrow the barrels would be to go against the
rules. A request had to go to the administration, through the
administration, to the dietician, and through her to him. It had to be
done in writing (he spared me how many copies), had to be
countersigned, and had to be done by Wednesday. And, it could not be
done this day even if I went and got the respective countersigned
signatures because the rules said Wednesday.
I explained the emergency, proffered a twenty-dollar bill as collateral
and said if anything happened, I would go to the store, a short distance
away and replace the barrels before the crowd had dispersed. Though I
should have expected what was to come since I was in the process of
writing this book, for a fleeting moment I hoped I was wrong. He lit
into me that it was parents like me, with no respect for authority, who
were causing all those dope problems; who were the irresponsibles
always breaking the rules and leading to the destruction of America.
Then, when he said he was damned sure I was the kind who would be
off playing golf tomorrow (Sunday) instead of going to church as any
rule abiding, authority respecting person would, I gave up the quest.
This righteous, self-assured, condemnatory, pompous, deprecatory
attitude is typical of the early transitional state between nodal DQ
existence and nodal ER being. In this ambivalent existential state we
find the human who is deferential and ingratiating in respect to his
superiors. Yet with subordinates, or those he sees as beneath him, or
outside his authority hierarchy, he is aggressive and autocratic. He hides
his buried angry feelings behind legalities and rules. Rules are rules and
regulations are sacred, simply because his higher authority laid them
down and, after all, his authority’s rule is law.
We have seen a lot of this in recent years, especially directed toward
the college youth. “Those damned college kids are immature. They don’t
know what it’s all about,” the righteous person says. “How long are we
going to put up with their undisciplined behavior?” they ask. If those
kids were mature enough, if there was one ounce of man or woman in
them, they would quit all this foolishness and do what we put them in
school to do. After all, how can a society hold together if you don’t have
“law and order.” (That is, of course, the law and the order of the
righteous who are the establishment of the moment) This is the baseball
manager who forces the player to cut his hair before he enters training
camp. Or, it is the football coach who lines up all the boys in the locker
room and says as he shears them, “If you are going to play for me you
288 DQ

are going to look like football players” - his definition, of course. These
are the people who outwardly express righteous concern for the
“character building” aspects of their sports and then, as they teach the
players to slide with spikes seeking flesh and forearm seeking chin, they
grin in glee. (May I say parenthetically to scotch any wrong ideas, I was a
four-letter man and spent ten years as a coach.) Outwardly, these
righteous ones preach character, but inwardly they take unconscious
pleasure in every head that they pluck, every bone they hear crunch.
Righteous man is the skipper who runs a tight ship, the waitress
who says, haughtily, “No substitutions” when you want the gravy left
off the special of the day. He is the college professor who takes off
points for spelling paedomorphic with an ‘ea’ rather than an ‘ae’ when
he could have said it in a much simpler language in the first place. It is
the dean who requires the student to fulfill what is for that student an
educationally ridiculous requirement when the student has a most valid
educational argument for a substitution. It is the college chaplain who
sees as his major college goal to maintain the virgin penis, or the bridge
player who says, in a friendly game, “But you said seven hearts and you
can’t change to seven diamonds because it is an insufficient bid,” even if
you did make a mistake.
In relation to authority, these righteous ones go so out of their way
to impress their betters that their behavior extends beyond being
deferential to almost being obsequious. In relation to their own lives,
they are budgeted to the last dime and planned for this day, tomorrow,
next week, and next years’ Christmas presents. Home life and work life
and play life as well are systematized and organized. Jobs are organized
by rigid job descriptions. Duties are assigned and responsibility and
authority are meticulously spelled out. Of course, the day’s production
may never get done because the boss isn’t present to say what to do
when some unforeseen occurrence not covered in the manual comes up.
“But,” he says, “I couldn’t do it. I won’t go beyond my job description,
you know.” At play, he takes up golf because the doctor told him he
needed to relax, yet pursues it with such tenacity of purpose that he
drives the casual golfer nuts with his ordered recording of every stroke,
noting of every putt, proper swinging according to his pro approach to
the game.
Righteous man seems to get lost in the minutia of doing. He is so
systematized, so inflexible, so lacking in spontaneity that many people
wonder, how can he be that way? But he himself seldom has a doubt, a
doubt that is, so long as his authority is there to give him advice or
counsel. He is forever seeking the advice of authority, the guidance of
 DQ 289

“the more experienced” which he so over-generalizes that even should

his authority admit he does not know, this righteous one cannot believe
it. Phenomenologically, man in the righteous state sees himself as a
responsible, prudent person who is saving society from anarchy. He sees
himself as loyal, honest, kindly, dependable, selfless and as a highly
conscientious person. And the fact of the matter is, he is just that when
all goes well for him. He patiently and diligently carries out the orders
from above. He takes great pleasure when, because of his deferential
diligence, the company House Organ writes him up as the model Acme
Incorporated employee. Externally, he goes out of his way to do, and he
does it organizedly and well.
Man in this existential state is punctilious and scrupulous. He sees
himself, and others often times see him, as the paragon of virtue. But he
is far more than this. He must always build more and more rules,
develop more and more moral prescriptions to cover everything and
anything that is the least new and different. And he must hold himself
and everyone else to the letter of the law. The righteous gives respect,
and he jolly well demands it, too. Emotional behavior, in any form, is to
be damned. He even fails to recognize his own ranting when crossed by
a subordinate (he would never rant at the most unscrupulous authority.)
To him, what you might call ranting is righteous and proper indignation.
It is what any right thinking man would do. It is not an emotional
display. Under no circumstances can he let authority down, and under
no circumstances will he allow disrespect to be shown to himself or to
his authority. He lives in a world of the familiar, a world of ‘it was done
this way before, and it is to be done this way today,’ no matter how
changed are today’s circumstances. He is always saying, “Now, let’s stick
to the facts. Let’s have no speculation here.” He is, as he sees himself, a
clear-minded, right-thinking, unquestionably objective person.
Miserliness and penuriousness are not unknown in his behavioral
repertoire. He has his little world and he wants to keep it and protect it
from all possible incursions. “Mine is mine and yours is yours and don’t
you encroach upon my privacy.” To encroach upon it is to bring forth
his wrath. Ask him what his salary is or how much his home cost and
see what happens. He gets along quite well in a mechanical, uncreative
sense, so long as his well-ordered life is not disturbed; but any untoward
stress is a serious threat to his equanimity, as anyone knows who has felt
the brunt of his righteous, cutting tongue.
But please do not misunderstand. This man with his penchant for
following prescriptions, for organization and efficiency is, at certain
times, and in certain conditions of existence, a very necessary and
290 DQ

valuable state for man’s being. Man in this state is the perfect human
organism upon whom to practice Frederick Taylor’s ‘scientific
management.’148 In fact, had not Taylor found his ‘little Pennsylvania
Dutchman’ to demonstrate his conception of how to organize work, he
would not have proven his point. Had it not been for others of the
Dutchman’s kind, American production in Taylor’s day could never
have become so eminently successful. This is emphasized so as to bring
out again that each basic existential state is not an abnormal, necessarily
undesirable state of affairs. It is not only a normal state of affairs, for
certain conditions of existence, it is also a very necessary state for man
to be in if certain human progress is to be made.
This form for being was not a detriment to America when its
industry was beginning to burgeon, nor to Japan in its current state. In
fact, those who have been striving to understand (a) the peculiarities in
the Japanese character structure and (b) what there is about it that
enables them to develop so fast industrially would do well to heed and
study these words. But it is a detriment in much of America today. In
fact, its existence is one of the most serious threats to America’s peace
and well-being. And it will one day, not too far away, become a
detriment in Japan or elsewhere in the world where it exists. Dutiful,
obedient, unquestioning, righteous man is to akin to the Judas Cow that
leads others to go, unquestioning, to their slaughter. But he worries me
today, for I fear he may awaken too late from his slumbering in
properness and rightness to extricate himself from the human slaughter
house into which his modern day Frederick Taylors, his all-knowing, not
to be questioned authorities, have led him.
No one knew better the problems that accrue from this part of
“The American Way of Life” than Frederick Taylor, and no one felt
more that eventually it would have to go than the many of his guinea
pigs who successfully operated within this way of being. In later years,
Taylor was most forthright in speaking of the hate his methodology, the
DQ/er management techniques, engendered in those upon whom it was
used. Taylor told us how terrible it was to feel the hostility his methods
engendered in those who followed without question, at least for a while,
his organization for work. He knew well what was coming from those
whose production increased say 180 percent when they truly realized
their return for this increased effort was miniscule in comparison to
what the company took as its share.

148 Taylor, Frederick W. (1911). The Principles of Scientific Management (Chpt. 2). New York:
Harper Bros..
 DQ 291

Actually in E-C theory, Taylor’s success with the ‘Dutchman’ and

his like solved the existential problems of their lives and put them in a
state of readiness to change. Then their realization of being used for the
company’s benefit became the dissonance in their field which spurred
them to seek a higher level of being than the Taylor-like human
automaton. This is one reason why this subsystem in “The American
Way of Life” needs be laid aside. Its very existence on the American
scene is one of the prime reasons why the seeds of violence are so
widely sewn in our country. Righteous men profess a concern for their
fellow man. But as they exercise their right way to get things done, they
only temporarily improve the existence of their subordinates. They pay
the employee more to take their orders, but they take a disproportionate
return for the effort the employees have put forth. As a result a paradox
is created. Improvement of the employee’s state of existence reduces his
fear and frees him to perceive that he is being taken. Thus he begins to
show his resentment to his benefactor and his benefactor is insulted by
his lessening appreciation. This builds into a vicious circle out of which
our long series of labor management wars have developed. This is a
situation we cannot long endure, and since its origin lies in the
psychology of the Righteous State, then if we truly want to attack the
problem of violence, this is one of its source points, which can be
controlled provided we work to move man to a higher level of existence.
But there are other reasons why righteousness must not continue to be
the way for man to live.
One of the reasons stems from the psychology of the system. This
is a rigid, tightly bound, singularly directed system which is always in a
very tenuous balance - a balance which is sometimes maintained in very
devious ways or sometimes explodes. In the second instance, out of this
system comes Leopold-Loeb149 horrendous crime, while out of the first
instance arises the crime of the paragon of virtue who is unknown as a
consorter with prostitutes, and as one who must unconsciously kill
them. Also out of this system and its tenuous balance come many costly
accidents and errors at work which organizations can ill afford.
Another reason I shall mention is that out of this system arises the
ideological righteousness which has kept man, and still keeps man, on
the brink or in the throes of war. So it is about time we moved beyond a
way for living which has this as an integral part of its being. But it is the
fourth reason which seems to be the most important one of all.
As long as man operates at this level, he will rear children so as to
engender in them a strong element of hate. Thus, they will come into
149 See Darrow and Levin.
292 DQ

adulthood and be studied, as by Freud and certain religionists, who will

find in them this hostile, aggressive element which Freud named the
death instinct and the religionists called original sin. This will, then,
cause man to behave so as to bottle up what is seen as the innate
perverseness of man. As a result, man will go on and on in the vicious
cycle that leads to one man using another for his benefit, to horrendous
crime and to war. It will prevent man forever from passing through the
next two ER systems which he must get through if ever we are to learn
that these negative aspects of man’s behavior are induced and not
necessarily innate.
For these reasons, I suggest this part of “The American Way of
Life” must go. It must go because in its character as a system it sows the
seeds for violence in ours or any society. If we want to be rid of the
violence we know, and all that ensues therefrom, we must move man
out of righteousness, through negativism and selfish independence, on
into the higher states and those which come beyond. Mankind, in the
more industrialized regions, can no longer afford the luxury of complete
certainty of mind. Yet paradoxically enough, in other regions of the
world where people need to solve lower-level existential problems,
authoritarian certainty is the only possible way for people to move up.
This paradox we must truly come to understand. It is not wrong for
Righteous dictatorship to exist. It is necessary when certain conditions
of existence accrue. The question is whether the existential conditions in
Greece in 1970 warrant a military dictatorship.150
But, in America, at least most parts of it, and in much of the world,
these conditions of existence have long since been passed by. Our need,
that is the highly industrialized world’s need, is not to know how to
reestablish ‘the good ’ole days’ when man lived in the certainty of
knowing what was right and that which was not. It is to know how to
aid any man who is able or is striving to move up to do just that so as to
leave behind the obsolescence of the righteous way of life. And our
need is to fashion a way of existence whereby righteous man, who
cannot change, still can have a meaningful place in a changing world.
But let us look further at “Righteous Man,” for there is still much we
need to understand.
One aspect of righteous man’s existence which should be
abundantly clear by now is his love, marriage, and sex life. Quite
obviously he will extend his ordered, idealizing way of existence to these
realms. In fact, he orders them too much and so over-idealizes love and

150 See Papandreou, Andreas (1970). New Democracy at Gunpoint: The Greek Front. York:
Doubleday, and Vlachos, Helen. (1970). House Arrest. Boston: Gambit.
 DQ 293

marriage that they become at times almost a mockery. Spontaneity is just

not there. Marriage is an unalterable arrangement run on an
authoritarian-submission basis, depending on which partner is
dominant. Sex is to be pure and purposeful or duty bound, but not fun
to be had, except that in this tight little system leakage quite often occurs
in the form of perversion or other netherworldly affairs.
On the emotional and affective side, he is steadfast as a rock; but if
one needs to move him from the position on which he stands, one finds
the rock is anchored to the strata down below. He is practical if doing as
is his bent, but resistant to creating if imagination is required. He is loyal
beyond belief, but possessive to the nth degree. He is very patient and
reserved, but quite suspicious and cold. When you go to his lectures at
the university he is proper, always calm, and objective with every point
well reasoned, every fact ordered in its place; but he is pedantic and dull
as hell unless he wishes to scathingly bite at someone for disturbing his
lecture by being one minute late. He believes a penny saved is a penny
earned, and don’t you try to get him to spend it lest you find his
stinginess prevails. When life is going well he accentuates the positive,
but when this world of ours is not all that he desires, then we find the
negative comes quickly to the fore.
On an interpersonal level, if one does not disturb the sanctity of his
rules, as I did with the custodian, righteous man is a polite, formal, very
aware of his place, yet personable human being. But unfortunately for
men who are different or who question the prescriptions of authority,
man in the righteous state does not take a discriminating bite from the
pork chop offered by authority; he swallows the whole hog. He accepts,
in toto, the beliefs, preachments, and protestations of authority. He does
so to such an extent that when authority changes the rules to say, as of
now, ‘let dissent be damned’ where previously he said the rule was to
allow its expression, the righteous one falls happily into line. When this
becomes the rule, “The Silent Majority’’ becomes the arrogant voice of
derision yelling in glee as authority says, through its ‘effete snob,’
insolent phraseology, “The rules are now: tear them apart! Let them
have it! Shut them up!” Or their ultimate retort: “If you don’t like it here
- that is the way of our rules - then why don’t you leave?”
When in position of authority, be it the school or university, the
civil service position or in business, righteous man sets up rigidly
defined external criteria for judging one’s performance. At the college
level, in the name of improving the intellectual atmosphere, I have heard
them plead for or have seen them circulate petitions for a zero to one
hundred point grading system or for a twelve point system when all
294 DQ

research evidence indicates even the five point A, B, C, D, and F is

notoriously unreliable. But at work, he sets up his standards for
performance and unquestioningly accepts both their objectivity and their
fairness. He believes he can, must, and does judge by objective criteria,
even in respect to human behavior. Thus he protects himself when
anyone should question his objectivity of judgment by one of the two
major coping devices of the righteous man: rationalization and denial.
When his judgment is questioned, he says most assuredly, “I simply
applied the standards. You can’t blame me for your failure to measure
up. I don’t set the standards, they do.”
So far as righteous man is concerned, conflict must be dealt with
promptly and with a strong hand. If one has conflict, the reason is ‘soft
leadership.’ This man, when in position of authority, believes the way to
get things done is to put the offender in a bind. The offender does as he
is told or else he gets it. If it is the judge holding court, you shut up or
you go to jail for contempt. If it is the defendant being righteous, you
take his crap or you don’t have any trial to carry on. If it’s the student,
he makes his non-negotiable demands. If it’s the university president, he
will talk to no one so long as the word ‘demand’ is being used. It is a
win-lose world in which the righteous one lives, and it’s only a matter of
who wins as to who shall call the way the repression of the loser shall
take place. Obviously this is a sorry solution to human problems
because the victor must always increase pressure to keep the vanquished
down, and the vanquished use all of their creativity, not toward human
goals, but toward how to defeat the system under which the
establishment of the moment is operating.
The pitiful thing about the win-lose psychology of righteous man is
that other human beings get caught in the swirl of its vortex. Quieter,
more constructively oriented people who can honestly see other ways
are darned by the damners because they see that the castigator is not
always right; but this means nothing to him, for he is never in doubt. In
all seriousness, this problem is, at the time of this writing, a most
distressing aspect of the American scene. What a shame it is that one
must live today in a setting in which a Vice-President of the United
States can see no more constructive way to make political hay than to
resort to the methodology of the righteous man.151 How better it would

151 Probably a reference to Richard Nixon’s Vice President, Spiro T. Agnew who,
beginning in the late 1960s, gave voice to words often prepared by Patrick Buchanan
and William Safire for the administration. Agnew resigned in 1973 amidst a financial
scandal related to his prior service as a Maryland state official. The Watergate affair
followed a year later and led to Nixon’s resignation from the Presidency.
 DQ 295

be, not only for America but for mankind in general, if leadership could
operate beyond this lower-level of existential being; but to bring this
about is most difficult for oh-so-many reasons,
First of all, in a free society, the drive of righteous being - his strong
achievement orientation and his ability to avoid allowing doubt to enter
his mind - all mitigate against leaders coming to the fore who are not of
this frame of mind. Secondly, of all the states of human existence by
which man has come to live, hardly any is more difficult to change than
is this state. Thirdly, we must face the facts of human existence, one of
which is that no matter how much we might like that it be different,
there are human beings so constituted that they cannot, within existing
knowledge, be enabled to move beyond this road block to man’s
movement up.
These and other reasons face us today with one of the most serious
of man’s problems, namely, what does one do when he knows those
who believe they are so right are just plain wrong? What does mankind
do when that which he needs in order to exist is not righteous certainty
of what is the way, but tremulous exploration in the direction of that
which has never been?
Righteous man honestly believes that his rules - the rules - must be
followed or chaos will ensue. He does not recognize that the ensuing
chaos he is striving to avoid is that which would arise in himself and not
that which he believes the behavior of other people will produce. This
he cannot and does not see. He simply cannot see aggression in his
words, “Those damned radicals. We ought all be rid of them,” or in his
hand as the righteous father says, “I am doing it for your own good”
while he whales the hide off the kid. This exists, partially, because he
avoids and disdains self-exploration. ‘Why does a right thinking man
have to look inside himself,’ he asks? The fact of the matter is he scoffs
at any such tender-minded introspection. A strong man, a good man, a
right-thinking man knows his rightness; he does not have to probe why.
And of him who does: “Well, I always thought there was something
peculiar about Tom.” “He’s just not a man of his convictions,” says the
righteous, “or he wouldn’t be questioning his stand.”
All in all, the state of righteous existence is a most interesting one to
explore, one which we could examine much more, but now we must
ask, from whence does it come to be, how does it operate under stress
and how best can one manage this system of behavior?
296 DQ

The Origins of the Righteous Existential State

As we have said, in all existential states nothing fails like success;

therefore, successful saintly living creates the seeds of its own demise.
Saintly man, provided he has the potential to move on, finds himself
troubled by the conditions his saintly existence has created. Denial of
self, abstinence, piety, bowing to his God’s prescription for living
improves immeasurably the conditions of the saint’s existence. The
diligent adherence to saintliness increases man’s material well-being and
as it does, it loosens within him those lustful human wants he has
honestly cast aside, particularly his need for independence. This creates
severe cognitive dissonance for saintly man. As long as he was truly
miserable, it helped him to maintain his sanity to believe God meant it
to be so in order to prove, by his endurance of it, that he was worthy of
afterlife. Having was no problem for him so long as not having was a trial
to test his worthiness for a more significant existence. But when
adherence to the Godly prescriptions provides not assurance of the
future but the beginning of affluence today, saintly man meets a most
severe trial. For examples, Godrich and all the other saints who were the
first to lay saintliness aside; he who has felt guilty over every little twinge
of want, for every whimsical desire, a true existential problem is created
when he begins to have. “How can I live,” he asks, “when my life is so
free of other living problems that I can feel sexual desire, or desire for
independence from authorities’ feelings when saintliness says it is wrong
for me to feel these desires?” (The problem of celibacy in the Catholic
Church today, for example.) “How can I explain my accumulation of
worldly human things which I have promised to deny?” This is the
ambivalent state into which man is cast when successful DQ living
loosens within man those gnawing human wants which are an integral
part of his nature,
Historically man’s experience has brought him to know the woes of
unbridled human wants, egoistic existences and other experience have
taught him that denial, the saintly way, is the proper means to his
ultimate satisfaction. Now man faces a new and different existential
problem. Now he must ask, because of the conditions of his existence,
how can I find a way for being when the need to express my human
lustful desires is almost as strong as the belief they should be denied?
How? His answer is: “Why, the way I’ve always done it, which is to
create a new way for being out of this new existential state.” So he
proceeds to do just that.
 DQ 297

Since he is spiraling back on his staircase to that position where the

expression of the lustful drives of man is demanded, he must find a new
and better way by which to handle them. Unbridled expression has
proved wanting, and saintly denial is still a strong part of self. Thus, his
new way for being recognizes that within self, strong forbidden desire is
emerging, but in existential conditions where denial of self is still in the
prime position. Of this existential mix - strong desires and belief they
should be denied - he creates man’s state of righteous conformistic
existence.
The righteous state, like all other existential states, can be a way
station on the way up, or it can be an equifinal resting place after a trip
from the AN state. More probably, it is a state into which the person has
been propelled by the over-demanding, over-controlling, over-
accelerating, forced-maturing activities of the parental group. When the
child is met with little or no approval when he tries to assert himself,
when he is met with harsh and primitive and consistent discipline or
consistently derisive deprivation of love if he disobeys, it makes
cognitive sense for him to find a way in which to operate which the
parents do not punish or condemn. And it is darned smart of him to
adopt it, and only it, as the right way for living. If he did not do so, then
he would be quite unable to function as a living human being. So in the
developmental background of Righteous Man he learns first to avoid
punishment, then he learns he can continue to avoid it if he does
precisely that and only that which his parents do not punish. And out of
this he learns not to stick his neck out, not to vary from that which
works, not to do anything other than that which harsh experience has
taught him is right - right in the sense that it is the right way to avoid
punishment and guilt. Obviously such learning puts the person into a
very narrow and circumscribed behavioral world, one where he has a
limited number of behavioral options at his choice. Thus the question
arises, what does “Righteous Man” do when his right way becomes
inadequate to the task of living? In other words how does he behave
when under stress?

Reaction to Stress in the Righteous System

Again, within E-C theory, what we have described is normal - a

healthy state of affairs when certain conditions of existence prevail.
Even those characteristics which seem negatively toned are but the
normal responses to the ordinary stress of every day life. So, now it
behooves us to look at the system when stress is more severe. Here, as
298 DQ

in all systems, that which threatens the system, the symptomatic

behaviors which arise, their meaning, and their purpose are specific to
the system. So, first of all, we want to see what threatens the system.
This system is threatened when pressure is brought to bear upon the
person to take a position opposed to absolutism, to the prescriptions of
authority, or when there is ambiguity in the total field. This should not
be a surprise to anyone, for the basis of the system is a highly ordered
way of life built around the prescriptions of authority which are absolute
and unquestionable.
With this in mind we want to look next at those coping devices
which are used when the kinds of stress listed above, alone or in
combination, throw the system out of equilibrium. We want to see what
are the foremost devices the person settled in this system utilizes to
restore his normal state of affairs, the normal DQ/er operational
conditions.
Mild DQ system stress will increase the hostile feelings buried
beneath the righteous one’s facade. It will result in increasing his fear of
punishment or disapproval which he fears will result if he expresses the
hostility. His primary coping device is to increase the very proper kinds
of behavior which have enabled him to avoid punishment in the past. If
this does not reduce the threat and alleviate the negative feelings, he will
displace his hostility on lesser lights. Or he may try to drive off the
threat by driving away from himself those who are or he suspects may
be the source of the threat. This he characteristically does by accusing
them of mixing in his personal affairs, of attempting to pry, or of
invading his privacy. In this manner he accomplishes two things. He
gets rid of the threat and provides time for the threatening hostility to
subside; and he prevents the threat from arising again by people learning
to avoid him or at least “stay out of my personal affairs.” To prevent the
reoccurrence of threat, he restricts his routine even more than usual and
holds fast to the known and the familiar. If he can’t win by this he will
set up, or strive to set up, new rules and regulations which will prevent
the disturbing stimuli from occurring.
But if these basic coping devices do not work, if they do not remove
the stress and leave him alone in his right little world, or if others do not
know how to react to the system and thus do not hew to the rules for
managing the righteous state, then more negative manifestations are
precipitated. The sign that things are becoming rough are: anxiety will
appear and be expressed, periods of severe doubt will arise, complaints
directed at some other source arise, unconscious errors and mistakes or
accidents arise, loss of control will ensue, temper will appear with
 DQ 299

periods of extreme outbursts. Then if the threat to the system continues

to increase, bizarre obsessions and compulsions may arise, as may
feelings of dissociation, conversion symptoms, phobic manifestations,
hypochondriacal signs, or feelings of dejection. Or, if the stress
continues, then the more serious systemic forms of pathology will
ensue.
The righteous person becomes overtly anxious when he feels inner
forces such as hostile feelings or desires about which he feels guilty
threatening to break through. Here he fears that punishment which will
come if they do. When he is overtly anxious, the usual way he handles it
is to tie into his work whatever it may be. The housewife tears at the
task of ‘fixing up her home;’ the husband drives himself at his work ‘so
as to see that everything is right,’ and the student bears down to learn
every insignificant detail ‘so as not to miss a point.’ If this absorption in
work does not reestablish equilibrium, the righteous then uses that
symptomatic device which is most congruent with his momentary
existential state of being.
If what he needs is commendation, then he develops medical
symptoms, hypochondriasis, and struggles on in all the pain, thus being
commended for keeping the show on the road. If he perceives that
facing the stress which is inciting his hostility is too much because if it
continues he may erupt or be overwhelmed with guilt, then he avoids
what it is by getting too tired or too sick to do the job. If the dynamics
of the situation expect him to do what he believes will result in criticism
of him, then he may develop private phobias, phobias the external
observer does not know are present, phobias which enable him to avoid
doing certain things, fear of sex relations or the like. But here all the
external observer can see is a peculiar resistance to some quite usual
human activity. Another time when the righteous will use a phobic
device is when he is faced with having to do that at which previously he
has failed - dating with boys, dating with girls. Here being afraid is better
than being humiliated.
If he must make a decision where he cannot avoid going it alone
without the aid or prior prescription of authority, then often he has a
short-lived agitated depression. Here he both punishes himself for being
angry at his deserting authority and he punishes authority and others by
making them miserable about his depression. This intra, extra-punitive
device is also used when the stress is fear of or anger over abandonment
by his authority. But in both cases it is a very proper, very controlled
agitated depression which is consonant with his existential state.
300 DQ

When the righteous utilizes conversion, he develops the more

serious conversion symptoms: blindness rather than a pain in the back,
paralysis of the legs rather than a tic. Here she develops frigidity and
dutifully suffers through her husband’s intrusion on her body. These
conversion symptoms are noticeably different from those in other
systems because of their severity and because the righteous scoffs them
aside and doggedly carries on ‘in the pain of it all.’ Obviously two
questions arise: Why severe? and Why scoff them aside? It seems that in
this system the answer to the first is that the impulses welling up and
about to break through are, for him, his cardinal sin, usually a desire to
let authority have it. The answer to the second, “Well, what would you
expect any right thinking, responsible, duty-following person would do?
Why, he would carry on wouldn’t he? How could any right thinking
person do otherwise? He would never, not ever, shirk his duty.”
Obviously, obsessive and compulsive behavior is the normal way of
life in this righteous state of existence, but there are times when
obsessive ideas and ritualistic compulsions become quite bizarre.
Usually, in this state, this comes to be when the balance is so tenuous
and the fear of expressing hostility and being caught so great that a
constant leakage device must be used to maintain any semblance of
systemic stability.
Hostile breakthrough, quite brutal in character, occurs when,
because of current conditions, the energy for control is reduced to
almost the least amount necessary to maintain the systemic balance and
something unexpected happens or some unfeeling person pushes him
beyond the limit of his righteous control. It is not too common for a
breakthrough of explosive proportions to occur because hostility is
rather generally leaked off in disciplining children, ranting at students, or
condemning indolent, irresponsible employees.
Delusional behavior is rare because of how it arises. Usually the
righteous will not make a mistake as to which authority to turn to for
support. He is too cautious for that. But when he does, and either
anticipates or experiences lack of support or disparagement, he may be
given to a sporadic and disorganized display of persecutory delusions.
Depression is the ultimate solution to which he is apt to turn if
things become too much for him to handle. Here he makes an agitated
display for the approval he feels he is in danger of losing, or he makes
his plea for a reestablishment of those conditions of existence in which
he was in equilibrium. But in respect to the latter, again we find systemic
disposition plays the major role. For the righteous, with his tendency
towards over-control, holds himself tightly in tow when the death of a
 DQ 301

significant one occurs, only to tumble into despair months later as a

result of some seemingly trivial matter.
There is one other device which the righteous utilizes, but I will
reserve discussing it until the end of this chapter, for it has to do with
the transition to the next existential state. So now let us look at
managing the DQ over ER systems.

Managing the Righteous State

Obviously the Righteous Man will create a form of management

congruent with his psychology, whether in a business, in the educational
world as a teacher or instructor, or in the world of therapy. The
Righteous Man decides what is to be done, by whom it is to be done,
and when it is to be done. He is the planner, the director, and the
controller. He is the teacher who says in words or in action: “I talk. You
listen. I tell you what to learn. You learn it. I drill you in it and you take
my exams to show that you know it. If you don’t I’ll tan the hide off of
you.”
The organizational structure is, as in all DQ states, pyramidal with a
very rigidly ordered superior-subordinate relationship defined by the
medium of rigid job description or the like. Decisions are made on high
and are communicated mostly and formally in writing, though at times
by direct order. If someone disagrees with that which is ordered and
remains recalcitrant and is lower in the hierarchy, exhortation or
persuasion might be utilized or, more often, being told to shape up or
ship out squelches him. Discipline is defined and is swift and sure for
any who break the rules. No “soft headed” human relations are
exercised here, even though the righteous one may and often does see
himself as a kind and humane task master, he is, he says, “doing it for
your own good” because his experience tells him you will be better off if
you do it his way. Challenge of authority is not permitted because the
person is being paid to do as he is told. Rigid lines of responsibility,
authority, and accountability are drawn, and woe unto he who oversteps
the bounds of his assigned role. This is true even for the higher bosses
unless he can make it stick, for this is a win-lose world. What the
underlying wants, would like to do, or the like has nothing to do with
what shall be done. The organization, the authority rules supreme. The
assigned power of the moment decides and from there on the only thing
left is to get it done.
In earlier days, and in some places today, organizational desires were
forced by means of the final sanction, “If you don’t like it leave. On
302 DQ

second thought, you’re fired!” Or, “I was going to flunk you anyhow.”
But today, at least in the workday world and in some protected position
like civil service, tenured teaching, or protective labor contracts, the
squeeze play is used. He shapes up as he is told to or he is informed his
performance appraisal will be negative today, next year, and ever after.
This, what Blake and Mouton call 9-1 management,152 works today only
where there is surplus labor or in a societal setting as Japan where the
vast majority of people are in the DQ over ER states.
In fact, the two worlds in America where it can truly be exercised
are in untenured managerial and administrative positions and in schools.
It worked in the past when labor was surplus and unorganized and man
was in a frightened or frightenable state, but it is quite difficult to
implement in many parts of the world today because too many
protections against arbitrary authority have been built into societies. Yet
I have never attended a management or administrative meeting where
some or many have not rued the day of its passing. At these meetings
some have always said, if not in precise words in their meaning, “We
sure could get things done around here if only we could use the tried-
and-true methods of management. There’s nothing wrong here that a
good dose of discipline would not take care of.”
But again, don’t misunderstand me; this is not a bad form of
management. It becomes bad only when it is used in a non-congruent
setting. In fact it is a necessary form of management when the work
force is in the CP state. And it is even a good form of management, if
softened a little, when subordinates are in the righteous state. I mean by
this that when people are in the conditions of the CP state, as we saw
earlier, their psychology is such that only strict authoritarian ways will
get the job done. And I mean that when people are in the DQ over ER
states, benign autocracy is the means to the end of productive results.
But, in either instance, if the recipient of the management or education
or whatever is open and not closed, then this form of management is
relatively short-lived. This is because its very success improves the state
of existence of the recipient and causes him to begin to challenge its
“papa knows best” way of doing things.
Thus managing the person in the righteous state is a matter of what
his state is within the state of righteous being. If, so far as present
knowledge is concerned, the person is unalterably closed within this
state, then it is only fair and decent that this man, that all men in such a
state of existence, be allowed to be. It is proper that they should be

152 Blake, Robert and Mouton, Jane (1964). The Managerial Grid: Key Orientations for
Achieving Production through People. Houston: Gulf Publishing Co..
 DQ 303

managed by close supervision and control which is humane, not harshly

punitive. They should be placed in positions, that is jobs, classrooms,
study programs or the like, where their mechanical efficiency is of value,
where holding to the rules is an asset for them, not a liability. They
should be provided with clear and unambiguous directions as to what,
where, when and how their responsibility is to be performed. And, once
there, they should be protected from disruption or disturbance. They
should be told clearly and unambiguously what the rules are and what
penalties will be exercised for their violation.
If rules are violated, the penalty should be swiftly, quietly exercised
with their privacy protected. If not, the person’s guilt will unconsciously
overwhelm him and drive him to commit some grievous error, have an
accident or the like. For Righteous Man must be punished by himself or
authority when he has done wrong, otherwise he cannot return to
equilibrium.
If the person is closed down in the system, changing him is a very
difficult thing to do. Basically the procedure is to reduce the threat to
the system. Since threat comes from pressure to oppose authority or
absolute rules and from an ambiguous world, then these must be
reduced. Here one does not act as a punitive authority. He does not
punish or condemn the person for anything he does. He takes a long time
to assure the person in action he is a non-punitive, non- remonstrative
authority. He becomes the epitome of the psychoanalytic father figure.
After he has been accepted and has come to be trusted, he slowly teases,
urges the person to test whether he will be punished if he talks about his
bad desires or castigates authority. One does all this in a private setting
to protect the person. One reassures him it is all right to express bad
thoughts and encourages him to do so to the degree that does not
frighten the person. Then as feelings are expressed, one provides other
ways to express it in a controlled situation. But there is a problem here.
We have no way of really telling whether the person is alterably or
unalterably closed except to provide him the opportunity to change. If
he has that opportunity, in the proper setting as described above, and
then does not change, we are left to conclude that he is unalterably
closed. But if he opens up, if his shell is broken, then he is as any open
DQ over ER person and we proceed to use the methods which now
induce movement up.
If the person is now open, or in the righteous state as a way station
on the way up, then gentle but continuously increasing disturbance of
his status quo must be interjected into his field. But vacillatory response
and error must be expected as he tests reality for moving up. He who
304 DQ

aids this person must encourage him in every step out of his routine
ways but never remonstrate, humiliate, or punish no matter the resulting
behavior, particularly if it is evidence of freeing himself from authorities’
prescriptions. Then, if this happens, reward him in the beginning but
then intermittently. If he makes mild or serious errors as he makes his
own decisions, work through with him quietly and considerately where
his attempt went wrong and how the desired step can be taken without
recurrence of that error, yet indicating all the while that errors are
expected, that they are wanted, and that if they occur he will be
protected from their consequences. But always, ever always, keep
communicating the expectation that more mistakes will occur before he
will feel secure in another way of life.
To help the person in the righteous state break his rule-bounded
dependency, teeny-weeny steps, not giant steps, is a part of the way.
One does not jump on his rule boundedness as in some reality therapies.
One does not throw him to the wolves of a probing group experience.
One does not toss him early in the process into an intra-psychic
reorganization therapeutic situation. One first establishes a
non-threatening, trustful relationship with the individual in mind. Then
slowly, oh so slowly, backtracking whenever necessary, one picks some
old outmoded rule or prescription which the person is still following,
one which his authority has followed before and has now cast aside.
Then he teases, urges and entices the person toward breaking it. He
carefully and consistently protects the person from any harm or
condemnation that might come to be for violation of the rule. Then
gradually, oh so gradually, one encourages the person to dare a little
more. Careful support and encouragement, ready backing off at the first
sign that threat is being felt, is a procedure not to be broken when
working with the righteous. Any attempt to probe down into the
emotional and motivational dynamics of the state tends not to work
unless the needed trust is previously established by the supportive kind
of relationship described above. Even then, deep probing psychoanalysis
for example, may not work because of the marked capacity of this state
for avoiding significant exploration of its inner forces by surface
intellectualization.
If we do not hew very closely to the rules for managing the
righteous, we can easily precipitate this normal state into more negative
manifestations. But negative manifestations are peculiar in this system.
What we want to avoid is negatively returning to righteous behavior.
What we want to see come is true negativism. We want to see him begin
to fight against authorities’ rules. But we must not hurry him on too fast
 DQ 305

lest the negativism settle into that of the catatonic like behavior where
he rigidly shuts down on some or many of his motoric processes. We
want to avoid this active kind of negativism and see arise the vacillatory
kind or the passive kind where he quietly pursues, on his own, the
condemnation of authority.
This peculiar negativism is the most seriously misunderstood of
righteous man’s symptomatic displays, the one so often referred to as
the most serious of all when, within E-C theory, it is the truly healthy
sign. When righteous man quits seeking commendation from the
authority which he has previously revered and followed; when he begins
to be negative, impulsive, erratic, and unpredictable; when he begins to
transfer his hostility onto authority and away from self and no longer
onto subordinates, then this behavior, which authority is bent on
eradicating, means righteous man is growing. He is headed for the next
rung in man’s existential ladder. Would that righteous men could see
that the Black militant, the disturbingly activist student, the insulting
defendant in the courtroom, in the early stages of their negativism, are
striving to grow, not destroy. Would that authority could see that at this
critical point in man’s emergence, a new state of being, the oppositionist
negativistic stage - a higher-level stage, not a breakdown in values - is
striving to become. Would that authority could see that now is the time
to put the person on his own; now is the time to urge him to try to do
and change things himself.
But this righteous man cannot do, for he does not understand E-C
theory nor that growth is the discard of the righteous way of life for a
temporary life of opposition, our next existential state.
306 ER
 ER 307

Chapter 11

The Multiplistic Existence – The ER State

The 5th Subsistence Level

Theme: Express self for what self desires, but in a fashion calculated not to
bring down the wrath of others.

The ‘Express self for what self desires without shame or guilt’ Conceptions
308 ER

In the absolutistic existential state man questions why he was born

to live only to find satisfaction later or in his afterlife. “Why can’t man
have some enjoyment now?” is a question he asks. He asks this question
when a successful, fourth-level, ordered form of existence improves his
state of being. When this question arises in the mind of man, the
sacrificial ethic is doomed to decay, and it is readied for discard. But
man’s values are not gone, as our theory says, because man plods on to
another level, now slipping, now falling in the quest for his goal – a
better form of human existence. From such questioning he moves into
the multiplistic existential state, the ER, fifth subsistence level, the state
of materialistic existence which first appeared 600 - 700 years ago.
In my way of thinking, the Industrial revolution was a result of the
failure of the more medieval forms of life to solve the problems of
existence. When that occurred, the human had to develop a different
way of thinking. You see, if you don’t believe that the powers that be or
The Power that is knows everything, knows all the rules as to how to
live, then you have to begin to think that maybe you know something
too, or at least somebody else knows something about how to live. So
they started to switch. People who made this move began to switch from
the absolutistic way of thinking to what we call the multiplistic existential
state.
Now, the multiplistic way of thinking is very similar in some respects
to the absolutistic where the person thinks there is one right way to think
and the only one right way, and if you don’t think that way you are going
to get into serious trouble; whereas in the multiplistic state, man thinks
there are many different ways you can think about something, but there
is just one good way you should think about things. And this business of
allowing for many ways to think about something allowed for people to
experiment with the world in different ways. An experimental system
developed, and so it was this thinking that led to the Industrial
Revolution. Tremendous changes in human thinking took place at this
particular time in existence.
It is in the ER state where man must assert his independence as a
person. In the multiplistic existential state man strives not to conquer the
dragonish world through raw, naked force as he did at the CP level, but
to conquer it by learning its secrets. In the CP system of thinking it’s the
power of self; here, in the ER system of thinking, importance lies in the
power of ideas, the power of ways and means of changing things, not
raw power. They are both expressive systems and share this
characteristic.
 ER 309

He tarries long enough here to develop and utilize the objectivistic,

positivistic scientific method so as to provide the material ends to a
satisfactory human existence in the here and now for those who merit it.
Careful testing rather than arrogant affirmations or logical reasoning
teaches him what is right. Materialistic values derive naturally from this
thema in the multiplistic existential state. They are the values of
accomplishing and getting, having and possessing. The authority of
one’s own tried and true experience replaces professed authority, or
divisive authority.
This level emerges when the D problems of creating order, the need
for lasting order and everlasting security, are fulfilled by the
theophilosophical prescriptives of authority or when higher authority
does not solve the problems of everlasting peace and creates the
problem that God’s word alone is not enough to achieve lasting order
and security. Rigid, dogmatic, authoritarian leadership blocks those
developing feelings of self which begin to emerge. This produces
problems in the individual for having to adhere to authoritarian ways.
And, it arises from the problem created by the fact of death, which a
developing consciousness begins to question. This creates the E
problems, the problems of needing to know more than God’s word in
order to handle pestilence and nature’s vagaries. Expressing of self is
seen as necessary to carry out what God designed but did not control.
This desire and need for self-expression, doubt about the
prescriptions and answers of authority, and the fact that lower classes
have little pleasure in life and the higher classes cannot be certain of
afterlife, activates the R neurological system – the multiplistic existential
state. The person asks: “Is this the only life I will ever live and, if so,
why can’t I have some pleasure in this existence?” This leads to the
activation of the R system which provides for the beginning of
dispassionate, objective, hypothetico-deductive, not moralistic-
prescriptive thinking. This leads to thinking in an ER rather than the
absolutistic, DQ, manner. That is, there are many ways to think, but only
one best way rather than only the right or the wrong way.
At the multiplistic existential state, man’s free will meets the barrier
of external conditions as well as the assertion of the will by others. In
the ER state man perceives that his life is restricted by his limited
control of the physical universe and his lustful human drives. To satisfy
the latter, his materialistic aim, he must conquer the first. Man’s freedom
of action emerges, not only one’s own but that of others too, and of this
is born man’s materialistic state of existence. Rationalistic multiplistic
man who “objectively” explores his world comes to be. The fifth level
310 ER

of existence spawns the pragmatic, utilitarian, power over man and

nature values. The means to the end is rational, objective positivism,
that is, scientism. At this stage, secular values become supreme. The
power figure of the state, the business, the organization, rules. The
objective mind, the rational mind, the mechanistic, the positivistic is
revered. This pragmatic, scientific, utilitarianism is the dominant mode
of existence in the United States today.
Fifth-level man seeks to analyze and comprehend: not to explain
‘why,’ but to learn ‘how’ so as to change what is. At the fifth level, he
values equality of opportunity and the mechanistic, measuring,
quantitative approach to problems, including man. He thinks it is right to
receive and aspire beyond what one’s assigned class permits. He values
gamesmanship, competition, the entrepreneurial attitude, efficiency,
work simplification, the calculated risk, the scheming and manipulation.
Nothing is for sure until proven so. There are as many possible value
systems as there are people evolving. But these fifth-level, self-centered
values are not the “to hell with the other man,” egocentric values of the
third system. Here he is careful not to go too far. He avoids inviting rage
against him. He sees to it that the loser gets more than scraps but never
as much as he.
The theme of existence becomes: Express self for what self desires but in
a fashion calculated not to bring down the wrath of [important or influential]
others. Materialistic values flow from this thema. They are values of
accomplishing and getting, having and possessing. An important means
value is achievement of control over the physical universe so as to
provide for man’s material wants. This is the dominant mode of
existence in America today.
The few, and there are few in the beginning, lift themselves to the
fifth system through their own efforts. As a result, they see themselves as
unquestionably superior to others. After all, they alone have brought
themselves to this exalted position by superior use of their own energies
– right? They were not born to be; they were made by their own efforts.
Therefore, they conclude that they are indeed superior; they are destined
to lead, not by Divine plan but by proven superiority.

Examples of ER Conceptions

The conceptions of this state are dogmatic, absolutistic for a period

of time, pragmatic, but experimentalistic. Although man at the
multiplistic existential state has lost the behavioral rigidity of the fourth
system, he nevertheless retains the dogmatic component derived from
 ER 311

his perception of self as all-powerful. If the person changed his opinion,

he became absolutistic in another way. But whatever he said about the
healthy personality at that time, that, by God, was it! Generally speaking,
what is healthy is what works.
In the study, fifth-level man demonstrated above anything else a will
to power. He values action and risk, force and energy. He believes in and
demands complete loyalty to the secular power source and that one
should “rule by the book” if one is in power. At the same time, he
believes that the ends are more important than and justify the means -
caveat emptor - let the buyer beware – “business is business.” Push it just
as far as you can, and if the other guy gets hurt, well, just hope that you
haven’t hurt him so much that he is going to raise hell about it and get
back at you. That’s the way of thinking.
Belief in profit, rugged individualism, nationalism, and
federalization are expressed in this system - one’s own self interest
prevails. This system pretends that “mine own self interest” is really the
interest of others. It’s most pronounced in the entrepreneurial thinker, in
him who thinks he can come up with some new way of thinking, a new
way of conducting business, a new way of doing anything, and if this
works then he’s got a right to it. So, it’s the typical entrepreneurial
marketplace way of thinking. It’s the physician who is more a
businessman than a physician. He is more interested in the price of his
stocks that day or the real estate deal he’s preparing to close than he is
the medicine. It’s very definitely an expressive system.
This is one nodal version of the typical fifth level:
Nodal ER Conception -
“After giving rational thought to what is the mature
personality I have come to the following list of
characteristics which add up to what it is.

1. The major characteristic of the mature person is

that he is an independently operating individual.
He goes it alone, so there is no such thing as a
mature person. There are only people who behave
maturely in their various ways.
312 ER

2. The mature does what has to be done. He is not

held back in his actions or judgments by that which
other people do or believe.153
3. The mature does not accept without questions
existing data, theories or practices.154
4. He is energetic, outspoken and expressive of what
he believes regardless of where others stand.
5. The mature does for himself and thinks for himself.
He does not look to others for their guidance or
support and he does not need their acceptance or
acclaim.
6. The mature person is absolutely objective. He does
not let his emotions interfere with what has to be
done. He is an acting person who keeps feelings
out of his actions. He goes by the facts as they are
not by sentimentality. He does not get entangled in
emotional problems, his or others.
7. The mature personality is goal directed. He knows
what he wants to do and does what he has to, to
get there. He does not resign himself to his fate or
surrender to the inevitable.
8. The mature person does not conform to arbitrary
standards. He conforms to what he has established
to be right. He goes by his data until his data
proves him wrong and then he changes however
the data demand that he change.
9. The mature person is not afraid to do what has to
be done. If a person has to be told his weaknesses,
the mature person does so without being
squeamish. He does not go out of his way to spare
feelings. When people need to be shaped up, a
mature person shapes them up. Wanting to be
liked is not a weakness of the person who is
mature.

153 CWG: Notice the similarity to the third level, but that the extreme aggressiveness is
not present. It’s still there, almost the same kind of words, but it is a different
inflection in them.
154 CWG: Notice how different this is from the fourth level, where the person is

supposed to accept what authority says.

 ER 313

10. The mature person does not feel guilty or ashamed

for doing what rationally has to be done.
11. The mature person being rational and objective is a
shrewd appraiser of that which is to his best
interests.
12. The mature person accepts that he is human but he
controls such tendencies when it is to his welfare
to do so. He does not get sentimental and maudlin
about such tendencies. He controls them himself.
13. The mature person has a reasoned, risk taking,
calculating mind. He uses objective procedures to
make his decisions. He places faith in that which he
knows works, he does not get caught up in non-
workable theory or speculation.
14. He is not afraid to stand alone, even in opposition
to others, but he plans so as to have the best
chance then goes ahead regardless of what others
say or what effect it has.
15. The mature person is not afraid to get his hands
dirty in order to do what has to be done. He plays
hard when he plays and he plays to win, but he
does not waste his time in activities which he sees
as hopeless.
16. He is not satisfied with yesterday’s ways unless he
has found them to work and he holds to them only
so long as he sees them to work.
17. The mature person is not one who resigns himself
to his fate or surrenders to the inevitable. He
changes his course rather than accept what works
against him. He never gives up control to his
environment. He seeks rather to get the control
that will enable him to do what he knows needs to
be done.”
The fifth level is quite a different system. They don’t think like the
previous group that said there’s only a right way to think about
something and a wrong way to think about something. They don’t think
in an absolutistic fashion. They think in what we call a multiplistic
fashion, meaning they accept that there are many ways of doing
314 ER

something. They will respond in ways which show a tendency to think in

alternative ways. There are responses which show that the person
accepts that there are more ways than one to do a thing, but there is one
best way to do it, as contrasted to an absolutistic response.
They have a tendency to look at things in more than one way, but
the decision as to how to look is always determined by what is good for
the self. It always is based on the self-reference. One’s own self-interest
determines responses which show: “To thine own self be true.”
They have a high, but not unrealistic, level of aspiration and a
multiplicity of values which are acceptable based on context and
expedience. They often lack conscience constraints while maintaining
high autonomy and will tend to be independent operators without
constraints of other people or authority – ‘an island unto the self.’ The
tone will show a tendency to want to express anger, but it is obviously
modulated.
At the multiplistic existential level, interpersonal relations are very
tenuous because of trust issues. They see life as an experience in which
one should disassociate oneself from others. One should go it alone and
have absolute self-sufficiency. It is important for one to stand on one’s
own feet. It is important that one not be dependent. It is important that
one evidences his independence, his ability to think on his own. They
are striving for complete autonomy. So, they think in terms of struggling
out from under others or in terms of struggling to free self from others.
They think in terms of struggling to free self from restriction, but not
from what we call ego encroachment. They never yell about, “You’re
taking away my identity.” They just say, “Get off my back. I don’t want
you trying telling me what to do.”
They are critical and cynical, delivering cold, quantitative evaluation
and often-harsh feedback to others. They have a disdain for empathy
and, as opposed to the egocentric system, they will do odds-calculations
and realistic probabilities, not brash risk-taking. If you know the ER
level, you know that one of the primary characteristics of a person
attempting to come fully into the ER level is to be stubborn as hell
about changing his mind, and then suddenly he’ll flip-flop. He never
changes as a result of feedback, only self-generated choices. He will
maintain self-evaluation, even in the face of negative information and
evidence that his self-image is inaccurate.
The person at this level has moved beyond giving and receiving to
objective viewing of self, of activity around self, and of one’s own
activities. He believes it is right for self to receive because guilt over
receiving has been worked through. A person operating at the fifth level
 ER 315

has no compunction whatsoever about taking whatever he can get. He

doesn’t feel guilty to sit at a supper table and take more from a little kid
if the kid can be inveigled into giving up what he’s got, well fine, go
ahead and do it.
The person at the fifth level sees all life as a game and that the big
task in the game is to figure out how to circumvent the rules in order to
win. This person very frequently shows actions which others perceive as
hostile. If you saw this person in operation you would say, “My God,
how can a person behave in such a hostile fashion?” You go up to this
person and say, “Jim, how can you behave that way? How can you be so
mean?”
“I’m not mean,” he’d reply. “There isn’t a mean bone in my body.
Never did a mean thing in my life.”
You can sit there and see it yourself and say, “God, they’re hurting
these other people.” The person has almost no capacity to perceive that
he or she is hurting that other person.
Since fifth-level man values above all else the will to power, to
action, to risk, the use of force and energy are its means. Since he
believes that the power to change rests in the superior talents of the few,
he scoffs at weakness and lack of drive. To him it is better to act and fail
than suffer the ignominious shame of not having tried. To him the
practical is so important that he ridicules the subjective or the ideal. But
man at this level has much of the fourth level still within him. There is a
moral overtone to his values. In the name of morality he assumes his
rights, and in the name of morality he forces them onto others. This he
believes is right because he conceives that ‘God’s’ purpose is shown
when success is brought to him who conquers the world.
One finds them as the divine right of kings, the unassailable
prerogatives of management, and the inalienable rights of the parent. His
values take many schematic forms since they were pragmatically
established by those who gained power by exercising them - the theme
‘survival of the fittest’ rules. In fact, in the multiplistic state this
Darwinian concept is seen as nature’s signal that these power values are
correct. But to other men this is not an ethic; it is prime immorality.
In many conceptions of value this ethic of selfish concern for one’s
own welfare through organization, manipulation and control is seen as
man’s most unhealthy behavior; whereas, in this point of view, we see it
as a most necessary step forward in the moral growth of man. Certainly,
it leads to war, in all its nastiest forms, as one figure or group in power
sees his rights infringed by the rights which another person or group
316 ER

sees as their own. It places the masses in the position of a pawn in the
power ethic of the few – but its positive side must not be overlooked.
Successful fifth-level men may improve immeasurably the conditions
of human existence. They create wealth, techniques and come by
knowledge for better human living conditions which accrue because man
has now developed materialistic values. Thus, in the frame of reference
of E-C theory, the crass materialistic values of the “The Status Seeker”155
are not something to decry. Instead, they signify the improvement of the
human condition. They are something we should work for lower-level
man to come to have. They are not something we should condemn
when they appear.
You have to look at the ER system and keep in mind that it is a way
of thinking that opens the individual up for becoming what one would
call quite highly successful in this world. It opens the person up for
changing the world, and making it a better world, and conquering the
problems of disease and poverty or appearing to move in the direction
of conquering them. Science was part and parcel of multiplistic thinking.
You couldn’t possibly have any real science, as we know it, in absolutistic
thinking, because science by its very nature is doubting. The allowance
for many ways of thinking and for these many ways of thinking to be
tested out must exist for there to be any kind of science; and this is what
came with the emergence of the fifth level of human existence. So, it
solves the problems of existence that are the fifth-level problems, the
problems of getting the knowledge that is necessary to live not by the
way that God says, not by the way that nature ordains or anything of that
sort, but by the way that knowledge and information says that the
individual should live. So, this accumulation of knowledge and
information tremendously improves the state of human existence.
Many men see the regressive disorganization of fifth-level values as
the ultimate sign of man’s depravity. What Kant saw when the fifth-level
emergence began led him to recoil and try to establish a new fourth-level
scheme. It led Schopenhauer to his pessimistic view of man’s values and
Freud to the postulation of the Death Instinct. Fourth-level man sees, as
did Freud, the ultimate destruction of all that is good in man as fifth-
level wants begin to impel man to seek a new form of existence.
As man casts aside the inhuman aspects of his sacrificial ethic, it is as
if a feeling of power surges through him – a feeling of power derived
from the relative security of the absolutistic, ordered existence. In the

155 Probably a reference to Packard, Vance (1959). The Status Seekers: An Exploration of
Class Behavior in America and the Hidden Barriers That Affect You, Your Community, Your
Future. New York: David McKay Company, Inc.
 ER 317

beginning this surge takes what fourth level calls an unethical form. The
Saints of the church could not stand their saintliness and the current
better-off Russian started to employ, clandestinely, the profit motive.
Schopenhauer for one, tried to institutionalize this absolutistic to
multiplistic transitional state; but, his pessimistic, giving up of self,
overcoming selfish desire, form of values was not enough for men of the
Adlerian “Will to Power.” The Saints became more than unsaintly; they
became hedonistic, greedy men. The communist worker demanded his
share, and the communist farmer sought more than the commune. Here
the world and all its things and its entire people become the tools of self
interest. In the multiplistic state man’s focus is on providing a better
material life here on earth, not for later and not in the hereafter. In the
course of using the world to his earthly self-interest he perceives
ultimately that his actions produce some unwanted reactions.
One could propose, with descriptive design, that fifth-level values be
called the Machiavellian system, the ethic of Might is Right. Machiavelli’s
time on earth coincided with western man’s breakout from the dark ages,
a time when occidental man started his tortuous climb from the ordered
state of existence to higher levels of operation. It is perhaps more than
chance that we call this period the Renaissance. It was indeed a rebirth
for many of western man. They were reborn to be human, not just
another cog in a tightly ordered metaphysical scheme. But we cannot rest
by calling fifth-level values the Machiavellian system. At another time, in
other places, the same emergence took place. Hegel schematized it
another way, the American “Robber Baron” another and the Japanese
diet and some Japanese government officials show it still in another
form. Thus they spawn a modification of the power ethic, a state of
existence derived from the individual’s ability to produce at will and
based on what can be called the domestication of power.
One should point out, at this stage, that failure to recognize
Machiavellian principles as an ethic because of the usual restrictive
interpretation of the word ethical may be a major reason why those who
have attempted to find order in ethical systems have not been too
successful. Within the conception of man presented herein, acceptance
of Machiavellian principles as an ethical system, albeit difficult, is
essential to understanding conditions in many organizations today.
He who lives by the power ethic believes that the power to change
rests in the superior talents of the few, those few who are capable of
using force to obtain desired ends. Power is virtue. It is better to act and
fail than to suffer the ignominious shame of not having tried. To be in
the throes of the power ethic, a successful organization can be
318 ER

established and maintained only through the cunning use of force. He

believes that competition is the spice of life. He believes that those who
demonstrate that they are superior in the use of power have the right to
set the rules, make the laws and to force the weaker to pursue the ends
outlined by the superior person. To him, it is right not to keep faith
when to do so would harm his own self-interests. It is right to deceive
and it is right to connive if such is necessary to achieve one’s goal. Fraud
and manipulation are necessary means to the end, and cruelty and fear
are only tools to be properly applied. He organizes, directs and controls
through the media of force and fear, while attempting to avoid the
reaction of hate, never mind needing to be loved or liked. He values the
practical, the utilitarian and scoffs at the theoretical or idealistic.
The few, and there are few in the beginning, who are able to gain
their freedom from sacrificial values, surge uncontrollably forward into a
new form of existence, a new value system. As they do so it seems to
many that the world of morality has been torn asunder. But a positive
sign must not be overlooked. As these few surge forward, and as some
of them are successful in their Will to Power, they tend to drag after
them, through their success, the masses unable to free themselves from
the burden of staying alive – first into the fourth and later into the fifth
level of existence. Thus, no matter what one’s judgment of the power or
pragmatic ethic, as described here, it can contribute much to the ultimate
welfare of mankind. In fact, it seems the most necessary of all stages for
man’s movement to higher levels.
Fifth-level man is the man of action, the risk-taker. He is a practical
man who accomplishes, through action, that of which he dreams. He
worships the great god, Power. He uses his own power to organize the
energy of others and things and, when successful, greatly improves the
conditions of his existence. As a result of such success, he comes to
believe that he is superior to others. He believes a successful endeavor
can be maintained only by the cunning use of force, and that he, who is
superior in the use of power, has a right to name the game, set the rules,
define ends, etc.
In the ER state man enjoys mapping the territory of experience but
shies from intense personal experiencing itself. He is uncomfortable
sensing the whole as more than its parts. He prefers to add up his or her
own conception of the parts and stick to that by breaking things into
parts so as to understand and control them. Man at the ER level thinks
beyond giving and receiving to objective viewing of self, others, things,
activity around self and one’s own activities.
 ER 319

He thinks in terms of real concern for others so long as such

thinking does not hurt self. He tries to analyze and comprehend and in
so doing to become impersonal and distant. He spawns a
rational-economic, bargaining, self-promoting conception for managing
life’s problems. He sees the world in terms of intra-psychic separation
from others. He thinks in terms of disidentifying self from earlier ways
of thinking and doing and of rearranging things to suit self. He sees
himself as struggling to free self from others. These are struggles to free
self from actual restriction, not ego-encroachment. He lives so as to
express self but by avoiding serious trouble when so doing. His actions
are perceived by others to be hostile, but he is unaware of his hostility
and denies its presence.
He believes he has the right to force the weaker to pursue his ends.
He thinks in terms of it being right to receive and to aspire beyond what
one’s class is. He permits desire and action to go beyond one’s status.
Guilt over being and wanting recedes. He behaves in terms of not
receiving or not following “the word.” The life of man in the multiplistic
system revolves around competition and achievement in a personal
sense. ‘Bend the rules, don’t break them,’ is the dictum. Promote the
individual self but carefully.

Learning in the Multiplistic State

According to E-C theory, the Levels of Existence point of view, the

psychology of the human being is an unfolding or emergent process
marked by the progressive subordination of older behavioral systems to
newer, higher-order systems. The human tends normally to change his
psychology as the conditions of his existence change. And, the
significant changes that take place are more on the order of how the
person thinks than what the person thinks or what information he
possesses. He learns differently and needs to be managed differently as
he passes through each existential state. This holds true for the person
living in the multiplistic, ER state.
Those at the ER level introduce situationalism and relativism into
their way of thinking. To them there may be many answers to a problem,
but there is one best answer. They think in terms of analyzing, and
wanting to comprehend in an impersonal, objective, distant, rational,
positivistic manner. They see life, and thus learning, as a game that has
precise rules that if mastered will enable them to win the game. They
think in terms of breaking things into parts, and they prefer to add up
their own conception of the parts.
320 ER

When the E neurological system centralizes and dominates man’s

behavior, when the ER, multiplistic state comes to be the way of life,
man’s learning changes once again from what it was at the absolutistic
state. At this level it is what psychologists call the latent, the signal
learning, system that must be utilized to direct man’s learning. Once
again man learns in an active manner, but not in the active, aggressive,
immediate reward, no-punishment fashion of the CP system. At this
level the patterning of stimulation, changing and challenging ideational
content, and the degree to which outcomes meet the person’s
expectations are the major motivating factors.
At this level of operation man can wait for delayed reward if the
learning activity is under his own control, not evaluated by ones in
positions of authority, and replete with perceptual novelty. Here learning
does not have to be tied to a specific need state, nor is it dependent on
the amount of consummatory activity or immediate reward. The
keystones are the opportunity to learn through his own efforts, the
presence of mild risk, the individual’s experience, and much variety in
the learning experience. Here it is the work of D. K. Adams,156 E. C.
Tolman, and his students and Julian B. Rotter and his students, whose
work must be mastered by he who develops learning systems for those
centered in the multiplistic existential state.
Since the R system follows these principles, the individual must be
allowed to experience things for him or herself in order to learn. That
which influences the individual centralized at the fifth level to learn or
change is the individual’s own experience. They could also learn from a
self-professed authority of an amateur who talked as if he knew
something about a topic but really didn’t know a damned thing about
what he was talking about. Those at the multiplistic level would never
pay any attention to anybody that knew anything about what was going
on because authority must be challenged and questioned. Man in the ER
state always has an opinion that came from my experience, or that came
from what ‘my barber says,’ ‘what my hairdresser says.’ Some amateur
that shouldn’t even be having any experience in that area was an
effective teacher and change agent for a person in the fifth level!

Management of the Multiplistic State

The success of this society to date has been because we had an

accidental congruence between leadership that had a higher degree of

156 Adams, D.K. (1954).

 ER 321

fifth-level characteristics in it and followers that had a higher degree of

fourth level in their makeup. So, these people just fit perfectly. Here was
a leader with tremendous need to accomplish something, that’s the fifth
level, and here is someone operating in the fourth level who has a
tremendous need to follow someone else, to be dependent; it fit
magnificently and made our society into the successful thing it is. But,
we are in serious trouble with it today. We are in serious trouble because
the leaders have continued to be at the fifth level, or to have a higher
degree of the ER state in them, and the very success of their leadership
has pushed a large mass of the followers on beyond that level and they
can’t stand that way of thinking.
So, we have leaders who are actually psychologically following and
falling behind. They often make the assumption that multiplistic thinking
is leadership. Of course that’s leadership only of people who think in a
particular fashion. “Men and women at the [fifth] level of behavior act
and think in very different ways from [fourth]-level people. These ways
are well known to most managers. An employee at the [fifth] level
believes in the power of self. He believes that he can alter the established
order through the exercise of his own will. He no longer sees himself as
having to fit into some prescribed organizational design …He believes
that those who can prove this hand of God through accomplishment
deserve all that their success can bring them; those who fail are simply
ordained to submit themselves to rules made by the favored few.”157
This multiplistic existential system spawns bureaucratic
management. Bureaucratic management is management based on the
assumption that the world and its organisms are machines. Objectively
arrayed knowledge provides for the control of organizations. Tested
experience and objective knowledge will make for the properly designed
machine, and keeping it well-oiled will make for productivity and gain
profits. Management at the ER state is characterized by: simplification,
specialization of function, objective qualification for position,
interchangeability of parts, and objective evaluation of performance.
Those in the fifth existential state are very different persons than
those in the fourth – they are readily open to change. The way to change
the resisting fifth-level man was well illustrated in the Bell and Gossett
case reported to you at last year’s [Fourth Annual Value Analysis]
conference.158 You may recall Barry’s speech of last year. He spoke of
the cold reception the Bell and Gossett engineering department gave to

157 Graves, Clare W. (1966). The Deterioration of Work Standards. Harvard Business
Review. Sept.-Oct., Vol 4, No. 5, p 117-126.
158 Society of American Value Engineers annual conference, 1965.
322 ER

Value Engineering. I do not know if Barry was aware that intuitively he

came by the psychological knowledge I have mentioned today, but
certainly the Bell and Gossett situation illustrates magnificently how to
induce change in resisting fifth-level people. He described the futility of
his efforts, what a miserable experience it was, and told of how he
devised a plan which subsequently changed the whole atmosphere of the
company.
The plan he described requested the president of the company to
positively and firmly lay down the law to Bell & Gossett people. The
president defined the goal, laid down the rules, and then proceeded to
use power to see to it they were achieved. The president, following
Barry’s suggestion, put the people in a new but reducible state of tension.
The very thing we have said man most enjoys, solving new problems.
Barry illustrated that when these new psychological principles were put
into operation, albeit intuitively, that the people responded as the
principles would predict. Or, in his own words: “All this changed the
climate completely. We have at Bell & Gossett a working, engineering
cost-reduction program.
But let me offer a word of caution. As I read the report, Barry was a
most fortunate man. He used fifth-level methods to implement change
in people who believed in the fifth-level way of life. If he had tried the
same on sixth-level people, he would have been an unbelievable failure,
and if such had been used on seventh-level people, those seventh-level
people would long since have left Bell & Gossett for other organizations.
“When [fourth]-level people are under [fifth]-level management – or
9.1 management, as Blake and Mouton would call it – production soars,
provided the managers are good organizers. But when 9.1 management
faces [fifth]-level people, production is only as good as the bait
management can contrive. I use the managerial grid terminology to make
a point. The point is that the work of Blake and Mouton, a giant step
forward in organizational psychology, has a serious weakness from the
viewpoint of top executives and others who deal with not one but many
types of employees groups and situations. The managerial grid approach
treats the producer more or less as a constant, and places human
variability only at the managerial level. My position is that productivity is
a function of the psychology both of the controller and the controlled,
plus certain situational factors. Therefore, there is more to handling
deteriorating work standards than managerial training, as has so often
been suggested in the past.”159

159 Ibid (Graves, 1966).

 ER 323

If you have a need to change resisting fifth-level people so that your

field may move on, don’t be afraid of coercive persuasion. In fact, use it,
but never ruthlessly - it doesn’t pay - otherwise you just will not have any
success in changing their way of behaving. Increase the pressure. Place
them in a situation where new attitudes and new behaviors are
demanding. Don’t ask them to change – tell them to. Expression of
ambition must be controlled, and being too open allows others to
manipulate. Be discreet and never too trusting with a system of control
which prescribes that managerially determined ends and means are
proper and that it is necessary to accomplish organizational goals
through coercion, reward and threat. This I call Directive Management.
The Directive Manager sees himself as superior to and as the
organizer of the productive energies present in lesser men. He is
convinced he engineers human behavior. He is amazingly successful
when he is a good organizer, when the values of the working group are
congruent with his Might is Right values, and when the working group is
at the absolutistic existential state. Constrictive values make sense with
Machiavellian ethics when the goal is to organize human effort toward
the end that a leader prescribes. Thus, we hypothesize here that in an
embryonic and developing industrial or political organization, it is
dissimilar but congruent values that make for organization viability. But
soon a devastating thing occurs; devastating, that is, to him who behaves
by Directive Management, he who believes in “The Prerogatives of
Management,” he who believes in management by direction.
Successful Directive Management in an industrial setting improves
the lot of the workers. To achieve his end the Directive Manager must
train his people; such training increases their competence. Their
competence in turn improves their living circumstances, and this results
in more energy freed in their system. This enables them to question their
directed existence and leads to organizational insight to fight the power
of their Directive Managers. Thus, the workers themselves move to the
fifth level and begin to operate within the power ethic.
When the managed in a Directive organization begin to operate by
the power ethic, a long period of organizational instability is ushered in.
In many such instances the vitality of the company is seriously
threatened. We saw this, for example, with Ford in the thirties.160 If
management remains at the fifth level when the workers move from the
absolutistic state to the multiplistic state, we have a situation in which the

160 See: Burlingame, Roger (1956). Henry Ford: The Greatest Success Story in the History of
Industry. New York: Signet Key Books. See also: Herndon, Booton (1969). Ford: An
Unconventional Biography of the Men and Their Times. New York: Weybright & Talley.
324 ER

values of the managing and the managed are similar, but this time the
similarity of values is not congruent. The managers feel threatened with
the loss of their power, fixate, and they try to counter the power move
of the managed by over-systematizing that which is but moderately
systematizable and by refining their measures of that which, to date, was
not measurable. And the workers counter with all their new felt power
can do.
This psychology produces an enigmatic situation when both leader
and led are at the [fifth] level, for each believes in his God-given right to
do as he pleases. Each believes that he who wins has the right to set the
rules. Thus, a desire on the part of the leader to set the rules, which
works so well when the [fifth]-level leader has [fourth]-level followers,
now is challenged by a producer’s determination to set the rules. The
game of push and withstand-the-push comes into existence. A long-
continuing war for organizational power begins, typified by periods of
high productivity, resistance to production, and bargaining for the fruits
of production. In fact, production becomes a matter of boom-or-bust. It
booms when there is temporary agreement as to the rules of work: it
busts when the parties tilt for a bigger share of the power pie.
Production can be maintained only by giving to get, provided a
satisfactory device such as an individual incentive system can be
contrived. Quite often, however, contrived systems are short-lived
because the real battle is for power in the organization – for material
gain.”161 He who lives by the power ethic believes that the power to
change rests in the superior talents of the few, those few who are capable
of using force to obtain desired ends.
The employee centralized at the ER state expects compensation as a
result of accomplishment. The job situation should allow for
considerable flexibility and opportunity for individual initiative. The
individual will approach rules and regulations as having no inherent
sanctity to be maneuvered as the situation requires. The management
style for the multiplistic level is bargaining management. The bargaining
can be done between manager and employee in an overt and to-the-
point fashion. The manager requires three essential items to manage
employees whose thinking is in the ER state: A) rewards, B) sanctions,
C) defined boundaries with latitude within the boundaries.
The overt bargaining between manager and managed begins by the
organizational goals and objectives being shown to the employee. The
multiplistic employee expects compensation as a result of
accomplishment. The issue is not what the manager wants done, but
161 Ibid (Graves, 1966).
 ER 325

rather what is the payment offered. If the rewards are not attractive,
management must, if continued employment of the individuals is
desired, seek out better rewards. If the rewards are acceptable the
boundaries (policy, resource levels, time, legal constraints, etc.) must be
clearly communicated. The employee is then free to operate unrestrained
within the boundaries. However, the manager must not tolerate their
violation or hesitate to use the sanctions.
Once a bargain has been made the multiplistic employee will work
diligently to attain the goals. There is no need to schedule activities,
order and organize the efforts, and evaluate the changing status of the
program since this person is “managing” all of that. They are self-
managing and prefer not to be controlled. The only supervision required
is to check for boundary violation.
Mismanagement at the materialistic level takes two basic forms. The
first, and most common, is where the rewards are not worth the effort.
This can be brought about by management: violating the terms of the
bargain, engaging in punishment rather than correction, establishing
narrow unrealistic boundaries, and having no worthwhile rewards or
limited rewards. The result will be the departure of the employee from
the organization. However, in departing the person at this level is likely
to “take” some compensation for the trouble caused. The organization
has lost a dynamic, innovative, and hard-working person who, if
properly managed, could greatly contribute. The second form of
mismanagement is in not setting boundaries and in not having or using
the sanctions. The employee in the ER state will soon become the de
facto manager and eventually the in facto manager.
Some managers, too many of them, try to copy what has been
successful in other organizations where the managed begin to operate by
the power ethic. They try to use Participative Managerial techniques, but
the attempt aborts because Directive Managers can never truly allow
participation. Thus they soon induce hate - which is the one thing a
Directive Manager must avoid because hate ultimately consumes the
vitality of any organism or organization in which it arises. If you
mismanaged someone at the ER level, you are going to get a clinging
vine that is the stickiest thing you ever had on your back. They are going
to get on you. They are going to hang on, and you wish to God you
could get that molasses off of your soul.
But other managers meet threat to their power by questioning their
Might-is-Right way and begin their movement to the sixth level of
existence. Movement to the sixth level of human existence occurs when
the ‘have nots’ begin to threaten the power and prerogatives of the
326 ER

‘haves’ and movement begins when the ‘haves’ begin to perceive that
power alone does not please man. Man wants also to be liked, to feel he
is accepted, to belong. Now as the belonging level of need emerges the
sociocratic ethic, the team concept of work, the organization man idea,
the “we must all think alike and all want the same” system of proper
behavior develops.

Readiness for Change in the Multiplistic State

Fifth-level values immeasurably improve man’s conditions for

existence. He has learned how to live with want - AN through DQ - and
how to overcome it - ER; but he has learned this for his self and his self
alone. He has not learned how to live with his abundance, nor how to
live when there are other men who still must live in want. He creates
wealth and techniques, including the objectivistic, positivistic scientific
method, so as to provide the material ends to a satisfactory human
existence in the here and now for those who merit it. They lead to
knowledge that improves the human condition. And from this arises his
welfare concept, namely that welfare is for only the deserving or those
who show in their efforts that they merit a little aid on the way. But
never, not ever, must it violate the work effort and independent
assertion of the self.
The solution of material problems, coupled with this perception,
begins man’s move into his sixth form of existence. Just as the individual
at the third level got into the trouble and had to change, so does the
person who’s at the fifth level. He gets into trouble with being too
successful and has to begin to try to solve the problem of explaining
‘why I’ve got about everything in the world and nobody else has
anything’ or ‘how I am going to get along in this world when other
people are getting more and more angry with me because I’ve got more
than they have. In fact, I’ve got more than I can use, and I’m getting
pretty wasteful with it.’
We should not be misled to believe that fifth-level values are the end
of man’s growth or the sign of his ultimate moral decay. These values,
too, will become suspect by man. The power ethic dooms itself to decay,
with time, because it creates for man a paradox which he cannot abide.
As fifth-level values result in the improvement of man’s existence, life
for him becomes worth living. But how can life be lived well if one must
constantly fight others for one’s survival? Man sees the need to get along
with other men if the good life is to continue. It is not that he will give
 ER 327

up all aspects of the pleasurable existence. It is rather that he will come

to see that satisfying self alone, in a materialistic way, is not enough.

The ER to FS Transition

So, how do you move the ER to the FS state? You have to have a
two-fold kind of set up for training: a) the person with both the prestige
and the expertise sets up the program, and b) the actual training needs
to be conducted by a peer of extreme competence in whatever it is you
are training, an active training person having low prestige and high
expertise, working for the person who has both. This is the biggest
educational problem I am faced with in my college. I do not directly
teach these people. My best previous students at the undergraduate level
do the effective teaching. I do the organizing.
You must remember what is occurring here as you move from DQ.
As you move from CP you are moving a person who has no respect for
authority to DQ where he goes over the dam in respecting authority,
then to ER where the person begins to negate authority and says: “I can
stand on my own feet and solve problems.” So, if you bring in as the
active training person someone with high prestige who’s going to be an
authority, then this guy is going to buck everything you do. You go into
the classroom with these people with high prestige and high authority,
and that kid is going to sit out there and every time you say something,
he’ll say, “Prove it!” He’s going to come at you and completely disrupt
the operation because he is fighting himself loose from overly
depending upon authority. That, in another sense, is what ER is doing -
fighting to get loose of the shackles of authority. So, you have to have a
non-authority figure as the active person who works with the learner.
But this is the next phase: your trainer who is of low prestige and high
expertise must be available to the learner, but he must not try to move
in.
I do it in this way: I set up the things that are to be done and what’s
to be learned and give that assignment to my surrogate, a previous
student. Then the surrogate takes over and delivers the assignment to
the students. He gets out of the picture, but my surrogate also sees that
the people carry out the basic work. He’s got an office upstairs, and he
says to them: “I will be in that office at certain hours if you ever want to
talk to me about anything that you have been assigned to learn.” From
there on, you stay out of the learning process. This person cannot learn
if his peer or an authority is watching. He must work out the problem
privately and anonymously.
328 ER

The surrogate must wait until the student decides to ask questions.
Neither you nor the surrogate should interfere. If the master teacher
does come in, you’ve lost this fellow; he won’t learn what you are trying
to get across. When he finally comes in for support, he will work the
living tail off of that surrogate. They come to me, once they start to
make contact, and say: “Doc, these kids are killing me! They are coming
to me at night, they are coming to me every hour of the day. I can’t get
them off my back.”
“That’s your job, that’s your job,” I tell them. I won’t see most of
those students until the end of the term. I don’t even evaluate them. The
surrogate knows the rules, and the surrogate evaluates them. I don’t
make the decisions. I only play a role in grading when there is difficulty
between the surrogate and the student; then the student can come to
me.
Most of the time they will say to me at the end of the course: “Well,
for the first time in my educational experience, I had something that was
educational.” And they say: “Doc, I never had a better course in my life;
you’ve got the best course in the world.” I haven’t seen them since the
course started!
The surrogate has to be at FS because he has to be willing to
sacrifice self once they latch onto him. He has to have this tremendous
empathy, and has to want to get along with the students. It will just floor
you to experience the progress that is made under this kind of set up in
contrast to the progress that comes otherwise. Never in your life will
you have an experience that any human being learns so much more than
you thought a human being would.
This person has worked himself away from authority. He wants to
believe, above everything else, that he can stand on his own feet. When
someone sets up an educational program which supports him in the
direction of believing that he is good enough to solve his own
educational problems, and he doesn’t have to go to daddy teacher any
more to do it, he says: “Somebody’s respecting me for the first time in
my life.” And they come to me and say that. They say directly to me:
“Now it’s the first time I ever had a human being really respect me for
the brain that I’ve got.” Out of this they begin to empathize; they begin
to have a feeling. They begin to like the surrogate. They begin to like
me. They cease to be cold human beings. This rapidly generalizes to
others, and the guy moves into FS. But the keys are: the master teacher
organizes; the surrogate assigns; the surrogate makes himself available
and waits until contacted; the student is allowed to carry out the learning
anonymously.
 ER 329

One of the things that you run into is the further up the scale you
go, the more you have an overall human being that is freeing up and
being able to move further. So the chances are that fewer and fewer are
going to fail. But this, to me, is a methodological approach which, if you
ever try it out, is just ‘damn close to magic.’ I don’t talk like that very
often, but I tell you, it floors me. I have the administration and other
people in the college come around every once in a while questioning the
grades that these students have received. I always insist that they leave
their work with me, whatever the results are, so when the Dean comes
to me and questions, then I can say: “All right now, you just take a look
at it. What are you going to give that guy?”
They’ll say: “Well, how the hell do you get the quality of work out
of this guy that no one else in the school can?” If you look at the
student’s record, everything else will be riding what I call ‘the probation
fence,’ Ds and Cs. This will be the one A or B on the person’s record,
and it’s genuine. I didn’t give this person anything. All that’s involved in
this is basically paying attention to the psychology of this person, and
seeing to it that the person who actively teaches when asked to teach is a
peer of low prestige but high expertise, and a method which allows the
person to learn anonymously.
Apparently there is an incredible hunger in the ER to learn, but we
knock it out of him because we throw him into an ordinary classroom
setting. He simply cannot take it. We have a lot of experimental
evidence to support this particular thing. We’ve taken ERs and studied
them in many different circumstances to see whether or not they work
better alone, with groups, small groups, or in any other situation. This is
a system-specific thing, and the only group that only learns in an
anonymous situation.
In some manner, for some reason or another, their psychology is of
such an order that they can’t perform in front of other people. They
love to come out in the open once they’ve got something licked. I used
to coach golf, and when I ran into this with a golfer, I found that if the
golfer was having difficulty, the only way to deal with him was to find
himself a place to practice somewhere out on the back of the course and
stay away from him until he’d got his hook or his slice or whatever it
was solved. I’d never say a word to him about anything that he might do
until he had gone out there quietly and by himself. In other words, I
never tried to coach this guy. But if he came to me after he thought he
had figured out why he was slicing, then I could support him. It’s the
type of thing that is system-specific.
330 ER

Now, the problem you have in many training setups is that the
trainer - the educator - wants to be right in there getting the satisfaction
of doing something. Here, the training person is simply an organizer,
that’s all. He’s got to go back and say, “There isn’t anything that I
actively did in interacting with this person that in any way brought about
this person’s learning. I didn’t aid this person to learn.” You’ve got to
learn to get your satisfaction out of the results and not by being in on
the production of the result.
Now, let’s take a look at a conception that shows the movement out
of ER with the entry of some FS - ER/fs. We take another half step up
the ladder and notice some feeling for others is reasserting itself. She
depends on her own competencies and abilities to achieve goals while
the group begins to enter in as an element. She considers conforming to
the reality of the group and recognizing the external importance. The
ER is still predominant in that the abilities and competencies of the
person prevail, and she views the potentials of the rational, objective self
are unlimited. With FS entering there is an increasing awareness of her
own emotions and viewing herself as the accurate appraiser of people
and situations. There is still a denial of the need for others and an
attempt to remain detached but the harsh criticality of pure ER is
softening. Lets look at another example of increasing FS while ER
loosens its hold:
Example #1 – The ER/fs Conception -
“The psychologically mature person is the one who deals
successfully with the environment, the one who has an
unquestioned accurate and objective perception of one’s
environment and others and who is able to handle both
successfully. The mature person takes both the conflicts
and contradictions of life and turns them into experiences
which are to her advantage.
Of course dealing successfully and handling successfully
presupposes a wider range of abilities and competencies
than one might think at first and thus will not be achieved
by many. But it is the true sign of maturity. It means a
superior ability to exercise one’s emotions so that these
volatile features enhance rather than harm one’s ability to
perceive and achieve goals. Indeed, perceiving clearly is
probably the best way to deal with any environment and at
this the mature personality is superior. One might be
tempted to assert that dealing with other humans to fulfill
 ER 331

one’s personal need is really the only necessity in dealing

with the environment. But I think other people are only
one part of the environment so the concept should include
organizing other humans, the physical environment and
one’s own mind and one’s own body to assure one’s
personal welfare.
The mature person is completely free of illusion. To her,
mature means one must appraise others and self
accurately, it means to be intelligent in any situation, even
to being uninhibited as in sex, for it is intelligent to be so.
The mature has that clear perception of reality which is
based on objective evidence and her rational deductions.
She must realize this reality and acts in her own best
interests even if to do so requires her to take well thought
out risks, even if it means to lose a friend.
The mature person says what needs to be said and does
what needs to be done even if doing so may not be liked
by others. The mature person is capable unto his or her
self and does not need to depend on anyone. That is, the
mature person adapts to the reality of the way things are
but does not just accept them. If something isn’t right or
isn’t working correctly as the mature person sees it, it is
weighed against other factors. It is then labeled good, bad,
right, wrong or whatever label is necessary. Then what the
mature person does is to take intelligent action toward it,
doing it if it is to one’s advantage, avoiding it if it is not.
The truly mature person is the one who insists on total
fulfillment with all actions determined by values directed at
her own well being. She would always recognize the
necessity of developing herself as an entity while appearing
to conform to the reality of the group. She would not do
so out of fear of punishment or lest she feel guilty or
ashamed but out of the realization that she must do so to
employ the realities and personalities around her to her
own ends without arousing them.”
In the shift from ER to greater FS, when FS is stronger than ER, as
in this next case, we see the leaving behind of categorical certainty
substituted for relativistic thinking. Notice the tentativeness in what to
say and do with movement back towards an inner focus. There is a
search for inner, unanxious peace and an unwillingness to commit fully
332 ER

to persons or ideas due to greater ambiguity and uncertainty. Emotional

elements take the fore as the individual becomes more aware, accepting
and open with his/her own internal processes. Companions, not DQ
confidants, become central to the person with the increasing importance
of people, friends and relationships interacting in an interdependent
world. Authority becomes more of an equal than something to
challenge, escape, or revere.
Example #2 – The FS/er Conception
“I suspect as I start this, that each human being, as he
sits back, alone with himself, considers his character to be
fundamentally okay, or at least, headed in the right
direction with good intention. In the social market place
this attitude most assuredly gives way to a more self-critical
state of mind, a consciousness in which ideals to be aimed
at are evolved - however, it seems that solitude breeds a
kind of tacit self-consent. My problem then becomes this:
should I describe myself or what I would like to be? On
the other hand, as I consider the vague presence of some
sort of evaluative force which seeks by means of this
document to classify my personality, I would imagine that
if I describe what I think I am, it would in that way be
aided.
But the intent of the question with which I am faced,
namely to define what I consider to be psychological
mature human being, seems to point toward the ideals of
the social market place, the psychological goals and
aspirations of self-critical man. What I am driving at seems
to be this: there appears to be a gap within the nature of
this “evaluative force” of which I speak between its
consideration of the personality itself and the
intellectualizations of this personality, between actual
behavioural skills and the sorts of fantasies which the
behaving being aspires to.
At this point, consideration of this question appears to
me as crucial; yet for now a resolution of just who I should
describe shall have to wait and I shall acquiesce with the
supposed intent of this project, attempting to imagine my
psychological ideal. I suppose the best way to approach
such a consideration would be an outline of the dynamic
sort of tendencies of the mature individual, then to be
 ER 333

illustrated by the subject’s attitude toward different realms

of human experience - i.e. friendship, religion, authority,
etc. Specifically, I envision the mature human as a vital,
growing entity, potentially susceptible to change and
influence at all times, experiencing happiness, suffering
and developing. Since the self can only be a derivative of
what is outside the self, since man’s self consciousness, his
“selfhood”, seems necessarily to be socially founded, an
obsession with individuality and autonomy appears a bit
unrealistic, yet within its capacity as a reasoning entity, as
an arbitrator of conflicting forces, the mature self finds its
dignity, its separateness. Its peace is inner, unanxious over,
and tempered to the realities of the outside. Social
participation is motivated by enjoyment and a kind of
personal curiosity, and not by a sense of quest.
Emotionally, affection is esteemed, other emotions being a
part of humanness. Rationality is valued as a means of
growth, though owing to man’s nature, by no means an
exclusive means.
Regarding specific life’s activities, physical activity,
whether it be sport or manual labour, is seen as a fulfilling
activity. Career goals of material, political or social nature
are seen as insignificant. Consistent with this sketch of an
overall attitude seems to be these opinions:
On friendship - Inner security is such that friendships are
not of a dependent nature. Friends are viewed more as
“companions in the world” than as necessary to the
satisfaction of need. Large circles of friends are sought but
not required. The ability to be affectionate without
expecting or requiring its return is also a sign of maturity.
On authority - Authority as a social expedient and
necessity is recognized and accepted, though social mores
will not mold the individual in the sense of ruling him;
critical evaluation on the part of the individual is here the
final judge. In the case of political and economic sorts of
imperatives, having to abide by them is neither a matter of
hardship or pleasure.
On the mystic urge - often deemed the religious attitude,
the theological need to explain the unknown - mystic, a-
rational, Zen-like attitudes toward reality are recognized as
334 ER

legitimate. The complimentary of this general state of mind

with the tendency toward rational understanding is seen as
a whole view of reality. The concept of God as a moral
force is virtually dismissed, and as a first cause determining
force, respected though considered irrelevant for personal
peace of mind.
As a final note, maturity also engenders a sort of
overview of what such a paper as this has an object - i.e.,
something of a self-reflexive awareness of the relative
nature of opinion; a recognition that although I can and
must (because of my humanness) argue out of my own
position, argumentation and opinion from other positions
is equally valid in the sense of being understandable and
defensible. But then again, it would appear that such a
perspective cannot be humanly, vitally maintained and that
we must therefore jump in and outside ourselves in the
process of growth.”
Now man begins his transition to Maslow’s belonging level of need
and to the sixth level of human existence. His values begin to change
but, again, those who view man from other frameworks call this change
bad. When his ER existential problems are resolved, man finds his
material wants have been fulfilled by the over exercise of his need for
independence. His life is good, and on the surface seems relatively
assured. He finds himself master of the objective physical world, but a
prime neophyte in the subjectivistic, humanistic world. He has achieved
the satisfaction of a good life, but it has been achieved at a price - he
pays the price of not being liked by other men for his callous use of
knowledge for himself. He has become envied and even respected, but
liked he is not. He has achieved his personal status, his material
existence, at the expense of being rejected even by his own children who
want no part of their parents’ materialistic values.
Now, as the other side of man, his subjectivity, gnaws for its
opening, a feeling of dependence emerges. It is a swing back to sacrificing
some of self in order to take care of others. Remember back in the third
level as the individual expressed himself, he got into trouble with other
human beings and had to begin to try to solve that problem of coming
into difficulty with them. If you have the problem of explaining to
others why you are successful, mollifying others for being successful,
then in order to do this you are going to have to think in some way
other than the way the person thought in the fifth level. The solution of
material problems, coupled with this perception, trips the sixth-level
 ER 335

system and the person begins to stop thinking in terms of his own
material success and begins thinking in terms of others again.
But once assured of his material satisfaction, he finds a new spiritual
void in his being. For example, nearly all the people I find interested in
‘consciousness’ - and please don’t misunderstand me here because some
of you might be - are people who have lost their way in the ER to FS
transition.
The cyclic aspect of this theory comes back in again. The need to
belong, to affiliate himself rather than ‘go-it-alone,’ becomes central.
This affiliative need, which is man’s third form of belonging need, now
organizes man’s existence. As it does, the adjustment of the organism-
to-the-environment process becomes dominant again and gives rise to a
new thema for existence: ‘Sacrifice some now so others can have too.’ So, it
creates a whole set of problems, the F problems that come with being
successful in this world.
336 ER
 FS 337

Chapter 12

The Relativistic Existence - The FS State

The 6th Subsistence Level

The Sociocentric, Personalistic, Sociocratic Existential State

Theme: ‘Sacrifice now in order to get acceptance now.’

Alternative Theme: ‘Sacrifice now in order for all to get now’

The ‘Sacrifice self now to get now’ Conceptions

338 FS

The sixth level, the relativistic existential system, first appeared 80-
90 years ago.162 It arises when the ER way of life solves the problems of
living for many, more than any preceding way of life. Fifth-level values
improve immeasurably man’s conditions for existence. They create
wealth and techniques. They lead to knowledge that improves the
human condition. In the ER existential state man has fulfilled his
material wants. His life is safe and it is relatively assured; but what of
other men? The struggle for individuality, through expression of self and
outer material existence, does not bring the happiness expected. It has
left one alone in the world facing the problems brought by antipathy of
others. This creates the F problems, the problems of coming to peace
with aloneness, with one’s inner self and with others. These problems,
felt by those who profited from ER ways but who also sensed a
widening gulf between the successful ones and those who have not
shared the fruits of multiplistic living, increase markedly the activation
of the right side of the brain - the equipment for subjective, non-linear
thinking. These problems activate the S neurological system – the
system for truly experiencing the inner, subjective feelings of
humankind.
To fourth-level man, fifth-level values are akin to sin; to the sixth
they are the crass materialism of “The Status Seeker.” But in this frame
of reference they are not values to condemn. They are values we should
strive to enable lower-level man to experience, even though they are not
values that will become permanent as the major establishment in
America today seems to believe. Yet they, too, give way because they
create a new existential problem for man. He has learned how to live
with want and how to live to overcome it; but he has not learned how to
live with abundance. He has achieved his status, his material existence at
the expense of being rejected. Now he has a new problem and now he
must seek a new way of life and a new value system. The successful
want to be liked; and the passed-over want in.
This perception begins man’s move to his sixth form of existence,
to the state of the sociocentric being, to a concern with belonging, being
accepted, and not rejected. Man becomes centrally concerned with peace
with his inner self and in the relation of his self to the inner self of
others. The belonging need arises as the adjustment to the environment
component ascends to the dominant position. But this time, the
conforming tendency - the adjustive tendency - is not to external stimuli
or absolutistic authority. It is to the peer group. Man becomes
concerned with knowing the inner side of self and other selves so
162 As of Graves’s writing in 1982, thus the 19th to 20th century transition.
 FS 339

harmony can come to be, so people as individuals can be at peace with

themselves and thus with the world. The team concept, the ‘we are all
buddies, let us all break bread together’ system of thinking develops.
Now he feels the need to belong to the community of man, to
affiliate himself rather than to go it alone. When he finds his peers
critical of his opinion, he’ll change it. And the thema, “sacrifice some now so
that others can have now” comes to be. Again, as in the BO and DQ states,
man values authority, but not that of his elders’ wishes, nor of his all
powerful authority, the external standard he conforms to is the authority
and the wishes of his contemporaries whom he values. He values
pleasing his others, being accepted by them and not being rejected.
What he values is what his contemporary group indicates it is right for
him to value. Thus, I call these values sociocratic because the peer group
determines the means by which this end value - community with valued
others - is to be obtained. An external standard determines what is
healthy, but it is neither absolutistic nor theocratic. It is: ‘What the group
of people I like say a healthy personality is, that’s what it is.’
Two aspects of sixth-level valuing stand out. Here man values
commonality over differential classification. To classify people into
types or groups is to threaten the sociocentric’s sense of community.
The other aspect is his return to religiousness, which again he values as
he did in the previous adjustive systems. But here he does not value
religions, per se, or religious-like rituals or religious dogma. Rather, it is
the spiritual attitude, the tender touch which he reveres. Notice, we went
in and out of religion: we didn’t have it in CP; we went into it in DQ;
went out of it in ER; but we are back into it in FS. Sixth-level values
with the theme ‘sacrifice now in order to get acceptance now and so all
can get now,’ are a great step forward for man. They reflect the
beginning of man’s humanism, the demise of his animalism.
At the sixth level it is the feelings of man, rather than the hidden
secrets of the physical universe, which draw his attention. “Getting
along with” is valued more than “getting ahead of.” Consumer goodwill
takes precedence over free enterprise, cooperation stands out as more
valued than competition, and social approval is valued over individual
fame. Consumption and warm social intercourse are more valued at this
level than are production and cold, calculating self-interest.
It is true that peripherally his values seem to shift without center but
this, too, is an illusion. The group, valuing deeply interpersonal
penetration and interpersonal communication, is constantly shifting its
value base so that no shade of difference is left out. As the base swings
to include this or that variation in some member of the group, the values
340 FS

appear to be built on shifting dunes of sand. But, the central core is not
changing; it is a very solid thing. While he seems to be uncertain of what
he values, this is more illusion than it is real. It is only the peripheral
aspect which seems shallow, non-serious and fickle. The peripheral
values are only swinging to the left, to the right and back to center. He
values softness over cold rationality, sensitivity in preference to
objectivity, taste over wealth, respectability over power, and personality
more than things. He values interpersonal penetration, interpersonal
communication, committeeism, majority rule, the tender, the subjective,
the non-ordered formal informality, the subjective approach, avoidance
of classification, and the religious attitude, but not religious dogma.
Sixth-level man knows as well as man at any other level what he values,
what is right, and what is wrong for him: it is being with, in with, and
within, the feelings of his valued others.
FS considers the knowledge and he will think about it intellectually,
but the choice, if there are alternatives, will be made on the basis of
feeling. What he actually does may have absolutely nothing to do with
the analysis that he’s made. You’d go: “What the hell is going on here?”
His conclusion doesn’t follow his logic, because the conclusion is based
on feeling and not on his logic. Intellectually, the FS individual considers
many alternatives, but makes choice on the basis of feeling, not on the
basis of information, knowledge or rule. This is important because it
differentiates between FS and A’N’. For the A’N’, conclusions will
follow his logic. It may not be what anyone else has, but he’s got his.
Look for behavior which indicates a chameleon-like character:
“When I feel this way, I do this; when I feel that way I do that.” The
clue word being ‘feel;’ always the word feel. FS values indicate that
people come first, so when control is necessary it must always be
exercised not to hurt people. (Here you will see a difference from the
A’N’, to follow. For the A’N’, if you have to exercise control and the
exercising of it is going to hurt people’s feelings, you regret having to do
it, but you do it. You do it as decently as you can, but you do it.)”
Rather than the centrality of the life being authority as in DQ, hate
and aggression as in the CP, my own self-interest as in the ER, the
centrality of life for FS is people and friends. The individual speaks
earnestly about community, intimacy, shared experiences, and other
responses which show that centrality. They express a need to be “more
connected” and feel alienated when others do not share his or her
unique personal delights. Behaviorally, he shows an inability to commit
self to others beyond one’s group. Watch for the one thing this person
 FS 341

is negative about - hurting other people. That’s the only negation you
seem to pick up.
Finally, listen for an unwillingness to change things. They have a
belief that: “Things should be different, but I am not the one to start out
changing these things. If there is change, it’s got to be the group or
something of that sort that brings it about, not me.” He would actively
support the group, not just go along. In other words, you get responses
often which say, “Well, I don’t know it all but, by God, I’ll fight for
what my people, my friends think is right” even though he says he
doesn’t know what’s right.
The important thing, in my point of view, is that the data I have
indicates that the aggressiveness of man as we know it appears in the
third system - it comes in with the CP. And I can show you that there
are chemical changes, even hormonal changes taking place in the body
of man when he is under the influence of the CP system which cause
him to be his most aggressive self, and that this aggressive self remains
relatively strong in the human personality, though it takes on a different
form, in the DQ system and in the ER system. I have not found
aggressiveness in FS personalities. By the time the FS system is
dominant in a personality, crime against the other person - crime against
the other person’s self - is not found. I have not found it in FS
personalities.
Now, I have found crime against the self. I have found them taking
drugs to the point of hurting the self. I have found suicide – aggression
against the self. Suicide, the data says, is rather an odd one. Suicide is
highest in the FS system. The data says that homicide as a behavior of
man disappears as the transition is made into the FS system. This is a
very interesting finding and suggests that if we could possibly work on
the problems of human existence in such a manner as to get the mass of
our people beyond the ER level of existence, then we would not have to
worry about homicide crime anymore; this phenomenon will disappear.
I find that in the BO system the only basic reason for war that exists
is that you have invaded my property. You don’t have any ideological
war. You don’t have war for gain. You don’t have anything of that sort.
The person will fight like the dog fights when you come across whatever
he has laid out as the perimeter of his property line. In the CP system
man fights for the fun of fighting. He is an aggressive ‘bastard’ at that
level of existence; that is his nature and this is what we must understand.
In the DQ system he fights ideologically. In the ER system he fights for
selfish economic gain. In the FS system he begins to question whether
there is any purpose in any of these fights at all.
342 FS

Examples of the Sixth Level

This system has been alternately called the Sociocentric Existence,

the Interpersonalistic level, the Personalistic system, Sociocratic Values,
the Sixth Subsistence level, the FS state and the Relativistic Existential
State. It is a system wherein the individual thinks in terms of the rights
of others’ individualities rather than just in terms of one’s own
individuality. Others also exist as individuals in their own right, having
their own, just as good, view of the world. Thus, man shows a greater
degree of affective warmth and a greater ability to extend it to full
appreciation of the individuality of the other person as he turns
excessively to the exploration of the inner self and others, while
focusing on relationships as a central aspect of living. Goals are related
to the whole of one’s group, not just one or some of the group. The
individual absorbs self into the group and, in essence, becomes the
group. The way people relate to others looms high in their
consciousness. Here is a conception illustrating the nodal FS state:
FS Conception –
“I can say what is my conception of the mature
personality in one sentence but it would take reams of
paper to clarify what I mean. So I shall, in this
endeavor, express my thoughts in one sentence and
then elaborate only upon the basis of what I mean.
The mature personality is a participating, creative
personality which in its operation does justice to every
type of personality, every mode of culture, every
human potential without forming anyone into
typological molds.
The mature personality provides a means for bringing
relations of reciprocity and willing amity to the entire
family of human beings. The mature provides for the
interchange and utilization of the entire experiences of
humankind. He or she lives in a moral world which
tears down manmade barriers of law and custom
widening the means of communication and
cooperation between humans.
The mature is a committed person, committing self
to continuous self-development, and to intimate
relations and cooperation with all people. He or she is
 FS 343

one who believes in face-to-face interaction and

assessment, one who believes friendly eyes are the
indispensable mirrors for reflecting what is. He or she
believes in an absolutely open society where every
nook, every corner is exposed to anyone who is
curious. He or she behaves so as to demonstrate that
every person may be freely heard.
The mature personality deliberately exercises choice
which directs life toward allegiances, which are beyond
the boundaries of natural communities and the
organized state, and toward the ultimate hopes of
mankind. He or she seeks to widen the ties of
fellowship without respect to birth, caste or property,
and disavows claims to special privilege or the
exclusivity of leadership. He or she replaces Godly
authority with the temporal authority of the time and
the place. He or she softens the features which identify
a person with a particular society or culture. To the
mature, humanity is a unity of souls seeking salvation
not a union of Catholics, High Episcopalians,
Orthodox Jews or Baptists.
The mature is beyond sordid concern with his or her
own survival and is focused on intensive cultivation of
a belief in freedom, not a belief of freedom.
To the mature technology is for human needs, not
power, productivity, profit or prestige and scientific
endeavor is not for ruthless exploitation or desecration.
Scientific endeavor is for depth exploration of all
regions not just physicregions, so as to provide for the
inner human knowledge that will assure human
supremacy.
The mature indulges in the dematerialization of self,
in self-transcending endeavors which reach beyond
sordid concern with one’s own survival, beyond the
over-rational and irrational, beyond mechanical
uniformity toward a concept of organic unity. He or
she operates by the belief that we are all one and
should seek to enhance human expression to provide
for a world society based on human values. He or she
believes one should know both the objective and the
344 FS

subjective and show the ability to face one’s whole self

and direct every part of it to a more unified
development.
In summary, and in Freudian terms, the mature
personality accepts its id, but does not give it primacy,
and fosters the sure ego but does not allow it to
depress the fullest expression of the ego.”
Those centralized in FS believe man must live in a non-competitive
way with other humans. At the FS level man becomes, centrally, a
sociocentric being, a being concerned with the relation of his self to
other selves. He becomes concerned with belonging, with being
accepted, with not being rejected, with knowing the inner side of self
and other selves so human harmony can come to be. And when he
achieves this he becomes concerned with more than self and other
selves. He becomes concerned with self in relation to life and the whole,
the total universe. This manifests in the sixth-level concept of welfare, a
concept many today abhor, for it is a concept of the right of all to the
goods of a society, equally distributed with need, not merit, as its core.

Origin of the Relativistic State

Man - Homo sapiens – came to be about 100,000 years ago. The first
level of existence went for about 60,000 years. Forty thousand years ago,
the leading edge of second-level thinking started to appear. About
10,000 years ago the leading edge of third-level thinking started to
appear. About 4,000-5,000 years ago the leading edge of fourth-level
thinking came into existence. About 600-700 years ago (1300-1400 AD)
the fifth level started to come to be, and about 80 years ago (1900 AD)
the leading edge of the sixth level appeared. In my data, the leading edge
of the seventh level started to appear around 1952 or ‘53.
He has achieved his status, his material existence at the expense of
being rejected. The power ethic dooms itself to decay, with time,
because it creates for man a paradox which he cannot abide. As fifth-
level values result in the improvement of man’s existence, life for him
becomes worth living. But how can life be lived well if one must
constantly fight others for one’s survival? If you have the problem of
explaining to others why you are successful, mollifying others for being
successful, then, in order to do this, you are going to have to think some
way other than the way the person thought in the fifth level. Man sees
the need to get along with other men if the good life is to continue. This
 FS 345

perception trips the sixth-level neurology and begins man’s move to his
sixth form of existence, to the state of the sociocentric being, to a
concern with belonging, being accepted, and not rejected. The person
begins to stop thinking in terms of his own material success and begins
the swing back to thinking in terms of others again, sacrificing self-
interest.
When some people see fifth-level values changing into the values of
level six, again, they see decay all around them. In a sense this is true,
because man transforming into sixth-level thinking lays authority aside,
because he rejects strongly non-dignified non-human ways of living.
Sixth-level values are those of “The Lonely Crowd,”163 those of the
chameleon-like “Marketing Character,”164 but they are, within this point
of view, a giant step forward for man.
To many, such as the materialistic establishment and philosophers
like Ayn Rand, the ascendance of these values [relativistic or
sociocentric] signify the breakthrough of man’s most regrettable
weakness, his delicate capacity for tenderness, his subjectiveness, his
concern for others rather than his individuality. When “The
Organization Man”165 tries to fit in rather than take over, those who see
values from an older frame of reference despair of such behavior.
Yet they are higher values because in them we find the many, not
the few, valued, as at the fourth level. They are higher than the fourth
level, for at least man’s opinion, not just extra-human opinion, is
considered. But they are called bad by many, particularly many scientists,
because they value the subjective and relativistic rather than just the
objective and the positivistic. At this level many feel that man has lost
himself, and he has given himself up for social approval. But the E-C
frame of reference says that this conclusion is an error. It says that man
has simply subordinated his self-interest for the time being and that self-
interest will return again in a new and higher form.
When the electrical executives contrived to allow all to live rather
than kill off competition166 as in “Robber Baron”167 days, such was

163 Riesman, David (1950). The Lonely Crowd. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Also, The Lonely Crowd, Revised edition: A Study of the Changing American Character by
David Riesman, Nathan Glazer, Reuel Denney, and Todd Gitlin (2001). Yale Nota
Bene.
164 Fromm, Eric (1955). The Sane Society. New York: Rinehart.
165 Whyte, William H. (1956). The Organization Man. New York: Simon and Schuster.
166 Scandal in the early 1960s involving heavy electrical equipment manufacturers led by

General Electric, Westinghouse, I-T-E and Allis Chalmers who were accused of
conspiring to fix prices on government sales. See: Dennis W. Carlton and Jeffrey M.
346 FS

called bad. It certainly cannot be called the best of man because the
customer was the one who paid the bill. But, one can ask if it is not
better than GE setting out, come what may, to competitively kill
Westinghouse or Allis Chalmers. Similarly, Riesman infers that the
“Other Directed” is not the best of men. Fromm (1955) looks askance
at his “Marketing Character” and the fourth-level absolutist or the fifth-
level individualist condemns the welfare state concept of sixth level man.
But, our point of view asks: “Is it bad to think of him and just not think
of me? Is it bad to aspire that all shall share the fruits of what the
cumulative efforts of man have provided?”
“Yes,” say many, but they say it through the imputation of
malevolence to others. “If you let the other man have, he will get you in
the end,” they say. “If you do not provide for your own old age, then
you should suffer the consequences of your own weak will,” is another
of their condemnations.
Others, operating in the materialistic way, have perceived that
power alone does not please man and become aware of a desire to
belong and be accepted by others, rather than hated or opposed.
After man has achieved basic personal and economic security, and
after he has successfully challenged the established order, he again
changes his psychological spots. (I am writing of long-term changes, of
course – ones that usually require more than a lifetime.) He begins to
become a sociocentric being. He becomes concerned with social, rather
than basic personal or material matters. He now seeks for something
other than survival, safety, order, or material gain. He seeks a congenial
atmosphere, a comfortable work pace, and, as a result, his productive
effort and output deteriorate relative to what they were at the [fourth] or
[fifth] level.168
Sixth-level man objects strongly to authority’s lead or pressure and
professes revulsion against uniformity and homogenization. He follows
the crowd’s or peer’s lead or pressure since emphasis is placed upon
“getting along,” accepting the authority of the group or the majority,
and seeking status from others. Thinking shows an almost radical,
almost compulsive emphasis on seeing everything from a relativistic,
subjective frame of reference as he revolts against notions of quantity

Perloff, Modern Industrial Organization, p. 181-183, and Richard A. Posner, "The Social
Cost of Monopoly and Regulation," Journal of Political Economy, 83:807-827.
167 Josephson, Matthew (1934). The Robber Barons. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Co.

Also called “industrial statesmen” by those who suggest a different view of history,
such as Allan Nevins.
168 Ibid (Graves, 1966).
 FS 347

and is rigidly against rigidity, judgmental about judgmentalism. He thinks

in terms of goals which relate to all human kind rather than just to self,
and in terms of living by what is unique for thee.
This other-directed individual believes he will find ‘salvation’ in
belonging and in participating with others in what they want him to do.
While sixth-level man has given up his dogmatism, he nevertheless
rigidifies in a world of sociocentric thinking. “When man centralizes his
values at the FS level, many feel that man has lost his ‘self,’ that he has
given it up for social approval. But the frame of reference advanced here
indicates that this conclusion is in error. It suggests that man has simply
subordinated self interest for the time being and that self interest will
return again but in a new and higher form, the A’N’ form of existence.
All the problems created by the over-extension of the attack of the
fifth level upon nature and nature’s laws are accumulating while the
person lives the sixth-level way. As this person lives in the sixth-level
way, the world just gets in worse trouble. Keep in mind that this person
is a much broader individual, much more perceptive of what is going on.
He/she begins to perceive that all the ways people have lived by in this
world have, in fact, created more problems for them than they have
solved.
Up to this period of time the person was living in a world of
abundance, where all kinds of raw materials existed. There was all kinds
of space to conquer and move into. Now raw materials are disappearing,
space is disappearing, and overpopulation that comes from the
expensiveness of the people at the fifth level has come to be. Suddenly
the person operating at the sixth level begins to realize that everything
human beings have ever believed in is by and large wrong - that it has
really led more to trouble than good. Thus, the sixth level begins to
disappear. Sixth-level thinking that came in about the end of the 19th
century should, if there’s anything to this theory at all, be around for the
shortest period of time of any of the ways of thinking that we have had
previously.

Basic Operation of the State

Now the sixth-level state is a different one from the fifth. In the
sixth level the person’s struggle for individuality is over. One’s own and
others’ individualities are recognized. When the person begins to think
this way, the person is free from the struggle for life, free of the struggle
for control, free from the struggle for ego definition, free of struggling
to help others, free of the struggle for freedom, free from guilt, free of
348 FS

having to develop feelings for others. This person is much more

affectively warm than any of the other systems that we have. They exude
warmth for other human beings and they show a tremendous capacity to
extend the right of the other person’s full expression to that other
person. They just wouldn’t think of moving in on another person and in
any way suggesting how that person should think or believe or behave.
As the sociocentric state begins to develop, the person begins to
think in terms of being different from others, as living in different
situations and in terms of not ‘the one and the only way to behave,’ not
in terms of ‘the best way to behave,’ but in terms of ‘the most
appropriate way to behave in that particular situation.’ He and she have
found that some people survive living one way; some people survive
living in another way.
So, it gives birth to what we call relativistic thinking; that is thinking
in terms of behaving as the situation calls for, trying to get along with
the unassailable laws of the universe, and in terms of trying to live in a
way that many ways of thinking can live together at one and the same
time. He thinks in terms of going beyond behaving as the self dictates,
trying to conquer others, in terms of what God thinks, in terms of what
the data says, instead of trying to think only in terms of what the self
thinks or in terms of changing the world to suit the self. As this wave
comes to its nodal point, the person begins to think in terms of defining
the ‘what has to be’ rather than ‘what should be,’ or ‘what can be’ in
terms of feeling with others. So, it’s a much broader way of thinking
about the world; but underneath it all you have to keep in mind that the
person who is operating at the sixth level begins to believe that there is a
way that he or she can learn to behave that can get along with all other
people and can show appreciation for the thoughts and the feelings of
others.
It’s a very warm system, but the person gets all tied up in this
business of attempting to express self or attempting to let others express
self. Because he or she doesn’t have to worry about trying to stay alive
or trying to overcome the storm or other things like that, he sort of
loses sight of the fact that he can do something to stay alive around
here. As he switches over to this subjectivistic kind of thinking, an
intuitive kind of thinking - he sort of gets away from the task of doing
something about the very problems with which he is faced. As he tries
to let everyone have their way, he loses sight of the fact that you just
can’t do that. That’s something in this world that is just against the “laws
of nature” which will get you into trouble if you are not careful.
 FS 349

I get scared to death when they enter the FS system and think that
everyone in this world is nice. If we can get to the point that we solve
the problem of getting up one more level so their eyes are open and they
realize there are all kinds of people in this world who are not nice, we’ll
be better off. This is the problem that I’m faced with. It isn’t the
problem of the drug culture and the like. I sat around the other morning
with a dozen young men graduating this year [1971]. Unless this
economy changes incredibly, they haven’t a ghost of a chance of getting
jobs, paying taxes, having lodging, or getting food by just wandering
around ‘being happy.’
They see the world situationistically. They see it relativistically. In
the relativistic existential state, individuals respond in ways which
indicate ‘others have their way and we have ours, and each to his own; it
is not mine to judge.’ If the central psychology of this system is to avoid
rejection by society and others, then this is what the whole life of the
person revolves around - avoiding rejection by the valued others. They
talk about how important it is to have community; how important it is
for there to be intimacy among people; how important it is that there be
involvement; how important it is that people share experience, but if
you observe them behaviorally they show an amazing inability to
commit themselves to doing for other people. They’re still very much
interested in themselves but they are talking, almost glibly, about the
need to share with others, the need to be with others, the need to get
along with others. One of the things which is most characteristic about
them is - and we see a great deal of this today - their inability to
articulate: “Hey man, yeah man, that’s it. We’re with it boy, we really got
it. You got the feel, man?” What the hell are they talking about? They
cannot express, in an articulate manner, what their feelings are. He
appears to affect a deliberate inarticulation and disdain for precise
language.
You will find responses from both FS and ER which are similar.
They both show negative sensitivity to control by authority. FS is
sensitive to control by the peer group and the situation, whereas ER will
go off alone in his own direction. At the FS sociocentric level, man
becomes centrally a sociocentric being, a being concerned with the
relation of his self to other selves. He becomes concerned with
belonging, with being accepted, with not being rejected, with knowing
the inner side of self and other selves so human harmony can come to
be. When he achieves this he becomes concerned with more than self
350 FS

and other selves. He becomes concerned with self in relation to life and
the whole, the total universe.169

Learning in the Relativistic State

Let us think about learning in the FS, sociocentric, relativistic

existential system. At this level yet another functional neurological
system dominates man’s behavior. The S system follows the learning
principles of what is today called modern Social Learning in the theory
of Rotter and others and Observational Learning and the like as found
in the work of Bandura and Walters. This is a learning system that I
have not seen utilized as much as it might be by learning-systems
people.
The learning system associated with it has been variously called the
vicarious, the modeling or the observational learning system. All of these
refer to an individual’s acquisition of new knowledge and potential
behavior through observation without receiving any direct external
reinforcement for his own acts or without even making the observed
response. This learning occurs when people watch what others do, or
when they attend to the physical environment, to events, and to symbols
such as words or pictures. It occurs when FS man observes the
consequences that other people obtain when they behave one way or
another without even engaging in the behavior he observes.
You are getting beyond the ER level where the human being is
concerned with things material. You are getting beyond the human
being that is concerned with just seeing to it that his belly is full and he’s
got a good house to live in. This human being has all these things. You
are getting to a human being who is now free enough to really begin to
do some very serious thinking, and he is going to do it about the here
and the now. Those who think in an FS way are unhappy over the
absence of personal relevance in any abstractions that are a part of
learning. They think in terms of sensing and apprehending rather than in
terms of comprehending. They tend to refuse to deal with anything that
analyzes or breaks down a learning experience - thus a way of thinking
not easy to handle within learning-systems thinking. If you are
developing learning programs for those centralized in the FS existential
state, you should attend particularly to the work of Bandura and Walters.

169 Graves, Clare W. (1970). Levels of Existence: An Open System Theory of Values.
Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Fall, Vol. 10, No. 2, p. 131-155.
 FS 351

The individual in the relativistic existential state wants to solve

problems. The FS moves to solve problems through human
philosophical thought, but FS wants to work with the teacher, leader,
manager, etc. in this. Remember, the FS level is also the most egalitarian
of the systems. Let me illustrate this to you in this manner. I have talked
about the way one would be introduced to different groups. Now, when
you get to the FS level, you don’t get introduced with any of these
trappings. If I am going out where I know there will be an FS group and
the person says: “Well, now how should we go about introducing you?”
I say: “We have with us tonight Clare Graves, he works at Union
College.” That’s it.
Why? The person centralized in the FS system is going to judge
whether I have expertise. I damned well better have it, or I am not going
to get anywhere. The trainer working with those thinking in the FS state
better know something, and they better have earned status. He better not
have any status that comes from any other direction. You don’t violate
this egalitarian characteristic in the FS system. You’re just another
human being - and I am not saying this in any derogatory fashion - no
matter who you are. You are valued by the FS if you have either the
information or the attitude that is conducive to showing the FS that you
understand what he is trying to do which is to unravel a tremendous
problem for which there just isn’t any easy answer. But above all, the
methodology is openness, candidness, honesty and meeting the people
with whom you are working on the level which says: “Look, you, too,
have got a brain in you head; I’ll help you with this problem” or “Please
help me with this problem.”
We now have our human up to the FS level and we are now
teaching in order to make movement on to the A’N’ level possible.
Now, what are we dealing with here? The theory says, when we get the
human being to the FS level, we have come to the end of one way of
looking at existence. And now we have to take this human being, and
sort of flip-flop this person and get him to see the whole business of life
in an altogether different light from that which he has seen life before.
We have to get this human to see that he or she has come to the very
end of being able to solve problems by thinking the way the person
thinks. We have to produce one hell of a jump, one tremendous change
in the cognitive thinking of the human being.
This human, this FS human, has much clearer eyes in terms of
seeing of what the world is all about than has the human beings who
have preceded him at other levels of existence. We have a human who,
with the psychology that is present, wants very much to attach self to
352 FS

the ideas of others, is driven very much from within to explore things of
the here and now in a very serious philosophical fashion, exploring in
essence the problems of the here and now in as almost a serious fashion
as the philosophically minded people of the DQ world explored the
problems of God and its meaning, the hereafter, and all of the things
that developed back in those earlier times.
The person gets to this point, and begins to flounder. He tries drugs
as a means to coming up with insights. This is what they are doing with
this whole psychedelic business; they are trying to come up with
something that will pull things together for them. Look at the language
they use: “I want to get it together. I wanna’ get it all together.” So, at
this point they try things such as meditation. They try biofeedback. All
of them are good methods. Unfortunately, they are simply holding
methods; they don’t provide the philosophical framework that enables
people to think differently about the problems. They enable them to
handle their frustrations, and to build up some more knowledge about
themselves and what they are troubled with; but, it is coming up with
some new way of thinking about the problems, whatever they are, that
we are confronted with.
Something is missing. FS man doesn’t have a means to the end of
trying to think about the things his innards tell him he wants to think
about. The basic educational need is in the person. The trainer, the
educating person, has to provide the framework for thinking that the
person lacks. You offer a method, once you get to a point where the
learner has a need to try to understand things in the here and now -
things that have been felt, perceived, but not been quite able to put
together – in a way that would focus in upon the idea that what is
missing is the framework with which to think about the problem. I don’t
care what problem you are dealing with. The problem of the transition
from FS to A’N’ is the problem of coming up with a new way to think
about the problems that the person is trying to solve; that is what this
transition is.
We can’t make the FS to A’N’ transition - and please don’t
misunderstand me here because I am not trying to be egocentric - until
some guy like me comes along with a new way of thinking about
whatever the problems are, because somebody’s got to supply the
framework. This applies to any set of problems. The jump is to a new
framework.
Now, we don’t know at this stage of the game in the psychological
world, as I have said, whether this kind of theoretical point of view is
the answer toward the FS desire to make more sense out of things
 FS 353

human. But you have to detail it with them. You have to lay it out
before them. You have to provide those crucial points of dissonance in
which they are brought up sharply to see how great is the need for a
change in their way of thinking. Above all, the methodology is openness,
candidness, honesty and meeting the people with whom you are
working on the level which says: “Look, you too have a brain in you
head.”
New ways of thinking about particular problems enable the
transition from the FS to the A’N’ to take place. I don’t care how fuzzy
that framework is, if you have any kind of framework which you think
may help the person put together things he feels the need to put
together and make sense of, candidly and openly lay it on the line to the
person, and say: “Test it out.”

Management of the Relativistic State

Sixth-level man is a sociocentric being. In the personalistic, FS state,

the manager must keep in mind that, for the employee, relating self to
others and to one’s inner self is central. He believes in belonging,
adjusting, and togetherness. He is other-directed. Incentives stem from
others and directiveness comes from the power of group opinion. If his
group slows down at work, he slows down. If his group says change, he
changes. If his group says fix prices, he fixes prices. ‘Right’ to him is to
do as his group directs, and ‘wrong’ is to be or want to be different.
Getting along, not rocking the boat is a must to sixth-level man. He is
the strong promoter of “human relations” in industry. It is he who
believes in the magic of the tender treatment, of participation, of the
sanctity of the group approach, of the inviolability of majority rule, the
nice word, the personal ‘good brother’ attention of the boss.
Today many managers - too many of them, for reasons that cannot
now be detailed - tend to remain somewhere in the region of fourth-
and fifth-level existence, while many of the managed are beginning to
move through and beyond the level of existence of their managers. The
managed are beginning to behave in the manner described by
McGregor’s Theory Y, but many of their bosses cannot accept the
insights necessary to lift themselves to the level of responsive or
integrative management required. On the one hand, the fixated fifth-
level manager cannot overcome the fear of loss of his power, and the
sixth-level manager’s energy is consumed in the fear of being disliked.
The former are increasing directive managerial controls and the latter are
regressing thereto. These managers who blame their problems on labor
354 FS

that is too powerful, on government that intervenes, on foreigners that

compete, or on unreasoning workers whose demands are ridiculous
might better ask: “How do my values clash with the values of those
whom I manage?”
As the belonging level emerges, the sociocratic ethic, the team
concept of work, the ‘organization man’ idea, gathers force. FS spawns
participative or consensus management. Management, here, is based on
the assumption that the human is a group animal seeking above all else
to be accepted in a community of humans important to him. Within this
ethic, the rules created for proper behavior are the ways prescribed so
that groups may function smoothly. When these rules evolve, incentives
stem from others and directiveness comes from the power of group
opinion. It provides each a voice in running the organization because
this system believes nothing gets done until all the people involved
agree; so the management brings all interested people together before a
decision is made. This is done, though to others it appears tedious -
almost interminable - before the process of discussion toward
compromise produces a consensus. Through this procedure, all
members align themselves behind the consensus goal. It is an ethic
typified by passivity to what others expect one to do. He is good who
can be persuaded to do as the organization desires, and he is good who
quietly accepts the directive that he get into no trouble with the group
and gets the group in no trouble. The belief is that the human will work
best when he or she feels secure and a part of what is happening. He is
bad who rocks the boat, who deigns to differ.
The individual is seen to benefit only through the elevation of the
group as a whole. Thus, this management does not operate for the quick
pay-off but for that which will provide the long run better competitive
position. This is because a stable life for all is the prime value with
quality far exceeding quantity as a value. Quality control is a prime
means to organizational goals, so short-term setbacks are accepted in
order to obtain long-term qualitative goals. It promotes self-discipline
over self-expression; adequate means to do the work and to live over
frills, ceremonies, social welfare and social interaction; the future over
the present or the past; own group over outsiders; in-group cooperation
over competition; and group over individual needs.
Thus, group membership is greatly valued – all individual values,
morals, concepts, and ethics are derived from the group and can change
overnight. Any non-group individual, thing, or concept has no valid
claim to any consideration beyond what the group grants. There is an
easy working relationship between management and labor because both
 FS 355

believe one’s importance is determined by the good reputation of the

organization. Management and labor trust one another to make the right
decisions, the decisions that will improve their group’s competitive
position.
The subordinate at this level is concerned with social rather than
material matters. As a result the work place slows down as the employee
seeks acceptance by others and a congenial atmosphere. An effective
change agent here is a peer - never authority. Authority couldn’t have
any effect whatsoever. They object strongly to authority’s lead or
pressure, but a peer that the individual liked could effect change. It is the
peer group that determines the means by which the valued end –
community with other people he values – is to be obtained.
The appropriate management approach at this level is the group
process. It requires that the manager be open to the group’s values and
become a group member. As a member of the group the manager has
equal ‘right’ with all other group members to offer suggestions as to
what the group should consider or do. The manager must be ready to go
along with whatever everyone else in the group thinks is best. The
manager must be open, nondirective, and participatory in the truest
sense of the terms. The congruent form of management, Participative
Management,170 is consistent with this state. Participative management
fosters the idea that organizations will prosper when all play a role in the
decision-making process, when all have a say. It is a form of
management that gives power to the managed and acceptance to those
who run the organization.
Because there are strong needs to be accepted, the manager,
therefore, accepts others unquestioningly. Group processes, consensus,
majority rule, and sensitivity training are valued. Through the continued,
within-group, participative stance of offering suggestions - trial
ballooning - the manager attempts to provide the substitutive direction
organizationally required. “If the [sixth]-level person is a producer, he
slows down his work pace and turns to satisfying the needs which are
now important to him – his social needs. This is why participative
management must operate when the producer and the manager are at
the [sixth] level.”171

170 See Blake and Mouton (Managerial Grid), MacGregor (Theory X and Theory Y), and
Lickert (Four-Model Systems). The central idea is that empowered employees will
feel better about their jobs and be more productive. [Extended into financials by
Open Book Management. (Also see: Case, John (1995). Open Book Management. New
York: Harper Collins.]
171 Ibid (Graves, 1966).
356 FS

Participative-substitutive group process management will not

increase human effort unless the group itself puts on the pressure; but it
will keep effort from deteriorating more. It will substitute new means of
production for the human physical means that the group, and
interpersonalistic individuals, will not accept and have resisted. “The
[sixth]-level employee no longer believes it is his moral duty to do his
best, as does the [fourth]-level worker; nor does he believe that hard
work is the measure of the man, as does the [fifth]-level producer. He
believes there are other means to the end of living than hard work. The
means which can be tapped for productive effort is the group effort.
Being a social man and being subservient to his group, [sixth]-level man
will readily follow the group’s plan for revising work procedures and the
like. But there is an inherent danger in this group-mindedness. [Sixth]-
level people can become so enamored of group decision-making
processes that they have one meeting after another and never get
anything done. That is why management at this level must be what I call
“substitutive” as well as participative. The group must work to substitute
new ideas and new machines to compensate for the inevitable loss of
sheer human effort.”172
Managements’ failure to “substitute” within group process
management is increasingly seen, especially in public sector. In non-
competitive work groups and organizations where the group or
organization is at the sixth level, only participative, human relations
techniques instituting Value Analysis173 concepts will be effective –
participative-substitutive group process for the relativistic existential
state. “Participative management accepts the fact that the producer now
has needs he must satisfy which are more social than material. These
needs can be harnessed to productive effort, but sometimes the means
seem roundabout.”174 The manager centralized in the relativistic state, at
first, will most likely “[gravitate] to the Blake-Mouton 5.5 managerial
style; that is, he shows intermediate concern for production and
intermediate concern for people. And later this 5.5 style becomes the 1.9
style; that is, “keep the people happy and hope for production.”175 As a
group member, the manager has equal right to personally reject trial
balloons that are dysfunctional to the group, manager, or organization.
The proportion of employees at this level in organizations today is
growing and will increase in the future. The negative results of attempts

172 Ibid (Graves, 1966).

173 See Miles, Lawrence D. (1961).
174 Ibid (Graves, 1966).
175 Ibid (Graves, 1966).
 FS 357

to apply inappropriate managerial styles by managers who are unable or

unwilling to manage in a participative-substitutive group process style are
becoming apparent. This may go far to explain what we see occurring
more and more in today’s organizations where neither management nor
labor leadership can manage a large percentage of the work force.
There are two basic forms that mismanagement takes at the
interpersonalistic level. The first and currently most common is the use
of a non-participatory management style. The manager in this case is
seen as non-group by the FS subordinate and, therefore, someone
having no rights to “manage” the group. In the best case the manager is
just neutrally non-group and ignored. In the worst case the manager is
negatively non-group, and a Directive Manager, resulting in a serious
error of judgment. Today the management of many organizations views
the increasing numbers of individuals at the FS level as evidence of
people “going soft.” If this interpretation is made and steps are taken to
combat the attitudes with a directive, authoritarian managerial style (9.1),
the result will be a disastrous form of mismanagement. Passive resistance
of the worst order will arise, and productivity and performance will
tumble. In the extreme, management having clearly shown itself as non-
group, the entire organization could be brought to a halt through
continued passive covert activity, or more active overt activity.
The second form of mismanagement is for the manager to join the
group totally and unconditionally without the substitutive element. The
sixth-level group will do as it pleases within and with the organization. If
it is a highly qualified and skilled group, this won’t present a problem. If
not, viability is threatened because of similar values. The leader strives to
entice the group to arrive at the managerially desired decision and the
group strives to avoid a decision they fear others will not like. The time
for decision-making is so slowed that the organization comes to a state
of arrested development. Conferences are held, committees are
constituted and informal meetings abound. When these fail, these
believers in communication as the means to the organizational goals
sharpen their communication techniques. Group Dynamics, Sensitivity
Training, Learning through Listening, Conference Management
Techniques, morale studies, feed-down, feed-up and feedback
procedures are tried, but to little avail. After all, the goal of sixth-level
people is to be liked, not to decide.
When FS managers manage DQ or ER level people in situations
where there are no great pressures from competitors, management
sometimes abdicates its responsibility, as well as its authority. Suppose
the manger, because of the desire to be liked and not hated, tries to woo
358 FS

the producers. The ER level producers conclude that management does

not have to watch cost, hence try to ‘take’ it for all they can get. And as
this wooing takes place, DQ producers become disgusted because the
leaders believe the followers should participate in decisions and the
follower believes he should be told. The manager waits for participation
and the managed wait for direction. In his desire to be liked, the leader
loses his sense of energetic purpose. He must make it appear that his
group decides and the group must not appear to push. Decisions should
be made when all see alike, but such violates the variability in men. In
this hopeless combination of dissimilar incongruent value systems the
organization is stifled. Often, it dies.
One other form of mismanagement for the sociocentric employee is
lack of honesty and openness from the manager and the organization. If
the organization has a problem, candidly and openly lay it on the line to
the person (as in education). If you don’t have a solution, candidly and
openly lay this on the line to the person, and say: “The problem is, we
know what the problem is, but we don’t know how to think about the
problem that we’ve got.” The FS with his group-centeredness is
tremendously disposed to sit down and really do some thinking about
this. And he will work by the hour in a group setting, exploring this,
exploring that, going all over the place trying to find some kind of a
solution. So, if you don’t have it, you say so. You don’t violate one thing
of the utmost importance in the centrality of the FS system: this is
basically a human organism that is becoming very honest; not completely
and totally so - we’re not perfect, human beings - but relatively speaking,
in comparison with other levels of existence, this is an open and honest
human being. If you don’t meet that person at that level, you are dead.

Readiness for Change in the Relativistic State

Picture, if you will, FS man seated in a yoga position contemplating

his inner self. He has completed the last theme of the subsistence
movement of existence. There are no new deficiency motivations to
rouse him from his meditations. In fact, he might well go on
contemplating his navel to the day of his death, if he only had some
suitable arrangement to care for his daily needs. And it is quite possible
for a few FS individuals to live this way. But what happens when the
majority of a population begins to arrive at the FS level of existence?
Who is left to care for their daily needs? Who is left to look after the
elaborate technology which assures their survival? If we return to FS
 FS 359

man seated in his yoga position, we see that what finally disturbs him is
the roof falling in on his head.
This roof can be called the A’ problems – the ecological crisis, the
energy crisis, the population crisis, limits to growth, or any other such
thing which is enough of a disturbance to awaken FS man. Naturally
enough, his first reaction will be that evil technology is taking over and
that all the good feeling and greenery which made the Earth great is in
the process of being wrecked forever. (We remember that attitude from
the days when his father, ER man, had much the same erroneous
notion.) FS man is correct in the sense that his entire way of life, his
level of existence, is indeed breaking down - it must break down in order
to free energy for the jump into the A’N’ state, the first level of being.
This is where the leading edge of man is today.
Using this framework to approach current American society, we
can easily see an efflorescence of personalistic (FS) values in the
popularity of such things as Esalen, yoga, the encounter group, the
humanistic psychology movement, and participatory decision-making in
management. By all these means and many others, personalistic FS man
endeavors to achieve self-harmony and harmony with others. These
individuals do not, of course, see their striving for harmony with the
human element as merely a stage they are going through, but as the
ultimate, the permanent, goal of all life. This short-range vision which
views the current goal as the ultimate goal of life is shared by human
beings at every level of existence for as long as they remain centralized
in that particular level.
Using E-C theory, we see that the so called generation gap of the
recent past was in reality a values gap between the DQ and the ER and
the FS levels of existence. For example, many of the parents of FS youth
subscribed to ER values which emphasize proving one’s worth by
amassing material wealth. To individuals operating at this level, it was
inconceivable that their children might reject competition for
cooperation and seek inner self-knowledge rather than power, position,
and things. Worse yet to the ER parents was the devotion of these
young people to foreigners and minority groups who, according to ER
thinking, deserved their unfortunate condition because they were too
weak or too stupid to fight for something better. Thus, the foreigners
and minorities were characterized as lazy and irresponsible and the
youth who defended them as lily-livered “bleeding hearts.”
In turn, FS youth contributed to the confrontation because their
civil disobedience and passive resistance offended their parents more
than outright violence ever could have. These young people not only
360 FS

challenged Might (and therefore Right), but offered no new Might and
Right to replace that which they mocked. Consequently, they were
rightly (to the ER mentality) called anarchists, and it was widely said that
such permissiveness was wrecking the values which made America great.
Of course, our hindsight now tells us that America was not, in fact,
“wrecked;” and today one can see a great many of the ER parents who
protested against anarchy getting in touch with themselves at Esalen and
advocating theories of participative management.
Another outgrowth of the transition of our society from ER to FS
values was the de-emphasis of technology. Technology was the principal
means by which ER man conquered the world. He did not, like his
ancestor CP man, use force alone; but rather he attempted to
understand the natural laws in order to conquer men and nature.
Because of the close historical association of technology with ER values,
the emerging FS consciousness could not help but view technology as a
weapon of conquest. Thus, along with rejecting conquest, FS man
rejected technology and in its place set up its exact opposite: Nature. In
other words, the exploration of inner man and a return to nature
(including all manner of idealized natural foods) replaced the
exploitation of nature and other human beings in a quest for material
wealth.
Since, at the sixth level, man values participation, the committee or
group decision, and interpersonal relationships rather than going it
alone, many such as Rand and Fromm fear that he has lost his self, that
he has given up personal dignity for social approval. But this, I submit,
is an error. Man has not given up his self; he has simply subordinated it
for the time being. This is not the end of self-respect. It will return, our
system says, only in a newer, higher form. Thus, man shows growth in
placing self at a distance when reflecting on one’s own actions.
Sixth-level values are a great step forward for man. They reflect the
beginning of man’s humanism, the demise of his animalism. As
interpersonal relationships become safe and secure, sixth-level man
comes to perceive that he has played his individuality for the chance of
social acceptance. He finds that sacrificing self to obtain the good will of
others takes from him his individuality. Eventually he finds this is a price
too high to pay. A gnawing urge to be himself begins to work in his
inner world and he begins to strive for his seventh form of human
existence. Thus, man strives on seeking a new value system by which he
can be a more inclusive man.
When he achieves this, he finds he must become concerned with
more than self or other selves, because while he was focusing on the
 FS 361

inner self to the exclusion of the external world, his outer world has
gone to pot. So now he turns outward to life and to the whole, the total
universe. As he does so he begins to see the problems of restoring the
balance of life which has been torn asunder by his individualistically
oriented, self-seeking climb up the first ladder of existence.
Rather than these changes continuing to get closer and closer
together as Toffler176 suggests, my own thesis is that there will be an
acceleration up to the time that it produces very horrendous problems.
When it produces problems of such a degree, things are going to have to
slow down tremendously in order to deal with the resulting problems.
The accumulation of unsolved problems is such that it’s actually
going to produce the most dramatic change in human behavior that has
yet occurred in all of man’s history. The human brain is of the order of
ten or eleven or twelve billion cells, on the average [now thought to be
100 billion neurons]. Each of those cells has the capacity for ten
thousand interconnections. That’s rather tremendous. Now, as I said
earlier, Darwin never dealt with that. He never answered why we have
that big brain. All the data I have presented say that in all of mankind’s
history up to this moment, relatively few of the cells have been called
upon. The N cells, the O cells, the P cells, the Q cells, the R cells, the S
cells - they have been called upon to date. But they make up very few of
the total number of cells in the brain. What are the rest doing there?
What about the idea of open-endedness?
We could show that these levels - AN, BO, CP, DQ, ER, FS, A’-N’,
etc. - are distinctly different neurological systems. And I could even go
on to point out the locus of these spatially within the brain. This defense
for the existence of dynamic neurological systems and for qualitative as
well as quantitative differences as to how humans learn when each
system is open and operant cannot be herein expanded, but these data
do suggest that there is substantive evidence for the conception of a
hierarchically arranged dynamic neurological system in the brain.
I have hypothesized that it is the activation in the brain of a
tremendous number of those cells that have been there but doing
nothing, and that they combine with the lower level systems to start
human life all over again. The seventh level of human behavior is
actually the beginning of human life all over again on a new and
different basis. This accounts for why the brain is so big, and why the
problems before us are solvable if we but manage to stay alive.
A seminar participant once said: “I seemingly foresee a fairly chaotic
situation arising. As people in certain parts of the world develop
176 Toffler, Alvin (1970). Future Shock. New York: Random House.
362 FS

leadership whose level of coping becomes higher and higher and they
deal with problems that are greater and greater in different ways, also
advancing technologically at tremendously accelerated ways, whereas
other nations have, uh, operate on lesser coping levels and have
leadership whose coping system is on a lower level, and deal with
problem on a much more aggressive ways. Then we are going to have a
tremendous conflict at some point of things, you think?”
I replied, “May I say we are having a tremendous conflict, not that
‘we are going to have.’ We just haven’t had it in as rough a form as it
could possibly be.”
He continued, “Well, I don’t think that there is enough of a
disparity between leadership in the more advanced or leadership in some
of the lesser advanced areas of the world. Our leadership here, I would
say, is primarily ER, and in the third world nations it is primarily CP.
But I don’t see it is that much as of disparity between the levels of
leadership, as I would see between A’N’ and DQ, or between A’N’ and
CP. So the danger is being kept aside momentarily, but as things begin
to accelerate a little bit more we are going to create greater problems.”
I concluded, “It’s a great, great bomb we are living on. It may go
off. I don’t know that it will, but it can. As I say over and over again,
there is no guarantee in existence. If thus and so occurs, that is, directed
toward the solution of the existential problems that are now facing us,
then things can go well for us in the future. It would take a lengthy
period of time to right them, so we will have a long period when man, if
he arrives leadership-wise at the seventh level nodal version, we’ll be
there. But, we have no guarantees that we’re going to get there.”
You see, as man moves from the sixth level, the level of being with
other men, the sociocentric level, to the seventh level, the level of
freedom to know and to do, the cognitive level of existence, a chasm of
unbelievable depth of meaning is being crossed. The bridge from the
sixth level, the FS level, to the seventh level, the A’N’ level, is the bridge
between getting and giving, taking and contributing, destroying and
constructing. It is the bridge between deficiency or deficit motivation
and growth or abundance motivation. It is the bridge between similarity
to animals and dissimilarity to animals.
By now he has felt many times that he has arrived, but arrived he
has not, nor will his arrival ever come to be. His forms for existence to
date have required of him less than he has to give, his cognitiveness. He
has not arrived because all previous forms of existence, all previous
value systems restricted his most typically human characteristic, his
cognition. But now with six basic existential problems solved, the
 FS 363

cognitive realm opens wide and enables the leading edge of man to
capture a glimpse of the future modes of life and values for mankind.
Feeling an expansive sense of freedom, he emerges into the seventh
level or First Being Level.
364 A’N’
 A’N’ 365

Chapter 13

The Systemic Existence - The A’N’ State177

The 1st Being Level

The Existential, Cognitive, Problematic Existential State

Theme: Express self for what self desires, but never at the expense of others
and in a manner that all life, not just my life, will profit.

The ‘Express self but not at the expense of others’ Conceptions

177 A’N’ was GT in earlier publications. With the conclusion that there are six basic
themes which repeat, a thesis of this book, Dr. Graves began using the primes rather
than the previous GT and HU for the last two systems appearing in his data. While
that was only a hypothesis, as indicated earlier, the editors have chosen to use the
primes since Dr. Graves used them in his later papers. The transition from the sixth
(FS) to the seventh level marked the transition from “subsistence” levels to “being”
levels, the second cycle through the basic themes.
366 A’N’

A’N’ is the first system in the second spiral of existence – the First
Being Level. The seventh state develops when man has resolved the
basic human fears, when man’s need for respect of self, as well as
others, reorganizes and revitalizes his capacities to do and to know. With
this, a marked change in his conception of existence arises. Man has
done previously and he has known previously, but now the purpose of
his doing and his knowing changes radically.
The A’N’ system is triggered by the second set of human survival
problems – the A’ problems of existence. These are the problems of the
threat to organismic life and rape of the world produced by the third,
fourth, fifth, and sixth existential ways. Thus, the A’ problems are
problems such as the need to substitute for depleting natural resources,
overpopulation, difficulties of too much individuality, and the like -
problems which require tremendous change in thinking of human kind
in order to solve them. The A’N’ state develops when man has resolved
the basic human fears, when man’s need for respect of self, as well as
others, reorganizes and revitalizes his capacities to do and to know. The
seventh level of human behavior is actually the beginning of human life
all over again on a new and different basis.
With this, a marked change in his conception of existence arises.
Earlier forms of existence constricted man’s cognition. This
characteristic is now sufficiently awakened to provide him insight into
his future. Now, with his energies free for cognitive activation, man
focuses upon his self and his world.
The picture revealed is not pleasant. Illuminated in devastating detail
is man’s failure to be what he might be and his misuse of his world, to
focus upon the truly salient aspects of life. Triggered by this revelation,
man leaps out in search of a way of life and a system of values which
will enable him to be more than a parasite leeching upon the world and
all its beings. He seeks a foundation for self respect which will have a
firm base in existential reality. He casts aside the need to depend and
seeks, instead, to be and let be - to be not dependent, not independent,
but to be interdependent. He can be, and others can be, too. This firm
basis he creates through his seventh-level value system, a value system
truly rooted in knowledge and reality, not in the delusions brought on by
animal-like needs.
The accumulation of unsolved problems is such that they will
produce the most dramatic change in human behavior that has yet
occurred in all of man’s history. He sees now that he has the problem of
life hereafter - not life now, not life after life, but the restoration of his
world so that life can continue to be. The most serious problem of
 A’N’ 367

existence to date is now his species’ existential problem. Thus at the

seventh level, the cognitive level, man truly sees the problems before
him if life, any life, is to continue.
At this stage the biochemical changes for this system are the
‘radium’ of E-C theory. My data say that something in the chemical
complex producing fear in the organism plays a role, but that’s a pretty
slim clue. We’ve got a long, long way to go. The problem of the
chemistry of the brain desperately needs to be looked at from within this
point of view. Thus far, we can say that this system is triggered by the
second set of human survival problems – the A’ problems of existence.
Second-order survival problems trigger into operation the systemic
thinking process in the brain along with a marked activation of
previously uncommitted cells. These cells of the Y system in the brain
combine with the basic coping cells to form the first of the second order
coping systems; that is, N plus some Y equals N’ which greatly expands
the conceptual thinking of man. This gives birth to the Problematic,
Systemic or Cognitive Existential State, A’N’. His thema for existence in
this problematic existential state is now: “express self so that all others, all
beings, can continue to exist.”178
As I have said, once we are able to grasp the meaning of passing
from the level of ‘being one with others’ to the A’N’ cognitive level of
knowing and having to do so that all can be and can continue to be, it is
possible to see the enormous differences between man and other
animals. Thus far, man has been just another animal, a pawn in the hand
of the spirit world, a sacrificer of self, an attacker of the world and other
men, and a social automaton; but man has never been himself. Here we
step over the line which separates those needs that man has in common
with other animals and those needs which are distinctly human. But a
knowledgeable existence is not enough. It must be subordinated in a
higher form of reactive existence.
Many times man has felt that he has arrived, but arrived he has not,
nor will arrival ever come to be. Thus, at the end of his first six-step
trek, man finds he must return and begin again to travel the road by
whence he has come. Man must return for some things to an autistic
frame of reference. Thus, our seventh level of existence and our
seventh-level value system are repetitions, in an advanced form, of his
first level of existence and its reactive value system.
Man, at the threshold of the seventh level, where so many political
and cultural dissenters stand today, is at the threshold of being human. He is

178 Graves, Clare W. (1970). Levels of Existence: An Open System Theory of Values.
Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Fall 1970, Vol. 10, No. 2, p. 131-155.
368 A’N’

no longer just another of nature’s species. And we, in our times, in our
ethical and general behavior, are just approaching this threshold. Would
that we will not be so lacking in understanding, and would that we not
be so hasty in condemnation, that by such misunderstanding and that by
such condemnation we block man, forever, from crossing the line
between animalism and humanism.
Theoretically, he will move on to repeat his six stages to the benefit
of cognitive man (A’N’), and then again to the benefit of compassionate
man (B’O’), and so on. By then, man will, in all probability, have
changed himself and will move infinitely on. The cyclic aspect of human
behavior is not just in the systems cycling as you go from the sacrifice-self
to the express-self to the sacrifice-self, and so on; but there is cyclic aspect in
the overall system. It appears there are six basic systems of human
behavior. When they’re lived through, and if the human being is going
to continue to exist, the human has to begin to think all over again in
some new and different manner.
Despite this, when some people see sixth-level values changing into
the values of level seven, once again, they see decay. In a sense this is
true, because man transforming into seventh-level thinking values the
enjoyment of this life over and above obeisance to authority. He
strongly rejects non-dignified, non-human ways of living. It is seen as
decadent because it values new ways, new structurings for life, not just
the ways of one’s elders. Oddly enough, many see this value system as
decadent because it casts aside most absolutism; because it does not
value self above others, but others having ‘just as much as me;’ and
because it does not value others above self, it values all and self, not just
the selected few.
It is seen as decadent because it sees many means to the same end,
because it readily changes means, and because its ends are in conflict
with those of lower level systems. A’N’ thinking is in terms of the
systemic whole, and thought is about the different wholes in many
different ways. It strives to ascertain which way of thinking or which
combination of ways fits the extant set of conditions. It is seen as
decadent for it values new ways, new structures for life, not just the
ways of one’s elders, because it values others as well as self, because it
values the enjoyment of this life over and above obeisance to authority,
because it values others having just as much as me and because it values
all and self, not just the few selected others, and thinks in terms of
competence, not trappings. It thinks in terms of authority being
centered in the person in terms of his/her capacity to act in this or that
situation. It is not derived from age, status, blood, etc. It is situational. It
 A’N’ 369

must be earned and it must be given over to the superior competence of

another.
This system, conceptualized as it is, seems to fall in the humanistic
tradition. The theme is: Express self for what self desires, and others need, but
never at the expense of others, and in a manner that all life, not just my life will
profit. A’N’ thinking is in terms of what is best for the survival of life, my
life, their lives, and all life, but not compulsively; and ‘what is best for
me or thee does not have to be best for she or them. My way does not
have to be yours, nor yours mine; yet I have very strong convictions
about what is my way, but never such about yours.’ In the FS and the
A’N’, they both look at things situationally and relativistically. From the
sociocentric individual you get the feeling that he is not too sure where
he stands, but the seventh-level individual knows full well where he
stands. He’s got his values; he’s got his opinion. It may not be what
anyone else has, and he might not share it with you, but if he’s got
expertise or knowledge in the subject then he’s got an opinion.

Overview of System

The cognitive realm opens wide with six basic existential problems
solved. This enables the leading edge of man to capture a glimpse of
future modes of life and values for humankind. Once we are able to
grasp the meaning of passing from the levels of subsistence to the levels
of being, we may be able to explain the difference between what man
has been and what he might come to be. Feeling an expansive sense of
freedom, this human emerges into the Seventh Level or First Being
Level unconcerned with social disapproval or any of the usual fears of
the other levels. The problems of man today may fade away as, from
this new perception, man searches for better, non-violent, and non-
submissive ways of being.
Values here, at the Cognitive Existential State, are very different
values. Seventh-level values come not from selfish interest but from the
recognition of the magnificence of existence and from the desire to see
that it shall continue to be. Because of its prime characteristic,
dissolution of fear and compulsiveness, with marked increases in
conceptual space, other people cannot readily empathize with seventh-
level thinking. To seventh-level man, the prime value is life; thus, he
focuses on the problems that its existence creates. This is why the prime
need is for existence - existence of life, not self. Here, for the first time,
man is able to face existence in all its dimensions, even to the point of
370 A’N’

valuing inconsistencies, oppositions, and flat contradictions. With this, a

marked change in his conception of existence arises.
Those centralized in the cognitive existential state truly learn that
life is interdependent. The world is seen kaleidoscopically with different
views demanding different attention. Knowledge in A’N’ thinking exists
in different settings; knowers think in different ways. Thus, thinking is in
terms of several legitimate interpretations. Several sets of values are
legitimate, depending on the thinker and his/her conditions of and for
existence. A’N’ thinking is in terms of the systemic whole and thought is
about many different wholes in different ways. Thought strives to
ascertain which way of thinking or which combination of ways fits the
extant set of conditions. The A’N’ accepts and lives with the fact of
differences and that one is relating to people who are different, and thus
shows readiness to live with differences.
Since he values “life,” the seventh level looks at the world in respect
to the many problems that its existence creates - different wants in
different species, different values in different men. He sees the world
and all its things - all its beings and all its people - as truly
interdependent. He sees them entwined in a subjective-objective
complex. So he values pluralism. He values that which will enable all
animals, all plants and things to be, and all mankind to become. His
ethics are based on the best possible evidence as to what will benefit all -
the majority, the needy, or the desiring is not enough. He values that
which will do good for him and all the universe, but the peripheral
aspects of what he values today may change tomorrow because as he
solves one set of problems he seeks another in its place.

Formulation of the Theory

As I say above, I didn’t stand on the mountaintop of Sinai and get

the word of Jehovah to develop this theory. This point of view came
about in very long series of studies. One of the things I did when I saw
that there were people who think in a CP fashion, and people who think
in DQ fashion - way back in the beginning before I even had this
terminology - when I knew that some people thought in one way, other
people thought in another way, and still others thought in yet a different
way - I put them together in groups. I took a group of people who
thought the same way, and I put them together in different kinds of
situations then I observed how they operated. I went out in every day
life, unbeknown to these people, and I would just mix and move around
 A’N’ 371

them and watch how they behaved and how they operated as human
beings in the laboratory of life.
The laboratory in my department enabled me to put people, whom
we now refer to as CPs, DQs, ERs, FSs, and A’N’s into groups. I put
them in situations where they were required to solve problems with
multiple answers. I put a group of DQs in a room and they had an
opportunity to solve problems that had multiple answers. I put a group
of ERs in there, and they had the same opportunity. I put a group of
FSs in there, and they had the same opportunity. And I put a group of
A’N’s in there, and lo and behold, when the results started to come in I
found this most peculiar phenomenon: the A’N’s find unbelievably
more solutions than all the others put together. They found more
solutions than the third plus the fourth plus the fifth plus the sixth. I
found that the quality of their solutions to problems were amazingly
better. Now that’s a rather remarkable finding when you start to think
about it. I found that the average time it took the A’N’ group to arrive at
a solution was amazingly shorter than it took any of the other groups.
Lets go back and look at the data that I am trying to explain. I had
to explain why these people appear to be, in one sense of the word, so
much more intelligent than other human beings. This is an incredibly
different way of thinking. How can anyone be so apparently superior? I
ran into these data and I thought at that point, “The whole damned
study just blew up. All I’ve got here is just another measure of
intelligence.” I thought, “I’m just running into a point where these guys
are finding more answers because they’re simply brighter human
beings.”
So, I went back to test this. I used every known way of assessing the
intelligence of human beings: the judgment of people who are supposed
to know who is brighter or not; I used instruments; I used every
possible way. I found that on the average, people who thought in an A’-
N’ fashion were no brighter than people who thought in a CP fashion. I
found that the only thing that was different was a little bit of the range
of intelligence. The lower end was not present. That is, I didn’t have
mentally retarded A’N’s; but, I had people who operated and behaved in
an A’N’ fashion, if you want to use IQ reference, who had an IQ of less
then 90.
The studies show that correlation between the E-C levels and IQ is
about a .15 relationship. That .15 is accounted for by the fact that you at
least have to be more than mentally retarded to get to the CP level and
beyond. But at the CP and beyond, intelligence - IQ - just doesn’t play a
role in this at all. The question arises: So, what in heaven’s name does
372 A’N’

account for this? Why, if a person is not more intelligent, can he solve
problems better? What makes it possible for them to operate so much
more effectively?
I found that the A’N’s did not behave in a redundant fashion. They
would try a solution to a problem; the evidence would pile up that it
wouldn’t work; they would discard it and go off and try another one.
The people operating at any of the other systems would try a solution to
a problem and you’d come back a half an hour later and there they were
trying to use the same method that failed before. The A’N’ never did
that. When a method didn’t work, that was it. He knew it didn’t work
and he just discarded it as a possibility. He didn’t waste his time.
Why aren’t they redundant? Because they are not afraid that they
might have made a mistake in throwing out an attempted solution. They
don’t have these fears. They know full well that they did not make a
mistake, so they just throw it out. They are not afraid to try a solution
that other people would not try. They go ahead and attempt it.
We are trying to explain something remarkable here: A’N’ man can
solve problems better without being more intelligent. To explain this, I
propose that two things, which were present in the second, the third, the
fourth, the fifth and the sixth level have disappeared in human behavior
when the seventh level comes to be. One of them is compulsiveness -
the person is without compulsion. Ambition is shown, but there is not
ambitiousness. Anger, even hostility, is present, but it is intellectually
used rather than just emotionally displayed. One directs it, rather than
allowing it to direct or drive the A’N’ self. He does not feel that
something has to be done. Let me use one of my favorite terms and see
if you can get a feel for what I mean by it. The phrase that I use to
describe the person who thinks in the seventh level way is: “the person
is one who has ambition but is not ambitious.”
For example, I heard [TV talk show host] Merv Griffin quizzing
somebody about his goals:

“I don’t have any goals - unless just basically staying alive as

human being and not contributing to the mess the human beings
are in is a goal. Nothing I necessarily feel I want to accomplish,
or there isn’t anything I feel I must accomplish,” said the guest.
Merv looked at him and said: “But you’ve accomplished so
much.”
“Well,” he says, “yeah, it’s true. I’ve accomplished a lot, but I
don’t have to. It doesn’t matter to me whether I accomplish any
more tomorrow or not.”
 A’N’ 373

What I find best explains the reason people in the A’N’ level behave
so much better, quantitatively and qualitatively, time-wise, etc., is this:
they simply are not afraid. So, I offer this hypothesis for your
consideration: this is the first human being that has lived since man
became aware of himself, as an individual at the CP level, who has no
fear. They are not afraid of not finding food and staying alive (AN).
They are not afraid that they’re not going to have shelter (BO). They are
not afraid of predatory man (CP). They are not afraid of God (DQ).
They are not afraid of not having status or not making it on their own in
this world (ER). They are not afraid of social disapproval or rejection
(FS). People who are not operating at the seventh level find this very
difficult to comprehend. Fear is gone. There is no fear. You ask the
person,
“But, aren’t you afraid that people won’t like you?”
“No,” comes the reply.
“Don’t you want to be liked by people?” you might ask.
“Yes.”
“But don’t you have to be liked by people?”
“No, I don’t give a damn whether they like me or whether
they don’t.”
The seventh level person would say: “If they like me, fine; but I am
not afraid of being not liked. It’s not going to make any difference
whether I’m liked by them or not liked by them.”
Apparently the A’N’ human being has gotten beyond having the
common basic fears of mankind. He doesn’t quake and shiver when the
boss comes in. If the boss comes in and if the boss is off base, then he
says to the boss: “There is the door. Go.” He is not scared of him. He
is not afraid to tell him to go. You’ve got a human being who isn’t
afraid.
Now, we wouldn’t deny, would we, that the fear element has a
chemical factor in it? As we know, the brain hasn’t changed structurally
over the long period of man’s history. But if you and I took all the fears
that we have out of ourselves, and had all of that energy freed to activate
our cognitive processes, look at what we might be able to do. So, if we
move the chemical out of the brain what do you have left? I had to
explain where that brain-power in the A’N’ system came from, and it
seemed to me that it came from this dissolution of fear. That would at
least account for the extreme energization of the A’N’ system and then,
provide one possible explanation why they are so much more competent
in solving problems.
374 A’N’

So, the A’N’ groups find more solutions because they aren’t afraid
to try more solutions. They scoff at standard operating procedure. They
value getting done what they want to do without harming or using
others in the process. In a sense, the individual is on a binge of personal
esteem. He may or may not value what other men do. He really doesn’t
care. Now, that doesn’t mean that they don’t behave with caution in a
dangerous situation, they do. But there is no fear. This type of thinking
still involves anxieties, worries, and concerns, even some fears, but not
in a manner bothersome to the person. No need is felt to overcome
them. They do not intrude. One lives comfortably with them, tries to
deal with them, but does not feel compelled to master them, though still
thinking it would be nice if they were gone. They weren’t stopped by:
‘Well, you shouldn’t,’ or ‘That’s not the right way to think,’ or ‘You’ll get
in trouble if you think that way.’ They found better solutions because,
apparently, there was more brain-power brought to bear upon their
thinking than you had in others.
I found that the solutions to problems that they came up with were
qualitatively of a much higher order. That is what is represented in
Exhibit XII. The space within the two lines illustrates that there are
more psychological degrees of freedom in the A’N’ system than there is
in the space of the others combined. The area is greater than the sum of
all these others, showing something very remarkable happens when the
A’N’ state of mind comes into existence in a human being.
In our problem-solving experiments, those centralized in the
cognitive existential state, those behaving in the A’N’ system, were
significantly different behaviorally from both the FS and ER systems.
This is why the A’N’ system is portrayed as larger than the FS - because
in my data these people were freer overall to behave in accordance with
their own desires than they were in other systems. The A’N’ system is
represented as much larger than any other system because the data
suggested that it be so conceptualized. So, the two prime characteristics
of this system: lack of compulsiveness and absence of fear.
My data say that the ones who think in this way have a remarkable
capacity for solving complex problems that other people can’t get within
a million miles of. This is just the kind of meat he is looking for, and
that’s what he wants to chew every day of his life. My evidence says this
guy thrives on that kind of problem.
 A’N’ 375

Exhibit XII

Does not a person at a higher level have a greater repertoire? Indeed

he does. You see here in the picture (Exhibit VI, next page) that a
person operating at this level has all of these coping means at his
disposal. This is why you will find, as we get more into the problem of
management and educational methods it is of the utmost importance
that the training agent or the managing person be at a level higher then
anyone in the group, if you have a heterogeneous group. Then he is
376 A’N’

more able to call upon the methods that are appropriate to anyone in
the group. This is what we are lacking in our educational and
organizational world today.

Exhibit VI (repeated)
 A’N’ 377

We have so many people who are directing the activities of others

who are below at least some of the people who they are trying to
manage or educate. In this kind of an incongruent situation it just won’t
work.
To the A’N’, knowledge exists in specific settings. The settings
differ and so do the knowers. Several interpretations of any
phenomenon are always legitimate depending on the person, his point
of view, and his purpose. To them, the teacher’s job is to pose
problems, help provide ways to see them, but to leave the person to his
own conclusion as to what answers to accept. For the seventh level,
change and learning would develop whenever new information came in
regardless of the source of the information.
Concern is felt, but solutions do not have to be. Care for others is
displayed, but one does not feel compelled to care for. Their thought is
of being there to help and helping if helping is desired, but not helping
to straighten out, to shape up, to gain power or control over. It is not
what others think of him that counts. It is not what success or power or
prestige he has that is important. Things done well are preferred, but if
done poorly, it does not mean the end of the world. It is what he thinks
of himself that is important.
The A’N’ individual lives in a world of paradoxes. He knows that
his personal life is absolutely unimportant, but because it is part of life
there is nothing more important in the world. A’N’ man enjoys a good
meal or good company when it is there, but does not miss it when it is
not. He requires little, compared to his ER ancestor, and gets more
pleasure from simple things. A’N’ man knows how to get what is
necessary to his existence and does not want to waste time getting what
is superfluous. More than ER man before him, he knows what power is,
how to create and use it; but he also knows how limited is its usefulness.
As I said, compulsiveness is also gone in those centralized in this
system. The person who thinks in the seventh level way is not
compulsively driven to find sexual satisfaction. The person who thinks
at the seventh level way can have a rollicking good time in bed if the
opportunity is there; but if the opportunity never comes again, so what?
It doesn’t matter. It just doesn’t matter! That which alone commands his
unswerving loyalty, and in whose cause he is ruthless, is the continuance
of life on this earth.
The data indicated that system seven people, those dominated by
the A’N’ system of personality, were much less rigid and far less
dogmatic than other people. They solved problems not only more
rapidly, they also found many more solutions to multiple answer
378 A’N’

problems, and they could change their point of reference unbelievably

more rapidly than others.
Another important thing in this point of view is my data regarding
aggression. My evidence says, when man operates at the higher level,
though aggressiveness is not gone, it is subordinated; in such a large
system it is relatively an insignificant thing. I mentioned the
aggressiveness of man as we know it appears in the third system. It
comes in with the CP system. And, as we noted, there are chemical and
hormonal changes taking place in the body of man when he is under the
influence of the CP system which cause him to be his most aggressive
self and that this aggressive self remains relatively strong in the human
personality, though it takes on a different form in the DQ system and in
the ER systems. By the time the FS system is dominant in a personality,
crime against the person and crime against the other person’s self is not
found, though I have found crime against the self. Now, in the A’N’
system he’s even gotten beyond it. At least my subjects have not shown
any tendency to commit suicide, no matter how difficult things become
for them. They haven’t shown any tendency to immolate themselves in
any form or to unduly harm their own bodies or others. The Seventh
level, the systemic existence, is like the third and fifth levels in that man
adjusts the world to himself; but unlike the third, the adjustment of the
world is dealt with realistically, not egocentrically.
The seventh level is like the fifth in its emphasis on adjusting the
world to the self, but it is not just for the self as it is at the fifth level.
The welfare of others is considered in this system. The difference in the
A’N’, for example, from the ER, is that the person will defend his
conclusion as long as he thinks it’s the proper conclusion. The ER will
hold on to it even after everyone in the whole world knows it isn’t
working – Nixon, for instance. Everyone knew his Viet Nam policy was
failing and that darned guy held onto his conclusions firmly all this time.
The A’N’ will never do this.
Thus far, I’ve offered a rough chronometer of the evolution of
these different systems. Although systemic thought started to emerge in
physics literature around 1915, the leading edge of the seventh level, the
problematic state, started to appear in significant amount in my data
around 1952-1953. The subject population consisted of about 7 percent
of them around that time. The thinking was present in rare cases earlier
than that.
We have been in decreasing periods of time for the dominance of a
system in human behavior up to this date. What the theory says is that
the problems which have accumulated over the first six levels of human
 A’N’ 379

existence are so immense that we now have created a situation in which,

as we approach the possibility of living by the seventh level way of life,
we will begin a period which will again be a very long period as we try
put this world back into order again. As I have said, my own thesis is
that there will be an acceleration up to the time that it produces very
horrendous problems. When it produces problems to such a degree,
things are going to have to slow down tremendously in order to deal
with them.
The A’N’ way of life will be so different from any that we have
known up to now that its substance is very difficult to transmit; it is the
most difficult system of all to comprehend. Possibly the following will
help: A’N’ man will explode at what he does not like, but he will not be
worked up or angry about it. He will get satisfaction out of doing well
but will get no satisfaction from praise for having done so. Praise is
anathema to him. He is egoless, but terribly concerned with the
‘rightness’ of his own existence. He is detached from and unaffected by
social realities, but has a very clear sense of their existence. In living his
life he constantly takes into account his personal qualities, his social
situation, his body, and his power, but they are of no great concern to
him. They are not terribly important to him unless they are terribly
important to you. He fights for himself but is not defensive.
A’N’ is a system that has only emerged in recent years in the
behavior of people. A tremendous increase of conceptual space
markedly changes the thinking of the human when operating at this
level. Fear, but not anxiety, practically disappears. Compulsiveness is
gone. A person has ambition, but is not ambitious. He or she has
anxieties, worries, and concerns, even some fears; but they are not
bothersome to the person. No need is felt to overcome them because
they do not intrude. He or she thinks of how to deal with them so as to
feel comfortable, but does not feel compelled to master them. The A’N’
accepts that life is an up-and-down journey from problem to solution,
with no mean point ever to be found.
The A’N’ has no irrational doubt, but he does feel anxiety; he seeks
to do better, but is not ambitious. People who operate at this level have
ambition but are not ambitious. They are people who have strong
concerns but ‘don’t give a damn,’ and yet will ‘work like hell’ to help.
They think of being there to help and helping, if help is desired. They
never think in terms of helping to try to straighten a person out or to try
to shape a person up or to try to control a person or to try to provide
for a person.
380 A’N’

He will strive to achieve - but through submission, not domination -

and his conclusions will follow his logic. He enjoys the best of life, of
sex, of friends, and comfort that is provided, but he is not dependent on
them. These are people who have a very strong feeling of care for other
human beings, but the last thing in the world they want you to do in any
way at all is to reciprocate. For example, the person who operates at this
level simply cannot abide compliments. Oh, they will accept them, but
when they accept them they say under their breath “Oh, god, I didn’t
want that. I don’t live to get complimented. I have no such desire for
that kind of experience.” It’s a very different view of life.
They see the world as one great big system and that unless you
attend to each and every part you’re going to be in real trouble. There is
no room in this person’s thinking for selfishness. They see life in terms
of life continuing hereafter, but they have no concern with a hereafter
whatsoever. They are terribly concerned about the fact that life must
continue to exist hereafter, in terms of what is best for the survival of
life - my life, their life and all life - but not compulsively. When they talk
about life, they don’t mean human life, they mean all life.
They accept that the one thing you can be sure about life is that it’s
a problem. That’s all there is to life. It’s a bunch of problems and there
is no other way to live it. Thus, at the seventh level, the cognitive level,
man truly sees the problems before him if life, any life, is to continue.
Thus, his values here are of a very different order. Values at the
seventh level came not from selfish interest but from the recognition of
the magnificence of life and from the desire to see that it shall continue
to be. To seventh-level man, the prime value is existence and thus he
focuses on the problems that the nature of existence per se creates. For
the first time, man is able to face existence in all its dimensions, both
those which seem to be known and those which are unexplained, even
to the point of valuing inconsistencies, oppositions and flat
contradictions.
He values “life” and looks at the world in the context of the many
problems that it creates: different wants in different species, different
values in different men. He accepts and lives with the fact of differences
and of relating to people who are different. He shows readiness to live
with those differences and fascination with them. What one values is
based on the best possible evidence of what will be good for him but
not harm others. This value system prescribes that what one valued
yesterday may not be what one values tomorrow. It prescribes that some
values which were bad yesterday will be bad today, just as some values
 A’N’ 381

which were good yesterday will probably be good tomorrow because

knowledge tells us this is so.
His ‘means’ values here are accepting values. He values the genuine
acceptance of human nature as it is; he shuns artificiality and others’
preferences for what it should be. He values all human appetites but is
not a compulsive slave to any of them. He values spontaneity, simplicity,
and ethics that ‘make sense’ - but not conventionality. Just continuing to
develop is more valued than striving to become this or that. The activity
is more important than any acclaim that may result.
He values solving problems more than fulfilling selfish desires and
what must be done rather than that which he desires to do. Universality
is valued over provinciality and broadness of view is preferred to
pettiness. He values the long run of time, even beyond his life.
Detachment is a value which replaces the objectivity of his ER days, and
a few deep relationships mean more to him than broad acceptance by
other men. Viable ends determine his behavior more than do the means
to the ends. Above all else, he values democracy in the very deepest
sense. He is not an egocentric - “Do unto others as you would have
them do unto you” - but a “Do unto others as they would have done to
them” democrat. To him there are many roads to Rome and what
matters is not the path that is taken, but that one gets to Rome, to the
continuance of all life.
Today seventh-level man, with his mind open for cognitive
roaming, is developing the coming mode of life. Proper behavior in the
seventh level of existence is the recognizant way. Its ethic is ‘recognize -
truly notice - what life is and you shall know how to behave.’ That is the
foundation stone of the existence ethic. The proper way to behave is the
way that comes from working within existent reality. If it is realistic that
one should suffer, then suffer he should. If it is realistic to be happy,
then it is good to be happy. If the situation calls for authoritarianism,
then it is proper to be authoritarian; and if the situation calls for
democracy, one should be democratic. Behavior is proper if it is based
on today’s best possible evidence. He who behaves within such limits
and fails or has to change should feel no shame. This ethic prescribes
that what was right yesterday may not be seen as right tomorrow. And it
prescribes that some behavior which was wrong yesterday will always be
wrong, just as some behavior which was right yesterday may or may not
be right today.
382 A’N’

Management of the Cognitive State

An employee at the cognitive existential state is perfectly willing to

have management set reasonable standards for quantity and quality of
performance, but he is ends-oriented, not means-oriented. The cognitive
goes into action only when he has a problem that really interests him.
He appears to drop out, have no more verve, and not be creative any
longer simply because the problems are of no interest to him
whatsoever. Free of compulsions and anxieties of previous levels, this is
a truly cooperative individual who, seeing the interdependence of all
things, has no need for destructive individual competition but is capable
of cold ruthlessness if the situation requires as long as it doesn’t harm
others.
The A’N’ worker reacts negatively when required to ask an
administrator’s approval for materials he needs in order to be
productive. He reacts positively when he can tell his supervisor what he
needs to do a job and when the supervisor considers it his job to do as
his subordinate says. The A’N’ employee believes that he – not a
superior – should make the decisions whenever he is competent to make
it – and most A’N’ workers know their supervisors are not as competent
to make the decision.
People who operate at this level are typically competent regardless
of their surroundings. They are free of the compulsions and anxieties of
previous levels. Therefore, their productivity is not a function of those
lower-level incentives. Threat and coercion do not work with them,
because they are not frightened people. Beyond a certain point,
pecuniary motives do not affect them. Status and prestige symbols, such
as fancy titles, flattery, office size, luxurious carpeting, etc., are not
incentives to them. Many of them are not even driven by a need for
social approval. What is important to them is that they be autonomous
in the exercise of their competence, that they be allowed all possible
freedom to do what needs to be done as best they can do it. In other
words, they want their managers to let them improve productivity the
way they know it can be improved. They do not want to waste their
competency doing it management’s way simply because things always
have been done that way.
The A’N’ motivation is from within. He seeks a sense of personal
competence and believes those having information about the current
situation should lead - as the situation changes so should the leader – in
a revolving leadership pattern. Because he will avoid any kind of
relationship in which others try to dominate him, he must be
 A’N’ 383

approached through what I call ‘acceptance management’ - management

which takes him as he is, accepts the fact that in his area of work he is
competent and responsible, and supports him in doing what he wants to
do.
If the cognitive employee accepts the assignment, it becomes the
manager’s responsibility to facilitate the accomplishment of the goals. In
this system, the means to the end or organizational goals are
restructured to fit the individual characteristics of the organizational
member, rather than attempt to restructure the person to fit
organizational needs. The manager’s role is to rework the organization
so that goals are achieved, utilizing people as they are, not as someone
wishes them to be or perceives they should be. And what of the
seventh-level man if he is resisting management’s agenda? Leave him
alone. Once you have discussed the possibility of change with him, and
if the suggested change is plausible, he will get there on his own.
If the A’N’ cannot accept the assignment, it is the manager’s role to
facilitate that person to another unit or organization where the
assignments are acceptable. It is useless to try to get seventh-level man
to subordinate his desires to those of the organization. The minute the
larger establishment starts to put its tentacles around him, the A’N’
begins to get strangled and he just backs off and watches for a while to
see whether or not these tentacles are going to grow or whether they are
going to be removed. If he cannot get the acceptance he desires, he will
build a non-organizational oriented world for himself, retire into it, do a
passable but not excellent job, and wait for managerial change to occur.
He sits there and appears to contribute no more, because he’s not going
to waste his energy until he is sure that these tentacles are removed from
the system. If he does not get the change and if he cannot move, he will
surreptitiously put his effort to his desired end as he presents a passable
front to management. In any case, whether the cognitive remains or
departs, there is no sabotage and no crusade to combat evil. In fact,
management that mismanages the A’N’ often considers that person the
ideal employee and is totally surprised at the subordinate’s departure
when a better situation becomes available.
The A’N’ is informationally oriented, pragmatic, and seeks to do the
best possible given the information on the present situation. Values and
concepts are derived from current information. Those having the
information on the situation should lead; as things change, so should
leader - a revolving leadership pattern.
If the cognitive sees DQ and ER-driven people tear off to change
the world, do things about perceived problems, and try to get things
384 A’N’

accomplished, the A’N’ again just sits back and says: “All right, go
ahead. Go on, but I’ll pick up the pieces when you get done making a
mess out of it.” During this period of time the A’N’s are just sitting back
on their hind ends waiting for those people to make mistakes. They have
their plans to do something when the time comes. When A’N’
employees are autonomous and properly coupled with jobs that utilize
their competence, one can expect optimum productivity from them.
Man at the cognitive or systemic existential state is a man many of
you know very well but understand very little. He is anathema to most
businessmen. The A’N’ does well any job he takes on within his realm
of competence, but as an employee or fellow worker, he is a pain-in-the-
neck. He won’t live by the rules. He will work when he wants to work,
the way he wants to work, and where he wants to work; and if the boss
or fellow worker does not like it, he does not care. Motivation comes
from within as he seeks a sense of personal competence. They must do
their own managing of their own work and of their own affairs. Their
procedures must be their own, not those that tradition or group
decision-making have established. He rebels against the idea that it is
management’s prerogative to plan and organize work methods without
consulting him and without following his desires. As I said earlier, he
will have no part of standard operating procedure unless, and to the
extent, that it is valid.
Since the Cognitive believes that those with the knowledge should
lead, who is more knowledgeable than the doer? He does not see
himself bound by social convention. He is generally an excellent
producer, both quantitatively and qualitatively, albeit a thorn in the side
of the man who believes in organization and control. When the manager
and managed are both cognitive it spawns a variable management form
wherein managed and managing change according to the fit between
problem and competencies needed to deal with problems. The
appropriate managerial style is clearly facilitative, role reversal, and
acceptance of the competent leadership of the doer. Facilitative
management requires an open relationship between manager and
subordinate. All the information, goals, resources, constraints, etc., are
discussed.
My experience is that fourth- and fifth-level organizations,
particularly, think that seventh-level people are unemployable. For
example, in a fourth-level organization, the boss noted that there was a
problem of morale. He asked his employees what the problem was.
When they failed to reply, he said, “All right. I’m now instructing my
personnel man to take 15 minutes with each of you to find out what this
 A’N’ 385

problem is. Line up for appointments.” When he called one of the men
over to make his appointment, a seventh-level person just got up and
left! This man is quietly confident of his capacity to survive, come what
may.
“What happens when [seventh]-level employees are supervised by
managers who do not understand them – fourth-level authoritarian
types, say, or fifth-level social leaders? The fact that the [seventh]-level
employee is demonstrably tops as a producer does not save the day. He
ultimately gets himself fired, squeezed out, or buried where his talent is
lost. Intransigent management insists that he conform to the mold. He
refuses, and, as a result, management loses creative excellence. The
employees who stay are the mediocre ones who are willing to conform.
This can be a particularly serious loss in advanced technology industries,
professional service industries, and others where creative talent plays a
major role (and where, of course, [seventh]-level employees are likely to
be found).”179
One of the problems you have here is that the evidence seems to
indicate that people who operate at lower levels see the values and
beliefs of people at levels higher than theirs as immoral. (When I say
higher I am referring to two systems above and beyond.) Generally, if a
person is operating at a DQ or an ER level and runs into someone who
thinks in an A’N’ fashion, they’ll end up calling him a CP - take him
right down. They have that kind of difficulty. You simply cannot get
away from it.
Cognitive level behavior is threatening to many who manage. The
very thought that the manager is a facilitator or “that work can best be
accomplished by the manager working for the managed, rather than by
the supervised working for the supervisor, is far too “unconventional”
for most bosses to ever accept.”180 Occasionally one of my students will,
at the beginning of the year, come and tell me that he isn’t particularly
interested in Industrial Psychology, and will ask if I will help him to
learn what he does want to learn. If I say no, he’ll sign up for some
other course and study what he wants to know on his own. Then when
he needs my help he will, for instance, ask me to get some information
from the library for him. People look at this a bit askance, but this man,
in effect, is saying, “You’ve had a lot of experience with psychological
literature - I haven’t. It is much more efficient for you to find this
information for me, rather than for me to waste my time going through
ten journals, when you could find the same information in ten minutes.”

179 Ibid (Graves, 1966).

180 Ibid (Graves, 1966).
386 A’N’

The boss, too, must learn that he has to do what the seventh-level
person wants him to do in order to get the job done. He must discard
the idea that the prerogative of the boss is to organize the work and tell
the person how to do it. This is going to be difficult for a lot of people
and organizations to learn and to apply.
Possessing esteem of self, he is not concerned as to the opinion
others have of him. He insists on an atmosphere of trust and respect.
He expects to be truly integrated into the organization just as he is and
resists coercion and restrictions. It is not what others think of him
which counts, it is what he sees himself to be. The way to mismanage at
this level is simply to fail to facilitate. So, to summarize, the Cognitive
subordinate responds to mismanagement in three ways:
1. Stays: working within the organization to change the situation –
the information of the situation indicates change is possible and
probable.
2. Submits: remains in the organization (usually for personal
economic reasons) by doing what is required in the manner
required – the information says the situation must be tolerated.
Change is not likely.
3. Departs: the information indicates that a better situation exists
elsewhere.
For example, when I go to a corporation with plants all over the
country and they say, “Well, if you are going to get anywhere with this
idea you’ve got to demonstrate it somewhere in the company” I find out
where their headquarters is. I say, “Get your map out. Where is the plant
that is the furthest away from every other part of damned organization,
particularly the corporate headquarters?” I’ll find all the A’N’s have gone
out there.
So, if I am asked where to go to look for and to try to find A’N’
people in any broad organizational set up, I would look at one of two
places: a) the place which is psychologically most remote from the
authority of the establishment, meaning that one place the
‘establishment’ cares least about; or b) one that is geographically most
remote. The A’N’s recognize the impossibility of trying to change closed
minds, so they say, “Get away from ‘em!”
Long ‘sacred’ channels of communication seriously hamper the
productivity of A’N’ people who want to be able to decide when they
know; and when they do not know, they are motivated to seek out those
who do. But their motivation becomes negative when they must waste
time going through channels which require them to explain what does
 A’N’ 387

not need to be explained to people who do not need to have it explained

to them.
Another important question to ask is: What kind of characteristics
would an organization have in which A’N’ would feel comfortable? One
above all else: honesty and openness. The cognitive wants to go in and
be able ask the employment manager, “How much do you make?” and
the guy gets out his check and shows him. He wants to ask what the
profit and loss figures were in the company last year and have the
employment manager say: “The president told me that if anyone asks
that to take him up to controller, sit down, and show him the books.”
They lay the books out before the guy. Honesty and openness, that is
the thing that stands out.181
But the answer lies not in organization alone. For one thing, mass
production, as we know it, has to go. Work must be creatively
reorganized, while maintaining the constancy of large production at low
cost. This must be done through work enlargement, dropping the ideas
of mass production, and getting the human being back to producing
something on his own, not just being a part of the total process. We
must seriously consider how to re-organize industry to take care of these
people. There is a movement in Union Carbide182 to try to create an
organizational structure in which seventh-level people can work; U.S.
Steel183 is working on this problem in its safety program.
Secondly, we must reorganize our work so that the methods
engineers and the industrial engineering specialists work not in
developing ideas to change the methods of manufacturing, but in
working out the details of the working man’s ideas. For example, a man
with only a third-grade education recently discussed the problems of his
job with me. He definitely operates on the seventh-level of behavior,
and complained that the layout engineer persisted in laying out the work
without even considering how he, the worker, had to perform it. He
wanted the engineer to ask him how he wanted the job laid out, and
then go back and work it out for him. The seventh-level person wants
this kind of treatment from his boss.

181 Subsequently popularized as OBM, open books management.

182 Union Carbide, infamous for the 1984 chemical disaster in Bhopal, India, is now a
subsidiary of the Dow Chemical Company. The 1972 long term plan included
“strengthening the assignment of individual responsibilties and accountabilities,
strengthening business management methods, allocating resources selectively in
strategic planning units, and practicing good corporate citizenship at home and
abroad.”
183 United States Steel.
388 A’N’

Seventh-level people are appearing in increasingly larger numbers

throughout our population. They are the very best people in an
organization and you cannot afford to lose them. If the organization is
more seventh level, your ideas will be implemented into action without
undue effort on your part beyond that of disseminating your ideas. They
are the best producers. They are the ones you can depend on to stand by
you in a crisis. But if you’re not in a crisis, they will work when they want
to, how they want to, where they want to. In fact, the seventh-level
evidence is before you already, but the question is – are you ready for
seventh-level implementations?

Readiness for Change in the Cognitive, Problematic State

When man finally is able to see himself and the world about him
with clear cognition, he finds a picture that is far from pleasant. Visible
in unmistakable clarity and devastating detail is man’s failure to be what
he might and his misuse of his world. This revelation causes him to leap
out in search of a way of life and system of values which will enable him
to be more than a parasite leeching on the world, all its being, other lives
and the future. He seeks self-respect with a firm base in existential
reality.
A’N’ man is developing the future modes of life and values for
mankind. For A’N’ man, the ethic is: “Recognize - truly notice - what
life is and you shall know how to behave.” The proper way to behave is
the way that comes from working within existential reality. His values
now are of a different order from those at previous levels: they arise not
from selfish interest but from the recognition of the magnificence of
existence and a desire to see that it shall continue to be.
A colleague of mine, John Calhoun of the National Institutes of
Mental Health, has studied along this line, though he has studied
population growth and decline rather than the way I’ve studied. Calhoun
says his evidence indicates that for the movement from the seventh level
to the eighth level to fully take place and to have an eighth-level form of
human existence, the seventh-level actions must reduce the population
of mankind as on the Earth at 2020 A.D. by one half.184
That’s an enormous problem. It says that there’s going to have to be
some kind of, to play with words a little bit here, ‘gentle ruthlessness’
come into human governing to see to it that people with a strong
internal desire to reproduce are simply prevented from reproducing, in

184 Calhoun (1969).

 A’N’ 389

order to get us out of this bind that we are in. The Chinese have more
then halved their birth rate in the last generation. Though Mao was
beyond fourth level, the Maoistic thinking185 is trying to deal with
seriousness of the problems of the second, third and fourth level living.
Well, as I say, this is Calhoun’s work and Calhoun speaks of it in a
very simple fashion. Just suppose you could reduce the population by
half, how much of the energy problem would be solved? You’d have
solved quite a bit, at least temporarily. How much of the food problem
would be solved? You’d have solved quite a bit, at least temporarily.
That’s the way Calhoun speaks of it. His emphasis is neither to the
environmental impact nor the psychological. To my way of thinking, he
is simply saying that the environmental and the neurological go hand in
hand, and if you don’t do something about the environmental, if you
don’t do something about the source of the problems, what good does it
do to have the neurological potential to solve problems?
I’m not saying there is sense of doom. I am just saying that there
has to be an unbelievably radical change in our way of thinking for us to
avoid a sense of doom. It is entirely possible within the structuring of
the human brain that the radical way of thinking can take place. And
history says to us that no matter how bad the problems have been, when
the radical change in thinking was needed, it has always taken place. So,
by extrapolation, it’s not pessimistic; it’s optimistic. We are coming to
the point of the greatest psychological revolution we’ve ever known it.
Let us not be misled at this point. This theory says the future can
never be completely predicted because it allows only for the prediction
of the general and not the particular. According to my studies, it would
be exceedingly presumptuous of the human race at this primitive state
of its development, approaching only the first step of the second ladder
of existence, to imagine that the future could be predicted in precise
detail. I say this because my studies indicate that something unique and
unpredictable, something beyond the general form of the next system,
has always emerged to characterize each new level.
The present moment finds our society attempting to negotiate the
most difficult, but at the same time the most exciting, transition the
human race has faced to date. It is not merely a transition to a new level
of existence but the start of a new “movement” in the symphony of
human history. The future offers us, basically, three possibilities:

185 Reference to the interval of Chinese policy guided by Chairman Mao Tse Tung and
his followers prior to 1976.
390 A’N’

1. Most gruesome is the chance that we might fail to stabilize our

world and, through successive catastrophes regress as far back
as the Ik tribe has -AN to BO.
2. Only slightly less frightening is the vision of fixation in the
DQ/ER/FS societal complex. This might resemble George
Orwell’s 1984 with its tyrannic, manipulative government
glossed over by a veneer of humanitarian-sounding doublethink
and moralistic rationalizations. That is a very real possibility in
the next decades.
3. The last possibility is that we could emerge into the A’N’ level
and proceed toward stabilizing our world so that all life can
continue.
If we succeed in the last alternative, we will find ourselves in a very
different world from what we know now and we will find ourselves
thinking in a very different way. For one thing, we will no longer be
living in a world of unbridled self-expression and self-indulgence or in a
world of reverence for the individual, but in one whose rule is ‘express
self, but only so that all life can continue.’ It may well be a world which,
in comparison to this one, is rather restrictive and ‘authoritarian,’ but
this will not be the authority of forcibly taken, God-given, or self-
serving power; rather it will be the authority of knowledge and necessity.
The purpose of A’N’ man will be to bring the earth back to
equilibrium so that life upon it can survive, and this involves learning to
act within the limits inherent in the balance of life. We may find such
vital human concerns as food and procreation falling under strict
regulation, while in other respects society will be free not only from any
form of compulsion but also from prejudice and bigotry. Almost
certainly it will be a society in which renewable resources play a far
greater role than they do today: wood, wind and tide may be used for
energy; cotton and wool for clothing, and possibly even bicycles and
horses for short trips. Yet while more naturalistic than the world we
know today, at the same time the A’N’ world will be unimaginably more
advanced technologically, a quantitative extension, for A’N’ man will
have no fear of technology and will understand its consequences. He
will truly know when to use it and when not to use it, rather than being
bent on using it whenever possible as ER man has been.
From the standpoint of values, we appear to be headed for a
reversal, though in higher order form, of those values and beliefs we
have held most dear, and in our institutional ways of living. A few things
we might expect when man’s life is ordered by A’N’ thinking are:
 A’N’ 391

1. Quality – not quantity – will become the measure of worth.

2. Reduction of use will be valued; growth will be devalued.
3. Freedom to operate in one’s own self-interest will be replicated
by the responsibility to operate in the interest of others.
4. The measure of educational success will not be quantity of
learning but whether the education leads to movement up the
existential staircase. Business and other organizations will be
judged in the same way.
5. The boss will be the expediter of subordinates’ desires rather
than the director of their activities.
6. The political systems which let anyone run for office will be
replaced by systems that require candidates to meet certain
requirements for office.
7. A leisure ethic will replace the work ethic as the primary means
of valuing a person. A man will be revered more for his ability
to contribute in his non-earning time than in his earning time.
8. Work will be increased for the young and reduced for the older,
while education is increased for the older and reduced for the
younger.
9. Actions that promote interdependent existence will be valued
more than those that promote the sanctity of the individual.
10. Unity with nature will replace unity with God.
Other values can be deduced in this manner: Take anything man has
strongly valued in the first ladder of existence, reverse it, put it in higher-
order form and you have the key to what this theory says. Study the
Tasaday tribe of the Philippines, put their values and their ways into a
technologically complex world and you have the immediate future of an
A’N’ world. Then follow this new form of the AN state of existence
with a B’O’ form and so on and you can develop a general picture of the
remote future of man.
This theoretical point of view, its spiraling-like character, and the
fact that A’N’ is the seventh-level system will mean new institutional
ways for human living will be created. The systemic existential state will
create new governmental systems. Seventh-level man is going to create
new ways of controlling the various forces in the universe of which we
are a part. However, I cannot tell you the specifics. Why? Just step back
four thousand years with me and ask the question in a different form.
Say we had this theory, now ask, “What will DQ create?” Well, who
392 A’N’

would have guessed that what the DQ would have created was the
concept of a monotheistic God. No one would ever have guessed that.
The psychological keynote of a society organized according to A’N’
thinking will be freedom from inner compulsiveness and rigidifying
anxiety. A’N’ man who exists today in ever increasing numbers does not
fear death, nor God, nor his fellow man. Magic and superstition hold no
sway over him. He is not mystically minded, though he lives in the most
mysterious of “mystic” universes.
There is a general aspect and a specific aspect of each system, and
how magnificent. How magnificent it is that we can get a general view
of the future, but we’ll be always be caught in the same problem that
they were caught in with the atomic table of elements in chemistry. They
knew radium would be found. But there was nothing in the knowledge
of chemistry that said when this element of this particular atomic weight
is found that it would be ‘radioactive.’ So, we know that A’N’ man will
create new systems of governmental control. I can’t tell you what the
specifics are. That’s why we are in so much trouble; we are trying to
find the genius somewhere that can come up with the ideas to procreate
these new forms of government needed at the present time. All of us
know the forms we’ve got are not doing the job. We know we need new
and different control systems, and we will create something along that
line.
Because of this different way of thinking, human institutions at the
A’N’ level will become very different from what we have today. For
instance, those processes and institutions which today are centralized
would likely become decentralized, while those which are decentralized
might become centralized. Since A’N’ man performs only necessary
work and then only in the way in which he sees fit, there is bound to be
drastic change not only in the structure of work but also in the amount
of work done, the location in time and space of the work, and the
reasons for which it is carried out. As an industrial psychologist, I have
already noted a dramatic rise in the number of A’N’ individuals
occupying positions which will make them heirs to corporate power.
When their time comes, business will shift toward an A’N’ outlook.
Our institutions of learning will undergo a similar transformation
when the Systemic Existential State becomes prevalent. Today we
endeavor to teach children to be what they are not. That is, we prevent
them from reaching higher into the existential hierarchy by preventing
them from acting out the levels of existence on which they are actually
living. Education in an A’N’ society would encourage all individuals to
 A’N’ 393

express their values as fully as possible, thus freeing the natural growth
process from artificial constraints.
There would be no poverty and wealth in such a society, but this
circumstance would not result from altruism or political conviction, but
rather from A’N’ man’s conviction that equal access to a high-quality life
is essential for everyone. Though he recognizes that all men are not
equal, inequality in the necessities of life is to him an unnatural travesty
on all life. The A’N’ individual who had more than enough would not
take pity on the poor nor would he envy a person who had more, but he
would simply be very uncomfortable until both had a necessary amount.
Although there seems to be a lot of seventh-level thinking around
today, I don’t know of any society that is ordered in accordance with
seventh-level thinking. It hasn’t gotten that far. So, we really don’t know
whether or not we are going to get beyond the problems that have been
created by the first six levels of thinking into the being levels of
thinking. That is the second set of six ways of behaving that can develop
over time - if man continues to exist on this earth.
If this thinking seems strange, we must remember that a description
of today’s FS humanity, typified by the Esalen Institute, would have
seemed equally perverse and bizarre to those who were ER men twenty
years ago. Those of us who survive long enough to live in a society
ordered by the A’N’ way of thinking - if such comes about - will find it
perfectly natural.
But as magnificent as this value system may seem to those who can
feel it, it is not, as so many have thought, the ultimate for man. As he
bases his values on what information does for him, he finds in time that
this, too, is a narrowly based system. There is much he can never know
and much no man will ever know. Beyond it lies another value world
that few men have yet to know.
Once man comes to the seventh level of existential emergence he
will be driven by the winds of knowledge and human, not Godly, faith
and the surging waves of confidence on to the B’O’ and still higher
levels of existence. The knowledge and competence acquired at the A’N’
level will bring him to the next level of understanding, the B’O’ level,
from whence he will move, though today we cannot see how. But it will
be on to the delight of tasting more of his emergent self. On this other
side of his self he may become the doer of greater things or lesser
things, but he will be doing human things.
If ever man leaps to this great beyond, there will be no bowing to
suffering, no vassalage, no peonage. There will be no shame in behavior,
for man will know it is human to behave. There will be no pointing of
394 A’N’

the finger at other men, no segregation, depredation, or degradation in

behavior. Man will be driving forth on the subsequent crests of his
humanness rather than vacillating and swirling in the turbulence of
partially emerged man, blocked forever from becoming himself in the
sands of time, and he will see welfare as to encompass all that is living,
including self and other men and all other living things.
 B’O’ 395

Chapter 14

The Intuitive Existence – The B’O’ State186

The 2nd Being Level

The Experientialist Existential State

Theme [tentative]: ‘Adjust to the realities of one’s existence and

automatically accept the existential dichotomies as
they are and go on living’187

‘Sacrifice the idea that one will ever know

what it is all about and adjust to this as the
existential reality of existence.’

186 Dr. Graves did not attempt to summarize this state as his data was so sparse. The
comments which follow are extremely tentative and represent only a superficial
understanding of the eighth level, one which is still emerging.
187 Fromm (1947).
396 B’O’

In the latter part of my studies I had some people appear whose

thinking about what was mature human behavior was different from any
that I had previously experienced. As I looked into it, it was apparent
that these few individuals - I’ve had only six of them in my data so far
who have thought in this different manner - just didn’t see the world in
any of the other seven ways. They’re beginning to think in a way that
intuition, subjectivism plays a great deal more in their behavior than in
any of the other systems. The conception you get here was a very
interesting one: ‘I’ll be damned if I know.’ You go into an almost
mystical conception where the guy says he has sort of a feeling what a
healthy human being is.188
They are most like the tribalistic, second-level people. In fact, they
think in many respects in a higher order magical superstitious way about
the world of which they are a part. Well, one cannot say anything that is
more than speculative about eighth level behavior. One can say that in
the course of my studies, I had people who thought in what I have come
to call the seventh level, or A’N’ way, and in the course of their thinking
in that manner they changed and started to take on another way of
thinking. Well, at that time, the so-called A’N’ way of thinking was
thought by most authorities - Maslow, Blake and Mouton, and others, to
be the epitome of the way of thinking about human behavior. What are
you going to do when you find that the epitome of the way of thinking
is discarded and a new way of thinking that you have not seen before
suddenly appears out of the blue?
I had to find some way of making sense out of this. When I look
back over my data, what I first saw was that the seventh-level way of
thinking had more in common with the first level way of thinking than
any of the other five systems. It had more in common with autistic
thinking than it had in common with two, three, four, five, or six.
Therefore, the question rose in my mind: Can I make sense out of these
six people whose thinking is very different from what I have found
before? If I say seventh-level is mostly like one, (AN), then is eighth-
level mostly like two (BO)? Well, I looked at my data and, lo and behold,
eighth level was mostly like two. So, eighth level is a higher-level form of
tribalistic thinking.
We are not very far along in this at this stage of the game, but my
data simply doesn’t hold together in respect to these six people who
changed in the midst of my studies from thinking in what my judges
classified as the seventh-level way. (Notice, I said ‘my judges.’ I did not
do the classifying. My judges had classified a seventh level way which
188 “1-2-3-4-5-6-7” NEWSDAY. Saturday, March 11, 1967.
 B’O’ 397

then took on yet a new form of thinking.) I saw a lot of evidence of that
in these six people, but I’ve never had enough people to do any
systematic studies of them.
From this I hypothesized that the eighth level existed, and I had to
begin to try to describe it a little bit by the evidence I had for it. What I
found in the eighth level was that one thing above all else stood out, that
these people thought the most stupid question you could possibly ask
yourself was: “Do you know yourself?” These people said: “No one is
ever going to know himself. ‘Know thyself’ is ridiculous. There is no
way that one can ever know the permutations and combination of
eleven billion cells with over ten thousand interconnections. It can’t
possibly be known.”
So this eighth-level thinking appeared, and I simply tried to get an
overall system that would rationalize all of my data. I had to try to
conceive of man’s brain structured so as to support the basis for my
theorization. I had to build the six, upon six, upon six idea: that there
are six basic coping systems we have just about used up; that the first
new set of coping systems is about to take over; that it is made up of the
basic neurological systems of the first level of human existence plus a
mass of previously unused cells in the brain; and that the eighth system
is made up of more unused cells in the brain, plus X and Y, just gives
logical closure to what I am dealing with.

Emergence of B’O’

For those men who have come relatively to satisfy their need to
esteem life, a new existential state, the B’O’ state is just beginning to be.
It emerges when problematic man truly realizes that there is much he will
never know about existence. This insight brings man to the end of his
first ladder value trek because now man learns he must return to his
beginning and travel again, in a higher order form, the road by whence
he has come. A problem-solving existence is not enough. It must
become subordinated within a new form of autistic existence. This I call
the intuitive existence after the eighth-level thema of existence, ‘adjust to
the reality of existence which is that you can only be, you can never really know.’
These eighth-level experientialistic values are only beginning to
emerge in the lives of some men. Two young people living together
without the concern for all our technological trappings and all our
prescriptions for dress and demeanor are not necessarily the rebellious,
slovenly, dogmatic beatniks whose values are basically fifth level. That is
a serious misinterpretation of the behavior at the eighth level. The fact
398 B’O’

that he is not concerned with proper behavior, the fact that he seems
not to live by “the rules” is not angry non-conformity. It is that he
values deeper human things more. It is that he follows his impressions,
not an established order.
The eighth-level values we also call impressionistic. It is at B’O’
where man must learn to fashion a life that honors and respects all the
different levels of human being. Here again he adjusts to the world, to a
world he will never really come to know. He values what he feels he
should, not just what his knowledge tells him he should. Here man
values those “vast realms of consciousness still undreamed of, vast
ranges of experience like the humming of unseen harps we know
nothing of within us.”189 He values wonder, awe, reverence, humility,
fusion, integration, unity, simplicity, the poetic perception of reality -
non-interfering perception versus active controlling perception,
enlarging consciousness, and the ineffable experience.190
Since eighth-level man need not attend so much to the problems of
his existence (for him they have been solved), he values those newer,
deeper things in life which are there to be experienced. He values
escaping “…from the barbed wire entanglement of his own ideas and
his own mechanical devices...”191 He values the “marvellous rich world
of context and sheer fluid beauty and [fearless] face-to-face awareness of
now-naked-life…”192 Perceiving the world as somewhat beyond his ken,
there is a serious, stable cast to the values of eighth-level man.
Cooperation and trust are most seriously valued to the extent that he
will withdraw from relationships that cannot be based on such.
Play, exhibitionism, receiving the plaudits of others, mean little if
anything to man at this level. It is not that he cannot play, nor is it that
he cannot or won’t dominate. It is that he prefers serious endeavor and
cares not to dominate. He does not value adjusting to the world as
authority says it is; nor does he value the imposition of his self upon the
world. What he values is adjusting to the world as he senses it to be.
At the second being level, B’O’, man will be driven by knowledge
and human faith. The knowledge and competence acquired at the A’N’

189 De Sola Pinto, Vivian and Roberts, Warren (Eds). (1920). “Terra Incognita.” The
Complete Poems of D. H. Lawrence (Vols. I and II). New York, New York: The Viking
Press.
190 The reader will note the similarity of the seventh level values to some of the thoughts

of Abraham Maslow. And he will note that this work is a revision and extension of
many of Maslow’s writings.
191 Ibid (De Sola Pinto, Vivian and Roberts, Warren, 1920).
192 Ibid (De Sola Pinto, Vivian and Roberts, Warren, 1920). see D. H. Lawrence
 B’O’ 399

level will bring him to the level of understanding, the B’O’ level. His
problems, now that he has put the world back together, will be those of
bringing stabilization to life once again. He will need to learn how to live
so that the balance of nature is not again upset, so that individual man
will not again set off on another self-aggrandizing binge. His values will
be set not by the accumulated wisdom of the elders, as in the BO
system, but by the accumulated knowledge of the knowers. But here
again, as always, this accumulating knowledge will create new problems
and precipitate man to continue up just another step in his existential
staircase.
Personal experience has shown this person that no matter how
much information is available, one can never know or understand all
things. Reality can be experienced, but never known. The B’O’ insists on
an atmosphere of trust and respect to be integrated into the
organization. He resists coercion and restrictions in a quiet, personal
way - never in an exhibitionistic manner. They avoid relations in which
others try to dominate and seek not to dominate others, but can provide
firm direction as required.

Comments on the Conceptualization of B’O’

This system eight brings forth another way this conceptualization is

basically different from the Maslowian conception of personality. To my
knowledge, it is not only a system beyond any that has been suggested
by other theorists - other systems-like thinkers - but it is also a system
whose appearance raised for me a serious theoretical question: “What
can it mean that in order for these data to be conceptualized I have to
add another system beyond that which had been described by Maslow as
the self-actualizing man?” The undeniable fact of its emergence in the
course of the studies forced me to reconsider the long-standing
conception of psychological maturity as a state which can be conceived
to exist.
All the work done on self-actualization came under question. I had
to weigh the total significance of the level eight emergence plus all the
other data and finally settle on an open system - quantitative and
qualitative change - as the meaning in human existence, not just a
quantitative change with time. I had to open ‘actualization’ as a process
and close down the idea that it is a theoretically achievable state or
condition. I had to include the data of this new system with the rest of
mine beyond the Maslowian apex. I had to reconsider the whole
problem of the maturity of man and the meaning of human existence. It
400 B’O’

means that when Harvey, Hunt and Schroder see the abstract man as
mature, Maslow sees the self-actualized man as mature, Fromm sees the
productive orientation character as mature, Freud sees the genital
character as mature, that they are subject - all of them - to man’s greatest
illusion: the illusion of psychological maturity.
According to my data, as I have said, maturity just cannot be
considered an achievable state, even in theory. Maturity, instead, must
be conceived as a possibly never-ending process, as a continuous
emergence of newer and newer concepts of maturity, rather than as the
theoretically achievable, most perfect state for human existence. The
B’O’ system of personality - the intuitionistic style of living - presents an
amazing challenge to consider when it is studied. The central core of this
style of living is that one shall adjust to the realities of one’s existence
and shall automatically accept the existential realities, called by Fromm
existential dichotomies as they are: ‘Thou shall passively adjust to these and
go on living.’
This central core is amazingly like the central core of system two
(BO) the first psychological system in the sense of man’s adjusting to his
world. It is more like system two than any other system. Yet at the same
time, it is more unlike system two (BO) than any other system. At level
two the organism has to passively adjust. The only way he survives is
through the magnificent adaptability of his Pavlovian type conditioning
reflexes. But at level eight (B’O’) this passive adjustment seems to be
chosen rather than determined. Men operating at this eighth level seem
more able to chose - far less determined - than at lower levels of human
existence.
Thus, if this observation - that level eight psychology is like and
unlike the level two psychology at one and the same time - holds with
further study, if level eight is but a much more complex form of level
two, then a tantalizing question must be asked: Is nine a higher order
three, and is ten a higher order four? Is this which we now think is
man’s nature, the character of his being, but the first ladder? If so, one
can extrapolate that the ninth-level way of thinking will be a higher
order of the egocentric, exploitative form of human behavior. Such
speculation is not only possible but required in the meaning of my data.
 B’O’ 401

Management of the Experientialistic State (B’O’) 193

It is useless to get a B’O’ employee to subordinate his desires to

those of the organization. Instead, management must fit the
organization to him. Therefore, they must be approached, as in the
cognitive case, through facilitative, acceptance management which takes
them as they are, supports them in doing what they want to do, and
accepts the fact that they are competent and responsible.
Experientialistic employees take the work activities very seriously and
are wrapped up in that which each personally wants to do.

Readiness for Change

If the conditions for the existence of man continue to improve, the

day will come when B’O’ will be the dominant value system of man. The
time will come when all other values will be subordinated within their
supra-ordination, but they too will pass away. Nor are they the ultimate
in human values. They are only the latest to emerge from a long history
of value change. They are only stepping-stones to later emerging value
systems.
These eighth-level impressionistic values are only beginning to
emerge in the lives of some men. If the conditions for existence of man
continue to improve, the day will come when they will be the dominant
value system of man. The time will come when all other values will be
subordinated within their supra-ordination, but they too will pass away.
When the time comes that the leading edge of man finds eighth-level
values wanting and ready for discard, some men, somewhere, sometime,
will accuse these new venturers of a breakdown of man’s values.

Conclusion

We have come, momentarily, to the end of our analysis of values

within our organismic, systems conception of man, to the end of man’s
value trek. The reader has the opportunity to judge the validity of our

193 The reader will notice that these management descriptions are similar to those of the
A’N’ and FS systems. We have included as much of Graves’s writing as possible on
this subject since it has been of some debate and focus recently in new age,
transpersonal psychology, and consciousness circles. It is included so that the reader
may come to his/her own conclusions on the basis of the existing (or lack of
existing) evidence, contradictions and emerging patterns of human behavior.
402 B’O’

position. The theory presented is of course a sketch; it is not finished.

Obviously, it is oversimplified with yet much to be tested before one
accepts this point of view. Man does not necessarily move slowly and
steadily as described. In our world of past and present, there are
societies and people at all levels, and societies and peoples whose levels
are mixed; but these and other complications, such as transitional state
value systems, are complications to be dealt with elsewhere. All men do
not progress, and some societies may wither and die. Man may never
cross his great divide; but on the other hand, he may. And so the
problem of ethical and moral decline lies, this theory says, not so much
in the breakdown and discard of ‘the old’ as in the retention of
existentially inappropriate values during a period of profound
transformation in human existence.
So let us close by asking a serious question: Must man’s blindness
toward himself block him forever from crossing his great divide – the
line between his animalism and his humanism? Or is there a view of
mankind’s nature which might allow us to reach for the light of hope
rather than stumble on into the darkness of despair? Are man’s many
value problems not more than the accumulating signs of his depravity,
or are they signals which, if perceived, will provide not only insights into
a better tomorrow but also more appropriate means for attack upon
mankind’s distress?
Certainly today’s man cannot be hurt if he does no more than
search for the latter, rather than give in to the former. Let us not give up
on mankind. Let us first re-examine our evidence. Let us not revert only
to past solutions. Let us look forward for possible new approaches. Let
us ask: Has this work reordered man’s value behavior so as to provide
for his future rather than prepare for his demise?
 Section III 403

Section III

The Sum of All Our Days is

Just a Beginning
404 Verification
 Verification 405

CHAPTER 15

Verification

Twenty-five years of naturalistic observation, research and

contemplation has produced an emergent cyclical conception of adult
psychosocial development. Now the question is: Does this theory do
what a theory should do? Does it fulfill the purposes that any theory
should fulfill? One of the better statements of what a theory should do
is that of Calvin S. Hall and Gardner Lindzey. In Theories of Personality
they say:
“... The theory itself is assumed and acceptance or rejection of it
is determined by its utility not by its truth or falsity. In this
instance, utility - has two components - verifiability and
comprehensiveness. Verifiability refers to the capacity of the
theory to generate predictions which are confirmed when the
relevant empirical data are collected. Comprehensiveness refers
to the scope or the completeness of these derivations. We
might have a theory which generated consequences that were
often confirmed but which dealt with only a few aspects of the
phenomena of interest. Ideally the theory should lead to
accurate predictions which deal very generally or inclusively
with the empirical events with which the theory purports to
embrace.
It is important to distinguish between what may be called
the systematic and heuristic generation of research. It is clear
that in the ideal case, the theory permits the derivation of
406 Verification

specific testable propositions and these in turn lead to specific

empirical studies. However, it is also manifest that many
theories, for example, Freud’s and Darwin’s have had a great
effect upon investigative paths without the mediation of explicit
propositions. This capacity of a theory to generate research by
suggesting ideas or even by arousing disbelief and resistance
may be referred to as the heuristic influence of the theory. Both
types of influence are of great importance and at the present
stage of development within psychology are to be valued
equally.
A second function which a theory should serve is that of
permitting the incorporation of known empirical findings
within a logically consistent and reasonably -simple framework.
A theory is a means of organizing and integrating all that is
known concerning a related set of events.”194
In this chapter I will examine the utility and incorporative value of
the emergent cyclical conception by looking at its verifiability. Its
systematic and heuristic value has been looked at in previous chapters
and will oft times be referred to in this chapter. The problem of
verifiability is of serious import to me. It is of serious import because
my work is open to the criticism of contamination. During the time of
my efforts, my work situation required that, for the most part, I work
alone. By and large, with two slight exceptions, it was I alone who
observed and conceived studies, developed methodologies, collected
data, classified and analyzed data. When conceptualizing, I paid no
attention to similar conceptions of others until after the emergent
cyclical point of view had been conceived. With limited exceptions,
during the research years, I tested the conceptual system myself.
Therefore, when the problem of verifiability took center scene it was
necessary to seek outside my work situation for means to really test the
conceptualization. Fortunately, the literature provided useful
information for this purpose. When I did search, I found many people
had and have been working along a similar vein of thought. So in this
chapter, I will use primarily the work of others to test for verifiability of
the emergent cyclical conception.

194 Hall, Calvin S. and Gardner, Lindzey (1957). Theories of Personality. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, p. 13-15.
 Verification 407

Support for Basic E-C Theory from

General Psychology Sources

The first thing to test is the very heart of emergent cyclical theory.
As I see it, the heart is the organismic side of the double-helix. If general
and specific support cannot be found for my conception of the
organismic side of the helix, then the whole structure tumbles. This is
because the organismic, not the environmentosocial side, is the
delimiting side of psychosocial development.
The environments of humans, the other side of the helix, vary
enormously. But our best knowledge is that today only one species of
humanity exists, sapiens. We do have in existence many other species of
animals. We have dogs, cats, chickens, chimpanzees, and gorillas. But we
have only one species structured, generally, as is Homo sapiens. Dogs live
in as many environments as do humans, but the neuropsychological
equipment of dogs is basic to dog behavior, it not basic to the behavior
of Homo sapiens. So a crucial test of emergent cyclical theory is: Does the
evidence from studies indicate that the organism Homo sapiens is
structured systemically in the manner conceived in emergent
cyclical-theory? More specifically: Is there substantive evidence to
support the contention that the neuropsychological equipment, the N,
O, P, Q, R, S, N’, O’ plus X, Y and Z is structurally and functionally as
emergent cyclical theory says?
My version of emergent cyclical theory (I say my version because
there may be other versions of which I am not aware) says that the brain
should be conceived as a series of hierarchically and prepotently
organized “dynamic neurological systems”195 or cell assemblies196 or the
like. How else can one account for data like mine which say that one
conceptual form of maturity and one form of existence follows another
in an ordered, hierarchical, prepotent way? I see no other way than to
suggest that the brain of Homo sapiens does in fact consist, in some
structural way, of a hierarchy of prepotently ordered series of
neuropsychological systems. These systems operate in a delimiting
fashion to order the observed conceptions of maturity and forms for
existence. But an assertion of conviction is not enough. One must get
beyond assertion to data. So the question is: Do such data exist?

195 Krech, David (1950). Dynamic Systems as Open Neurological Systems. Psychological
Review, Vol. 57, p. 345-361.
196 Hebb, D. O. (1955). Drives and the Conceptual Nervous System. Psychological Review,

Vol. 62 (4), p. 243-254.

408 Verification

A search of the literature certainly suggests that this conclusion

about the nature of the human brain is more than an assertion. (See
Table IV) There is a plethora of data to support the contention. The
data of Thorpe, Engen, Berlyne, Sharpless and Jasper, Jung and Hassler,
Hernandez-Peon and Brust-Carmona, Segundo, and others suggest that
the lowest order dynamic neurological system is the habituation system,
the system whose keystone is that it functions (learns) not to respond
after receiving repeated stimulation and exercising reaction to it. The N
seems to be directed by our imperative, periodic, and physiological
needs. It seems to control them and to respond only to changes in
intensity of stimulation.
The second and apparently next higher order system O must consist
of different tissue anatomically and must function differently because it
responds only to the frequency of stimulation, something to which the
first system does not respond. This assertion of emergent cyclical theory
is supported by microscopic anatomical examination of what
neurological tissue responds to what stimulation. Such examination
reveals that tissue of the lowest-order system, the emergent cyclical N
system, is structurally different from the tissue of the second-order
system, the emergent cyclical O system. It is identified in the work of
Morgan, Gastaut, Pavlov, Olds and Olds, and many others. It is
characteristic of this system to act like the classical, the
respondent-learning system. It seems to be a system in which learning
takes place without volition or conscious awareness and from the simple
association of stimulus and response in time and/or space.
 Verification 409

Table IV

Six Levels of Existence and

Motivational, Emotional, Learning and
Thinking Subsystems
Subsystem
Dominant
Level of Way of
Motivational Emotional Learning
Existence Thinking
System
Love, Affiliation,
6th
Belonging, Depression? Observational? Relativistic
Subsistence
Approval

5th Adequacy, Manic

Expectancy? Multiplistic
Subsistence Competency Excitement?

4th Order and

Guilt Avoidant Absolutistic
Subsistence Meaning

Psychological
rd Maintenance Instrumental,
3 Anger and
(Locomotion, Operant, Egocentric
Subsistence Shame
Exploration, Intentional
Investigation)

Aperiodic
physiological
2nd (Safety, pain Classical or
Fear Animistic
Subsistence avoidance, Respondent
stimulation,
activity)

Imperative,
periodic
1st physiological Distress
Habituation Autistic
Subsistence (Hunger, thirst, and delight
sex,
sleep)

A third, still higher-order system (the P system of emergent cyclical

theory) seems indicated by the research which established the
significance of previous events and positive reinforcement in learning.
This third system in the hierarchy appears to be what others have called
the operant, the instrumental or the intentional learning system. Here
410 Verification

the work of Solomon and Brush,197 Olds and Olds, and the Skinnerians
seems definitive.
A fourth system, the avoidant system in learning theory, the system
which responds dominantly to negative reinforcement, is suggested by
the work of Horney, Hernandez-Peon, and particularly by Schacter and
Latane.198 One places it fourth in the hierarchy because of the elegant
work of Schacter and Latane which demonstrates that learning by
negative reinforcement is activated to the dominant position in the
human learning hierarchy only after learning by reward.
Later systems are not as clear, but the fifth could well be the
expectancy system of Rotter and the sixth, the observational system.
Thus there is certainly strong evidence that psychosocial theory should
be erected on a conceptual base built upon hierarchical structures in the
brain.
There is also evidence to suggest that the neuropsychological system
I have designated as Z, the hypothesized elaborating system in the brain,
does exist. It is well documented that after birth countless numbers of
cells in the brain are uncommitted. They are not tied in with any
established functional system. Thus if the N, O, P etc.
neuropsychological systems are basic coping systems, and if data for N’
behavior exists, then N, O, P, connecting with some cells in the
elaborating system, is a good explanation for the tremendous increase in
conceptual space of the A’N’ system over the sum of all previous
systems. But there is more to the nature of dynamic neurological
systems than each having its own core, its own anatomical structures
sensitive to a particular type of stimulation and not sensitive to other
stimulation, and its own learning system.
In keeping with Krech’s (1950) original meaning of dynamic
neurological system, each system gives rise to dominant needs and
emotions. Each has its own unique biochemistry, its own values, its own
way of thinking, but space does not permit full development of these
aspects of emergent cyclical theory. So I shall but briefly touch upon
what research seems to have shown.
Many investigators whose work I shall cite later have produced
results supporting the systemic organization of motives, emotions, and

197 Solomon, Richard L. and Brush, Elinor S. (1957). Experimentally Derived

Conceptions of Anxiety and Aversion. In Jones, Marshall R. (Ed.) Nebraska
Symposium on Motivation. Oxford: University of Nebraska Press, p. 212-305.
198 Schacter, Stan, and Latane, Bibb (1964). Crime, Cognition, and the Autonomic

Nervous System. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 12, p. 221-275.

 Verification 411

ways of thinking. There is good evidence that the needs or motives are
ordered per system somewhat as follows:
Associated with the first, the N system, are the needs for
satisfaction of the imperative periodic physiological needs.
These are followed by the O needs, the aperiodic, not
necessarily imperative, physiological needs. These are the needs
for temperature control, pain avoidance, safety, sensory
stimulation, general activity and the like. Next are the P needs,
the needs for locomotion, exploration and investigation. These
needs seem to assume dominance when the third system is
activated and they operate in consort with the intentional,
operant, instrumental or positive reinforcement learning
systems. The fourth level needs, the Q needs, are for order and
meaning. They are followed at the fifth level by the R needs,
the needs for adequacy and competency. Then at the sixth level
the S neurological system, the needs for love, affiliation,
belonging and approval are shown by research to assume the
dominant position.
Research on emotion indicates that only distress and
delight accompany the N system. In the second, the O system,
fear seems to dominate. It is followed in the P system by the
emergence of shame and anger as the dominant emotions.
Guilt becomes dominant at the fourth level, in the Q system.
But data is unclear as to the dominant emotion of the fifth and
sixth levels. Yet there are some limited suggestions that manic
excitement is associated with the fifth, the R system and a
depressive tone with the sixth, the S system. Suicide increases
markedly in the sixth system.
Research on thinking indicates that at the N level, thinking
is autistic in character. At the second level, the O system,
thinking is predominantly animistic. Highly egocentric thinking
is dominant in the P system, which is the third dynamic
neurological system. Associated with the Q system of the
fourth level is absolutistic thinking. Multiplistic thinking, à la
the conception of Perry,199 appears to be dominant in the R,
the fifth level neurological system. The concept of relativism
dominates the thinking of the sixth, the S system. And when
the N’ system is activated in the brain, its way of thinking is

199 Perry, William G. Jr. (1970). Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College
Years: A Scheme. New York; Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
412 Verification

systemic. In the B’O’ system, thinking appears to be

differentialistic.
Now two questions must be asked. The first is about support for
the concepts of the X and Y systems which have been hypothesized.
The other has to do with the environmentosocial side of the helix, the
problems of living as a human being.
The first question is: “Is there evidence to support the presence in
the brain of a general activating system which consists of subsystems
that are a part of the psychoneurological equipment of the organism?”
The answer to this is two-fold. First there is more than ample evidence
for an activating system. This evidence is in the literature under precisely
that heading. The evidence that there are subsystems in the general
activating system is not as ample, but it can be found. The work of
Funkenstein, Wolfe,200 Hokfelt,201 West,202 and Schacter and Latane203
certainly points to chemical differences in the P and Q systems. They do
so by reporting that the proportion of noradrenaline to adrenaline is
greater in the former (the P system) with this ratio reversed in the Q
system. There is also suggestive evidence that the amount of thyroxin in
the total system is disproportionately high when the R system is
activated. But what can we say about support for the other side of the
helix?
About the ‘problem of existence’ side of the helix, one must ask:
What meaning can lie in a brain ordered as I have conceived? What light
does this throw upon the problems of existence? Can it mean that each
system lies in the brain to be activated, if necessary to deal with certain
and not other problems of existence? Can it mean that higher-order
systems lie latent in the brain, to be brought into play if and only when
the process of living as a human being creates new existential problems?
Such indeed might be the reason for the N, O, P, etc. hypothesized
ordering of the brain. The first neurosystem would be there to enable
man to cope with the problems of life itself (the A problems). The
second would be present to enable the human to have a safe and secure
life once life is established (the B problems of existence). The third
neurological system would enable him to cope with that specifically
human problem, awareness of his own individual existence (the C

200 Wolfe, R. (1963). The Role of Conceptual Systems in Cognitive Functioning at

Varying Levels of Age and Intelligence. Journal of Personality. 31 (1), p. 108-122.
201 Hokfelt, Bernt (1951).
202 West, G. B. (1951).
203 Schacter, Stan and Latane, Bibb (1964). Crime, Cognition, and the Autonomic

Nervous System. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 12, p. 221-275.

 Verification 413

problems of existence). The fourth would be the coping system that

enables humans to deal with the problem that death must come even
when life has been nothing but a period of misery and pain (the D
problems of existence). The fifth system would enable him to cope and
hold on when finally he has faced the realization that the only life one
will ever have is this life on earth (the E problems). The sixth would
enable the person to handle the threat in the realization of aloneness in
this universe of ours (the F problems of existence). The seventh system
would exist to enable the human to find some meaning in existence
when finally it is realized that there is no lasting significance in his tribe,
his own raw power, in his or her God, in a material existence on this
earth, or in intimate relations with fellow human beings (the A’
problems of existence). And who knows what significance lies in the
existence of neuropsychological systems beyond the seventh?
In other words, if the brain is hierarchically ordered, as I have
conceived it to be, it would enable a human to successfully and
successively meet the hierarchically ordered problems of human
existence. But all of this simply raises another question: “Since the
dynamic neurological systems, after the first, are structures latent in the
brain, what evidence is there to support the hypothesis that six factors
operate to produce the emergence of each successive system?”

Support for the Six Factor Theory of Change

1. Potential.
Emergent-cyclical theory proposes that the first condition necessary
for change from one existential state to another is potential. The next
higher-level neuropsychological system must be present in the brain.
There are many embryological studies which show that arrest of
embryological development does occur. When autopsies are done,
comparison histological studies show that when arrest occurs, systems
which oft times develop later are absent. And the studies previously
cited in this chapter lend credence to the hypothesis of a structural and
functional hierarchy of potential systems in the brain.

2. Resolution of Current Existential Problems.

Support for the second change factor, resolution of existential
problems at the level of centralization, is not as easy to come by. Yet
there is much evidence to support that the human is certainly intelligent
enough to put first things first. There is good evidence that the
imperative, physiological needs are prepotent over those physiological
414 Verification

needs of lesser importance, the aperiodic physiological needs. These are

in turn prepotent over the lowest level psychological maintenance needs,
those governed by man’s third level neuropsychological equipment.
Sorokins’ Famine in Russia and the studies of the Ik204 tribe in Uganda
demonstrate this prepotency in reverse.
But E-C theory says potential and the resolution of existential
problems are necessary but not sufficient conditions to produce
emergence of succeeding levels of existence. This appears to be an
aspect of change in which many have been in error. In fact, it is perhaps
the belief that potential and the resolution of existential problems is
sufficient to produce change that has led to the bad reputation of
‘permissiveness.’

3. Feeling of Dissonance
According to my studies, and those of Festinger and his devotees;
Kohlberg, Scharf and Hickey;205 Blasi; Blatt (1969); and others, and as
yet unpublished work of investigators like Fenton,206 Mosher,207
Lasher,208 and Pindeo,209 the evidence indicates that dilemmas or
thought problems, or what Festinger and I call dissonance, is a third
necessary change factor but not a sufficient condition for change.
Dissonance precipitates a crisis but it does not trigger the attempt to
move to the next system. In fact, what it triggers is a regressive search
through past ways of behaving for some old way or ways that can
re-establish the previous steady state wherein existential problems were
solved. This regressive search will end in arrest, regression or develop-
ment for a definite reason. If the old existential problems are X, then no
person in crisis can ever re-establish X. The person cannot do so
because life is now being lived in the conditions X + 1 where 1 is the
new problems of existence created by having lived in the X way.

204 Turnbull, Colin (1972). The Mountain People. Simon and Schuster.
205 Kohlberg, L., Hickey, J. & Scharf, P. (1972). The justice structure of the prison: A
theory and intervention. Prison Journal, 51, p. 3-14. Kohlberg, L. Kauffman, K.,
Scharpf, P. and Hickey, J. (1974) The Just Community Appraoch to Corrections: A Manual.
Cambridge, MA: Moral Education Research Foundation.
206 Fenton, Edwin, Colby, Ann, and Speicher-Dubin, Betsy (1974). “Developing Moral

Dilemmas for Social Studies Classes.” Mimeogaphed. Cambridge, Mass.” Harvard

University, Center for Moral Education (cited in Mosher, Ralph (1980) Moral
Education: A First Generation of Research and Development. New York: Praeger.)
207 Mosher – not located.
208 Lasher – not located.
209 Pinedo – not located.
 Verification 415

4. Gaining of Insights
That which stops this regressive search and puts the human in
position to experience the emergence of the next set of
neuropsychological coping equipment is the gradual production, toward
a critical amount, of the chemical constituents which activate the next
set of coping equipment. This activation of previously latent equipment
provides for the development of insight, the fourth factor in the change
process. Data in support of this lies, among others, in the work of
Rensch, Funkenstein, Hess,210 Wolfe,211 Selye, Hokfelt,212 Krech, and
West.213
Of particular significance, herein, is the evidence, which ties into
what I have said about:
1. The existence of hierarchically ordered structural systems.
2. The shift of dominance of the center of brain activation.
3. The appearance of a different biochemical complex.
4. Change of emotional tone concomitant with the shift.
5. The emergence to dominance or the subordination of
previously dominant learning systems when the chemical
complex changes.
When these changes are seen to occur concomitantly with changes
in ways of thinking, judging, valuing and the like, then it does seem that
there is support for the concept of “dynamic neurological systems.”
In the totality of what I have said, this chemical side of the brain
seems to operate somewhat as follows: When dissonance enters the
psychological field of one who seems previously to have the problem of
existence solved, the organism begins slowly to produce the new
chemical complex. This starts the attempt to move to a new level of
existence which can cope with the new existential problems X + 1. If
conditions are right, this process proceeds slowly until it reaches a
critical point. Upon reaching this critical point the jump to a new level

210 Hess, E. H. (1959). Imprinting. Sciences. 130, p. 133-141. Pupilometrics. In N. S.

Greenfield and R. A. Sternbach, (Eds.), (1972). Handbook of Psychophysiology. New
York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, p. 491-531. Hess, R. D. & Shipman, V. C.
(1965) Early Experience and the Socialization of Cognitive Mode Children. Child
Development, Published by the University of Chicago Press for the Society for
Research in Child Development, Inc., 36, p. 859-886.
211 Wolfe, R. (1963) The Role of Conceptual Systems in Cognitive Functioning at

Varying Levels of Age and Intelligence. Journal of Personality. Vol. 31 (1), p. 108-122.
212 Ibid (Hokfelt, 1985).
213 West, G.B.
416 Verification

of brain activation, an enlarged and new world of conceptual space,

movement to a new level of existence takes place. And all hell will not stop
it once this critical point is reached.
But again, insight, even in conjunction with potential, resolution of
existential problems and dissonance, is not sufficient to produce control
by the next level neurological system. Unfortunately, “Full many a
flower is born to blush unseen and waste its sweetness on the desert
air.”214 The reasons for this are obvious. A human being is not, nor ever
will be, an island unto himself. There are others around whenever any
insight is achieved. Most of them, though they share potential and may
share the solution of current existential problems, will not necessarily
share the dissonance; and few indeed will share the new insights. Thus,
there will be barriers.

5. Barriers Overcome
‘The Establishment’ and its way of thinking must be overcome or
move aside if insight is to begin to propel the quantum-like psychosocial
jump. Tomes of support for this lie in essays on the atmosphere needed
for psychotherapeutic change.
If this fifth factor in the change process is provided for, then and
only then does the sixth factor, consolidation, come into action. It is the
last factor in the change process.

6. Opportunity for Consolidation

Now if we add to our thinking that the hierarchically ordered brain
systems are infinite, emergent cyclical theory provides some most
remarkable insights into human existence. It provides the human with a
reason for being in his or her existence no matter the previous
existential problems solved. Life is a constant ordering, reordering and,
at times, disordering of styles of existence. Man is always
metamorphizing. Like the egg, to the larvae, to the moth, each new form
of psychosocial being is contiguous with the old stage but is qualitatively
as well as quantitatively different from it. Psychosocial man, his
institutions, and his life are processes in transit from the earliest order of
adult behavioral organization, through a series of way stations, to no
knowable destination.
Through the E-C assertion that the solution of current existential
problems creates a new set in their place, and through its depiction of
the neuropsychological equipment, it provides a means to map out the
natural history of man, a need cited by Elkind. It also provides a means
214 Gray, Thomas. “Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard.”
 Verification 417

to approach the humanistic psychological goal of Bugental. Beyond this,

by the overall task performed in this chapter, namely, welding together
many disparate studies, it has placed in one conceptual framework facts
derived from numerous studies in general psychology. And though I will
not develop it now, E-C theory provides a means to begin to draw into
one framework our many theories of human behavior.
So it appears to me that there is ample support for the position that
human psychosocial behavior develops from the existential state of man.
And there is support for the hypothesis that the emergent states are the
map of human existence. They are the story of the never-ending quest
of human emergence, what human life is all about and what it is meant
to be. The encoded neuropsychological equipment of humans are the
pylons upon which are erected new ways of psychosocial being
appropriate to new existential problems. We are but one organism
biologically. We are an infinite number of beings psychologically.

Support From Other Conceptions

Many people have thought about human development in a

stage-like developing-systems fashion. Some like Ludwig von
Bertalanffy, Lancelot Whyte, and Gordon Allport215, have shown in
their publications systems-like thinking but they have not gone on to
develop conceptions of the systems. Others like Gerald Heard and
Lewis Mumford have proceeded from reading to thinking, and from
thinking to the construction of hierarchically ordered psychosocial
systems. Still others have developed conceptions from experimental,
clinical or other forms of systematic investigation. System conceptions
of one form or another are presented in the published and
non-published works of many people. (See Table VII a-g, p. 439-445)
They have conceived of development as a series of stages. But this
plethora of published and unpublished material in this area has created a
monstrous problem for the reader. There are as many languages for
transmitting their thinking as there are contributors to this way of
thinking. This was the prime problem I had to deal with when the
emergent cyclical conception was conceived.
The problem is that there are almost as many languages as there are
conceptions. The problem seems to stem, for the most part, from one
fact. During the late forties, through the fifties and sixties and extending
into the seventies many people, mostly independently of one another,

215 Allport (1960), p. 39-54.

418 Verification

became disenchanted with the state of theory in the development

psychosocial world. Many set out from many different directions and by
many different means to investigate the region of their discontent.
When they did so, by and large, they worked alone or in neat little,
relatively isolated groups. Thus, when they started to conceptualize from
the results of their library, clinical, experimental, or other research they
found themselves with masses of un-rationalized data. Their
information did not lend itself to rationalization within any then-existing
conceptual system; or they found themselves dissatisfied with the
capacity of the conceptual frameworks others had developed to express
the meaning in what they found.
As a result of these conditions, most of the conceptualizers or
investigators developed their own conceptual system within which to
rationalize their information. This situation created a serious problem
for me when I began to test my emergent cyclical conception through
others’ work.
Try as I could, and try I did (my first two published papers were an
abortive attempt to rationalize my results through Maslowian thinking),
I found no system which met the test of comprehensiveness as did the
emergent cyclical point of view once I formulated it. I could not
subsume my results and my conception within any systems-like
conception I could find in the literature. All dealt with only some of the
hierarchical systems my data had dictated. Some were truncated at both
ends. Some closed off at the later appearing part of the hierarchy; some
showed gaps, and some were otherwise not as comprehensive as
emergent cyclical theory. None dealt with the total map of human
existence and few had any way for conceptualizing the open- endedness
of psychosocial development which I found necessary to hypothesize.
So I felt forced to make a decision. The decision was to translate,
where possible, the systemic conceptualizations of others into the
language of emergent cyclical theory. This was not done out of
egocentricism but out of necessity. I could not subsume my results and
my conception in the work of others. But I could, for the most part,
subsume their information and their conception within my emergent
cyclical conception. So in this section of this chapter I continuously
translate their many languages into my emergent cyclical language.
 Verification 419

Testing E-C Theory Through the Work of

Harvey, Hunt and Schroder et al.

Harvey, Hunt and Schroder et al., have done many predictive

studies based on their 1961 conception. They developed a conception
which, in the middle toward the upper ranges of their hierarchy, can be
used to test E-C theory. To a considerable extent they have found con-
firmation of their systems I, II, III and IV. Hunt, who found it necessary
to hypothesize a Sub I system, a system which occupies a position just
before their system, has modified their original conception I.216 Their
systems I, II, III and IV are essentially equivalent to E-C systems DQ,
ER, FS and A’N’ respectively. Hunt’s modification is essentially
equivalent to the emergent cyclical CP system. So I shall, in this section,
use the work of this group to test the validity of E-C systems CP, DQ,
ER, FS and A’N’.
The predictions based on the original Harvey, Hunt and Schroder
conception have broken down in respect to their system III, the FS
system of E-C theory. Therefore, it occurred to me that this reported
problem and the changes made by Hunt and Driver and Streufert might
provide crucial tests of their conceptualization versus the
conceptualization of this book.
One problem, which arises, is in essence: Do the systems of
psychosocial behavior differ only in a quantitative way or do they vary
also in a qualitative manner? Another problem is: Are there only four
systems or are there at least five as per Hunt, or are there more as per
E-C theory? A third problem is: Is system IV, (roughly A’N’ in E-C
theory) the highest, the ultimate system, or is the hierarchy open-ended?
My position in respect to the first problem, the quantitative/
qualitative problem has been stated previously. But I have not examined
the other side particularly, as Harvey, Hunt and Schroder see it. Of it
they say:
“The question of whether a more abstract level of
functioning is only a quantitative extension of a concrete level,
and the two levels are hence continuous, as Murphy suggests,
or is so quantitatively different from the more concrete
functioning that it is discontinuous from it, as Goldstein and
Scheerer maintain, is indeed an old - and yet unresolved - one.

216 Hunt, David E. (1966). A Conceptual Systems Change Model and its Application to
Education. In O.J. Harvey (Ed.), Experience, Structure and Adaptability. NY: Springer
Publishing, Inc..
420 Verification

It is, among other questions, the problem of reductionism

versus holism, or relatedly of quantity versus quality, issues
with which psychology - indeed all of science - has spent much
effort. Points of view on this issue, which most clearly
separated the “Gestalters” and the “Structuralists”, for
instance, have not been agreed upon but only bypassed or
overlooked in pursuit of a concern with different types of
questions.
It seems to us that although, “...the stream of behavior”
may be seen not “to flow smoothly, but to occur in easily
perceived bursts and breaks.” (Barker, 1957, P. 156) Such
variation could as well represent a continuity as be expressive
of a qualitative break.
Attribution of a discontinuity is probably a function of the
aspect of behavior being observed or measured and the
method by which the observation is obtained. It frequently
results from concern with phenotypic expressions rather than
with genotypic function and underlying process. The genotype
may be expressed in phenotypic opposites: one person, for
example, might show his insecurity by reacting very
aggressively whereas another would reticently withdraw from
contact with others. Thus, one investigator who was more
concerned with functions of behavior might from the same
behavioral manifestations infer what he considered
continuities; another whose observations were of expressions
of this function might infer such marked variability that he
would attribute it to breaks and discontinuities ... due attention
must be given to what it is that is being measured and the
dimension of the observation. Very pertinent to this issue is
the elaboration of William James on his assertion that
objection to viewing the stream of thought or consciousness as
continuous is “based partly on a confusion and partly on a
superficial introspective point of view.”217
It is my judgment, based on the data previously presented
supporting the existence of qualitatively different “dynamic neurological
systems,” that the quantitative/qualitative problem is far less simple than
the quotation above makes it out to be. There is far more to
conceptualizing human behavior than making a choice between a

217 Harvey, O.J., Hunt, David E. and Schroder, Arold M. (1961). Conceptual Systems and
Personality Organization. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., p. 27-28.
 Verification 421

quantitative or qualitative format. The problem is more than to decide

whether to base a psychosocial conceptualization on one or the other
side of this age-old either-or problem. We must not be misled to believe
the difference between one form of human behavior and another form
of human behavior has to be seen from either the quantitative direction
or from the qualitative point of view. It is entirely possible that it is not
one or the other, but both that vary from one system of human behavior
to another.
It would seem, from the following quotation, that Harvey, Hunt and
Schroder have dismissed this alternative possibility because they say:
“Our use of state in the present book refers to levels of
cognitive functioning on what we assume to be a continuous
dimension of concreteness - abstraction.”218
Having made this assumption, they have found a problem with their
data which might not exist if they had not made an either/or choice.
Harvey expresses this problem in his 1966 book Experience, Structure and
Adaptability where he says:
“In all our studies System 1 [DQ] and System 4 [A’N’]
representatives have differed as they should according to, the
theory ... with System 2 [ER] individuals following in between
closer to System 1 [DQ] on some things and closer to System 4
[A’N] on others. The one source of inconsistency has been the
response of System 3 [FS] representatives who on such things
as evaluativeness, and categoricalness of TIB completions fall
next to System 4 [A’N] (where they should be according to
their assumed position on the concreteness-abstraction
dimension), but who on authoritarianism and ability to change
fall next to System 1 [DQ].219 This inconsistency is, no doubt,
due partially to a lack of clarity in the theoretical formulation of
System 3 [FS] functioning which results in somewhat
ambiguous criteria for scoring this system. Hence, we are much
more equivocal in our view and interpretation of System 3 [FS]
functioning than of the functioning of other systems.”220

218 Ibid (Harvey, Hunt and Schroder, 1961, p. 24).

219 CWG: This writer calls to the reader’s attention that the second sentence above about
System 3 (FS) is inconsistent with the theory.
220 Harvey, O. J. (Ed.) (1966). Experience, Structure & Adaptability. New York: Springer

Publishing Company, Inc., p. 47-48.

422 Verification

This problem is actually more serious than Harvey says because, as

noted above, there is an inconsistency in both the results of System 2
(ER) and System 3 (FS). If one examines the statement above and at the
same time observes the way the Harvey, Hunt and Schroder data in
Table V is reorganized in Table VI, it will be found that the problem
appears to be more than something wrong with the conceptualization of
System 3 (FS).
Actually Harvey’s statement shows System 2 (ER) close to System 1
(DQ) in some respects and close to System 4 (A’N’) in other respects as
well as System 3 (FS) being closer to System 1 (DQ) in some respects
and closer to System 4 (A’N’) in other respects. These failures to predict
suggest that the problem is in the region of the total conceptualization
rather than in the region of conceptualizing System 3 (FS). The point of
this argument is that if one accepts their data or my data as the data are,
then he will conceptualize so that systems vary both quantitatively and
qualitatively and will not be caught in the fruitlessness of the age-old
either-or argument. And the point is, that when one lets the data dictate
the conceptualization as per Exhibit XII (page 430), there will be no
inconsistency in the Harvey, Hunt and Schroder data. Rather there will
be support for the much more complex conceptualization to the test
one other Harvey, Hunt and Schroder quotation must be considered.
They say:
“As indicated in Chapter 4, developmental stages can be
viewed in terms of two phases (Bemis and Shepard, 1956):
the first phase including stages I and II and the second phase
including stages III and IV. One implication of this
‘‘recapitulation” is that arrestation at stages I and III and at
stages II and IV have generic similarities. Differences do
exist in the abstractness of subject-object relatedness in
system I and system III (particularly in respect to external
and internal causation), but these systems are generically
similar in that for both, judgments and behavior are
anchored to external objects, such as rules, power and
relationships. In a non-systemic sense the two forms of
relatedness combine to describe behavior that, from an
operational viewpoint is more “dependent.”221
This quotation is presented because in my judgment it is the failure
of Harvey, Hunt and Schroder to see either the total meaning in this
relationship, or to carry through on it that has led them predictably

221 Ibid (Harvey, Hunt, and Schroder, 1961, p. 199).

 Verification 423

astray. But we cannot tarry longer on this point. We must move on to

the task of testing this conceptualization of adult personality, first
through the medium of the Harvey, Hunt and Schroder data.
In summary, then, the Harvey, Hunt and Schroder position is that
the systems of behavior vary quantitatively from one to another
primarily on the concrete-abstract dimension. Whereas my position is
that the systems vary in a much more complex manner from system to
system. Particularly, my position is that there are qualitative, that is
system specific, manifestations as well as quantitative differences. Thus,
in the test to follow we shall examine their data in order to see if they
support or refute the position of this book.
Their systems were established in a manner different from the way
that mine were established. They utilized the ‘This I Believe’ test222 to
establish the existence of their conceptual systems. They report the
validity of the TIB Test, but this is not the most important information
for the purpose in mind here; for our purpose, the important
information is:
a) Through their methodology they established four systems.
All four are much like those I seem to have found.
b) Independently of one another the Harvey, Hunt and
Schroder group and I studied the systems established
through many common instrumental means.
c) Independently of one another we found remarkably similar
results.
Since their data lend themselves to quantification, they are
presented in tabular form in Table V. Most of the Harvey, Hunt and
Schroder data has been summarized in the 1966 book of Harvey,
previously referred to. Not all of their data is presented in Table V.
This selection does not contradict the data presented in any way. It is
simply more of the same. One manipulation has been performed,
where possible, in order to foster presentation. The data have been
transformed to rank order form. They studied four systems. They
studied them through a number of dimensions. Table V presents
their results with ‘Stage IV’ being the highest degree of the
dimensions studied and ‘Stage I’ being the lowest degree. Where their
findings did not show ranks are summated according to the Harvey
summary and are distributed appropriately to each system. But before
we proceed, let one matter be emphasized again. There are no

222 Ibid (Harvey, Hunt and Schroder, 1966, p. 46).

424 Verification

substantial differences except one between my total data and the data
of the Harvey, Hunt and Schroder group. It is the conceptualization
that differs. The one difference is that my data required breaking the
Harvey, Hunt and Schroder System II into two systems. One is
system ER in my conceptualization. The other is CP which is the
system Sub I that David E. Hunt also said should be in the
hierarchy.

Table V
Harvey, Hunt, and Schroder Characteristics of Systems Listing
of Dimensions Studied Random Data Arranged by Rank Order

Roman numerals = Systems 4=s most of characteristic

1=s least of characteristic
*=s significant difference from
other H, H, & S systems

Systems
DIMENSION H, H, & S I II III IV
MEASURED Graves DQ ER FS A’N’

Cognitive Complexity 1 2 3 4
Intelligence 2.3 2.6 2.4 2.7
*ii-iii-iv *i-iii *i *iv
Religiousness 4 1 3 2
Authoritarianism 4 3 2 1
Dogmatism 4 3 2 1
*ii *i
Left Opinionation 1 1.5 2 1.5
*ii-iv *i *i
Right Opinionation 4 1 3 1
*iii-iii-iv *i-iv *i-iv *i-ii-iii
Rigidity 4 3 2 1
*ii-iv *i *i
Deference 4 1.5 3 1.5
*ii-iv *i *i
Autonomy 1 3.5 2 3.5
*ii *i-iii-iv *ii *ii
Aggressiveness 2 4 2 2
*ii-iv *i-iii-iv *ii *i-ii
Self-Causality 2 1 3 4
*ii-iii-iv *i-iii-iv *i-ii *i-ii
“Nettler” Anomie 3 1 3 2
*iv *iv *iv *i-ii-iii
Self Concept 2 1 3 4
 Verification 425

Table V (cont’d)

*ii-iii-iv *i *i *i
Self Control 4 1.8 2.1 2.1
*ii-iii *i-iii *i-ii
Honesty 4 1 3 2
Creativity – *ii *i-iii *ii
(Desire to be Different) 1 4 2 3
*ii *i-iii *ii
Kindness 3.5 1 3.5 2
*ii-iii-iv *i-iii-iv *i-ii *i-ii
Loyalty 4 1 3 2
*ii *i-iii *ii
Independence 1.5 4 1.5 2
*ii *i-iii-iv *ii *ii
Machiavellianism 2 4 2 2
*iv *iv *iv *i-ii-iii
Cue Utilization 1.7 1.9 2.4 4
Influence on belief of Input- *iv *iv *iv *i-ii-iii
Deviant 3 1.9 4 1
*ii-iv *i *i
Redundancy 4 1.5 3 1.5
*iv *iv *iv *i-ii-iii
Change of Set 2 2 2 4
*iv *iv *iv *i-ii-iii
Relevancy of Questions 1 3 2 4
*iv *iv *iv *iv
Integrating Contradiction 1.7 1.9 2.4 2.4
Attaining New Concept *ii-iv *i *i
Speed 1 3 3 3
*ii-iv *i-iv *iv *i-ii-iii
Denny Doodle- Bug Time 4 2 3 1
*iv *iv *iv *i-ii-iii
D. Doodlebug Help Sought 4 2 3 1
Arguing Against Belief in *iv *iv *iv *i-ii-iii
Public and Private 1 2 3 4
Arguing Against Belief in *iv *iv *iv *i-ii-iii
Private 1 2 3 4
Arguing Against Belief ‘in
Public 2 1 3 4
Creating Novelty *iv *iv *iv *i-ii-iii
Appropriateness 1 2 3 4
Maintenance of Belief - Input *iv *iv *iv *i-ii-iii
- Deviant 3 2 1 4
426 Verification

Table VI
Harvey, Hunt, Schroder Data Rearranged
According to Graves’s Conception

Dimension
System
Masured
HH & S I II III IV Nature of
Graves DQ ER FS A’N’ Variation
1. Intelligence 2.3 2.6 2.4 2.7 None
2. Cognitive Quantitative
1 2 3 4
Complexity increasing
Quantitative
3. Dogmatism 4 3 2 1
increasing
*2-3-4 *1-4 *1-4 *1-2-3 Quantitative
4. Rigidity
4 3 2 1 increasing
5. Arguing Against
*4 *4 *4 *1-2-3 Quantitative
Belief
1 2 3 4 increasing
Public/Private
6. Appropriateness
Quantitative
of Solutions 1 2 3 4
increasing
Created
7. Relevancy of *4 *4 *4 *1-2-3 Quantitative
Questions 1 2 3 4 increasing
8. Integrating *4 *4 *4 *1-2-3
Contradiction 1.7 1.9 2.4 4 Trend
*4 *4 *4 *1-2-3 Quant and
9. Change of Set System
2 2 2 4
*4 *4 *4 *1-2-3 Specific
10. Cue Utilization
1.7 1.9 2.4 4
*2 *1-3-4 *2 *2 System
11. Aggressiveness
2 4 2 2 Specific
*2-4 *1-3-4 *2 *1-2 System
12. Self Causality
2 1 3 4 Specific
*4 *4 *4 *1-2-3 System
13. Self Concept
2 1 3 4 Specific
*2-3-4 *1 *1 *1 System
14. Self Control
4 1.8 2.1 2.1 Specific
*2-3-4 *1-3-4 *1-2 *1-2 System
15. “Nettler” Anomie
4 1 3 2 Specific
16. Desire to be *2 *1-3 *2 System
Different 1 4 2 3 Specific
*2 *1-3-4 *2 *2 System
17. Machiavellianism
2 4 2 2 Specific
18. Maintenance of
*4 *4 *4 *1-2-3 System
Belief Input-
3 2 1 4 Specific
Deviant
19. Attaining New *2-4 *1 *1 System
Concept Speed 1 3 3 3 Specific
20. Arguing Against System
2 1 3 4
Belief in Public Specific
 Verification 427

Table VI (cont’d)

*2 *1-3 *2 System
21. Independence
1.5 4 1.5 2 Specific
22. Integrating *4 *4 *4 *1-2-3 System
Contradiction 1.7 1.9 2.4 4 Specific
23. Opinionation –
4 1 3 2 Cyclic
Right
*2-3-4 *1-3-4 *1 *1-2
24. Loyalty Cyclic
4 1 3 2
*2-3-4 *1-3 *1 *1-3
25. Religiousness Cyclic
4 1 3 2
*2-3 *1-3 *1-2
26. Honesty Cyclic
4 1 3 2
*2-4 *1 *1
27. Deference Cyclic
1 1.5 3 1.5
*2-4 *1 *1
28. Redundancy Cyclic
4 1.5 3 1.5
*2 *1-3 *2
29. Kindness Cyclic
3.5 1 3.5 2
*2-4 *1 *1
30. Autonomy Cyclic
1 3.5 2 3.5
*1-3-4 *1-2-4
31. Affiliation Cyclic
3 1 4 2
*2-4 *1-4 *4 *1-2-3
32. Doodlebug Time Cyclic
4 2 3 1
33. Influence on
*4 *4 *4 *1-2-3 Probably
Belief Input -
3 2 4 1 Cyclic
Deviant
34. Relevancy of *4 *4 *4 *1-2-3 Probably
Questions 1 3 2 4 Cyclic
35. Doodlebug Help *4 *4 *4 *1-2-3 Probably
Sought 4 2 3 1 Cyclic
36. Arguing Against Probably
2 2 4 1
Belief in Private Cyclic
Probably
37. Authoritarianism 4 2 3 1
Cyclic
*2 *1 Probably
38. Opinionation Left
1 1.5 2 1.5 Cyclic

Examination of the data in Table V would appear almost

unintelligible ordered as it is. Examine the dimensions as listed and
you will see how disorderly the data appear to be. However, when
ordered as per Table VI, these data dictate a conceptualization much
more complex than the quantitative variation of one main dimension,
concreteness – abstractness which is proposed by the Harvey, Hunt
and Schroder group. This you can see by examining the data as they
are ordered in Table VI.
428 Verification

Item 1, intelligence, shows essentially no variation over the systems.

Thus, Harvey, Hunt and Schroder data says:
a) Conceptualize adult behavior so as to allow for no variation in
certain psychological dimensions. My data say the same thing
except for systems AN, BO and CP which I explain by saying
that an IQ of more than 70 or so is required to think beyond
the CP system.
Items 2 through 10, dogmatism, relevancy and quantity of problem
solving, vary on a quantitative scale. Thus, the Harvey, Hunt and
Schroder data also say:
b) Conceptualize adult behavior so as to allow for quantitative
variation in some psychological dimensions.
My data say the same thing. Items 23 through 38 show a different
kind of variation. Systems I (DQ) and III (FS) are a pair. Systems II
(ER) and IV (A’N’) are almost a pair. (The CP problem mentioned
above requires the modification ‘almost.’) But, in both pairs the two are
not alike in every way. Therefore, their data say:
c) Conceptualize adult behavior in an alternating wave-like
fashion allowing for the repetition of a theme. Again my data
say the same thing.

Their data say also:

d) Conceptualize adult behavior so that every other system is
similar to but at the same time different from its alternate.
Here again my data say the same thing, especially in saying
CP is an alternate of DQ.
Now focus on the items in Table VI where significant differences
are noted, and focus on items 11 through 22. Note the instances in
which one system is significantly different from three systems, from two
systems, etc. Note, also, that some of these differences vary significantly
in one system only. Note also, in System FS, that it is characterized by a
paucity of items significantly different from each of the other three
systems. Thus, these data of Harvey, Hunt and Schroder say:
a) Conceptualize adult behavior so that each system has its
system-specificness, so that each system has a quality all its
own. Once more my data say the same thing.
 Verification 429

Also the data in Table VI say:

b) Conceptualize adult human behavior so that systems DQ and
FS are more externally controlled and so that systems ER and
A’N’ are self-expressive. My data say CP is also
self-expressive.
And finally the data says:
c) increased degrees of behavioral freedom in each successive
system, particularly at system IV. The purpose of Exhibit XII
(repeated below) is to points a, b, c, d, e, f and g above.
In its entirety, Exhibit XII shows the emergence of the eight
systems which research seems to have identified to date, the eighth only
partially. It illustrates that they emerge as the basic components grow
and develop under the stimulation of new existential problems. This
growth is represented partially as quantitative change satisfying thus the
(b) requirement above of the Harvey, Hunt and Schroder data. The
components are represented to show periods of spurt and periods of
plateau, a form of growth producing the wave-like repetition of
theme/variation on theme demanded by the data and noted as (c) and
(d) above, and the alternating wavelike and similar/dissimilar, at one and
the same time, aspects of the data.
Solid lines representing the even-numbered systems indicate a
similarity in the tendency of these to be tightly bound. The
odd-numbered systems are represented by a broken line indicating each
to be less tightly bound than the even-numbered systems. Thereby, (f)
above, namely, that the even-numbered systems be externally controlled
and conservative and that the odd-numbered systems be self-expressive
and change-oriented, is expressed in the diagram just as the Harvey,
Hunt and Schroder data indicate.
The transition points produced by the growth of the components
plus the cross hatching represent each system having a quality all its
own, which is the data of (e) above. Requirement (g) of the Harvey,
Hunt and Schroder data, the charge to conceive adult human behavior
in order to show increased degrees of behavioral freedom at each
successive system, particularly at system A’N’, is shown by increasing
the size of each system. And, finally, the point (a) that some
psychological dimensions do not vary over systems is represented by the
constant shape of the systems.
Testing further by reading down the columns, we see that each
system is centralized in a different way, that each is organized to a
430 Verification

different end. The DQ system is rigid, strongly in control of self, much

identified with the American motif, loyal and religious. ER is aggressive,
self-motivated, Machiavellian, disloyal to authority, nonaffiliated with
others, and so on. System FS is significantly different in its lack of
difference (note the relative sameness of the rankings) except in the
region - ‘need for affiliation’. And A’N’ is the most different, not only in
the content of the differences, arguing against beliefs, relevancy of
approach, integrating contradiction, utilization of cues, etc., but also in
terms of the quantity of significant differences from all other systems.
As we continue to look down the columns, we can see that the
Harvey, Hunt and Schroder data support that each even-numbered
system be considerably larger than its predecessor. This is shown in
items involving self-expansiveness, which suggest that System A’N’
should be represented as much larger over the FS system than ER is
over the DQ system. System A’N’ must be represented as showing
many more degrees of behavioral freedom because it is, according to the
Harvey, Hunt and Schroder data, far less rigid, far less dogmatic, much
more able to solve problems, much quicker to solve problems, much
more able to change points of view, etc. Examining further, we see why
each even-numbered system is but slightly larger than its predecessor.
 Verification 431

Exhibit XII

This is what must be because the Harvey, Hunt and Schroder data
show the even-numbered systems to be constricting, consolidating
systems, not growth systems. Yet, FS is in position six and is
represented larger than ER because, when the Harvey, Hunt and
Schroder data are ordered as per Table VI, it falls unquestionably
between ER and A’N’ just as my data indicated was its nature and its
position in the hierarchy.
432 Verification

But, now, we have an additional testing problem arising from

Harvey, Hunt and Schroder position. With time this group has diverged.
This has been so in respect to Schroder, Driver and Streufert. They have
come to accentuate structural differences in systems over and above
content differences and thus force the question: How adequately does
this conception fit with the Schroder, Driver and Streufert data? This is
a most substantive question to answer because of the nature of their
studies.
The question is difficult to answer because most of the Schroder,
Driver and Streufert studies cover only what I call the DQ through A’N’
systems. As they say, when writing of certain of their studies,
“Unfortunately, none of the studies in these areas covers the entire
range of stimulus complexity.”223 Though this problem exists there are
several passages in their book which serve as a partial test of this
conceptualization.
The first of these passages seems to support the contention that
there is far more to the conceptualization of adult behavior than just
quantitative differences from system to system. For example, I contend
that the adult’s psychology should be seen as an open system, as a
system in which data processing characteristics change in more than a
quantitative fashion from system to system; and I suggest that Schroder,
Driver and Streufert seem to accept this when they say, while writing of
a discrepancy in certain of their studies, that:
“We could regard this divergence as mere error, but it fits into
a very interesting picture that is beginning to emerge. We
might consider the mind as an open system (following von
Bertalanffy, 1952). It can handle only so much information.
The point of interest is the manner in which it handles
information … when perception reaches a peak, a new
mechanism comes into action. As load continues to climb,
higher-order structures go in into action.”224

This is, of course, the open system/new process point of view that I
have expressed.
Another confirmation of the emergent cyclical conception has to do
with change factors. Schroder, Driver and Streufert state from the
studies of Brock (1962) and Suedfeld (1964) that:

223 Ibid, p. 61.

224 Ibid, p. 98-99.
 Verification 433

“The more concrete the attitude structure, the more likely it is

that a single salient component of information will become
central and that other informational units will become
irrelevant. This implies - and research substantiates the
implication - that if one can change the salience of certain
classes of information, attitude change occurs. This can be
accomplished by “authority” or by extreme stress, as in
information deprivation followed by a message that thus
becomes highly salient.”225
This reference to authority as the instrument of progressive change
is a direct confirmation of what was found to produce change in the DQ
system of personality and is further confirmed by the work of Michael J.
Driver, who found them to rely heavily on information handed down by
external authority. Schroder, Driver and Streufert state that:
“This approach provides a provocative point of view in the
study of group structures. At the individual level, we have seen
that concreteness implies increasing centralization of hierarchy
(in values, for example), decreasing degrees of freedom in
connectedness among parts, decreasing flexibility in
integration, and so on. We believe that parallel phenomena
occur in group structure. Concreteness in a group implies
increasing centralization of power, decreasing interpersonal
communication, decreasing flexibility in role assignments, and
so on. Information-processing systems in sociologically
concrete groups would be expected to exhibit the constriction
and rigidity of concrete systems in individuals.”226
They support the hierarchical centralization of power and the fewer
degrees of behavioral freedom of the DQ system while they support
that the A’N’ system pays far more attention to information regardless
of source than does the DQ system; a point made earlier in this work:

“(a) Information search and time spent in processing

information are curvilinearly related to uncertainty and to
external demand. (b) Abstract persons search for
more information (about a figure) and spend more time in
processing the information than do concrete persons. (c)
Information search and information processing by abstract

225 Ibid, p. 100.

226 Ibid, p. 101.
434 Verification

persons increase more with increasing uncertainty than do

search and processing by concrete persons. Since abstract
individuals produce many integrations of the information
given, and also require further information in order to examine
the feasibility of each decision, the complexity of their decision
processes should increase rapidly with increases in information
input (in this case, with greater ambiguity of the figures). The
concrete person’s tendency to structure a stimulus field and
to reduce the degrees of freedom available precludes much of
this activity. (d) The asymptote of searching and processing
time occurs at a lower level of uncertainty and external demand
for concrete persons. (e) Searching and information processing
time of abstract and concrete persons are most dissimilar in the
middle ranges of uncertainty and external demand. (f) Abstract
persons give more information in their decisions than do
concrete persons. (g) Abstract persons are more likely than
concrete persons to qualify their decisions with remarks
indicating remaining doubt, uncertainty, and tentativeness.
We have shown that abstract persons in Driver’s
experiment (1962) tracked (differentiated) more discrepant
information than did concrete subjects. The experimenter
weighted the dimensions in terms of their representation in the
decision making of the group. More evenly weighted
dimensions would indicate that the group’s decision making
involved a better representation of all of the differentiated
aspects of the interaction. Generally, even weights represent a
better reflection of all environmental information in behavior,
thereby improving the quality of the integration.
Driver found that for groups composed of abstract persons
(as opposed to groups of concrete persons) there were more
dimensions, and that these were more evenly weighted in
decision-making. Information integration was
significantly higher for abstract than for concrete groups.”227
At another point in their book, they confirm the ‘partial solution of
existential problems’ concept when they say:

227 Ibid, p. 114.

 Verification 435

“It is possible that a person could use an integratively complex

structure for handling interpersonal stimuli but have only a
simple hierarchical structure for handling religious stimuli.”228
But what of the wave-like manifestation of the emergent cyclical
conception? What of its characterization of the systems as outer
directed, inner directed, then again outer directed with a different focus,
and so forth? What of the verbal characterization appended to the DQ,
ER, FS and A’N’ systems, those that Schroder, Driver and Streufert call
low integrative complexity, moderately low integrative complexity,
medium high integrative complexity and high abstract integrative
complexity, respectively? Does or does not the data of Schroder, Driver
and Streufert support my position? As has been said before, this is not
an easy question to answer. To my knowledge, they report only one
study (Streufert, 1966), which examines moderately low integrative
subjects and medium high integrative subjects, the ER and FS systems
of this work, and even this report is difficult to interpret. What they say
is that:
“Medium low [ER] subjects differentiated between situations in
which the refuting source was close or distant - being more
negative to the source in close interaction situations. This
follows from the concern with differentiation of the self from
absolutistic control.”229
This seems to confirm that their lower integrative complexity (DQ)
is seen as externally controlled (the last sentence in the quotation above).
And the first sentence seems to say that their moderately230 low
integrative complexity (ER) is more self, more externally expressive. But,
their statement about the medium high integrative complexity (FS)
subjects is even more difficult to fathom in terms of answering the
wave-like question. They say:

“Medium high subjects [FS] made some distinctions regarding

the closeness of interaction, but in addition, differentiated
between judgments of the source in minority and majority
situations. This also ties into the general hypothesis that, at this

228 Ibid, pg 128-129.

229 Ibid, p. 140.
230 Schroder, Driver & Streufert, 1967, use the terms ‘moderately’ and ‘medium’

interchangeably.
436 Verification

level [FS], the standards of others have complex interacting

effects on oneself in a noncategorical, nonabsolutistic way.”231
As I interpret the above, it seems to say that their medium high
integrative complexity (FS) subjects are other-directed but in a manner
different from the categorical, absolutistic, low integrative complexity
(DQ) subjects. Thus, I must conclude there is suggestive data from
Schroder, Driver and Streufert which can be used to test the wave-like
aspects of this conceptualization. Nevertheless, at another place in their
book they use language which is in many respects both cognizant of
content systemic differences and similar to the verbal characterization
presented in this book.
“As the structure advances to the level we have defined as
moderately low integrative complexity, interpersonal attitude
structures become less “content bound” and are used to
process information about content in relation to the proximity
or relevance of persons. The structure appears to have the
potential to generate some variation in output (judgment,
evaluation) as the object of the attitude (such as a refuting
source) becomes more or less relevant (interaction, closeness,
distance). However, few kinds of information are processed, the
focus is egocentric, and the content is anchored in self-
reference so that attitudes can swing from neutral to highly
negative purely on the basis of personal relevance. Alternate
views (hierarchical organizations) can be considered, but the
structural properties for integrating these discrepant
organizations (perceptions) are lacking. At this level, alternatives
are available and can be maintained if the person can avoid
close contact or interaction; for example, “He can keep his
beliefs so long as he does not interfere with mine.” Freedom is
defined in terms of reference to a differentiated self: “It is what
I want to do.” It is as if the structure for maintaining these
minimal alternatives is so fragile that a good deal of protection
is required to prevent a return to a more concrete level of
structure where the direction of the attitude determines what is
right, and alternatives are wrong and considered a threat.” 232
However, at this point, they are writing more theoretically than they
are writing from data collected in specific studies. Thus, I do not deem it

231 Ibid, p. 140.

232 Ibid, p. 134-135.
 Verification 437

proper to make a case using these words of theirs to test this

conceptualization. Their words are referred to only in respect to the
questions raised because the reader may be interested in checking this
matter himself.
There is one part of the data reported by Schroder, Driver and
Streufert which may or may not stand in refutation of the
conceptualization presented in this book. It is the data they present in
respect to the distribution of intelligence over systems. You may recall
that my data tended to differ little across systems except for AN, BO
and CP, but they report that they found correlations of from .12 to .50
between integrative complexity and intelligence.233
This may or may not be a refutation of one aspect of their
conceptualization. Our methodologies were different. Schroder, Driver,
and Streufert used correlation techniques to study intelligence as it
ranged over all of the systems.234 I studied the distributional range of
intelligence across systems. This discrepancy cannot be resolved at this
time, but its existence raises a most important point in respect to the
systems conceptualization of behavior.
The point is that older methodologies may well be inappropriate to
behavior viewed from a systems perspective. We may find, as Murphy
stated, that new views of man may well require new methods of
exploration if we are to explore them. But this is a digression from our
question of the moment: Do the Harvey, Hunt and Schroder data, do
the Schroder, Driver and Streufert data, support or refute the
conceptualization of this book?
I submit that most of the conceptualization of this book testable
through their data is confirmed by it. In fact, one can say that the
emergent cyclical framework fits better the Harvey, Hunt & Schroder
and Schroder, Driver and Streufert data than does their own
conceptualization. This can be seen by reviewing that which was tested
and the reasons why the testing was done.
The decision to test E-C theory through the Harvey, Hunt and
Schroder and Schroder, and Schroder, Driver and Streufert data was
made for several reasons.

233 Ibid, p. 122.

234 Schroder, Driver and Streufert also mention that “low- and high-level information-
processing systems can be equally intelligent” (p .10) confirming Graves’s results. At
another point they write, “Intelligence as measured by the group administration of
the Otis, SAT and other intelligence tests, is significantly related to conceptual
structure (.46 in the largest sample tested).” When they removed the low intelligence
subjects from their experiment “the correlation was considerably reduced.”(p. 121-
122).
438 Verification

1. They are somewhat different conceptions of what

psychosocial behavior is like. But they share the same basic
assumption, namely, that psychosocial behaviour is the joint
product of situational and dispositional factors. Thus a fair
comparison of the basic and more peripheral aspects of the
two conceptions can be made. So the first comparison
should be between the basic aspects. This comparison
shows that the Harvey, Hunt and Schroder and Schroder,
Driver and Streufert conception does not systematize the
organismic side of the double-helix. It does say much of the
situational side but does not systematize it either. E-C
theory systematizes both.
2. The two conceptions share several systems in common, I
(DQ), II (ER), III (FS), and IV (A’N’). Hunt’s version ads a
fifth sub I (CP). The E-C conception adds two at the
bottom, AN and BO, and one at the upper end, B’O’. E-C
theory is also open-ended which is a matter Harvey, Hunt
and Schroder and Schroder, Driver and Streufert appear to
notice but move on. They equivocate in respect to open-
endedness.
3. The Harvey, Hunt and Schroder and Schroder, Driver and
Streufert people have reported several predictive and
conceptual problems with their system. The E-C
conception clears up these prediction problems.
4. The Harvey, Hunt and Schroder and Schroder, Driver and
Streufert people theorize that the differences between
systems is quantitative and not qualitative. E-C theory says
the differences are both, and uses their studies to show that
support is more on the E-C side.
5. The E-C development curve is a helix. The Harvey, Hunt
and Schroder and Schroder, Driver and Streufert is a
straight-line curve.
6. The E-C conception provides a framework by which the
general aspects of future systems can be predicted. The
Harvey, Hunt and Schroder and Schroder, Driver and
Streufert conception offers nothing on this point.
7. The E-C conception posits a six-factor picture of the
change process from one system to another. The Harvey
group posits a much simpler change process.
 Verification 439

8. The E-C conception includes within it the recent data that

the two sides of the brain function differently. The
Harvey-Schroder group do not.
But these are not the only tests to which the E-C point of view has
been put. Verifiability has been tested in three other ways. One is by
comparing the E-C conception to several other similar points of view. A
second is through tests conducted in the author’s laboratory. And the
third is the test of application. Several people have been involved in
testing the theory in institutional and work-a-day worlds.

E-C Theory Compared to Other

Stage Developmental Conceptualizers

Table VII a-g compares the emergent cyclical conception to

psychosocial systems as seen by others. The first five columns list the
systems as per Graves’s E-C theory. The left-hand column numbers the
systems from 1 through 8, and the next lists them as nodal, exiting or
entering states. The third column names the levels of existence, and the
fourth lists the existential state of each nodal, exiting or entering system.
The fifth column classifies them by their way of thinking, which my data
said is the major way they should be characterized.
Under Others, systems-like conceptions produced by other people
are numbered 1 through 23.
Column 1 (Table VII b) is the basic 1960 Harvey, Hunt and
Schroder classification system. Column 2 lists the Harvey, Hunt and
Schroder system as modified by Hunt; and column 3 lists the Schroder,
Driver and Streufert version of the Harvey, Hunt and Schroder
conception. These three versions of the Harvey, Hunt and Schroder
conceptual systems were utilized in earlier parts of this chapter to test
the emergent cyclical conception.
440 Verification

Table VII a - Graves Terminology

Characteristic
Entering/Nodal/ Level of Existential
Number Way of
Exiting Existence State
Thinking
1st
1 NODAL AN Autistic
Subsistence

1 Exiting AN/bo

2 Entering BO/an

2nd
2 NODAL BO Animistic
Subsistence

2 Exiting BO/cp

3 Entering CP/bo

3rd
3 NODAL CP Egocentric
Subsistence

3 Exiting CP/dq

4 Entering DQ/cp

4th
4 NODAL DQ Absolutistic
Subsistence

4 Exiting DQ/er

5 Entering ER/dq

5th
5 NODAL ER Multiplistic
Subsistence

5 Exiting ER/fs

6 Entering FS/er

6th
6 NODAL FS Relativistic
Subsistence

6 Exiting FS/a’n’

7 Entering A’N’/fs

7 NODAL 1st Being A’N’ Systemic

7 Exiting A’N’/b’o’

8 Entering B’O’/a’n’

8 NODAL 2nd Being B’O’ Differentialist

 Verification 441

Table VII b - Graves Compared with Other Theories

1 Harvey, 3 Driver,
Graves
Hunt, 2 Hunt Steufort, 4 Riesman
Levels
& Shroder Shroder
AN

AN/bo

BO/an

BO

BO/cp

CP/bo

CP Type Sub-I

CP/dq

DQ/cp
Low
Tradition-
DQ Type I Type I integrative
directed
complexity

DQ/er

ER/dq
Moderate/low
ER Type II Type II integrative Inner-directed
complexity

ER/fs

FS/er

FS Type III Type III Other-directed

FS/a’n’

A’N’/fs
High abstract
A’N’ Type IV Type IV integrative Autonomous
complexity

A’N’/b’o’

B’O’/a’n’

B’O’
442 Verification

Table VII c - Graves Compared to Other Theories

Graves
5 Stein 6 Heard 7 Mumford 8 Ausubel
Levels
AN

AN/bo

BO/an
Archaic Ego
BO Conscious
man omnipotence
BO/cp

CP/bo
Heroic self- Civilized Crisis of ego
CP
assertive man development
CP/dq

DQ/cp
Aesthetic
DQ Type D self- Axial man Satellization
accusing
DQ/er

ER/dq
Humanistic
New world Crisis of
ER Type C self-
man desatellization
sufficient
ER/fs

FS/er
Leptoid
World
FS Type B post- Desatellization
culture235
individual
FS/a’n’

A’N’/fs

A’N’ Type A

A’N’/b’o’

B’O’/a’n’

B’O’

235 Dr. Graves omits Mumford’s Post-historic Man. See Mumford (1956).
 Verification 443

Table VII d - Graves Compared to Other Theories

10 Sullivan,
Graves Levels 9 Kohlberg Grant & 11 Perry 12 Selman
Grant
AN Level 1 Zero

AN/bo

BO/an

BO Level 2

BO/cp

CP/bo

CP
1
CP/dq Punishment Level 3
& obedience
2 Naive
Level 3
DQ/cp instrumental
(conformist)
hedonism
3 Good boy
DQ Level 1
morality
4 Law and
DQ/er order 1 Duality
morality
2 Multiplistic
ER/dq Level 4
prelegitimate
5 Morality of
ER democratic 3 Multiplistic Level 2
contract
4 Multiplistic
ER/fs
relativism
5 Relativism
FS/er
competing
6 Morality of
FS individual Level 5 6 Relativistic Level 3
principles
7 Initial
FS/a’n’
commitment
8
Implications
A’N’/fs
of
commitment
9
A’N’ Level 6 Level 4
Commitment
A’N’/b’o’

B’O’/a’n’

B’O’
444 Verification

Table VII e - Graves Compared to Other Theories

13 14
Graves Levels 15 Calhoun 16 Loevinger
Broughton Isaacs
AN Zeta Autistic

AN/bo

BO/an
1 Sapient
BO Level 1 Epsilon Symbiotic
Revolution
BO/cp

CP/bo
2 Living
CP Level 2 Delta Agricultural Impulsive
Revolution
Impulsive self-
CP/dq
protective
Conformist
DQ/cp malignant
fixated
3 Authoritarian
DQ Level 3 Gamma Religious Conformist
Revolution
4 Holistic
Conformist
DQ/er Artistic
conscientious
Revolution
ER/dq
5 Scientific
ER Level 4 Beta Exploitive
Revolution
ER/fs Individualistic

FS/er
6
Communication
FS Level 4.5
Electronic
Revolution
FS/a’n’

A’N’/fs
7
Compassionate
A’N’ Level 5 Alpha Autonomous
Systems
Revolution
A’N’/b’o’

B’O’/a’n’

B’O’
 Verification 445

Table VII f - Graves Compared to Other Theories

Graves
17 Fromm 18 Erikson 19 Bull 20 Peck
Levels
AN
< Trust vs.
AN/bo
Mistrust >
BO/an

BO Symbiosis

BO/cp

CP/bo
< Autonomy vs.
CP Anomy Amoral
Shame & Doubt >
CP/dq Heteronomy

DQ/cp

DQ Conformity Socionomy
< Initiative vs.
DQ/er
Guilt >
Irrational
ER/dq
Conscientious
ER Autonomy
< Industry vs. Rational
ER/fs Autonomy
Inferiority > Altruistic
FS/er
< Identity vs.
FS
Role Difference >
FS/a’n’

A’N’/fs
< Intimacy vs.
A’N’
Isolation >
< Generality vs.
A’N’/b’o’
Self-absorption >
< Integrity vs.
B’O’/a’n’ despair >
[not included by
Graves]
B’O’
446 Verification

Table VII g - Graves Compared with Other Theories

23
Graves 22
21 Schein Blake & 24 Howe 25 Drews
Levels McGregor
Mouton
AN

AN/bo

BO/an

BO

BO/cp

CP/bo

CP Theory X Physical Social Leader

CP/dq 9-1

DQ/cp
Power
DQ Studious
dependent
DQ/er

ER/dq
Rational Equality
ER 5-5
Economic seeking
ER/fs

FS/er
Value
FS Social 1-9
oriented
FS/a’n’

A’N’/fs
Self-
A’N’ Theory Y 9-9
Actualizing
A’N/b’o’

B’O’/a’n’

B’O’

Columns 4 through 25 (Table VII a-g) present 22 other versions of

the developing systems point of view. The total list presented is not
necessarily exhaustive. It is representative of how systems people have
portrayed psychosocial development from a systems point of view.
Beginning with Riesman (column 4), I begin to compare the
systemic representations of other people, as I see their work, in relation
 Verification 447

to emergent cyclical theory. To see David Riesman’s work in relation to

mine, call to mind or study his Faces in the Crowd and The Lonely Crowd.
His ‘traditions directed man’ is directed by the traditions for living into
which he was born. He lives by adjusting to the ways that existed when
he came into existence. He is outer-directed. Riesman’s description
seems to fit moderately a person seen by E-C theory as living in the DQ
state of being.
Riesman’s ‘inner directed,’ as I read Riesman, is driven from within
to change things rather than to adjust to them. The human oriented this
way is driven from within to change the outer world so as to put his/her
imprint upon it. The descriptions Riesman presents of his ‘inner-
directed’ person seem to me to fit the ER state of being.
His ‘other-directed’ man is like the ‘tradition-directed’ in terms of
focus but he is not like him in terms of what he focuses upon. His focus
is more interpersonal than ideological.
Thus, as a test of E-C theory, note that Riesman places his three
types in a hierarchy. They move up from the tradition-directed, to inner-
and then to other-directed. Therefore, his work supports the ideas of
systems, hierarchy of systems, wave-like alternating change, repetition of
thema, centralization of thema and specification of thema into schema. All
of these have been posited as integral aspects of emergent cyclical
theory.
Morris Stein’s work, listed in column 5, was inspired by the
personality theory of H. A. Murray. Stein had his chemist subjects rank
order their needs as described in a twenty-item need descriptive
questionnaire as per Murray’s theory. From intercorrelation studies he
came up with five systems which he called A, B, C, D and E. Though I
cannot say that there is a one to one relation between his systems and
those of E-C theory, I can say there is remarkable similarity between
Stein’s five types and five emergent cyclical systems. Stein’s “C” system
is, according to its key descriptive phrases, similar to a person in the
nodal CP state:
“a person of driven achievement orientation, hostile
aggressiveness, one who returns to master so as to demonstrate
few if any weaknesses, a person without fear, who is
argumentative, who perceives others as obstacles to be
removed, surpassed, ignored, and one who takes pride in being
impulsive ...”236

236 Stein, Morris. “C” system descriptive phrase - exact source not located.
448 Verification

These are the same key characteristics I found in the emergent cyclical
system CP.
Similarly, Stein’s type “D” has much in it that I call DQ thinking.
Type “C” is remarkably close to what I see as the ER orientation. Type
“B” is again quite similar to the emergent cyclical FS system. Type “A”
is close to what I have seen as the A’N’ system, and Type “E” is similar
to B’O’. Stein’s work is particularly supportive of the descriptive aspects
of the emergent cyclical systems CP, DQ, ER, FS and A’N’.
But there are other aspects of Stein’s work that are important. One
is that I never heard of Stein until after basic E-C theory was conceived.
Another is that he used subjects who were chemists. As third is that his
methodology was very different from mine. And fourth, his work
derived from H.A. Murray’s theory of personality, not from a stage
theoretical person. These facts are quite important so far as theory
validation is concerned. They are so important that I checked each of
the contributors 4 through 25. What I found was that:
• many in the list of Table VII who have spawned systems
conceptions of personality somewhat similar to E-C theory
had no knowledge of, or intercourse with, one another
before they spawned their conceptions;
• most of them spawned their conceptions from data
collected through widely varying methodologies;
• their sources were as disparate as: Heard (history); Calhoun
(rats and mice); Kohlberg (children from different cultures);
and Graves (adults 18-61); and
• the bases of their work ranged from well-developed
theories to no theory at all.

From this I conclude that when so many different people, from so

many different directions traveling many different ways arrive at
essentially the same destination at approximately the same time in
history, something significant occurred. Namely, these remarkable facts
tend to confirm that the systems point of view presented in this book is
not an artifact of my somewhat peculiar methodologies.
The work of Gerald Heard and Mumford (columns 6 and 7) also
tends to support the point of view of this book. Their work supports
the thought that we had better give the systems approach to personality
and cultural theory a good hard look. Their works are particularly
important because they each arrived at five systems in common with
E-C theory and in common with each other. They got there from data
 Verification 449

other than mine. Their data were historical and cultural changes that
have taken place over time.
Both profess that the data of history support the evolutionary
awakening of man’s behavioral and mental capacities. Each describes
five nodal systems. Heard’s are Co-conscious Man (BO), Heroic
Self-assertive man (CP), Aesthetic Self -accusing man (DQ), Humanic
Self-sufficient man (ER), and Leptoid Post-individual man (FS).
Mumford’s five are: Archaic (BO) man, Civilized (CP) man, Axial (DQ)
man, New World (ER) man and World Culture (FS) man.
Neither includes AN man but this is understandable since this kind
of human behavior (the behavior of the Tasaday) was not known to
exist at the time they wrote their conceptions. Both of them see
development as a phenomenon which will continue its systematic
growth in the future. But Mumford accepts that development is
open-ended while Heard takes the more traditional Utopian position.
Heard, along with Mumford, professes that the data of history
support the evolutionary awakening of mental and behavioral capacities.
He does so when he says:
“…growth is in the nature of the minds of man.
Consciousness evolves just as does the brain structure the
consciousness precipitates.”237
Or when he says:
“Man can hope to change himself constructively because there
is a power of unexpended growth in him. He does grow in
consciousness, learn from experience, and make sense of an
increasing area of consciousness.”238
The meaning in Mumford’s words is seen to be quite similar, for he says:
“In carrying man’s self-transformation to this further stage,
world culture may bring about a fresh release of spiritual
energy that will unveil new potentialities no more visible in the
human self today than radium was in the physical world a
century ago, though always present...”239
And then, as he continues, he supports the open-endedness of the E-C
conception. Mumford says:

237 Heard, Gerald (1963). The Five Ages of Man. New York; The Julian Press, p. 27.
238 Ibid (Heard, 12).
239 Mumford, Lewis (1956). The Transformations of Man. NY: Harper Torchbooks, Harper

& Row, p. 192.

450 Verification

“Even on its lowest terms, world culture will weld the nations
and the tribes together in a more meaningful network of
relations and purposes. But uniform man is himself no
terminal point. For who can set the bounds to man’s
emergence or to his power of surpassing his provisional
achievements? So far we have found no limits to the
imagination, nor yet to the sources on which it may draw.
Every goal man reaches provides a new starting point, and, the
sum of all man’s days is just a beginning.”240
On this point Heard does not agree with the E-C point of view or
that of Mumford. He says in his section On the Further Direction of
Psychophysical Evolution:
“in brief, the really possible Utopia would be this world
experienced by a psychophysique at full aperture.”241
But it is Heard who supports directly the wave-like spiral of systems, for
he says:
“... man’s history has followed an oscillatory spiral as he
alternates between the exploration of his environment (and the
expansion of his power in it) and investigation of his subjective
being (and attempt to achieve peace with it) but the spiral has
accelerated greatly in the speed of its ascent.”242
Then he says:
“Man’s story is specifically the winning of an increasing
awareness, purpose, intuition and objective. In short, man’s
history is the record of how he has gained in the intensification
of consciousness, of self-understanding. It is a psychological
story. For the spiral evolution of the psyche is the theme of the
human venture. It is the clue to man’s varied and successive
behaviors, to the interpretation of his activities. It is the key to
the explanation of his conflicts, his constructs, his orders and
revolts, his catastrophes and recoveries, his breakdown and
resumptions.”243

240 Ibid (Mumford, 249).

241 Ibid (Heard, 332).
242 Ibid (Heard, 284).
243 Ibid (Heard, 5).
 Verification 451

The more indirect words of Mumford which support this point are:
“At all these stages in the development of the self, only a small
part of man’s potentialities were consciously represented in
image or idea. Fortunately, the repressed or neglected aspects,
even in primitive society, were not effectively excluded from
living experiences. However well fortified the inner world,
some of the outer world is constantly breaking through,
making demands that must be met, offering suggestions that,
even if unheeded, produce a certain effect. So, too, however
heavy the crust formed by external nature, by human
institutions and habits, the pressure from the inner world
would produce cracks and fissures, and even from time to time
explosively erupt.”244
Charlotte Buhler, writing on the change in the concept of
homeostasis, also verifies the two component cyclic aspects of this
conception when she says:
“The main revision of thought lies in the recognition that
homeostasis, or else the basic tendencies of the organism need
to be redefined so as to cover the tendency to change besides
the tendency toward maintenance. Both are seen as being equally
primary tendencies.” 245
Another point confirmed by Heard is that man’s personality and
culture are far more than movement from more simple to more
complex ways of satisfying physiological needs through condition. In
respect to this his words are:
“… nor can man be understood, and his story explained by
saying he is an accident of economy, that all his culture has
risen from physiological necessities. It is true that his art and
his science have aided his physical survival, but only because
his curiosity has forced him to pursue knowledge of his
environment. Human history, if we are to understand it, is
psychological history. Man’s works and his instruments are the
silt lines of his mind’s currents, the tide marks of his
consciousness.”246

244 Ibid (Mumford, 1956, p. 176).

245 Buhler, Charlotte (1959). Theoretical observations about life’s basic tendencies.
American Journal of Psychotherapy. 13, 3 p. 561-581.
246 Ibid (Heard, 1963, p. 21-22).
452 Verification

Ausubel’s conception (column 8), is important both from a

confirmation and disconfirmation point of view. In one sentence he
supports the E-C contention that development is a continuous and
continuing organism-environment interaction. But it may be that he
takes issue with the E-C position that a biological blueprint delimits
development. His words are:
“Ego development is the outcome of continuous biosocial
interaction. There is no predetermined course or sequence of
events which reflects the unfolding of a detailed blueprint
designed by inner impulses.”247
He proceeds to lay out five states which he says are typical in human
development. He leaves me thoroughly confused as to whether his
position does or does not confirm E-C theory.
The works of Kohlberg (column 9), Sullivan, Grant and Grant
(column 10), Perry (column 11), Selman (column 12), Broughton
(column 13), Isaacs (column 14), Calhoun (column 15) and Loevinger
(column 16) are of another order.
The eight stages of Erikson (column 18) are useful for testing only
in that his eight stages do seem, in an overlapping way, to follow the
general thought of the E-C conception.
Bull’s work does not seem to be too concerned with theoretical
matters. But the fact that he found no development after age 13 in girls
and age 15 in boys may reflect the inadequacy of non-helixical, non-
spiraling conceptions of development. Also, that his subjects did not see
cheating as much of an offense could confirm that in the second spiral
of existence, as it comes to be, value and all other judgments are made
on a new and different basis.
Peck’s work (column 20), as I see it, is more of historical than
theoretical importance. Schein,248 McGregor, and Blake and Mouton
(columns 21-23), are listed as systems contributors from the
organizational and non-abnormal applied world of thought. But there is
one thing of theoretical importance in Schein’s work. His conception of
Complex Man says that the Self-actualizing man of Maslow is not the
epitome of development, a matter that Kohlberg is beginning to accept.

247 Ausubel, David P. (1952). Ego Development and the Personality Disorders: A Developmental
Approach to Psychopathology. New York: Grune & Stratton, p. 44.
248 Schein, Edgar H. (1978). Career Dynamics: Matching Individual and Organizational Needs.

Redding, MA: Addison Wesley Publishing Company. Also (1971) The Individual, the
Organization and the Career: A Conceptual Scheme. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
No 7.
 Verification 453

Howe (column 24) is listed as one of the first if not the earliest
persons to lay out systems of development in descriptive form. Drews249
(column 25) is listed because of her Stanford Research Institute
summary of the hierarchical systems position.
But now it is time to return to my testing of emergent cyclical
theory through the works of other conceptualizers. And I shall do so by
picking up with Kohlberg’s work (column 9 in the list).
Kohlberg’s studies of moral development are quite important as a
test of the E-C conception. This is because E-C theory says there is
nothing approaching morality, as we commonly think of it, until the
nodal CP system appears. If this position is not supported, then the
emergent cyclical conception is in trouble. But Kohlberg’s conception,
Type 1, finds no concept of duty or morality except in terms of concrete
rules enforced by restraining outer power. He says also that his Type 1,
the punishment and obedience orientation, shows little concern for
others beyond avoiding taboos. What the Type I values is power and if
you have it, you set the rules for others and are not bound by them
yourself.
As I see them, Kohlberg’s Types 2, 3 and 4 confirm the exiting,
entering and nodal aspects of E-C theory. I see his Type 2 as the CP/dq
exiting third level subsystem. I see his Type 3 as the cp/DQ subsystem,
the entering version of the DQ system. His Type 4, which conforms to
avoid authority’s censure and its resulting feeling of guilt, as Kohlberg
describes it, is the nodal DQ system in operation. Type 5 appears to me
as dq/ER morality, and in Table VII you find a gap until the FS system
slot. This is not surprising to me because I have found the ER entering
subsystem dq/ER particularly antithetical to conventional morality. The
nodal and exiting ER subsystems are the same, but respectively less so.
E-C theory says that moral development should not return in full
blossom until the FS system. And I read Kohlberg’s description of
system 6 as the FS system.
Furthermore, E-C theory says Kohlberg’s system for classification
should become blurred, run out or be in need of supplementation
beyond his level 6. His classification scheme has no satisfactory way for
dealing with a second spiral of existence operating on a new and
fundamentally different basis for living. That this is true is supported by
the recent attempt of Kohlberg to handle his problem by beginning to

249 Drews, Elizabeth (1971).

454 Verification

write about a seventh system.250 Therefore, it seems reasonable to

conclude that Kohlberg’s work stands in confirmation of E-C theory.
Column 10 lists the work of Sullivan, Grant and Grant. The first
confirmatory matter of importance is that they postulate what I have
called the AN system. They are the first people in this review to
postulate the existence of this system. And they describe it very much as
it is described in E-C theory. In fact, they make the same mistake I was
making until after 1962, namely, describing that this group, if adults,
were always in trouble. In 1963 I postulated that a steady state brand of
what I call the AN existential state must have existed in man’s past
because the logic of Emergent-Cyclical theory, as then developing, made
no sense without its having once existed.
But this is not a criticism of Sullivan, Grant and Grant, nor a
disconfirmation of E-C theory. It is simply that the existence of the
Tasaday was not known until 1967. Sullivan, Grant and Grant, along
with twelve others, designated a Level 2, a BO existential state. They
also recognize Level 3 behavior. But as I interpret their words, their
Level 3 (cons), Level 3 conformists and Level 4 are transitional rather
than nodal systems. When I use the Sullivan, Grant & Grant
descriptions to test their fit with the E-C framework, I find their “Level

250 Editor’s Note: Kohlberg retracted this claim following the writing of this book and
Graves’s death. In Kohlberg, Lawrence (1983). Moral Stages: A Current Formulation and
a Response to Critics. S.Karger, Basel (Switzerland), he writes: “We no longer claim that
our empirical work has succeeded in defining the nature of a sixth and highest stage
of moral judgment. The existence and nature of such a stage is, at this moment, a
matter of theoretical and philosophic speculation.” (p. 9) Kohlberg, et al., explain the
reason for this further when they, “point out that the case materials from which we
constructed our theoretical definition of a sixth stage came from the writings of a
small elite sample; elite in the sense of its formal philosophic training and in the sense
of its ability for and commitment to moral leadership … While both philosophical
and psychological considerations lead us to continue to hypothesize and look for a
sixth moral stage, our longitudinal data have not provided us with material necessary
to (a) verify our hypothesis or (b) construct a detailed scoring manual description
which would allow reliable identification of a sixth stage. Until 1972, our
conceptualization and test manual definition of Stage 6 was based on our 1958 cross-
sectional and ideal-typical method for stage scoring [Kohlberg, 1958]. This method
classified as Stage 6 high school and college responses which are now scored as Stage
5, Stage 4, and occasionally even as Stage 3 in the Standardized Issue Scoring Manual
[Colby et al., 1983a]. The material that was formerly scored as Stage 6 is now scored
as substage B at one of these lower stages (60) … In the absence of clearer empirical
confirmation of a sixth stage of moral judgment, we are led to suspend claiming that
our research provides support for a number of psychological and philosophic claims
which Kohlberg [1971] made in his article From Is to Ought.” In Colby, Anne and
Lawrence Kohlberg (1987). The Measurement of Moral Judgment. Cambridge University
Press, p. 60 & 63.
 Verification 455

3 (cons)” are CP/dq. Their Level 3 conformists are cp/DQ and their
Level 4 is dq/ER. I find this confirming rather than disconfirming
because of what is said about pathology in Exhibit IX (p. 179) In it,
emergent cyclical theory says delinquent behavior is most apt to arise
from subsystems which function c, c’ or c” (gamma) etc. The behavior
we call delinquency is not apt to spring from b, b’, b” (beta) etc.
functioning.
The mode of functioning next most apt to produce delinquency
according to the E-C conceptions is b” (exiting CP beta) functioning.
This is so because of the composition of the components of the three
subsystems Level 3 (cons) CP/dq; Level 3 conformist cp/DQ and Level
4 DQ/er. Both the CP and ER components have strong non-
conforming tendencies, with the CP tendency stronger than the ER.
That is, both have strong “focus on the external world and attempt to
change it.”
So CP/dq and cp/DQ should be delinquency-prone systems. The
b” should be next in line because it is a system in which there is a very
strong conforming tendency but a weaker but very brash non-
conforming tendency. The DQ/cp, though dominantly conforming, has
in it a significant amount of the most aggressive kind of thinking found
in any system. The b” delinquency should be of a different character
than in CP/dq or the cp/DQ subsystems. It should be compulsive
delinquency breaking through impulsively and oft times horrendously,
now and then, when the strong DQ component is temporarily
overwhelmed, when the superego breaks down and the id shoots
through.
Conversely, Sullivan, Grant and Grant’s Level 5 should be a nodal
system relatively free of aggressive delinquency. Relative to the E-C
framework their description of Level 5 seems to be the nodal FS
existential state in which I have found crimes against property and other
persons almost to disappear. This confirms the E-C conception because
FS psychological space has reduced raw aggressive tendencies to a minor
part of the total system. But there is a kind of “delinquency” which is
prevalent in the FS state that is rarely found in the systems beyond FS. It
is “delinquency” against the self: dope, suicide and the like.
Sullivan, Grant and Grant’s Level 6 seems quite close to emergent
cyclical A’N’. Their Level 7 is either the nodal B’O’ system or one with
strong B’O’ components in it. Sullivan, Grant and Grant also confirm
much of what has been said about the change process and the need to
establish congruency in order to effectively manage. So, overall one can
456 Verification

conclude that far more in the work of Sullivan, Grant and Grant
confirms the E-C position than disconfirms it.
But I should not leave Sullivan, Grant and Grant without using their
work to put the total E-C framework to the test. To remove myself
from this test and thus avoid contaminating it, I offer the words of
Loevinger as she describes her view of what development is all about
according to Sullivan, Grant and Grant. Loevinger’s words are:
“Development proceeds in the direction of increasing
involvement with others, increasing perceptual and cognitive
discrimination, increasingly accurate perception, and more
effective operation. At each of the successive development
levels, they describe a core problem, the characteristics of
children [adults] fixated at that stage, typical anxieties and
potentialities for delinquency.”251
E-C theory agrees with all of this with one slight exception. My data
do not entirely agree with “development proceeds in the direction of
increasing involvement with others.” My data say this statement applies
to the development of Subsistence Level, even-numbered BO, DQ and
FS systems, not systems CP and ER. Also my data indicate that Being
Level systems stray slightly from Loevinger’s words about this
developmental dimension.

Test by Perry’s Data

The conception of William Perry (column 11) does not include the
first three behavior systems identified by other investigators. But this is
not a criticism. His sample, Harvard college students, would not be
expected to behave in the AN, BO, or CP fashion. As a conception, and
as I see it, Perry’s framework tends more to confirm the subsystem
aspect of the ER point of view than any other conception listed in Table
VII. Beginning with Perry’s Position I (DQ), his framework follows step
by step each nodal, exiting, and entering subsystem until it runs out just
before what would be the E-C nodal A’N’ system. But this should not
be passed by because it is a disconfirmation. Perry says his Position 9
logically rounds out his framework. I would say only the addition of a
Position 10 would accomplish this.

251 Loevinger, Jane (1976). Ego Development. San Francisco, Jossey Bass, p. 105-106.
 Verification 457

But all in all, as I read Perry’s work, and those who have written
from it, like Anthony Athos, I find remarkable cross-confirmation of the
philosophy, nature and content between Perry’s system and my own.

Test by Selman’s Conception

Robert Selman’s conception, based on reasoning about

interpersonal relations, is compared to the E-C conception in column
12. It derives from answers to six interpersonal dilemmas and
interviews. My interpretation of his Levels 1, 2, 3 and 4 says there is
much in common with existential states, DQ, ER, FS and A’N’
respectively. But I do not feel sufficiently apprised of his work at this
time to seriously discuss whether it confirms or disconfirms the E-C
conception.

Test by Broughton’s Conception

The conception of John Broughton is, to me, a particularly crucial

test of the emergent cyclical point of view. It is a crucial test because his
conception of human development was arrived at in a careful
philosophical and scientific fashion. Mine was arrived at with no
concern for philosophical matters and minimal concern for “established
scientific” ways. Thus, a serious test of E-C theory is: Does
philosophically careful and “scientifically proper” work confirm or
disconfirm the emergent cyclical conception? The answer, I believe, is
positive. This is said because column 13 shows only two slight variations
between the ordering of his “natural epistemologies” and the E-C nodal
stages. The first slight difference stems from his designation of his first
stage as zero. Neither his description of a child at the zero stage nor the
data I have on the AN state agrees with the use of the appellation zero
to designate the first level.
The other point pertains to Broughton’s equivocation about the
stage after his Level 4 system. The equivocation leads him to call it Level
4 1/2. But the data I have collected, and the data of all who have
described this systemic position, suggest there is no need to equivocate.
The weight of the evidence says call it Level 5 because that is what it is.
So, to me, Broughton’s work provides important confirmation. A
meticulous investigator and thoughtful philosopher finds essentially the
same nodal framework at which I arrived in a more cavalier fashion.
458 Verification

Test by Isaacs’ Conception

The conception of Kenneth S. Isaacs252 significantly contributes to

the task of testing E-C theory. This is because few conceptions provide
the opportunity to test both nodal and detailed aspects as well.
Isaacs’s method is to collect the fantasies of people produced in
response to the Thematic Apperception Test. Then he classifies the
fantasies and analyzes the resulting categories. His work produced six
levels of operation which he named Zeta, Epsilon, Delta, Gamma, Beta
and Alpha. To test through his system, I shall work from his
descriptions and comment on confirmation as I move along.
Isaacs’ Zeta Level is essentially what I have discerned as the AN
existential state. He agrees that the person operating at the Zeta level is
rare today except in illness or stress. The person does not affectively
distinguish self from others. S/he shows no distinctions between self
and others, sees no distinction between self and other objects, between
human and non-human, or between animate and inanimate objects. Zeta
humans have few rules for living and the ones they have are not very
effective for living. They differentiate but little in the environment than
other people do. All of these are characteristics of the AN state
according to my data.
At the Epsilon level, the person does differentiate self from others,
but barely. S/he sees no possibility that people can planfully interact to
solve their problems. Feelings, gratifications and satisfactions are all
from within the self not related to others. Feelings are just accepted as
givens and there is no idea that the actions of other humans may be the
cause of them. These are very similar to what I have found in the BO
state.
At the Delta level, third in his hierarchy, it is as if the person were
awakening. Here people see the world in terms of getting from or being
deprived, in terms of controlling or being controlled. People at this level
seem to be out to get more and will do whatever is necessary to get it.
They will snare, entrap, enslave, or anything necessary to get, or to avoid
being caught. They comply only with fear and are stubbornly resistive.
They show such emotions as shame, disgust, fear and anger, but not
guilt. This confirms what was said in Chapter IX about the emotional
components in the P neuropsychological system. Isaacs’ description of
perception at this level also confirms the perceptual component of the P
system.

252 Isaacs, Kenneth (1956).

 Verification 459

Isaacs’ Gamma Level is quite like the emergent cyclical DQ state.

The more tender emotions of pity, sympathy and tenderness are fully
present. Guilt, which E-C theory says is the key emotion of the Q
neuropsychological system, is clearly present according to Isaacs, who
says: “Other signals of attainment of Gamma level are guilt over Delta
tendencies, and disapproval of Delta tendencies in one’s self and
others.”253
Particularly important is the confirmation of the ER system’s
position as fourth in the hierarchy. First, he says that objectivity has
arrived. Then he confirms the focus of the ER state with the words:
“The focus at this level is with a final intra-psychic separation
of self from others. In the process of attempting to disidentify
with and rearrange the various aspects of earlier identifications,
there may be a struggling against others who may temporarily
personify the forces fighting within the self.”254
Also, Isaacs’ words that the Beta (ER) struggle for freedom resembles
but is not like the Delta (CP) struggle for freedom, confirms the cyclic
thematic aspect of E-C theory.
Disconfirming evidence is that Isaacs appears not to find the sixth
(FS) level.255 This I say because his description of his Alpha level
appears to be more like the emergent cyclical A’N’ than like the FS
system. Also disconfirming are Isaacs’ words about the Alpha system.
They seem to suggest that he sees the Alpha level as the “ultimate” level,
which is markedly disputed by the E-C conception.256

253 Ibid, (Isaacs, p. 22).

254 Ibid, (Isaacs, p. 24).
255 Editors’ Note: Isaacs refers to Beta both as “a state of being able to stand off from

oneself and view the activity around one’s self, including one’s own activity, with
some perspective,” (p. 23) which implies objectivity and the rationality of ER. At the
same time, Isaacs reports that the “Beta struggle is with the internal.” He emphasizes
empathy, sympathy and tender feelings in Beta (Table 5, p. 35) and “relating through
empathic capacity” (p. 24), descriptors consistent with FS; whereas Graves’s ER
system is described as having disdain for empathy and emotion. Isaacs’s particular
focus is on affect, the degree of, and ability to, interrelate with others, feelings for
others and the quality of interacting. Isaacs points out (2005) that his approach,
Relatability, is both like and unlike Graves’s work, and that he doubts the direct
correlation of the two despite some similarities. Instead, he views E-C theory and
Relatability as complements.
256 Editor’s Note: Isaacs sees movement towards the Alpha, with its increased

relatability, as a movement towards greater maturity; whereas Graves shows

conceptions of maturity articulated differently within each of the systems.
460 Verification

Isaacs’s work confirms, along with 17 other conceptions in Table

VII, that shame and not guilt is a part of the third developmental
system. It confirms that the emergence of guilt occurs in the fourth
system. It confirms that guilt decreases in the fifth system. And it
confirms the cyclic and family of systems of the E-C conception.

Test by John Calhoun’s Conception

The conception of John Calhoun257 (column 15) is of single

importance as a testing ground for E-C theory. First, to my knowledge,
his is the only conception of this kind derived from the study of
infrahuman organisms. He used his population studies of rats to procure
the data for his conception. Secondly, his conception pertains to the
psychological development of the species. Third, as shown in column
15, his systems follow the E-C framework with the exception that he
has an additional system between 4 and 5. Fourth, he is the only person
of whom I know who not only utilizes the extending systems concept of
E-C theory, but also has an explanation for it, namely, the systematic
decrease in population. Furthermore, the details of his system are quite
similar to E-C theory with the exception of the one system previously
noted.

Test by Jane Loevinger’s Conception

The last conception I shall use to test the E-C point of view is that
of Jane Loevinger. Her work is, to date, the classic review of the stage
developmental explanation of behavior. But before I begin the test, a
few clarifying remarks are required.
Beyond doubt I find Loevinger’s work more pregnant with
significant meaning than others, with the possible exception of the
totality of the Harvey, Hunt, Schroder, Driver, Streufert, et al. group.
Yet I am hampered in testing the stage aspect of E-C theory through her
work. Unfortunately, I do not find the ordering of her stages entirely
clear; nor do I understand the verbal labels and the descriptions of her
stages and levels as well as I would like. Thus the comparison I show in

257 Calhoun, John (1968). “Space and the Strategy of Life.” Unpublished paper presented
at the American Association for the Advancement of Science 135th Annual Meeting,
Dallas TX. (1970) “Levels of Existence re Gravesian Philosophy: Random Notes by
John B. Calhoun for evening seminar discussion.” (1971) “RxEvolution, Tribalism,
and the Cheshire Cat: Three Paths from Now.” unpublished paper, NIMH: Unit for
Research on Behavioral Systems, Laboratory of Psychology. URBSDOC No. 167.
 Verification 461

column 14 is the best I can arrive at, though my desire is that it be

better.
I take as a basis for depiction of her position her statement on page
14 of her book, Ego Development where she says that her hierarchy is now
a ten-point scale, whereas once it was four, and “I do not foreclose
further evolution.” I would say that those words confirm the extending,
possibly ever-evolving, aspect of the E-C conception. Secondly, she
writes in Chapter 11 of both stages and transitions which at times she
describes as levels. I see this as a partial confirmation of the E-C
transitional stages which I represent as periods in which the person
enters, goes into a nodal stage, then exits therefrom.
Therefore, to test whether the E-C stages are substantive, one must
find a reasonable fit between her stages with the AN, BO etc. nodal
stages of E-C theory. And one must find some fit between those phases
of development which she terms transitions or levels. To do this, one
should indicate what her developmental stages seem to be. Thus,
accepting her words that she now sees ten steps in the developmental
process, I infer that the following is the order of their development.

TABLE VIII

STEP
LOEVINGER’S STEP OR STEP/TRANSITION/
ACCORDING
STEPS STAGE LEVEL
TO E-C
1 Presocial or autistic AN
2 Symbiotic an/BO
3 Impulsive CP/bo
4 Self-protective CP
Conformist,
5 cp/DQ
malignant, fixated
6 Conformist DQ
Self-aware or
7 conscientious DQ/er
conformist
8 Conscientious ER
9 Individualistic ER/fs
10 Autonomous FS/a’n’
11 Integrated ? A’N’/bo ?
462 Verification

From this comparison, and as I see it, Loevinger’s work confirms some
aspect, stage-wise or transitional wise, of 10 of the 22 states and sub
states of E-C theory. Loevinger seems to agree that, in my language, all
the existential states I have posited are developmentally present in either
stage or transitional form. She seems to agree that AN, CP, DQ, and ER
are nodal stages. We seem to agree as to the nature of the progression
but not entirely as to her identification of the nodal stages beyond the
four noted. We also do not agree as to the exiting and entering sub-
stages. But these, it seems to me, are minor disagreements to be worked
out by further research. In other words, I see much in Loevinger’s ten
developmental demarcation points which confirms E-C theory.
However, I have shown very skimpy evidence that she confirms the
existence of an FS state. There are also some salient differences between
the terminology she appends to the ten steps in her scale and the
meaning I have depicted of some of the nodal existential states of E-C
theory. We agree that states AN, CP, DQ, and ER seem to exist. We
don’t see them entirely the same way.
There is, in fact, so much in Loevinger’s work that confirms the
emergent cyclical point of view that I shall only sample, from here on, to
show some of the regions of agreement. Loevinger agrees that a stage
developmental point of view has remarkable facility for subsuming, in
one framework, many other theories and much psychological
knowledge. For example, she cites, as I do, that Bentham’s pleasure-pain
principle258 is ‘Self-protective’ (ER psychology) and that Skinner’s
hedonism and schedules of reinforcement is the same. She sees
Thorndike’s work as ‘Conformistic’ (DQ psychology) attempts to seek
for reward and avoid punishment. Both of us see Sullivan’s ‘avoidance
of anxiety by seeking self esteem as distinct from esteem in the eyes of
others’259 the same way. Both of us see the ‘Conscientious’ in her
system, DQ/er in mine, as transitional. Each of us sees Adlerian theory
as crossing two stages: social interest and self-interest. However, she
sees self-interest as ‘Self-Protective’ (CP psychology) where I see the ER
version of self-interest. Both of us see Freud as a mastering system and
Kohlberg’s and Adler’s later work seeking for unity and coherence.

258 Bentham, Jeremy (1962). In John Bowring (Ed.), The Works of Jeremy Bentham.
London: 1838-1843; reprinted New York, 1962.
259 see Sullivan, H.S., in Loevinger, Jane (1976). Ego Development. San Francisco; Jossey

Bass, p. 419. The actual words in Loevinger are, “The avoidance of anxiety was the
predominant motive in formation and maintenance of the self-esteem.”
 Verification 463

Loevinger sees growth as a dialectic260 just as E-C theory does,

though we see the dialectic a bit differently. Each of us sees a thema for
each stage of development, for Loevinger says of this: “each stage of
ego development embodies a view of human motivation and
interpersonal reaction consonant with its own mode of functioning.”261
We particularly agree on a point many others might dispute. That is:
“Ego development is growth and there is no way to force it. One can
only try to open doors.”262 We agree that the problem of practical
application goes far beyond producing change in a level, a questionable
approach at best. It has more to do with establishing congruence than
with promoting growth.
We agree that: change efforts can be led only by people of a higher
level, that a person operating at any level may become a patient, and that
therapy may reopen the way to new growth but cannot produce the
growth. We agree, in Loevinger’s language, that a modest rise in ego
development, or in E-C language, a modest movement up the levels of
existence will not do mankind much good. For societal good to ensue,
we must hope for movement to E-C Being Level Systems. Finally, two
last points of agreement which cross-confirm are that both of us would
say:
1. Politically raising a politician’s ego level would probably
ensure loss of an election (earlier-appearing).
2. Persons at a higher level have access to the modes of
reasoning of those at lower levels and conversely, those at
lower levels can only translate the motives of persons at
higher levels into their own lower level (later-appearing).
So, all in all, I would say there is remarkable cross confirmation of two
points of view of two people who have not met nor communicated
with one another.

The Work of Joel Aronoff

Finally, I turn to two other studies which support the emergent
cyclical point of view. The first is the Saint Kitts study of Joel Aronoff,
an investigator who is a significant contributor to this field of study.
Aronoff tested the Maslowian theory of need in relation to the
occupational and cultural institutions of the cane cutters and fishermen

260 Ibid, (Loevinger, p. 422).

261 Ibid, (Loevinger, p. 423).
262 Ibid, (Loevinger, p. 426).
464 Verification

on that Caribbean island. Though his work cannot be as directly related

to emergent cyclical theory, it is in the same trend of thought. Aronoff
tested the validity of the Maslowian hierarchy and found it possible to
show substantial relationship between Maslow’s hierarchy and the form
and character of occupational life on the island. According to the E-C
point of view, time would be a certain reordering of the occupational life
of the islanders as their way of life solved lower-level problems and new
problems appeared. This was substantially supported by Aronoff’s
research.

The Work of Douglas LaBier

The other study is one done in my own laboratory. The study was
carried out by Douglas LaBier.263 The idea as to what and how to test
was provided by Graves. Supervision and design was done by W. C.
Huntley and the study was carried out by LaBier with Graves totally out
of the picture after the idea of what to test was presented.
The idea was as follows: The E-C conception proposes that the
personality of the mature organism tends to move continuously, as the
conditions of human existence change, if there is potential in the
organism. Where the potential is present the personality tends to
metamorphize a new form or quality, each of which is contiguous with
but centrally different from the previous stage. He operates differently
not only in that more brain cells are operant or activated but also in that
brain systems or networks become activated to permit ways of thinking,
perceiving, valuing, learning, believing, etc., which were not present
before. Consequently, one can view the psychology of the mature
organism as an unfolding or emergent process marked by the
progressive subordination of older systems in favor of newer higher
order systems. Therefore, if one is to test the substance of this position,
one must (a) devise a means to operationally define the system, and (b)
devise a means to put the progressive hypothesis to the test. The means
selected was the perceptual readiness test.
Much argument exists in respect to the perceptual readiness test. So,
the literature in respect to it comes from: Postman, Bruner and
McGinnies through Bricker and Chapanis, Solomon and Howes,
Postman and Schneider, etc. This review brought forth the factors
necessary to control.

263 LaBier, Douglas, C. W. Graves, and W.C. Huntley (1965). Personality Structure and
Perceptual Readiness: An investigation of their Relationship to Hypothesized Levels of Human
Existence. Unpublished paper, Union College.
 Verification 465

Operationalizing E-C theory was done by drawing on the work of

Harvey, Hunt and Schroder, Milton Rokeach, and Gough and Sanford.
Rokeach’s Dogmatism Scale and the Gough-Sanford Rigidity Scale were
used.
In terms of E-C theory, the Harvey, Hunt and Schroder studies,
Rokeach’s concept of open and closed systems of belief distinguishes
existential states DQ and ER from states FS and A’N’. Thus the
Dogmatism Scale allows one to separate and operationally describe
behavior associated with states DQ and ER, on the one hand, and states
FS and A’N’ on the other.
To separate DQ from ER and FS from A’N’, the 60 items of the
Dogmatism Scale were interspersed with the 21 items of the
Gough-Sanford Rigidity Scale because the latter measures resistance to
change of single beliefs, sets, or habits, whereas dogmatism refers to
change of systems of belief. Therefore, certain score combinations of
high or low dogmatism with high or low rigidity should represent the
following existential states.
Existential State Combination
DQ high rigidity - high dogmatism
ER low rigidity - high dogmatism
FS high rigidity - low dogmatism
A’N’ low rigidity - low dogmatism
It is hypothesized that the DQ fourth-level system is closed in total
belief systems as well as rigid in particular activities and thus would yield
a questionnaire score high both in dogmatism and rigidity which are
theoretically, as I have said, characteristic of the DQ state. ER behavior
(fifth level), on the other hand, while still closed in belief systems,
manifests flexibility in particular actions, the typical multiplistic way of
thinking.
With movement to the FS state, emergent cyclical theory says the
person sheds his/her closed system of belief, is able to change, adapt, or
move to different kinds of belief systems. However, being an even -
numbered system - system six - rigidity is demanded within the
particular beliefs system adopted. Then at the A’N’ stage, E-C theory
says both rigidity and dogmatism recede to produce a system
unburdened by adherence to particular acts or particular belief systems.
So, it was hypothesized that if one operationally defines and
designates certain existential states, as per above, a subject whose
thinking it thereby designated as representing a particular state will
466 Verification

recognize words representing the dominant thinking of the state more

quickly than the words representing other states.
The stimulus words used and ordered according to the four most
common states in our society are listed per state below. These four
states were used because we were limited by subject availability. They
were undergraduate college students. Appropriate controls according to
the Postman et al. work were exercised.
DQ ER FS A’N’
Safety Power Social Esteem
Submit Action Adjust Being
Order Useful Fashion Express
Obey Practical Together Free
Security Risk Team Indulge
The choice of the words was dictated by the content in the original
conception of maturity, the base line data of E-C theory.
The twenty words were tachistocopically shown to the subjects in
random order. Each word was exposed two times for .01 second. If the
subject failed to recognize the word, it was again exposed two times at
.02, .03 seconds, etc. at exposure times increasing in steps of .01 second
until recognition occurred. However, beyond the exposure time of .10
second, it was necessary to increase the exposure steps from .01 to .10
second, because the tachistoscope employed was not calibrated for .01
second increments beyond the exposure time of .10 second.
The subject was instructed to respond to every exposure whether or
not the full word was distinguished. A full record of the subject’s pre-
recognition response was maintained thus for each subject.
The mean recognition time for the 5 words representing the
hypothesized level was calculated and compared with the mean
recognition time for all twenty words. The results are listed in Table IX.
In addition, the mean times of recognition for words representing
each of the four hypothesized existential states were calculated.
Statistical tests of significance of association between hypothesized
states and times of representative word recognition were performed and
found to be significant. These additional results are shown in Table X.
The data of Tables IX and X. indicate that the subjects recognized
the words of their hypothesized state at a mean recognition time which
was quicker than the mean recognition for all 20 words. Moreover,
when one plots the mean recognition time of each group of words for
each subject, one finds that the speed of recognition of each group of
words for each subject increases as the subject’s hypothesized state is
 Verification 467

approached and then decreases in a roughly constant manner. These are

shown in Exhibits XV-XVIII.

Table IX
MEAN RECOGNITION TIME TO WORDS REPRESENTING EXISTENTIAL STATE
DQ, ER, FS & A’N’, AND MEAN RECOGNITION TO ALL WORDS OF
HYPOTHESIZED DQ, ER, FS & A’N’ SUBJECTS

Level 4 words all words

1 .010 sec. .031 sec.

Hypothesized
Level 4 or 2 .280 sec. .38o sec.
DQ Subjects
3 .042 sec. .079 sec.
Level 5 words all words

1 .042 sec. .101 sec.

Hypothesized
Level 5 or 2 .680 sec. .845 sec.
ER Subjects
3 .054 sec. .065 sec.
Level 6 words all words

1 .076 sec. .111 sec.

Hypothesized
Level 6 or 2 .098 sec. .137 sec.
FS Subjects
3 .010 sec. .021 sec.
Level 7 words all words

1 .046 sec. .120 sec.

Hypothesized
Level 7 or 2 .014 sec. .031 sec.
A’N’ Subjects
3 .030 sec. .037 sec.
468 Verification

TABLE X
MEAN RECOGNITION TIME OF 12 INDIVIDUALS (3 AT EACH LEVEL)
HYPOTHESIZED DQ, ER, FS & A’N’ SUBJECTS TO WORDS REPRESENTING
STATES DQ, ER, FS & A’N’

Hypothesized Subject
States
Level #
4 5 6 7
Hypothesized 1 .010 .022 .032 .058
Level 4 or 2 .280 .340 .420 .480
DQ Subjects 3 .042 .064 .089 .132
Hypothesized 1 .156 .042 .060 .144
Level 5 or 2 .880 .680 .920 .900
ER Subjects 3 .076 .054 .064 .066
Hypothesized 1 .156 .082 .076 .130
Level 6 or 2 .168 .144 .098 .138
FS Subjects 3 .022 .016 .010 .014
Hypothesized 1 .250 .122 .082 .046
Level 7 or 2 .052 .034 .024 .014
A’N’ Subjects 3 .038 .040 .040 .030

Thus, for most subjects, the time required for recognition of the
words for the states on either side of the subject’s hypothesized state
undergoes a constant increase. From there, one may speculate that these
data represent the role of selective perception for areas which have
varying degrees of value or meaning for the subject. This supports the
progressive subordination aspect of the E-C conception. That is, if each
different stage of existence follows an ever-emergent or unfolding
pattern and eventually becomes subordinated to newer emerging
systems, then certain aspects or portions of both later and earlier
appearing states of existence will be present within the individual. So, if
the relative times of recognition can serve as a basis for speculation,
then it appears that tendencies toward the behavior of states both below
and above one’s own undergo a decrease with each succeeding state.
One area of observation open to view but not quantifiable which
confirms the nodal, open, arrested, closed and transitional aspects of the
E-C point of view can be seen through visual inspection of the line
graphs of Exhibits XV, XVI, XVII, and XVIII.
 Verification 469

Exhibit XV
Hypothesized DQ Subjects – Set A

MEAN TIME OF
RECOGNITION
Subject 1 .010

.035

.060
4 5 6 7 Levels

Subject 2 .250

.400

.500
4 5 6 7 Levels

Subject 3 .040

.080

.100

.135
4 5 6 7 Levels
470 Verification

Exhibit XVI
Hypothesized ER Subjects – Set B

MEAN TIME OF
RECOGNITION

.040

Subject 1

.100

.160

4 5 6 7 Levels

Subject 2 .650

.800

.950
4 5 6 7 Levels

Subject 3
.050

.065

.080
4 5 6 7 Levels
 Verification 471

Exhibit XVII
Hypothesized FS Subjects – Set C

MEAN TIME OF
RECOGNITION
Subject 1 .075

.115

.165
4 5 6 7 Levels

Subject 2 .015

.135

.175

4 5 6 7 Levels

Subject 3 .010

.015

.020

.025
4 5 6 7 Levels
472 Verification

Exhibit XVIII
Hypothesized A’N’ Subjects – Set D

MEAN TIME OF
RECOGNITION

Subject 1
.045

.125

.205

.265
4 5 6 7 Levels

Subject 2
.010

.030

.060
4 5 6 7 Levels

Subject 3
.025

.035

.045
4 5 6 7 Levels
 Verification 473

All subjects whose speed of reaction to system sensitive words is

plotted in Exhibits XV-XVIII. Exhibit XV would be judged to be nodal
open DQ personalities according to E-C theory. Each responds to the
DQ words most quickly, to the ER words second, the FS words third,
and the A’N’ words fourth. But the three subjects in Exhibit XVI are of
a different order. Only subject 3 shows a typical open ER personality. In
this subject’s graph, the quick reaction to the DQ words shown by the
previous three subjects is much slower. The ER words are responded to
most quickly with the response to the FS words second most rapid and
the A’N’ words third.
Subjects 1 and 2 of Exhibit XVI show quite different patterns of
reaction. Reaction to the DQ words is slowest of all. The ER words are
reacted to most quickly but not much more quickly than the FS words
and speed of reaction to the A’N’ words is a little faster than to the DQ
words but noticeable slower than the ER and FS words. This person,
according to E-C theory, would be seen as in an ER/fs state of
transition from the ER nodal state to the FS nodal state. He is an exiting
ER. Subject 2 in Exhibit XVI provides a third pattern. This subject’s
speed of reaction is almost the same to the DQ, FS and A’N’ words.
The only words to which quick reaction is shown are the DQ, FS and
A’N’ words. This pattern has been found to typify the closed form of an
arrested ER existential state.
The subjects whose word reaction patterns are plotted in Exhibit
XVII show a transitional exiting pattern (subject 1), an open pattern
(subject 2) and an arrested pattern (subject 3). Subject 1 provides a curve
much like the ER/fs transition state in Exhibit XVI but the position of
the leading and following components is reversed. E-C theory would see
this pattern as one entering the FS/er existential state. Subject 2 is very
slow in responding, if he responds at all, to the A’N’ words, but does
respond, though slowly, to the DQ words. His speed of response to ER
words is faster. To the FS he responds most quickly but then drops
suddenly off, quite unlike the open pattern we have seen in other
subjects plotted.
In Exhibit XVIII, Subjects 1 and 2 both show the typical open A’N’
pattern but subject 3 displays a pattern of response not previously seen.
This subject’s response is most quick to the A’N’ words but responds
more quickly to the DQ words than to the ER or FS words. This
pattern is typical of many scientifically or technologically trained people
who have opened up in almost all respects except religious absolutism.
474 Verification
 Broader Meaning 475

CHAPTER 16

The Broader Meaning of the Concept

Now that the level of existence conception of adult personality has

been presented we must ask what is the broader meaning of this
concept? Just what does it express? What it expresses is that there are
various modes of standing out in this world, various general modes of
existence which follow one another in an ordered way, and various ideas
as to what is the best of human existence. It is a concept which makes
statements about actually and theoretically-appearing forms or
configurations of existence. It says that human existence contains
numerous, probably infinite, modes of being precisely rooted in the
multifold potentiality of man’s hierarchically structured brain and the
varying conditions for human existence. Since the emphasis of this
concept is on the human being as he emerges in psychological time and
in psychological space, then it is what the conception says about the
process-like character of man’s systems that must be divined if ever
man’s personality or culture is to be known so as to effectively treat
many of man’s problems.
In this conception, neither mature personality nor Utopian culture is
an ultimately discoverable state or condition, nor is the quality of human
life. They are organic processes determined by the mutual interaction of
the conditions present in the total system that has emerged to date; and
they are processes of a dynamic organic, not static, mechanistic nature.
Within this conception, the personality of an individual is only the
position he is at in his movement from earlier appearing stages of
existence to later appearing stages of existence. The personality of an
476 Broader Meaning

adult or the state of a culture may be moving at a rapid pace or at a

speed which, for practical purposes, can be called non-movement or
stabilization. They can, in fact, be seen as moving up and down, first this
way and then that way. They may be bouncing, so to speak, in a
disorganized way or they may be tightly centralizing around some core
at some particular level of existence.
According to this conception, man can never know his total self,
and man can never fulfill his total potentialities. He can know only the
self that has emerged, and he can express only the potential that has
been activated to date, and his level of emergence limits what he sees as
that which life should be. Even if certain self-systems have emerged, this
total self, total in the Spearman sense, he may not know because
knowing self is a function of relating to a world which permits the
expression of the emerged self. Yet, as contradictory as it may seem, at
certain stages of existence, man will believe that he can come to know
himself, and at certain stages man will believe that the expression of
potential is not only possible but necessary, while at other stages he will
consider such beliefs to be ridiculous.
At each stage of human existence the adult man is off on his quest
of his holy grail, the way of life by which he believes men should live. At
his first level he is on a quest for automatic physiological satisfaction. At
the second level he seeks a safe mode for living, and this is followed, in
turn, by a search for heroic status, for the power and the glory, then by a
search for everlasting peace, a search for material fulfillment in the here
and now, a search for personal fulfillment here and now, a search for
integrated living and a search for spiritual peace in a world he knows can
never be known. And, when he finds, at the eighth level, that he will
never find that peace, he will be off on his ninth-level quest. As he sets
off on each quest, he believes he will find the answer to his existence,
and as he settles into each nodal state he is certain he has found it. Yet,
always to his surprise and ever to his dismay he finds, at every stage, that
the solution to existence is not the solution he thinks he has found.
Every state he reaches leaves him discontented and perplexed. It is
simply that as he solves one set of human problems he finds a new set
in their place. The quest he finds is never ending. He learns that the
most crucial fact about existence is not how to exist but that it emerges,
that it is always developing in time and in space and will never be
defined at any one point or any one time in life unless one becomes a
closed personality. What he learns is that which Goethe wrote about in
Duration in Change.264 He learns that:
264 von Goethe, Johann Woflgang (1803) Also translated “Constancy in Change.”
 Broader Meaning 477

The hand of yours that once so nimbly

Moved to do a deed of grace -
The structural form is there no longer
Another now is in its place.
All is changed. The new hand bearing
Now the name the other bore
Came like a wave that rose and, falling
Joins the elements once more.

This level of existence conception of adult human behavior sees

human life as a coherent developmental process of successive
equilibrations, successive styles of living. But let us not be misled. A
level is not, in reality, an attainable state. A level is a theoretical state of
equilibrium. It is a state toward which a human who has certain dynamic
systems open moves when in relatively stabilized conditions of
existence. Levels are constructs. They are not realities. They are
constructs to be seen more like the constructs of absolute zero and
absolute vacuum rather than as actual existential states. They are not to
be viewed as forms of human behavior which actually exist. They are the
base points from which the living, behaving human being varies. In
other words, a level is a theoretical balance between a more advanced
stage which is emerging and a preceding stage out of which an adult has
emerged. Thus, a person can be said to be in a level only when he
remains a relatively unchanging psychological being in a relatively
changing world.
The person who tends to persist in showing one form of behavior
when the world about him changes is the one who most approaches the
theoretical picture of a level. This person we call a closed level three, a
closed level four, a closed level five, etc. We can see how closely he
approaches the theoretical picture by first of all testing for closure, then
by examining the closed person’s behavior in relation to the theoretical
description of the level. This testing for closure is done by the
application of four criteria. They are:

I. the behavior of the closed person is displayed in

inappropriate circumstances, is over generalized;
II. the behavior of the closed person is insatiable;
III. the behavior of the closed person shows an undue
response to frustration; and
IV. the behavior of the person is inflexible.
478 Broader Meaning

On the other hand, an open personality tends to change as the

world changes and changes the world as his open personality changes.
The open personality moves in the direction of more effective
adjustment to the new realities of existence. This open personality
would not tend to show the typical picture of a level as much as the
closed person would. His behavioral level would be shown as the
momentarily dominant trend in the flowing process rather than as the
almost pure representation of the theoretical behavioral form (Exhibit
XIX).
Whether a personality is open, arrested, or whether it is closed is a
function of the potential in the person, the developmental history of the
organism and the current environmental circumstances. To be open, a
personality must, of course, possess potential for higher-level behavior
and must have had, as well, a past history and current conditions of
existence conducive to the state of openness. A closed personality can
be closed because it can’t go any further; that is, it has no higher level
capacity to emerge into. Or it can become closed because the historical
psychosocial life circumstances have restricted it from being in any other
state than that into which it has developed. The arrested personality, on
the other hand, is one which possesses the potential for growth; has, to
a point, adequate historical psychosocial circumstances, but is caught in
current world conditions which present barriers to its movement on.
But there is much more that we must examine in order to develop a
more complete feeling for the level of existence conception of adult
behavior. One of these additional areas is the nature of the organism as
seen from this conceptual point of view.
The organism as seen, herein, is a generally preprogrammed,
complex energy system. This preprogrammed system interacts with the
environmental system to produce successive thematic styles of being -
existential states AN, BO, CP, etc. - which are specified by individual
differences, individual history and individual current circumstances into
the schematic form for existence of the individual person or cultural
system. This total biosocial system tends, normally, to be open, but the
nature of the organism is such that it can operate throughout a lifetime
in a relatively closed state of psychological affairs. Though we refer to
the human part of this large system as preprogrammed, we do not mean
predetermined, nor do we mean purposeful striving toward some goal
or end. We mean simply that the organism is made up of a series of
systems which supraordinate one after another, thereby placing certain
broad general prescriptions on our degrees of behavioral freedom. We
 Broader Meaning 479

mean that man’s nature is to alternate through spurts of growth and

periods of consolidation, through cycles of external concern and inner

Exhibit XIX

spiritual contemplation. And we mean that man’s nature is to open up as

the conditions for his existence improve. In other words, man’s nature is
how he happens to be structured brain wise and otherwise and what this
480 Broader Meaning

structuring is revealed to be as it unravels in time and in space as the

conditions for existence change. That is all we mean by saying man is a
preprogrammed complex energy system. In general, ‘whither thou goest,
I go,’ 265 though we know not why.
According to this conception we do ourselves a disservice by
arguing whether man’s nature is good or bad, active or reactive,
mechanical or teleological. Man’s nature is emergent. What man is
cannot be seen before. We can see it only insofar as it has been revealed
to us by his movement through the levels of human existence. And,
what has been revealed to us, so far, is that in some way or another
man’s nature is all of these and more. Our very conception envisages
that new aspects of man are now before us which were not seen before,
and that the man that man now is will go on proliferating into new
forms if the conditions for human existence continue to improve.
What seems to be revealed to us about man’s nature is that he can
settle into a state which on the surface makes it appear that he is good.
He can, for example, be the apparently kind, loyal, self-controlled DQ
constellation of level four revealed in Table I. Or, he can be in a state
which readily lends itself to a bad interpretation, the aggressive, unkind,
Machiavellian-like constellation of the level three and five, CP and ER
systems. He is an organism whose behavior can appear to be
mechanistic, as when he is dominated by the AN or CP systems of his
behavior can appear to be a striving to be, to have a teleological aspect
when he operates in a DQ or FS system. He can seem to be
predominantly an active organism when he operates in one of the odd-
numbered systems, or, he can be seen to be a passive, reactive organism
when he settles into the equilibriums of one of the conservationistic,
even-numbered systems.
What we see about man’s nature from this conceptual viewpoint is
that his nature allows forever new ways of standing out, of existing in
this world. What we see is that these various modes for existence lead
investigators to necessarily see the nature of man display itself in
different behavioral constellations. We see these different behavioral
constellations lead to different questions as to the nature of man’s
nature from which different answers must result. What the data behind
this conception seem to say is that man’s nature, as revealed so far,
makes him an enigma; what the interpretation of the data seems to say is
that when we come to see more of man’s nature revealed, we will find it
more enigmatic. But enigmatic or not, it is our task to make sense of

265 Paraphrase of Ruth 1:16 in the Bible.

 Broader Meaning 481

man as his emergence reveals, more and more, the nature of his self to
us.
One thing we seem to see is that man’s basic need is very simple. It
is to exist, not to succumb; and to exist in whatever specification of the
general form he can with emerging potential at his disposal, in the
circumstances he is in. We cannot say that man is striving to become his
total human self as he moves from one level to another. We cannot say
that he is attempting to totally self-actualize. What we can say is that at
each level he is striving to be what he can be there, and at each level he
believes that what he should be is what he has emerged to be to date.
He is striving to be what he can be within the general form of existence,
the thema for living, that is open to him at his level of emergence in the
conditions of existence he is in.
But, why is he so striving thus? Because he must, that’s why.
Because if he does not find a specific way of being within his general
possibilities, he will cease to exist. And if this be circular reasoning, then
so be it; for who am I to argue with what my data say? There is no
deeper meaning in all of man’s behavior than that he behaves according
to the dictates of his nature and experience. Man does not strive to
become; he does not strive toward some ultimate goal. He strives no
more than to be what he can be in the realities of his existence. He
strives only to exist.
One of the realities of existence, according to this conception of
man’s personality, is that his brain consists of hierarchically ordered
systems which can be inactive, partially active, subordinately or
supraordinately active. Therefore, when some systems are inactive or
subordinated, man must, in order to be, develop a mode of existence
which will enable him to live even though a part of his brain is not
activated or is subordinated. If a particular system is supraordering, then
the reality of his existence is that he must develop styles of living which
are consonant with it being the dominating system. If he does not do
this, then he will be in dire trouble so far as his existence is concerned.
The fact that man, as the conditions for his existence change, moves
through systematic behavioral forms, is neither purposeful nor
remarkable, nor divinely planned nor ordered. It is only that being
human-like and not dog-like, man displays human ways of behaving and
not dog ways. The levels of which we speak are, therefore, but the
common hierarchically ordered general ways of behaving that humans
have for adjusting to their existential realities.
Levels of human existence come to be when human beings,
possessed of certain human potential, live in a world of certain
482 Broader Meaning

experience. If we have the potential to function in the presence of

certain experiences, than we will develop, in a general way, a common
thema for existence in these experiences. If there is a limitation of human
potential or a limitation of optimum experience, then our level of
emergence will be restricted. We are so structured, brain-wise, that we
must reject or assimilate experiences which are a part of the reality of
our existence. If we assimilate the experiences, then we must
accommodate our way of being to this existential reality - if we are to
exist. As we have to accommodate more and more to internal and
external changes in existential reality. We change or the style of
existence that is ours begins to wither away and die, and our very
existence becomes threatened. When our world is relatively unchanging,
we have nothing new to assimilate, nothing new to which we must
accommodate. Thus, in such circumstances, we come to a relative
equilibrium with our world and remain basically stabilized in a level of
human existence. When so stabilized, we will see the world only through
the tint of the level of human existence at which we have arrived.
Higher levels of human existence, thus, are not some preformed
ideal toward which man strives, nor toward which he is drawn. Man is
not his intentions, nor is he his past. He is what a human can be, with
his equipment, in the conditions for existence that he is in. With his
emerged equipment in the conditions he is in, it makes sense to him to
look at the world the way he does at whatever level he happens to be
centralized. A level of human existence, thus, is no more than one’s
most sense-making way of looking at one’s existence - for the one who
has the potential he has and who is living in the conditions of existence
he is in. Levels, then, are simply a description of the natural movement
of man, the organism structured as he is, in the process of assimilating
and accommodating to change.
I am not saying in this conception of adult behavior that one style
of being, one form of human existence is, inevitably and in all
circumstances, superior to or better than another form of human
existence, another style of being. What I am saying is that when one
form of being is more congruent with the realities of existence, then it is
the better form of living for those realities. And, what I am saying is that
when one form of existence ceases to be functional for the realities of
existence, then some other form, either higher or lower in the hierarchy,
is the better style of living. I do suggest, however, and this I deeply
believe is so, that for the overall welfare of total man’s existence in this
world, over the long run of time, higher levels are better than lower
 Broader Meaning 483

levels and that the prime goal of any societies’ governing figures should
be to promote human movement up the levels of human existence.
In this conception, man’s personality, if normally progressing, will
change in shape, not just in size, from one level to another. The
personality, as the conditions of existence change, constantly forms
levels of integration which are both quantitatively and qualitatively
different from the totality out of which they have evolved. An adult
personality is thus like an itinerant traveler on a journey to where he
does not know. Like the traveling man, personality tarries now and then
to feel out where it is and to see if it has arrived. But, the personality
finds to its dismay that to be where it is is not where it wants to be. As it
becomes comfortable where it is, it finds the self disturbed by the
boredom and problems created by its stay. It finds the self dissatisfied
with the existence that has induced the halt. So ultimately, the open
personality travels on, knowing only where it has been, and that where it
has been is not where it was seeking to be. And blindly on this open
personality travels, often forgetting where it has been as it begins to
glimpse the next stop on the journey.
Each way-stage of adult man’s psychology has, stylistically, its way
and time integrating the whole. It is characterized by a period of
preparation, a period of achievement of relative equilibrium, and a
period of disintegration as preparation takes place for movement to a
higher stage. To understand a personality we must comprehend the
totality of his system. This totality is a totality in the sense of the
momentary total state of the organism. It is the organization around
which the psychological man is centralized in the levels of human
existence now. This totality of the moment, that is an adult man’s
personality, operates by the minimaxing principle of Von Neuman.266 At
any moment in time, the whole may be dominated by minimizing the
growth or change tendency and by maximizing the conservation
tendency. At another moment in time it will be the maximizing of
growth that rules while the conservative tendency is minimized. This is
one way the cyclic aspect of personality can be seen.
To work with this totality one must understand what W. Ross
Ashby means when he writes of “The Law of Requisite Variety.”267 This
law states that any controlling device must have an order of complexity
at least similar to that of the system with which it deals. If it does not

266 Von Neuman, John and Morgenstern, Oskar (1947). Theory of Games and Economic
Behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
267 Ashby, Walter R. (1958). Requisite Variety and its Implications for the Control of

Complex Systems. Cybernetica, 1 (2).

484 Broader Meaning

have an order of complexity similar to that with which it deals then the
control means will be ineffective. Thus the totality of the system dictates
the controls that should be applied to it. But as the system, adult
personality or culture changes, as according to this conception, in its
saccadic, regressive-progressive, step-like, quantum-like manner, and
becomes a different totality, then the question of proper controls
changes also. This, of course, has marked implications for
psychotherapy, education, management, and government.
A central aspect of this conception is that man is more a
problem-solving organism than a pleasure-seeking being. The solution
of man’s existential problems at a level produces dissonance, triggers
insights, and opens up a new way of behaving, indicating that Beyond the
Pleasure Principle, as Freud wrote of it,268 is not a destructive tendency in
man but a change tendency, a growth tendency. This organism, man,
behaves by the principles of pleasure, the principle of conservation only
secondarily to the change - the growth principle. This is why this
conception has taken the double-goal form into which it has been cast, a
form of thinking about human behavior and Freud’s dualism which sees
dualism in a different light than has been seen previously. For example,
one authority who has written in this vein is William Gray who says:
“I would add that the goal of our species is even more one
of continuously attempting to increase our effectiveness in
problem solving, in discovery, and in being curious. To have
such a goal would mean that the human species behaves in
accordance with the goal of growth. I would, however, think
that a principle of conservation does enter the picture for
humans in the form that has been classically described as the
instinct for self-preservation. In terms that are more consonant
with general systems theory I would like to state this principle
as one of conservation of safety acting as a modifier of the
more basic drive to grow continually in ability to increase
information negentropization.
Essentially what one wishes is the maximization of increase
in ability to negentropize information effectively, and
minimization of the danger of such processes going beyond
the existing set of limitations in the degree of change than can
be tolerated in essential variables. One must add that the sets
of parameters describing the most desirable “mix” in such a
mini-maxing system are not to be considered fixed for all

268 Freud, Sigmund (1942). Beyond the Pleasure Principle. London: Hogarth Press.
 Broader Meaning 485

times, [recall this author’s previous words on health, maturity,

and management of human affairs] but subject to a series of
step-like or quantum-like changes in time... The notion of the
double goal system as described above has been reached from
the two Bertalanffy principles of “open system” and “steady
state.” It is also possible to arrive at a similar notion starting
from an expanded view of cybernetic theory, [and from data as
this author has shown] in which equal consideration is given to
the previously neglected area of positive feedback.”269
An expanded view of cybernetics would give equal weight to both types
of feedback.
“In systems of any degree of complexity, networks serving
the function of mutual causality would contain both types of
feedback and would have to be constructed in a manner to
allow for quantum changes in time of the sets of parametric
values. Systems so constructed would have double goal
characteristics similar to those previously described…
The presence, then of double-goal oriented processes
makes possible the development of systems of ever increasing
complexity. With this comes the danger that the concordant
increase in discrete information (fact and theory in psychology)
may become overwhelming, with the result that the process of
complexity increase may become self-defeating. If this is to be
avoided, ways must be found of organizing complexities into
systems supraordinal to these complexities.”270
This is what I am attempting to do through the level of existence
concept. I am attempting to take on an almost disorganized mass of
complexities, the information and theorization about human behavior,
and order it into a supraordinal system. This is why this model follows
General Systems thinking. It does so because as Gray goes on to say:
“General systems theory serves as an excellent model in this
regard, in the sense that it finds supraordinal principles that
bring together as parts of a larger whole concepts and
information previously regarded as compartmentalized and
isolated ...”271

269 Gray, William. Source not located in Dr. Gray’s writings or papers.
270 Ibid, Gray.
271 Ibid, Gray.
486 Broader Meaning

Some of these supraordinal principles derived from the studies “that

bring together, as parts of a larger whole, concepts and information
previously regarded as compartmentalized and isolated,”272 are listed
below so that you can see the principles behind the section that is to
follow. The pertinent ones are:
1. Adult personality is characterized by three principle
attributes: organization, dynamic flow of processes, and
history.
2. In the course of man’s history, brain potentials -
hierarchically ordered dynamic neurological systems -
have accumulated which unfold progressively during the
history of the race or the history of a person as
potentials for behaving.
3. These systems are determined by the mutual interaction
of the conditions present in the total man-environment
system, by the interplay of processes, not solely by the
awakening of mysterious potencies.
4. Earlier, the dynamic interplay produces systems which
are more automatic, more mechanistic.
5. Later, the dynamic interplay produces systems which are
more fluid, more organic.
6. The systems tend toward openness but can, to a certain
extent, congeal into machine-like systems, that is, closed
systems.
7. These systems represent both a continuum and a
discontinuum.
8. Change is not the rule. Lack of change is not the rule. If
there are no disturbances, no change can appear to be
the rule. If there is disturbance, change may be seen to
be the rule.
9. No higher stage is, in all respects, radically different
from its preceding stage. Yet a higher stage may be, in
others, quite radically different from a preceding stage
even though it is built on the proceeding stage.
10. When change does ensue, old elements take on new
subjective meaning in new systems.
11. There are both general and specific aspects to each stage
- the thema and the schema for existence.

272 Ibid, Gray.

 Broader Meaning 487

12. There are general and specific factors which propel the
organism from one stage to another.
13. The formation of systematic concepts for living at a level
is the product of common problems, common mental
devices for approach to problems, and the human desire
for closure.
14. As man solves the problems of existence at a level,
dissonance is created; new brain systems, if present, are
activated; and, when activated, change his perceptions so
as to cause him to see new problems of existence.
15. Systems are separated by a chemical-type switching
means such that, for a long time, higher systems appear
not to order experience, thus providing the illusion that
a system is the form that human existence should take on.
16. The whole is the actual state of the total, developing,
interrelated system at a given time.
17. To make possible an increase in order, that is,
movement up the hierarchy, a supply of energy is
necessary.
18. The necessary supply of energy for increase in order
comes from a resolution of existential problems at a
level.
19. If certain movement toward a new level has passed a
critical point, displacement into a negative environment
is no longer able to stop it.
20. One cannot see the possibility of higher levels until he
has reached the degree of control over current problem
that makes other possibilities possible.
21. The organism constantly seeks conditions for existence
in which it can perform to its emerged best with optimal
comfort.
22. The organism strives toward behavior within a level
which has a feeling of comfort, ease, fitness, adequacy,
and properness.
23. What is seen as the nature of man at a given time
depends upon a wealth of specific psychological time-
determined, psychological space-determined events.
24. Man is so programmed that each time he discovers a
new and different way of living he will act as if this is the
discovery and he will act if it is the last discovery that
will be made.
488 Broader Meaning

25. Human nature does not exist in the tissues of the human
being. It comes to exist in the bio-chemical-social-
environmental field.
26. Levels of existence are created by man’s functioning - if
it is man’s physiological needs that are functioning as
figure, while others are ground, he will create a
schematic form of existence specified for thematic
physiological functioning.
27. The lower does not disappear; it is integrated into and
subordinated to the higher.
28. In general, levels tend not to persist as lasting structures.
It is the principle of levels as a process that persists.
29. The adult human tends to develop from a state of
automatic reactivity, through controlled reactivity to
active, spontaneous behavior, to??
30. The adult tends to develop from a state of few
behavioral possibilities, through stages of limited
behavioral possibilities, to states of many behavioral
possibilities, to??
31. The adult tends to develop from behaving in order to
get, through stages of different kinds of getting, to
behaving in order to be, to??
32. The adult consciousness tends to develop from a no
time-space-cause stage, through a limited time-space-
cause state, to an extended time-space-cause state, to??
33. The adult human tends to develop from not knowing, to
magical knowing, to egocentric knowing, to absolute
knowing, to experimentalistic knowing, to relativistic
knowing, to systemic knowing, to??
34. The adult tends to develop from being at the mercy of
the world, to believing he is subordinate to the power of
the world, to believing he is in control, to believing he
must cooperate with the world, to??

Significance of the Conception

From this conceptual viewpoint and some of the preceding

propositions, adult personality is to be viewed not as a recognizable
cross section but as a vertically oriented multidimensional trend phase
which leads us toward certain significant reorganizations of our view of
human problems. If adult personality and its relatives, healthy
 Broader Meaning 489

personality and healthy culture, are processes passing through definable

nodal stages; if there is a psychology of man particular to each stage;
then our tasks as scientists and practitioners must take a decided change.
As scientists, we must seek those better models which represent this
process, and we must seek to know more the principles for change
involved in the process. We must strive to represent more adequately
what these stages are, how they develop, what encourages or arrests the
developing process, and we must seek further for keys to predicting
what new stages are yet to appear. And as practitioners we must
reexamine our approach to man’s many problems.
In the scientific psychological world, the world of pure
psychological investigation, we must ask some new questions about
some very old problems. Assuming that adult man’s psychology
develops in a step-like manner through hierarchically ordered stages, we
must reconsider, for example, man’s psychology of time, space,
causality, and materiality, something the European existentialists and
phenomenologist have been doing, though not within a highly ordered
framework of thought. Within this point of view, we would quit asking
‘how does adult man perceive time, space and materiality?’ as if such
questions might lead to some general laws to be discovered. We would
not ask, ‘What is creative man like?’ nor ‘What is the nature of the
creative process?’ We would ask instead: ‘How does man, at one level in
his hierarchy of systems, perceive of time, space, causality and
materiality?’ We would ask: ‘What is the way one perceives of time,
space, causality and materiality within a level and what is an abnormal
perception of the same?’ We would ask: ‘How does biologically mature
man perceive time, space, causality and materiality when one system
dominates his behavior in contrast to when other systems higher or
lower in the hierarchy dominate his thinking?’ In an area like creativity
we would ask: ‘What is the creative process like at one level, what is it
like at another level, and what is the nature of that which man creates
when he is at one level in contrast to the nature of that which he creates
when he is at another level?’ In fact, the whole world of general
psychology, from psychophysics on, would be open to reinvestigation
from within this changed conception of adult personality. But this is not
the only world that would be open to reconsideration.
If psychological development is an ever-evolving, step-like process,
our ideas about so-called unethical behavior would assuredly change. We
would see that value and ethical systems come, and that value and
ethical systems go, in a highly ordered way. We would cease trying to
preach what is mature ethical behavior and we would question what we
490 Broader Meaning

are doing when we try to mold the ‘properly moral’ person. We would
see that what we normally call ‘the breakdown of morality’ is one of two
things. On the one hand, moral and ethical breakdown would be seen as
the turbulent behavior of man as he strives to discard an old, once
appropriate system of values, and strives to find a new system of values
more appropriate to his changed conditions of existence. On the other
hand, moral breakdown might be what a person centralized at a one
level of existence sees in the value system of one at a higher or lower
level of existence.
If we see psychological maturity as a step-like process having no
ultimate end, then we would reconsider our approach to the problems
of psychopathology. We would not seek a general set of principles
which would differentiate the operation of the pathological person from
he who is the psychologically mature human being. We would look,
instead, for the kinds of pathology which are typical to a particular stage
in the maturing process. We would look for the system-specific
principles of treatment which move the pathological person to the open
form of his stage of maturity, and then for the principles that would
enable him to move to the next existential state if he is capable of such.
But if he is not capable of movement, we would look for a way to
dignify his existence where he is. At the same time we would seek to
prevent his taking on a pathological form in the next level of maturity.
From this point of view, we would not argue whether behavioristic
therapy is better than psychoanalytic therapies or either better than
Rogerian therapy. We would ask: ‘For what system of behavior is what
therapy appropriate? For what way-stages along the existential staircase
do we not yet have appropriate therapy?’
The same would hold for labor-management relations and for the
human problems of business and governmental organizations. We
would not continue seeking that magical Theory Y, participative, or 9.9
form of management applicable to all men at work. We would be
seeking for ways to organize work when one form of management can
be congruent with a heterogeneous work force. We would begin to ask:
‘How can we best utilize the qualities a man has in his existential state?’
rather than ‘How can we change him to fit the level preferred by the
organization?’ On a philosophical level, we would ask whether it is the
function of an industrial organization to manage mainly for economic
gain or more for human growth? And probably we will ask: ‘In the long
run, is economic viability possible only when we manage for human
growth?’
 Broader Meaning 491

There is still another broad region of human behavior which could

be valuably reconsidered within the meaning of this concept. The whole
world of human knowledge and human products could be reexamined.
Political science, hard science, art, music and literature - all would be
open to investigation as they, and attitudes toward them, have evolved
and as they have changed as man’s level of existence changed. Take
literary criticism as an example. Would we not need to ask, ‘From what
level of existence do the percepts of the critic arise? Is the critic judging
the literary effort from within the existential state of the writer, or does
his criticism suggest that only the criteria which stem from his position
on the existential staircase be used to judge a literary production?’ And
we would ask, ‘From what level does the literary production emanate
and how well does it portray the character of its existential source?’
The meaning of this concept may well cast a different light upon the
immediate, as contrasted to the future, goals of a society. If a society is
more homogeneous and at lower levels, its goals must be more narrow,
more concrete, and more immediate than the broader more abstract,
more remote goals we have seen the United States attempt to promote
in some nations - for example, democracy in Viet Nam. If a society is
like ours - quite heterogeneous - then our goals must be at one and the
same time concrete and abstract, immediate and remote; but this is not
where the only problem of societal goals lies. By and large, many do not
argue as to promoting human welfare as a goal. What they argue about
is: ‘What is human welfare’ and ‘the means to the end.’ It is here that
this way of thinking has further significance.
Let us take a generally lower level society, Ethiopia, for example. A
narrow concrete goal is already extant in their country. It is to improve
their food production. But how much do those who strive in that
direction consider that the Ethiopian farmer maybe psychologically
locked into his transitional third-level farming methodology? How much
do the goal promoters know of how to change, by Pavlovian and
Skinnerian psychological principles, the farming methodology of the
Ethiopian by virtue of a mixture of respondent and operant
conditioning? How much do they realize that demonstration,
exhortation, persuasion, and promise of later reward are not the proper
means to the end of getting an Ethiopian farmer to switch to a but
slightly changed though much improved way of plowing?
In our more heterogeneous society, the problem is not basically the
same as in a lower level society. There is a great problem with the
establishment of our goals. We are generally for human growth and
development, but we don’t know for certain what we mean by it, nor
492 Broader Meaning

how to bring it about. This is particularly evident when we examine

“Goals for Americans” presented in the 1960 President’s Commission
on National Goals.273
The paramount goal as stated in that report “is to guard the rights
of the individual, to ensure his development and to enlarge his
opportunity,”274 a goal which is partially subscribed to by this conceptual
system but one which, in many respects, is seen in a different way from
that presented by the President’s Committee.
These differences begin to stand out when we note the commission
also said the “aim is to build a nation and help build a world in which
every human being shall be free to dedicate and develop his capacities to
the fullest.” Within this point of view, one cannot conceive that the
normal human will develop his capacities to the fullest. Such a belief is
the delusion of the FS way of thinking. This is not possible in an
infinitely emerging psychological world. Instead, according to the level
of existence point of view, the aim should be to build a nation and help
build a world in which every human being is free to develop in an
ordered way from one level to the next and on as future levels emerge, if
he is so capable, or to grow intra-systemically if he is not possessed of
the necessary potential.
The above is not a semantic play. On the contrary, it is a very
serious difference because of principles 17 and 18 above which state,
namely, that movement up levels requires a supply of free energy and
that this energy comes from the resolution of certain existential
problems particular to the level of existence. It points our attention in
quite a different direction than the staged goal of the President’s
Commission.
Principle 19 - if the movement toward a new level has passed a
certain critical point, displacement into a negative environment can no
longer stop it - brings into focus a different kind of problem that we
have today. It would appear that throwing out DQ authority by the
offspring of white, middle-class parents and the throwing off of
materialism by young affluents are both beyond the critical point. To try
to pull them back to the values of times past, as some are wont to do,
can only come to naught.
These are but two examples of six revolutionary level changes
occurring concomitantly in our society at this time which may be

273 President's Commission on National Goals [Eisenhower]. (1960). Goals for Americans.
New York: American Assembly, Columbia University.
274 Hummel, Dean L. and Bonham Jr., S.J. (1968). Pupil Personnel Services In The Schools.

Rand McNally and Company, p 3.

 Broader Meaning 493

controllable only by radically changed national planning rather than by

repressive “law and order” measures. I will detail and have more to say
of these six revolutionary changes because herein lies the error in “The
Greening of America” thinking.275
Other goals stated by the President’s Commission which need to be
reconsidered are: to “promote the maximum development of his (the
citizen’s) capabilities,’’ to place “self-fulfillment at the summit,” and to
see that “the very deepest goals for Americans relate to the spiritual
health of our people.” These need to be reconsidered because all the
principles listed question self-fulfillment, maximum development and
support a change to new and different fulfillment and ever continuing
development. Then, on the spiritual side, principles 29 through 34
suggest “spiritual” to be of a very different order than previously we
have considered it to be. It is different because the principles indicate
that what is “spiritual” in human existence is now and will be forever
changing and, particularly, that only people centralized in even-
numbered systems have true spiritual concern. But we cannot tarry too
long on these points. We must move on because there are still many
other problems, foreign and domestic, which we might well reconsider
from within the levels of existence point of view.
On the foreign side, if we should come to view psychosocial
maturity as a process rather than as an achievable state, we might
perceive the underdeveloped nation plight in a very different light. We
would not look at an underdeveloped nation and ask: ‘How can we get
this nation to behave in a manner we consider politically mature?’ -
democracy if Americans are the viewers, communism if the Russians276
are the viewers? We would ask instead: ‘At what stage in the process of
nation-like maturity are the people in this underdeveloped country? Are
they more homogeneous or more heterogeneous level wise? In what
existential state is its leadership centralized? Is the relationship between
the leader, the led and the political organization congruent?’ We would
ask: ‘Are we, in our foreign policy, promoting congruency or are we
promoting an impossible task for the leadership of said country? Are we,
or are we not, asking the leaders to develop and administer a political
organization congruent with the psychology of their people?’ We would
ask: ‘What is the political form most congruent for this country -
confederation, authoritarian federalization, democratic federalization,
etc.?’ We would not ask, ‘How do we aid it to become democratic now,
but how can we help it become what it is ready to become so that later it

275 See Reich, Charles (1970).

276 A reference to “the Russians” as of 1977 when the Soviet Union was still intact.
494 Broader Meaning

can become other than what it is now, and thus move up the hierarchy
of political organization?’ We would not ask: ‘How can we convince Red
China to become less hostile and more democratic?’ We would ask:
‘What can we learn about the existential position and existential
problems of Russia and China which will help us develop different,
though congruent, approaches to the Chinese and Russian situation?’
On the domestic side, think of how we might reevaluate the
problem of poverty from within the conceptual change. If those who are
poverty stricken are at several different levels of existence, and thus
operate by widely varying psychological principles, not only from
poverty-stricken to poverty-stricken, but in contrast to the non-poverty-
stricken, would not our approach to poverty change? The new
approaches would, by and large, be very different from what they have
been. For example, we would not try to teach or aid the poverty-stricken
to live by principles of maturity of those much higher in the hierarchy.
Rather, we would ascertain the level of operation of the particular
poverty stricken person, or poverty-stricken group, and would apply
those principles which would enable movement from the kind of
psychological being he is, from the level of maturity he has achieved, to
the next level he can become.
For example, let us look at three of our welfare problems: providing
food, providing adequate medical services, and providing housing. We
are not truly aware that our past welfare practices have really been
successful and thus, in being successful have, as this theory says, created
new and monstrous problems for us. Our provision of food and other
necessities, and our attempts to provide medical services have worked
very well for many, but they have not achieved our desired goals.
Instead of enabling many people to become self-sufficient - our goal -
we seem to have arrested their development and made them more
dependent. Instead of improving their health, we seem, too often, to
find the means we have provided are not utilized as we envisioned they
would be. But these problems we might well correct if we should see,
from within the levels of existence point of view, why we went astray
and what we need to do to get on a better track.
Principle 4 says earlier-appearing, that is, lower-level systems, are
more automatic, more mechanistic. Principle 12 says there are general
and specific factors which propel the organism from one stage to
another. Principles 17 and 16 say certain problems, not other problems,
must be solved in order for movement to take place; and principle 6 says
systems can congeal into closed states under certain conditions.
Attendance to these principles and the broader aspects of them suggests
 Broader Meaning 495

previous welfare practices have both met and violated the character of
lower level systems, and thus promoted change - but toward closure not
openness!
We have in principle, though not properly in operation, a sound
system for moving man through the first two existential states. We have
a totally inadequate system for moving man through the third to the
fourth level of existence, and we will never get the hard work, self
disciplined DQ to ER ethic emerging until we develop a proper CP to
DQ welfare system.
If one understands the mechanical, concrete immediate character of
lower level behavior and the necessary factors for promoting readiness
for change, he would not practice our basically sound, lowest-level
welfare principles as we have practiced them. Many welfare recipients
operate within lower-level systems where change can be promoted only
by knowing well the psychology of such systems. These systems operate
on the principles of immediacy. They are systems wherein time and
space concepts are very limited. They are systems which change when
classical and operant conditioning principles are applied to them. But
our past practices have not heeded these characteristics of lower-level
systems very well, particularly the development of a CP welfare system
built around operant conditioning procedures.
We have provided food or access to food so that the recipient gets a
lot at one time, or has to exercise his means to food through his own
planning efforts. Both violate his psychology and according to
conditioning principles fixate his behavior rather than change it. To
establish readiness for change by solving the food problem, the food has
to come to the lower-level person everyday, regularly over an extended
period of time. It can neither come in a first-of-the-month windfall nor
can his own day-to-day planning satisfactorily distribute it to himself.
Here, our problem is not providing food in both the proper amount and
nutritional quality. The problem is how to develop a continuous
distribution system.
The medical service problem is quite similar. The lower-level system
must be tuned up to move up to higher levels. It must become
physiologically sound. But lower-level people, having limited awareness,
lack of available energy and the like, limited concepts of time, space and
cause, simply are not psychologically prone to go to and procure the
services available. It is not even enough to provide facilities in their
immediate neighborhood because their psychology locks them into their
past way of living so they cannot, so to speak, get out of their home and
go across the street for service. Here, the levels of existence point of
496 Broader Meaning

view says we need medical and paramedical teams which move, by way
of mobile basic medical laboratories, directly to and then into their
homes if ever we are to establish a state of readiness to move lower-level
people. And then there is the problem of adequate housing for our
poorer people. Nowhere is the level of existence point of view more
violated than in this region, except in the total absence of a welfare
design for people centralized at the third level of existence.
We are generally for human growth and development, but we don’t
know how to bring it about. If we knew, we would never attempt to
provide better housing for second or third level poverty stricken by
destroying existing housing, no matter how bad, before housing is built.
Humans whose behavior is centralized at the second or third level do
not have the postponement capacity necessary to wait for future reward.
The means to the end of satisfying lower level people’s desire for better
housing must not, according to this conception, be based on a promise
of things to come. We must, instead, according to this thinking, reverse
our process. If we are to meet the lower-level psychology of many poor
people, we must not tear down existing houses that are really not
habitable or rehabilitatable. We must, instead, survey our cities for
empty lots, and empty, but reconstructable buildings and we must build
on them and restructure them.
This we must do because lower-level people live in a world of
immediacy. Immediacy is a prime need at these lower levels. If we do
this then we can move families to their new homes rather than displace
them. But this is not enough for transferring lower-level people to better
housing conditions. Another aspect of lower-level psychology is to be
psychologically locked into one’s territory. Therefore, any urban renewal
or university expansion which cuts into lower-level space will be
strongly reacted to by those whose existence is precarious. Obviously
these two lower-level characteristics seriously complicate urban renewal
planning. We simply must think our way around such problems if we are
to renovate our cities in terms of lower-level psychology rather than
contrary to it. If we do not heed this information, we can expect more
hostility and more resistance to other non-attending, though well-
intentioned, urban renewal, poor housing, and replacement plans. And,
if we do not develop a third level, CP welfare system, we are lost.
Now let us take education as a means to our goal. Here, whether in
the university or the lower grades, levels of existence principles say we
constantly violate the means to the end of a society where all are
educated by what is best for them in our schools, at all grade levels; we
have students who need and parents who desire different kinds of
 Broader Meaning 497

education. Yet, I know of only one school, university-wise or

elementary-wise, that utilizes the means to the end suggested by this
conception.277 Where do we find universities, elementary, or secondary
systems organized so that the level of existence of the student
determines the form, content, and methodology of his education?
Where can we find the needed schools based upon the kind of thinking
expressed in this concept? To my knowledge they barely exist and
mostly are not even in the planning stage.
From this point of view we would take a very different look at our
university discontents and drop-outs. We would not ask how can we get
them to accept an educational form which is appropriate for certain
levels of existence but apparently not for the level of existence our
discontented young minds are at. We would ask, instead: ‘How should a
university’s organization be restructured so that its form becomes
congruent with the level of existence of what so many call ‘our
psychedelic monsters,’ as well as the other levels of existence extant in a
university?’ In all of education, we would seriously reconsider what
education is and how to bring it about. We can see those alternatives if
we develop our educational thinking from certain basic assumptions
stemming from the principles of the levels of existence conception of
man’s development.
Let us assume, from this point of view, that the aim of an
educational institution is to take the student from thinking levels of
lower complexity, if competent, to thinking levels of higher complexity.
Then, if we can ascertain what are the higher levels of thinking
complexity and their hierarchically ordered relationship, and if we can
ascertain what educational intervention techniques are necessary to
move a person from one level of thinking normality to the next level of
thinking normality, then we can prescribe, better than we have, the
means to meet the ever-emergent ends of a heterogeneous society; and
we can develop techniques to assess the progress toward that goal at
both the institutional and student level.
When one begins to see the problem of goals, and organizing to
promote certain goals, from within this point of view, three aspects of
current planning seem possibly in error. One is the type of planning
which conceives that the ultimate society is the one for which we should
plan. A second is to plan a society around the percepts of only one level
of existence. And the third is the type of planning which seeks to return
to the past. Each of these forms of planning are erroneous from an
infinitely evolving point of view, the point of view of this book.
277 See Drews (1968a) for some references to possible schools.
498 Broader Meaning

It seems inferred in the ideas of some people whose words I

presented earlier - for example, Herbert Hoover, and former editor of
the Cleveland Press, Louis B. Seltzer - that we have erred because we have
failed adequately to plan for a fourth-level DQ type of society. Mr.
Hoover, in that 1951 speech at the Iowa Centennial Foundation, made a
plea for society to return to the old days when we had “incorruptible
service and honor in public affairs.” He asserted we could make the
world over again if we would but “try out some of the old virtues.” Mr.
Seltzer, in his editorial entitled, “Can’t We Tell Right From Wrong?”
decried the movement of many in our society from the DQ to the ER
system of behavior. And he inferred that we should plan for a return to
the old. He said something has happened to us, something serious. He
said,
“…though we have gained much in the past century, it is
possible that what we have lost is more important than what
we have gained, that we have lost something we once had and
that what we have gotten in its place is corruption, loose
behavior, dulled principles, subverted morals, easy
expediencies.”278
This kind of planning suggestion is with us at the time of this
writing as it was in 1951 when Mr. Hoover and Mr. Seltzer spoke. But it
did not then, nor does it now, take into account that as man’s behavioral
systems emerge there are times when he seems, in terms of past
morality, to go from good to bad, those times when man moves from an
even-numbered to an odd-numbered level of existence. But this should
not cause us to plan for going back. It should lead us to re-examine
what it means to human life to cast aside constrictive ethics and to
replace them with more higher-level ways of valuing.
Another system which some planners are wont to maximize is
typified by what Maslow called the ‘belonging system.’ This is a type of
plan which strives to homogenize man, to make all men existentially
alike. Such planning would strive to draw all lower-level people up into
this system, would arrest the higher-level bound and would retract those
now at higher levels into its constrictive form. It would plan to have all
people live by its “other directed” form of being which is quite contrary
to the nature of an ever-emergent organism.

278Seltzer, Louis B. (1951). “Can’t We Tell Right From Wrong.” Editorial, Cleveland
Press.
 Broader Meaning 499

Still a third system which some like Herman Kahn279 would chose
to maximize is the fifth level, ER, positivistic, mechanistic, objectivistic
System where 19th century physical science concepts rule supreme and
corrupt the world of man. Little more need be said of this type of plan
because Lewis B. Mumford280 levels a more devastating criticism upon
this form of planning than this author could ever write.
The other basic form of planning - planning for the mature society -
is just as erroneous from the levels of existence point of view. It simply
should not be thought about. It simply cannot be conceived of in a
system of thought which sees man’s behavior to ever evolve rather than
to approach its apex.
Future planning must be pluralistic for a long time to come, and
possibly forever. This is so because at no time in the foreseeable, or
intermediate, future can one conceive of all people at one level, and
because it is very difficult to conceive that a process which is ever-
evolving will ever get all people to the same position on the existential
staircase. Above all else, future planning must take into account that
there is not A consciousness revolution taking place in the world.
Instead, there are five fully developed revolutions in full process and
two others operating to a lesser degree.
Nowhere is our planning more in error than where people are
planning as if the only revolution taking place today is the emergence of
Consciousness III. Book upon book, article upon article have been
written about this revolution in man’s consciousness and what to do
about it, but nowhere in our annals is there greater evidence of liberal-
minded ethnocentrism running rampant. These liberals seem to see only
the ER to FS revolution, or else contaminate their thinking by mistaking
the DQ to ER revolution as the same as the revolution toward
Consciousness III. As a result, these mistaken ones will never truly
understand, nor effectively meet, the antipathy between the ‘hardhats’
for the ‘hippies’ or the ‘curse upon both of your houses’ by the Black
power movement.
Of the first revolution, we know very little. What it is like and what
it portends, in adult human development, was, until recently, buried in
the history of man. In fact, the existence of it was only a theoretical
hypothesis when the levels of existence point of view first took its
current form. But fortunately for those like me who drew the hypothesis
that this level of existence had to exist, even though scholars like
Mumford and Heard said it did not, the Tasaday have given at least

279 Kahn (1960).

280 Ibid, (Mumford, 1956 see: Chapter 7).
500 Broader Meaning

partial credence to it. The discovery strongly suggests that the AN to

BO revolution must be a part of man’s development and must be the
first revolution of man’s consciousness. So, now that we have brought
dissonance into their field, perhaps it is true that what is being revealed
today is what the AN to BO revolution is all about. But since we know
so little of what is happening in ‘Tasaday life,’ I cannot write of what
this revolution is like because I do not have the data for it. What I can
do is say that emergent cyclical theory says it is the first consciousness
revolution. I can hope that those who are bringing dissonance into
Tasaday life are doing so with an intuitive understanding of how to
implement positive, not negative or regressive, change. I should like to
think that if or when the critical point is reached, the jump will be to the
positive BO consciousness of Margaret Mead’s, Arapesh type281 and not
the negative form of the Alorese.282 Above all else, I hope the intrusion
into Tasaday life does not produce another group of Ik.
The second revolution for which we need to plan and positively
help to take place is the BO to CP change - a revolution occurring in
several African nations. Responding appropriately to this second-level
revolution takes all the patience higher-level man can muster. This
revolution with its heroistically assertive, paranoically flavored overtones
is not easy to handle because of its extreme militancy and brutalistic
aggression - the norm when tribal consciousness is supplanted by the
emerging CP state of mind.
According to this theory, the third revolution should be the easiest
of all to discern, but it is the one we seem to understand the least so far
as aiding it to consummate is concerned. This change is from the
aggressive, self assertive, ‘I’ll look out for me to hell with others, or at
least go down in the glory of having faced the dragon’ way of life to an
authority obeying, aesthetic way of life. Black Muslim, puritanical
aestheticism with all the good and all the bad that goes therewith
(witness the Prison Riots283) is a modern example of this type of
revolution. But our failure to solve our prison problem is evidence of

281 Mead, Margaret (1970). The Mountain Arapesh II: Arts and Supernaturalism. Garden City,
NY: Natural History Press, p. 491. This book was published with 2 other volumes,
The Mountain Arapesh and The Mountain Arapesh III: Stream of Events in Alitoa. The
books were originally published in Antropological Papers of the American Museum of
Natural History, volume 36, 37, parts 3, 1938, 1940.
282 Du Bois, Cora Alice with Kardiner, Abram and Oberholzer, Emil (1944). The People of

Alor: A Social-psychological Study of an East Indian Island. Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota Press.
283 Wicker, Tom (1975). A Time to Die. New York: Quadrangle Books.
 Broader Meaning 501

our inability to plan constructively for this consciousness revolution

when it is the order of the day.
The fourth revolution involves changing DQ to ER consciousness,
changing from authority-bound, authority-respecting, authority-
beseeching behavior to ‘mine own directing, mine own calculating self’
interest. The active, anti-middle class establishment, flag besmirching
hippie hated by the ‘hard hat,’ is an example. This ‘hard hat’ is hanging
on to his hope for fulfillment of the American dream by holding tight to
the last vestiges of authority. He hates the hippie for being one half-step
ahead on the way to self-sufficiency. Actually, both are a part of this
revolution. The ‘hard hat’ disguises his revolt in labor union attacks on
authority, while the hippie stands alone as he tramples authority into the
muck and mire. The odd thing about this revolution is that neither
recognizes his relation to authority for what it is. The ‘hard hat’ is in the
throes of his last defense of the establishment and soon, if he continues
to grow, he will step into the shoes of the openly attacking hippie. But
the hippie does not know that he is not trying to get rid of authority per
se. Rather, he is attempting to substitute his self as the authority in place
of the authority of the establishment. This authority-hating, authority-
baiting, flag-desecrating revolutionist is really fighting to get a strong
foothold on the materialistic existence so as to point to his success as
the evidence of his right to authority. Negativistically, both charge ahead
toward the nodal ER consciousness though they are a half a step apart.
And each will find when he achieves the values of the self-sufficient,
self-made man he will become the object of scorn and derision by those
who have entered into the fifth revolution in man’s consciousness.
The fifth revolution strives to supplant the objectivistic,
materialistic, marketing, ‘I have gotten here myself’ orientation with a
subjectivistic, spiritualistic, ‘Greening of America,’ humanistic
consciousness. This revolution throws off the trappings of the affluent
life but maintains a strong grip on its foundation. Thereby, this
revolutionist retains reams of time to trip through Esalenic experiences
at Big Sur or in the inner sanctums of other growth experiences.
The character of this revolution is very necessary for man when his
consciousness begins to perceive what is the ER negative spilloff on the
world of man. Possessed of a still-present need to explore, but repulsed
by what ER tampering with the outer world has wrought, the FS
revolutionist turns to the exploration of his inner self because there, he
believes, peace from the endangerment brought to man from the ER
way will be found. But, like all the revolutions that see the good life just
502 Broader Meaning

one step ahead, the FS revolutionist, too, will find self-realization is no

more a panacea than any other magic potion has been.
This revolution is not, as the Consciousness III proponents are
wont to believe, man on the threshold of the ultimate realization of his
truly human self. It is not the door to the house where the epitome of
human experience resides. It is not the dream home in which he will
settle down forever to feast on the aromatic pleasures emanating from
the greenery around. It is, instead, the prelude to the last dying gasp of
individualism. It is the entrance into that state of consciousness from
whose disillusionment man ultimately will learn the hardest lesson he
has had to master to date. As this existential state comes in and plays
itself out, in the dusk of its day, FS man learns an emotionally
devastating lesson. He learns that to become his total human self was
not why he was born, that becoming himself is only a myth.
Out of this state of consciousness he will learn, from the meaning in
any or all of his growth experiences, that Consciousness III is not the
culminating theme in man’s symphony of life. And, out of it he will
learn that this is the shortest theme of the first six themes in the
symphony of man. The FS state of consciousness is the end of the
beginning and the beginning of the new - a new symphonic movement
built on man’s realization that he is a systemic being, not an individual
person. This realization is the psychological herald of the sixth
revolution which is looming up before the societies of man today.
This sixth revolution, the FS to A’N’ revolution, is, society-wise, the
one with which we must succeed if we are to be able to handle the
problems extant in the five other revolutions I have cited. I say societal-
wise because there is a seventh revolution of consciousness in its
embryonic form, the A’N’ to B’O’ revolution, but little is known of it
except as I have spoken of it, individually and theoretically, at an earlier
point in this book. Societally, it is the FS to A’N’ revolution that is
attempting to reshape our organized ways for living and conducting the
affairs of man.
During this sixth revolution, man sees (those who are there) or will
see (those who are yet to reach it) that living must be restructured and
must begin anew on a different basic premise. He sees what his first
ladder of existence and its basic premises, individualism and the
supremacy of man, have wrought in this revolution; he makes that long
reach for the second ladder of existence where all must begin anew, yet
not anew. He recognizes that he must begin anew by resurrecting life to
the center of the scene. Just as man was one with all life when in the AN
state, so again must man become one with all life, but in a new and
 Broader Meaning 503

higher order form. Just as behaving automatically in tune with one’s

biophysical promptings and in accordance with nature as provided, was
the basis for existence in untutored, technologically naive AN man, so
must A’N’ man relearn to live again by biophysical promptings in the
natural world that nature provides, but, now, in a world of vast
knowledge and technological sophistication.
In the course of this revolution, he must rid himself of many once
useful but now outmoded values and beliefs, of many mis-garnered
notions which were responsible for his climb up the first ladder of
existence. Now he must learn to cast aside majority rule and learn it is
the factor of knowledge and not the quantity of votes that is right. Now
he must learn that to believe in the equality of men is to believe
fallaciously. But, in so doing he must truly learn to respect any man or
anything regardless of the quantitative or qualitative differences that
exist. Now he must learn that winning is not everything, nor is it the
only thing. He must learn that life and its continuance is the important
thing - not your life, not my life - at the same time that he learns there is
nothing in this world more important than your life or my life. And, if
this characterization of this revolution seems heretical, if it seems to
throw out all that is good and yet retain the best, and if what I have said
seems so contradictory as to be nonsensical, just keep in mind that
striving to learn, to be at peace with this mixed up kind of thinking, is
why this is called the most significant of the six revolutions in
consciousness I have described thus far.
If man accomplishes this revolution - and this is yet to be seen - if
man reorganizes society within this seemingly peculiar way of thinking,
he will have crossed his great divide, the demarcation point between
those things he has in common with animals and those things which are
uniquely human. But, as he does so he will, in a sense, return to the
beginning because the A’N’ state is just a higher order form of the AN
state, and if he solves his problems of existence in this higher order AN
state his next big revolution will be from the A’N’ way of life to the
B’O’ form which, following the design of this book, is the second order
form of the BO state.
Societies of man may never achieve this revolution. On the other
hand, they might. If they do, then the whole world of values and
purposes will be seen in a different light, and what is psychological
maturity will take on a different hue. This, to me, is the most significant
of all the aspects of the level of existence point of view. What can be
more significant to man than to see and accept that the values of
Individualistic man of fifty years ago, those values which made modern
504 Broader Meaning

society what it is today, are no longer the values by which man should
live today? And what can give more purpose to existence than the
never-ending quest for that new set of values which will be consonant
with each new set of existential conditions? What can make life more
zestful than to ever have to reach for values and new purposes; to
always have our reach in life exceeding our grasp?
If there is a never-ending tendency, beyond the pleasure principle,
and if we have, in general, provided a map to this ever-changing process,
then we have helped provide everlasting significance to the lives of all
generations of mankind. And we move toward making systematic sense
of the words in D. H. Lawrence’s “Terra Incognita” wherein he says:

“There are vast realms of consciousness still undreamed of

vast ranges of experience, like the humming of unseen harps,
we know nothing of, within us.
Oh when man escaped from the barbed-wire entanglement
of his own ideas and his own mechanical devices
there is a marvelous rich world of contact and sheer fluid beauty
and fearless face-to-face awareness of now-naked life
and me, and you, and other men and women
and grapes, and ghouls, and ghosts and green moonlight
and ruddy orange limbs stirring the limbo
of the unknown air, and eyes so soft
softer than the space between the stars.
And all things, and nothing, and being and not-being
alternately palpitate,
when at last we escape the barbed-wire enclosure
of ‘Know Thyself,” knowing we can never know,
we can but touch, and wonder, and ponder, and make our effort
and dangle in a last fastidious fine delight
as the fuchsia does, dangling her reckless drop
of purple after so much putting forth
and slow mounting marvel of a little tree.”
 Appendix 505

Ten Points Excerpted from Dr. Graves’s

Workshop Handouts284
The emergent, cyclical, double-helix theory describes, explains, and
suggests means for managing the biopsychosocial development for the
species Homo sapiens, or any individual member of the species. As a
model for exploring healthy mature adult psychosocial behavior, the
research of Clare W. Graves proposes:

1. That the human being, though but one biological organism, has developed,
to date, seven fixated exiting, eight open nodal, and seven entering states
plus mixed states. These are progressively developing
psychosocial systems because Homo sapiens is an almost
infinite psychological being which changes systematically as
the world changes in the course of living.

2. That these nodal systems are, normally, hierarchically ordered, prepotent

and upwardly spiraling. The biopsychological development of
the mature human is an unfolding, emergent, oscillating
process marked, normally, by the progressive subordination
of older, lower order, less complex biopsychosocial systems
to newer, higher order, more complex biopsychosocial
systems. The process moves in a complex wave-like,
progressive, nodal, regressive fashion and may fixate at
certain progressive or regressive points. Each wave develops
slowly to the point of inflection, then rapidly ascends to its
nodal form, then begins a slow descent to the point of
deflection where a precipitous fall ensues as the next wave
starts slowly to ascend.

3. That the biopsychosocial development of the mature human arises from the
interaction of a double-helix complex of two sets of determining forces,
the environmentosocial determinants (the Existential
Problems of Living) and the neuropsychological equipment
of the organism (the Neuropsychological Equipment for
Living). Each system develops from the interaction of these

284 The two presentation handouts from which this synopsis is derived were

prepared by Chris Cowan for Dr. Graves and under his direction for use in
seminars and conferences in 1981 and 1982. Parts of these documents are also
embedded in the text in Section II of The Never Ending Quest.
506 Appendix

hierarchically ordered, parallel, and prepotent sets of forces.

Adult psychosocial development is a flowing process in which
the solution of current existential problems creates the next
set of existential problems to be solved and, in their creation,
produces complex chemicals which activate the next set of
neuropsychological coping equipment consisting of the
information processing means for detection and solution of
the created set of existential problems.

4. That these systems alternate their mental focus in a cyclic, oscillating,

dominant fashion. Every other psychosocial system is like, but at
the same time, not like its alternating partner. Systems 2, 4,
and 6 etc., are predominantly obeisance, conservative systems;
but each obeys different authority sources and obeys and
conserves in different ways. Systems 1, 3, 5, and 7 etc., are
predominantly change systems, but how to and what to
change is different in each odd-numbered system. Cerebral
dominance in the odd-numbered systems is by the left
hemisphere of the brain and in even-numbered systems is by
the right hemisphere of the brain.
The first system is slightly differentiated to favor focus
upon the external world and how to gain and expand power
over it (left hemisphere brain domination). Then, alternating
thereafter upon focus on the inner subjective world and how
to come to know and come to peace with it in even-
numbered systems (right hemisphere brain domination), then
back to focus upon the external world and how to change it
in subsequent odd-numbered systems with the aim and means
of each systemic end changing in each alternately prognostic
system.

5. That when the human is centralized in one state of existence he or she has
a psychology which is particular to that state. His or her feelings,
motivations, ethics and values, biochemistry, degree of
neurological activation, learning system, belief systems,
conception of mental health, ideas as to what mental illness is
and how it should be treated, conceptions of and preferences
for management, education, economics and political theory
and practice are all appropriate to that state. A person may
show the behavior of a level in a predominantly positive or
negative manner.
 Appendix 507

6. That these alternating systems show variation for psychological

dimensions. There is little mean variation for dimensions such
as intelligence and temperament. However, certain
psychological dimensions such as ideological dogmatism and
objectivity emerge with a particular system in the hierarchy of
systems, then decrease or increase systematically in
subsequent systems. And certain psychological dimensions
such as guilt, as a felt emotion, emerge with a particular
system in the hierarchy then, in subsequent systems, vary
quantitatively in an increasing or decreasing cyclic, wave-like
fashion.

7. That increasing degrees of behavioral freedom, increasing degrees of choice

emerge with each successive level; but the degree of increase is
greater in odd-numbered than in even-numbered systems.
Still, each movement up the Levels of Human Existence has
resulted in an increase in the conceptual space of Homo
sapiens.

8. That each system has a general theme for existence which typifies it,
such that each central theme for existence is particularizable
into almost an infinite number of ways for peripheral
expression. Adult psychosocial life is a developing, emergent
process which can be likened to a symphony built on six basic
themes which repeat, in higher order form, every set of six.
The first six tell the story of adult psychosocial development
in a world of naturalistic abundance. The second order
systems tell the story of how psychosocial development will
take place in a world of naturalistic scarcity.
In human existence, our species begins by stating in the
simplest way those themes which will occupy us through
history with almost infinite variations. These themes for living
(AN, BO, CP, etc.) change as the human solves current
problems of existence and, in their solution, creates new
problems of existence. Every seventh system shows a degree
of change in excess of the sum of all six previous changes.

9. That humans tend normally to change their biopsychosocial being as the

conditions of their existence change. Each successive stage, wave, or
level of existence is a state through which developing people
508 Appendix

pass on their way to other states of being. In some cases, a

person may not be genetically or constitutionally equipped to
change in the normal upward hierarchically ordered, more
complex direction when the person’s conditions of existence
change. A person may stabilize (existential conditions being
right) at any one or a combination of levels in the hierarchy.
He or she may, under certain circumstances, regress to a
system lower in the hierarchy. And a person may settle, for
specifiable organistic or environmental reasons, into what
appears to be a fixated and relatively closed system rather be
in the usual, open state of development.

10. That at this point in our history, the societally effective leading edge of
humanity, in the technologically advanced nations, is currently finishing
the initial statement of the sixth (FS) state of existence (modern
Japan); and the United States (though temporarily stalled in a
regressive phase) is beginning again with the first theme in a
new and more sophisticated form of survivalistic living, the
seventh, the A’N’ existential level. That is, some humans have
reached the point of finishing the first and most primitive
spiral of existence, the one concerned with basic survival, with
the development of individual independence, and with the
ways of existence to foster it. But, at this time, human life is
beginning to experience threats to existence created by the
cumulative effect of the first six ways of being, namely, the
creation of a whole new set of survival problems. Thus, some
humans have started to think about and some of them are
well into thinking according to the ways of a second spiral of
existence, the being level systems. These humans have truly
started to think of the interdependence of existence rather
than an individualized independent existence. Thus we see
that the six themes for existence may constantly repeat if
humanity continues to exist and in existing constantly solves
and constantly creates new problems of existence. Such a
stately succession of themes and movements is the general
pattern of the levels of existence.
 509

Bibliography and References

(Although the original bibliographical notes were lost, the following list,
compiled by the editors, is contemporary with Dr. Graves’s writing of the core
manuscript through 1977. It sources quotations and tracks major sources he
was likely to have relied upon, based on the existing text. )

4H “4-H is the youth education branch of the Cooperative Extension Service,

a program of the United States Department of Agriculture. Each state
and each county has access to a County Extension office for both
youth and adult programs.”
ACE (American Council on Education) One Dupont Circle NW, Washington,
DC 20036. Publisher of the College Board examinations (now SAT –
Scholastic Aptitude Test).
Adams, Donald K., Mowrer, O.H., Ammons, R.B., Snygg, Donald, Butler, John
M., Spence, Kenneth W., Cattell, Raymond B.,Wickens, Delos D.,
Harlow, Harry F., Wittenborn, J.R., Maier, Norman R.F. (1954).
Learning Theory, Personality Theory, and Clinical Research: The Kentucky
Symposium. New York, Wiley.
Adler, Alfred (1927). Practice and Theory of Individual Psychology, New York:
Harcourt, Brace, and World.
______ (1929). The Science of Living. New York: Greenberg.
______ (1931). What Life Should Mean to You. Boston: Little, Brown.
______ (1939). Social Interest. New York: Putnam.
______ (1946). Understanding Human Nature. New York: Greenberg.
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, Else, Levinson, Daniel J., and Sanford, R.
Nevitt (1950). The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper & Row.
Ahammer, Inge M. (1973). In Baltes, Paul B. and Schaie, K. Warner, et al. Life-
Span Developmental Psychology: Personality and Socialization. Academic
Press.
Allen, JR., & West, L. J. (1968). Flight from violence: Hippies and the green
rebellion. American Journal of Psychiatry, 125(3), 364-370.
Allport, Gordon W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York:
Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
______ (1955). Becoming: Basic considerations for a psychology of personality. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
______ (1960). Personality and Social Encounter. Boston: Beacon Press.
______ (1961). Pattern and Growth in Personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston.
Ambrose, J. A. (1960). The development of the smiling response in early
infancy. In B.M. Foss (Ed.), Determinants of Infant Behavior. London:
Methuen & Co., Ltd.. American Psychological Association. Ethical
standards of psychologists. Washington, D. C.: APA, 1963.
510 Bibliography

Aronoff, Joel (1967). Psychological Needs and Cultural Systems: A Case Study.
Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Ashby, Walter Ross (1956). An Introduction to Cybernetics. London: Chapman &
Hall.
______ (1960). Design for a Brain. (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
______ (1958). Requisite Variety and its Implications for the Control of
Complex Systems. Cybernetica, 1 (2).
Athos, Anthony (1968). Behavior in Organizations, a Multidemensional View. New
York: Prentice Hall.
Ausubel, David P. (1952). Ego Development and the Personality Disorders: A
Developmental Approach to PsychoPathology. Grune & Stratton.
______ (1968). Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston
Baltes, Paul B. and Warner K. Shaie (1973). Life-Span Developmental
Psychology. Personality and Socialization. NewYork: Academic Press.
Bandura, Albert (1969). Principles of behavior modification. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
______ (1997). Self Efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. and Walters, R. H. Social Learning and Personality Development. New
York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1963.
Bard. P. & Rioch, D. (1937). A Study of Four Cats Deprived of Neocortex and
Additional Portions of the Forebrain. John Hopkins Hospital Bulletin, 60,
p. 73-147.
Barker, Roger G. (1957). Structure of the Stream of Behavior. Proceedings of the
Fifteenth International Congress of Psychology, Brussels, Amsterdam. North
Holland Publishing, p. 155-156.
Barron, Frank (1954). Personal soundness in university graduate students.
Publications in Personality Assessment and Research. No. 1. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
______ (1963). Creativity and Psychological Health. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand
Company, Inc. .
Bartlett, Frederic C. (1932). Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social
Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bavelas, Alex (1948). “Mathematical model for group structures.” Applied
Anthropology, p. 7.
______ (1950). Communication Patterns in Task-Oriented Groups. Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America 22, p. 725-730. [Professor of Psychology,
founder of the Group Networks Laboratory at MIT in 1948, pioneer
in group communications and social networks at MIT.]
______ (1950). Bavelas et al. Human communications systems. Quarterly Progress
Report, Research Laboratory of Electronics, M I T, July, p. 81-86.
______ (1952). In H. von Foerster (Ed.), Communication patterns in problem-
solving groups. Cybernetics - circular, causal and feedback mechanisms in
biological and social systems. Transactions of the eighth conference. New York:
Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation.
 Bibliography 511

______ (1963). Teleconferencing: Background Information. Research Paper P-

106, Institute for Defense Analysis, p. 4.
______ (1948). A mathematical model for group structure. Human Organization,
7:16-30.
______ (1950). Communication patterns in task-oriented groups. Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America. 22:271-282.
Bavelas, Alex and Barret, Dermot (1950). An Experimental Approach to
Organizational Communication. Personnel 27, p. 366-371.
Bentham, Jeremy (1962). In John Bowring (Ed.), The Works of Jeremy Bentham.
New York.
Bergson, Henri L. (1913). Time and Free Will: An Essay on the Immediate data of
Consciousness. New York: Macmillan.
______ (1946). The Creative Mind. New York: Philosophical Library.
______ (1954). The Two Sources of Morality and Religion. (First published in France,
1932) Garden City: Doubleday, Anchor.
Berlyne, Daniel E. (1960). Conflict, Arousal, and Curiosity. New York: McGraw
Hill.
______ (1967). Arousal and Reinforcement, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation.
University of Nebraska Press, Vol 15, p 1-110.
______ (1970). Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perception and
Psychophysics, 8, November, p. 279-286.
Bingham, W. E., & Griffiths, W. J., Jr. (1952). The effect of different
environments during infancy on adult behavior in the rat. Journal of
Comparative and Physiological Psychology, Vol. 45, p. 307-312.
Blake, Robert R. and Mouton, Jane S. (1964). The Managerial Grid: Key
Orientations or Achieving Production through People. Houston: Gulf
Publishing Co..
Blasi, Arthur (1976). Concept of development in personality theory. In Jane
Loevinger, Ego Development: Conceptions and Theories. San Francisco:
Jossey Bass. p. 29-53.
______ Self, Ego and Identity: Integrative approaches. New York: Springer, p. 226-
243. [Ref to 1971 in Journal of Personality Assessment 2001, Vol. 77, No.
3, Pages 541-567 “A Critical Review of the Validity of Ego
Development Theory and Its Measurement.” John Manners Gilmore
and Kevin Durkin.]
______ (1980). Bridging Moral Cognition and Moral Action: A Critical Review
of the Literature. Psychological Bulletin, 88, p. 1-45.
Blatt, Moshe (1969). “Studies on the Effects of Classroom Discussions upon
Children’s Moral Development.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Chicago. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms.
Blatt, Moshe, Colby, Ann, and Speicher, Betsy (1974). Hypothetical Dilemmas
for Use in Moral Discusison. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Center for Moral Education. Mimeographed.
Blatt, Moshe, and Kohlberg, Lawrence (1975). The Effect of Classrooms’
Moral Discussion upon Children’s Level of Moral Judgment. Journal of
512 Bibliography

Moral Education. 4: 129-61 [also see Recent Research in Moral Development,

edited by Lawrence Kohlberg and Eliot Turiel, New York: Holt]
Blatz, William E. (1966). Human Security: Some Reflections. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Blatz, William Emet and Bott, Helen McMurchie (1928). Parents and the pre-school
child. London; Toronto: J.M. Dent.
Blos, Peter (1941). The Adolescent Personality. New York: Appleton.
_______ (1962). On Adolescence: A Psychoanalytic Interpretation. New York: Free
Press.
Bott, Helen McMurchie and William E. Blatz (1930). The management of young
children. New York: William Morrow & Company.
Boas, Franz (1911). The Mind of Primitive Man. New York: MacMillan (Free
Press, 1963).
Bowlby, J. (1958). The Nature of the Child’s Tie to his Mother. International
Journal of Psychoanalysis, 39, p. 1-24.
Brackbill, Y. (1958). Extinction of the Smiling Response in Infants as a
Function of Reinforcement Schedule. Child Development, 29, p. 115-
124.
Brady, J. V. (1960). Emotional behavior. In J. Field (Ed.), Handbook of Physiology.
Sect I Neurophysiology. Vol. III. Washington, D. C.: American
Physiological Society.
Bricker, P. D., and Alphonse Chapanis (1953). Do incorrectly perceived
tachistoscopic stimuli convey some information? Psychological Review,
60, p.181-188.
Brock, T. C. (1962). Cognitive Restructuring and Attitude Change. Journal of
Abnormal Social Psychology, Vol. 54, No. 4, p. 264-271.
Brogden. W. J. (1951). Animal Studies of Learning. In S. S. Stevens (Ed.),
Handbook of Experimental Psychology. New York: Wiley, p. 568-612.
Bronson, Gordon (1965). The Hierarchical Organization of the Central
Nervous System: Implications for Learning Processes and Critical
Periods in Early Development. Behavioral Science, Vol. 10, No. 1, Jan.
1965, p. 7-25.
Broughton, John M. (1975). The Development of Natural Epistemology in
Adolescence and Early Adulthood. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Graduate School of Education, Harvard University.
_______ (1987). An Introduction to Critical Developmental Psychology. In J.
M. Broughton (Ed.), Critical Theories of Psychological Development. New
York: Plenum.
Bruner, J. S. (1957). On Perceptual Readiness. Psychological Review, 64, 123-152.
Bruner, J. S., Matter, J., & Papanek, M. (1955). Breadth of Learning as a
Function of Drive Level and Mechanization. Psychological Review, 62, 1-
10.
Bruner, J.S. and Postman, L. (1947). Emotional Selectivity in Perception and
Reaction. Journal of Personality, 16, 69-77.
Bugental, James F. T. (1963). Humanistic psychology: A new breakthrough.
American Psychologist, 18, 563-567.
 Bibliography 513

______ (1965). The Search for Authenticity. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
______ (1967). Challenges of Humanistic Psychology. New York: Psychology.
Psychological Service Associates, Los Angeles: McGraw-Hill Book
Company.
Buhler, Charlotte (1930). The First Year of Life. New York: Day.
______ (1933). Der Menschliche Lebenslauf Als Psychologisches Problem (The Course of
Human Life as a Psychological Problem). Leipzig: S. Hirzel, (2nd ed.,
Gottingoen: Hogrefe, 1959).
______ (1959). Theoretical observations about life’s basic tendencies. American
Journal of Psychotherapy. 1959, 13:3, 561-581
______ (1962). Values in Psychotherapy. New York: Free Press.
______ (1964).The Human Course of Life in Its Goal Aspects. Journal of
Humanistic Psychology. Spring 1964. p. 1-18.
______ (1968). The course of Human Life as a Psychological Problem. Human
Development, 11 (3), p. 184-200.
______ (1968). The Course of Human Life: A Study of Goals in the Humanistic
Perspective. Charlotte Buhler and Fred Massarik, (eds.) New York:
Springer Pub. Co..
______ (1972). Introduction to Humanistic Psychology. Bellmont, California:
Wadsworth Publishing Co., Inc..
Bull, Norman J. (1969). Moral Judgement from Childhood to Adolecence. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Burlingame, Roger (1956). Henry Ford: The Greatest Success Story in the History of
Industry. New York: Signet Key Books.
Butler, R. A. (1954). Incentive Conditions Which Influence Visual Exploration.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 48, p. 19-23.
Calhoun, John B. (1962). Population Density and Social Pathology. Scientific
American. February, p. 139; (See: Environment and Population: Problems of
Adaptation. New York: Praeger Scientific, 1983).
______ (1963). The Ecology and Sociology of the Norway Rat. Public Health Service
Publication No. 1008 U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Public Health Service.
______ (1968). Space and the Strategy of Life. Unpublished paper presented at
the American Association for the Advancement of Science 135th
Annual Meeting, Dallas, TX.
______ (1969). Promotion of Man. Unpublished Paper. URBSDOC 146,
Bethesda, MD.
______ (1970). Levels of Existence re Gravesian Philosophy: Random Notes
by John B. Calhoun for evening seminar discussion.
______ (1971). Rx Evolution, Tribalism, and the Cheshire Cat: Three Paths
from Now. Unpublished paper. URBSDOC 167. Bethesda, MD: Unit
for Research on Behavioral Systems, Laboratory of Psychology,
NIMH.
514 Bibliography

______ (1973). Metascientific Research. 16 April, 1973, URBS Doc 219.1

unpublished paper, NIMH: Unit for Research on Behavioral Systems,
Laboratory of Psychology.
Calvin, John (1949). Institutes of the Christian Religion. 8th Ed. Translated by
John Allen. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. (Also quoted by Robert Coles
in The New Yorker for January 3, 1970, p. 63).
Camus, Albert. (1955). The Myth of Sisyphus. New York: Random House, Vintage
Books.
______ (1957). The Rebel: An essay on man in revolt. New York: Knopf.
______ (1964). Carnets. Paris: Gallimard.
Christie, Richard (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.
Coleman, James C. (1969). Hierarchy in the Brain: Implications for Learning
and Critical Periods, Psychology and Effective Behavior. Behavioral
Science. Vol. 10, p. 7-25.
College Board Exams (known today as the “SAT” - Scholastic Aptitude Test).
The College Board Headquarters, 45 Columbus Avenue, New York,
NY 10023-6992.
Condorcet, Marie Jean Antoine Nicolas Caritat, marquis de (1822). Esquisse d'un
tableau historique des progrès de l'esprit humain. Paris: Masson et Fils.
Cone, John D. and Hawkins, Robert (Eds.), (1977). Behavioral Assessment: New
Directions in Clinical Psychology. NY: Bruner /Mazel.
Conel, J. LeR. (1939). The Postnatal Development of the Human Cerebral Cortex.
Cortex of the Newborn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
______ (1941). The Postnatal Development of the Human Cerebral Cortex II. Cortex of
the One-Month Infant. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Darrow, Clarence (1932). The Story of My Life. New York, NY: Grosset's
Universal Library.
Darrow, Clarence and Crowe, Robert E. (1923). Attorney Clarence Darrow's Plea
for Mercy and Prosecutor Robert E. Crowe's Demand for the Death Penalty in
the Loeb Leopold Case: the Crime of a Century. Chicago: Wilson Publishing
Co..
Darwin, Charles (1859). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the
Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London: John Murray,
Albemarle Street.
Dewey, John (1920). Reconstruction in Philosophy. New York: Henry Holt and
Company.
______ (1929). Experience and Nature. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Dell, P. C. (1958). Some Basic Mechanisms of the Translation of Bodily Needs
into Behavior. In G. E. W. Wolstenholme & C. M O’Conner (Eds.)
Symposium on the Neurological Basis of Behavior. Boston: Little, Brown.
Doty, R. W. and Giurgea, C. (1961). Conditioned reflexes established by
coupling electrical excitation of two cortical areas. In J. Delafresnaye
(Ed.). Brain Mechanisms and Learning. Oxford: Blackwell, 1961.
Doty, R. W. (1969). Electrical stimulation of the brain in behavioral context.
Annual Review of Psychology, 20, p. 289-320.
 Bibliography 515

Doty, B. and Daiman, R. (1969). Diphenylhydantoin effects on avoidance

conditioning as a function of age and problem difficulty. Psychos. Sci.,
Vol. 14, p. 109-111.
Doty, B., & Doty L. (1966). Facilitating effects of amphetamine on avoidance
conditioning in relation to age and problem difficulty.
Psychopharmacology, Vol. 9, p. 234-241.
Drews, Elizabeth M.
______ (1962). Dialogue on Communication. In Hitchcock, A. (Ed.), Guidance
and the Utilization of New Educational Media: Report of the 1962 Conference.
American Personnel and Guidance Association. Washington, D.C., 1-
47, 63-68.
______ (1963). The four faces of able adolescents. Saturday Review, 68-71.
______ (1964, 1965, 1966). The Creative Intellectual Style in Gifted Adolescents. Vols.
I, II, and III. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
______ (1968b). Fernwood, a free school. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 8(2),
n.p.
______ (1966). The Creative Intellectual Style in Gifted Adolescents, Report II;
Report III; Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Research
Laboratory, 1966.
______ (1972). Learning Together. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Drews, E.M., and Lipson L. (1971). Values and Humanity. New York: St.
Martin's Press.
Driesch, Hans Adolf Eduard (1905). The history & theory of vitalism. Authorised
translation by C. K. Ogden (1914). Rev. and in part rewritten for the
English ed. by the author. London: Macmillan and Co..
______ (1929). The Science and Philosophy of the Organism. The Gifford Lectures
Delivered Before the University of Aberdeen in the Year 1907. 2nd Edition.
London: Adam and Charles Black.
______ (1925). The Crisis in Psychology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
______ (1927). Mind and Body. New York: L. MacVeagh, The Dial Press.
______ (1929). Man in the Universe. New York.
Driver, Michael J. (1960). The relationship between abstractness of conceptual
functioning and group performance in a complex decision making
environment. Unpublished masters thesis, Princeton University.
Edwards, Allen L. (1957). The social desirability variable in personality assessment and
research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
______ (EPPS) Edwards Personal Preference Scale. The Psychological
Corporation.
______ (1967). Edwards Personality Inventory. (EPI), Science Research
Associates, Inc.
Edwards, A. L. and Abbott, R. D. (1972). The R scale and acquiescent
tendencies on scales consisting of items from the CPI, EPI, and PRF.
Psychological Reports. 31, p. 303-306.
______ (1973). Relationships between the EPI Scales and the 16 PF, CPI, and
EPPS scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 33, 231-238.
516 Bibliography

______ (1973). Relationships between the EPI scales and the EPPS and PRF
scales. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 40, 27-32.
Elkind, David (1971). Cognitive Growth Cycles in Mental Development.
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska
Press.
______ (1975). Recent Research on Cognitive Development in Adolescence. In
Dragastin, S.E., and Elder, G. H., Jr. Adolescence in the Life Cycle:
Psychological Change and the Social Context. New York: Halsted Press.
Elkind, David and Flavell, John H. (Eds.) (1969). Studies in Cognitive Development:
Essays in Honour of Jean Piaget. New York: Oxford University Press.
Engen, T., Lipsitt, L. P., Lewis, P., and Kaye, H. (1963). Olfactory responses
and adaptation in the human neonate. Journal of Comparative and
Physiological Psychology. Vol. 56, p. 73-77.
Engen, T and Levy, N. (1956). Constant-Sum Judgments of Facial Expressions.
Journal of Experimental Psychology. Vol. 51, p. 396-398.
Erikson, Erik Homburger (1950). Childhood and Society. New York: Norton.
______ (1959). Identity and the Life Cycle: selected papers. Psychological Issues,
Monograph No. 1. New York: International University Press.
(see “Growth and Crises of the Healthy Personality.”)
______ (1964). Insight and Responsibility. New York: Norton.
______ (1968). Identity: Youth and Crisis. New York: Norton.
Eysenck, Hans J. (1947). Dimensions of Personality. London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
______ (1952). The Scientific Study of Personality. London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
______ (1953). The Structure of Human Personality. London: Methuen.
______ (1959). Learning Theory and Behavior Therapy. Journal of Mental Science,
105: 61 75.
______ (1963). Eysenck Personality Inventory.
______ (1967). The Dynamics of Anxiety and Hysteria: An experimental
application of modern learning theory to psychiatry, (3rd imp. 1st-
1957).
______ (1967). The Biological Basis of Personality. Springfield: C. C. Thomas.
______ (1970). Readings in Extraversion-Introversion: Theoretical and Methodological
Issues. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Eysenck, Hans J. and Rachman, S. (1965). The Causes and Cures of Neurosis: An
Introduction to Modern Behaviour Therapy based on Learning Theory and the
Principles of Conditioning. San Diego: R. R. Knapp, Educational and
Industrial Training Service.
Fenton, Edwin, Colby, Ann, and Speicher-Dubin, Betsy (1974). “Developing
Moral Dilemmas for Social Studies Classes.” Mimeogaphed.
Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University, Center for Moral Education
(cited in Mosher, Ralph (1980). Moral Education: A First Generation of
Research and Development. New York: Praeger. p. 223)
Festinger, Leon (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human
Relations. 7:117-40.
 Bibliography 517

______ (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University

Press.
Festinger, Leon and Aronson, E. (1960). The Arousal and Reduction of
Dissonance in Social Contexts. In D. Cartwright and A. Zander
(Eds.), Group Dynamics. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson, p. 214-231.
Festinger, L., Riecken, H.W. and Schachter, S. (1956). When Prophesy Fails.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Flavell, John H. (1969). see Elkind.
Forgays, D. G. (1962). The Importance of Experience at Specific Times in the
Development of an Organism. Paper presented at the meeting of the
Eastern Psychological Association, April.
Forgays, D. G. and Forgays, J. (1952). The Nature of the Effect of Free-
Environmental Experience in the Rat. Journal of Comparative and
Physiological Psychology. Vol. 45, p. 322-328.
Frankl, Viktor (1946). Man's Search for Meaning. New York: Washington Square
Press.
______ (1959). From Death Camp to Existentialism. Boston: Beacon.
______ (1967). Psychotherapy and Existentialism. New York: Washington Square
Press.
Freud, Sigmund (1933). New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis. New York:
W.E. Norton Co., Inc. 1965.
______ (1938). Brill, A. A., (ed.) The Basic Writings of Sigmund Freud:
(Psychopathology of Everyday Life, the Interpretation of Dreams, and Three
Contributions To the Theory of Sex). New York: The Modern Library
______ (1912). Release of On the Dynamics of Transference, On the Universal
Tendency to Debasement in the Sphere of Love and On Beginning
the Treatment.
______ (1912). A note on the unconscious in psycho-analysis. S.E., 12:260-266.
______ (1912). Contributions to a discussion on masturbation. S.E., 12:243-
254.
______ (1912). On the universal tendency to debasement in the sphere of love.
S.E., 11:179-190.
______ (1912). Recommendations to physicians practising psycho-analysis.
S.E., 12:111-120.
______ (1912). The dynamics of transference. S.E., 12:99-108.
______ (1912). Types of onset of neurosis. S.E., 12:231-238.
______ (1901). Psychopathology of Everyday Life. Translation by A. A. Brill
(1914). Originally published in London by T. Fisher Unwin,.
______ (1923). The Ego and the Id. In J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The
Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud (vol.
19, p. 3-66). London: Hogarth Press .
______ (1933). New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis. New York: W.E.
Norton Co., Inc. 1965.
______ (1948). Beyond the Pleasure Principle. London: Hogarth.
518 Bibliography

Fromm, Eric (1941). Escape from Freedom. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
______ (1947). Man for Himself: An Inquiry into the Psychology of Ethics. New York:
Rinehart.
______ (1955). The Sane Society. New York: Rinehart & Co.
______ (1959). Values, Psychology and Human Existence. In A. E. Maslow
(Ed.), New Knowledge in Human Values. New York: Harper.
______ (1960). The Fear of Freedom. London: Routledge.
Funkenstein, D.H. (1955). The physiology of fear and anger. Scientific American,
74:192-193.
Funkenstein, D.H., King, S.H. and Drolette, Margaret E. (1953). The
Experimental Evocation of Stress. Presented 18 March 1953, to the
Symposium on Stress, AMSGS, WRAMC, Washington, D. C. From
the Dept. of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, the Dept. of Social
Relations, Harvard University, and the Dept. of Biostatistics, Harvard
School of Public Health.
______ (1957). Mastery of Stress. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Gastaut, H. (1958). Conditioned reflexes and behavior. In G. E. W.
Wolstenholme & C. M. O’Conner (Eds.), Symposium on the neurological
basis of behavior. Boston: Little, Brown.
Gaustaut, H., & Roger, A. (1966). Les mecanismes de I'activité nerveuse
supérieure envisagds au niveau des graades structures fonctionnelles
du cerveau. In H. H. Jasper & G. D. Smirnov (Eds.), The Moscow
colloquium on electroencephalography of higher nervous activity. Montreal: EEG
Journal.
Gloor, P. (1960). The Amygdala. In J. Field (Ed.). Handbook of Physiology. Sect. I,
Neurophysiology. Vol II.. Washington, D. C.: American Physiological
Society.
Goethe (see von Goethe)
Goldstein, Kurt (1939). The Organsim: A Holistic Approach to Biology Derived from
Pathological Data in Man. New York: American Book Co.
______ (1940). Human Nature (in the Light of Psychopathology). Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press.
Goldstein, Kurt and Scheerer, M. (1941). Abstract and Concrete Behavior - An
Experimental Study With Special Tests. Psychological Monographs. Vol.
53, No. 2, p. 110-130.
Goldstein, Kurt and Scheerer, M. (1947). Goldstein-Scheerer Test of Abstract
and Concrete Thinking.
Gough, H. G. (1961) The Adjective Check List. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Gough, H. G., & Sanford, R.N. (1952). Rigidity as a Psychological Variable.
Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Institute of
Personality Assessment and Research.
Gray, Thomas (1751). “Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard.” London.
Gray, William (1977). General System Precursor Formation Theory. Cambridge, MA:
Aristocrat.
 Bibliography 519

Gray, William, Duhl, Frederick J. and Rizzo, Nicholas D. (Eds.). (1969). General
Systems Theory and Psychiatry. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.
Gray, William and Rizzo, Nicholas D. (Eds.). (1973). Unity Through Diversity: A
Festschrift for Ludwig van Bertalanffy. New York: Gordon and Breach.
Graves, Clare W. (1959). An emergent theory of ethical behavior based upon an
epigenetic model. Unpublished paper, Schenectady, NY.
______ (1961). On the Theory of Ethical Behavior. Paper presented at the First
Unitarian Society of Schenectady, NY.
______ (1962, November). Implications to Management of Systems-Ethical
Theory. Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Values Conference.
Schenectady, NY: Value Analysis, Inc.
______ (1964). Levels of Human Existence and their Relation to Value
Analysis and Engineering. Proceedings of the 5th Annual Values
Conference. Schenectady, NY: Value Analysis, Inc.
______ (1965, February). Value systems and their relation to managerial
controls and organizational viability. Paper presented at the College of
Management Philosophy, The Institute of Management Sciences, San
Francisco, CA.
______ (1966). Deterioration of Work Standards. Harvard Business Review,
Boston, MA: Sept.-Oct., Vol. 44, No. 5, p 117-126.
______ (1967). On the Theory of Value. Paper presented at the National
Institutes of Mental Health, Washington, DC.
______ (1969, March). Motivation-wise, executives are reluctant dragons.
Keynote address presented at the Institute on Motivation and
Productivity of the Public Personnel Association, The Hudson-
Mohawk Training Directors Society, The Industrial Training Council,
and The Capital District Personnel Association, Albany, NY.
______ (1970). Levels of Existence: An Open System Theory of Values. Journal
of Humanistic Psychology, Fall, Vol. 10, No. 2, p. 131-155.
______ (1970, May). Personal dimensions of student disaffection. Paper
presented at the 175th anniversary celebration of the founding of
Union College, Schenectady, NY.
______ (1970, May). The Levels of Existence and their relation to welfare
problems. Paper presented at the Annual Conference Meeting,
Virginia State Department of Welfare and Distribution, Roanoke, VA.
______ (1971, March). Levels of Existence related to learning systems. Paper
presented at the Ninth Annual Conference of the National Society for
Programming Instruction, Rochester, NY.
______ (1971, October). A Systems Conception of Personality: Remarks by
Clare W. Graves on his Levels of Existence Theory. Presented at the
Washington School of Psychiatry, Washington, DC. Transcription and
handout compiled in Lee, William R., Cowan, Christopher C. and
Todorovic, Natasha (Eds.) (2003). Graves: Levels of Human Existence.
Santa Barbara, CA: ECLET Publishing.
520 Bibliography

______ (1971, November). How Should Whom Lead Who to Do What? Paper
presented at the YMCA Management Forum of 1971-1972,
Downtown Branch YMCA, St. Louis, MO.
______ (1971). Untitled Presentation. Annual Meeting of The Association of
Humanistic Psychology.
______ (1973, March). Let Us Bring Humanistic and General Psychology
Together: A Research Project Needing to Become. Paper presented at
National Institutes of Mental Health, Washington, DC.
______ (1973, October). Seminar Notes. Presentation at the Quetico Centre,
Ontario, Canada.
______ (1974). Human Nature Prepares for a Momentous Leap. The Futurist.
April, 1974, p. 72-87.
______ (1974). Seminar recordings, Quetico Centre, Canada, June, 1974.
______ (1978). Notes for “Up the Existential Staircase: A seminar on the
Development, Nature, Meaning and Management of The Levels of
Existence, Emergent, Cyclical, Double Helix Model of Adult Human
Psychosocial Coping Systems.” Unpublished paper.
______ (1978). Levels of Complexity. Paper presented at North Texas State
University, Denton, TX.
______ (1980). Seminar at the National Values Center in Dallas, TX,
December 1980. (audio tape)
______ (1981, May). Summary Statement: The Emergent, Cyclical, Double-
Helix Model Of The Adult Human Biopsychosocial Systems. Paper
presented to the World Future Society, Boston, MA.
______ (1982). Seminar handout. Unpublished paper.
______ (2001). ECLET: Emergent Cyclical Levels of Existence Theory: A Workshop
with Dr. Clare W. Graves [Audio tape]. Santa Barbara, CA: ECLET
Publishing. (1974)
______ (2001). Reflections [Audio tape]. Santa Barbara, CA: ECLET Publishing.
(1980)
______ (2001). The Psychological Map [Audio tape]. Santa Barbara, CA: ECLET
Publishing. (1980)
Graves, Clare W., Huntley, W. C., and LaBier, Douglas (1965). “Personality
Structure and Perceptual Readiness: An Investigation of their
Relationship to Hypothesized Levels of Human Existence.”
Unpublished paper, Union College. Unpublished paper.
Graves, Clare W., Madden, Helen T., and Madden, Lynn P. (1970). The
Congruent Management Strategy. Unpublished paper based on an
industrial study.
Guyton, A. C. (1961). Textbook of Medical Physiology. Philadelphia: Saunders.
Hall, Calvin and Lindsey, Gardner (1957). Theories of Personality. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Hampshire, Sir Stuart (1959). Thought and Action. New York: Viking.
Harlow, H. F. and Zimmermann, R. R. (1959). Affectional Responses in the
Infant Monkey. Science, Vol. 130, p. 421-432.
 Bibliography 521

Hartmann, Heinz (1958). Ego Psychology and the Problem of Adaptation. New York:
International Universities Press.
______ (1964). Essays on Ego Psychology: Selected Problems in Psychoanalytic Theory.
New York: International Universities Press.
Harvey, O. J. (Ed.) (1966). Experience, Structure and Adaptability. New York:
Springer Publishing Co..
Harvey, O.J., Hunt, David and Schroder, Harold M. (1961). Conceptual Systems
and Personality Organization. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Havighurst, Robert (1948). Developmental tasks and education. New York: David
McKay Co..
Hawkins, Robert P., Peterson, R. F., Schweid, E. and Bijou, S W. (1966).
Behavior therapy in the home: amelioration of problem parent-child
relations with the parent in a therapeutic role. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 4:99-107.
______ (1972). It’s time we taught the young how to be good parents (and
don’t you wish we’d started a long time ago?). Psychology Today, 11:28-
40.
______ Cone, John D. & Hawkins, Robert P. (1977). Behavioral Assessment: New
Directions in Clinical Psychology. New York: Brunner/Mazel Publishers.
Haymuy, T. P. (1961). The Role of the Cerebral Cortex in the Learning of an
Instrumental Conditioned Response. In A. Fessard, R. W. Gerard, &
J. Konorski (Eds.), Brain Mechanisms and Learning. Springfield, Illinois:
Thomas.
Heard, Gerald (1941). Man the Master. New York: Harper and Brothers.
______ (1963). The Five Ages of Man. New York: The Julian Press, Inc..
Hebb, Donald O. (1949). The Organization of Behavior: A Neuropsychological Theory.
New York: Wiley.
______ (1955). Drives and the CNS (central nervous system) Psychological Review,
62, 243-254
______ (1958). A Textbook of Psychology. Philadelphia: Saunders.
______ (1937). The innate organization of visual activity: I. Perception of
figures by rats reared in total darkness. Journal of Genetic Psychology,
51:101-126.
______ (1966). A Textbook of Psychology. Philadelphia: Saunders.
Heider, Fritz (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Hernandez-Peon, R. and Brust-Carmona, H. (1961). The Functional Role of
Sub-cortical Structure in Habituation and Conditioning. In Fessard,
A., Garard, R. W., and Konorski, J., (Eds.). Brain Mechanisms and
Learning. Springfield: Thomas.
______ (1966). In R.W. Russel (Ed.). Frontiers in physiological psychology. New
York: Academic Press.
Herndon, Booton (1969). Ford: An Unconventional Biography of the Men and Their
Times. New York: Weybright & Talley
Herzberg, Frederick I. (1959). The Motivation to Work. New York: Wiley.
522 Bibliography

______ (1955 and 1966). Work and the Nature of Man. Cleveland: World
Publishing Cleveland.
Hess, E. H. (1959). Imprinting. Science, 130, p. 133-141.
______ (1972). Pupilometrics. In N. S. Greenfield and R. A. Stembach (Eds.)
Handbook of Psychophysiology. New York: Holt, Richard & Winston, p.
491- 531.
Hess, R. D. and Shipman, V. C. (1965). Early Experience and the Socialization
of Cognitive Mode - Children. Child Development. Published by the
University of Chicago Press for the Society for Research in Child
Development, Inc., 36, p. 859-886.
______ (1967). Cognitive elements in maternal behavior. In J. P. Hill (Ed.),
Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology (Vol. 1). Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press.
Hess, W. R. (1936). Le sommeil. C. r. Soc. Biol. Paris 1931, 107, 1333 and ____
Hypothalamus und die Zentren des autonomen Nervensystems:
Physiologie, Arch. f. Psychiatrie, 1936, 103, 548. Cited in Ransom, S.
W. and Magoun, H. W. The hypothalamus Ergbn. Physiol., 1939 41, 56-
163
Hess, E. H. (1965). Attitude and pupil size. Scientific American, 212 46-54.
Hess, E H and Polt, J M (1964). Pupil size in relation to mental activity during
simple problem solving. Science, 143 p. 1190-1192. Cited in Ransom,
S. W. and Magoun, H. W. The hypothalamus Ergbn. Physiol., 1939 41,
56-163
Hinde, R. A. (1962). Sensitive Periods and the Development of Behavior. In S.
A. Barnett (Ed.) Lessons from Animal Behavior for the Clinician. London:
National Spastics Society Study Group and Heinemann Medical
Books, Ltd..
Hokfelt, Bernt (1951). Noradrenaline and adrenaline in mammalian tissues;
distribution under normal and pathological conditions with special
reference to the endocrine system. Stockholm: Zetterlund and
Thelander. (In Acta Physiologica Scandinavica, v. 25, Supplement 92)
______ (1971). Catechol Conent of the mammalian (including human)
suprarenal from foetal to adult stages. Scandinavian Physiological
Congress, Abstracts of Communications. Acta Physiologica Scandinavia,
v. 25, Supp 89, p. 41-43.
Hoover, President Herbert. 1951 speech at the Iowa Centennial Foundation.
Horney, Karen (1939). New Ways in Psychoanalysis. New York: W. W. Norton &
Co. Inc..
______ (1950). Neurosis and Human Growth. New York: W. W. Norton &
Company.
Howe, M. J. A. (1970). Introduction to Human Memory. New York, Harper & Row,
Publishers, Inc..
______ (1970). Repeated presentation and recall of meaningful prose. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 61: 214-19.
______ (1975). Learning in Infants and Young Children. London: McMillan.
 Bibliography 523

Howes, David (1954). On the Interpretation of Word Frequency as a Variable

Affecting Speed of Recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Vol.
48, p. 106-112.
Howes, D.H. and Solomon, R.L. (1951). Visual duration threshold as a function
of word-probability. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 41, p. 401-
410.
Hudgins, C. V. (1933). Conditioning and voluntary control of the papillary light
reflex. Journal of General Psychology, 8, p. 3-51.
Hunt, D. E. (1961). Manual for judging free responses from Situational
Interpretation Experiment. Unpublished manuscript.
Hunt, David E. and Sullivan, Edmund V. (1974). Between Psychology and Education.
Hinsdale, IL.: Dryden Press.
Hunter, Evan (1954). The Blackboard Jungle. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Hunter, W. S. and Hudgins, C. V. (1934). Voluntary activity from the
standpoint of behaviorism. Journal of General Psychology, 10, p. 198-204.
Hymovitch, B. (1952). The Effects of Experimental Variations on Problem
Solving in the Rat. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, Vol.
45, p. 313-321.
Ionesco, Eugene. The New Yorker. 1960, p.47.
Isaacs, K. S. (1956). Relatability: A Proposed Construct and an Approach to Its
Validation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Chicago.
______ (2005) Unpublished tapes and personal conversations with the editors.
(Also see Uses of Emotion: Nature’s Vital Gift. Westport, CT: Praeger,
1998.)
Isaacs, K.S., Alexander, J., and Haggard, E. A. (1963). Faith, trust and gullibility.
International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, Vol. 44.
Jaspers, Karl (1955). Reason and Existenz. New York: Noonday Press.
______ (1964). General Psychopathology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jefferson, Thomas (1905). The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. In Andrew Lipscomb,
A. Andrew and Albert Ellery Bergh (Eds.) Washington DC: The
Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association.
Jersild, A. T. (1946). Emotional Development. In L. Carmichael (Ed.) Manual of
Child Psychology. New York: Wiley.
Josephson, Matthew (1934). The Robber Barons. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and
Co..
Jung, Carl G. (1959). Psychological Aspects of the Mother Archetype. In
Collected Works. Vol. 9, Part 1: Archetypes and the Collective
Unconscious. New York: Bollingen Series XX.
Jung, Carl G. (1959). Phenomenology of the spirit in fairy tales (R. F. C. Hull,
Trans.). In H. Read et al. (Series Eds.). The collected works of C.G. Jung
(vol. 9 pt. 1, pp. 207-254). New York: Pantheon. (Original work
published 1948).
______ (1961). Memories, Dreams, Reflections. New York: Vintage Books.
______ (1964). Man and His Symbols. New York: Dell Publishing.
______ (1969). The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche. Collected Works, 8.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
524 Bibliography

______ (1969). Psychology and Religion: West and East. Collected Works, 11.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
______ (1970). Aion. Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self. Collected
Works, 9, 11. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
______ (1970). Mysterium Coniunctionis. Collected Works, 14. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
______ (1971). Psychological Types. Collected Works, 6. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
______ (1972). The Collected Works of C. G. Jung. (20 vols. ed. by H. Read, M.
Fordham, G. Adler, NY, 1953. Translated by Richard Francis
Carrington Hull. Bollingen Series XX. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Jung, R. and Hassler R. (1960). The Extrapyramidal Motor System. In J. Field,
(Ed.), Handbook of Physiology, Section I: Neurophysyiology, Vol 2,
Washington D.C., American Physiological Society, p. 863-927.
______ (1960). The extrapyramidal motor system. In J. Field, (Ed.), Handbook of
Physiology. p. 863-927. In J. Field, Magoun, H. W. and Hall, V. E.
(Eds.) Section I: Neurophysiology Vol. II Baltimore, MD: Williams &
Wilkins, p. 781-1439.
Kahn, Herman (1960). On Thermonuclear War. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kahn, Herman and Wiener, Anthony J. (1967). The Year 2000: A Framework for Speculation
on the Next Thirty-Three Years. New York: MacMillan Co..
Katz, Joseph in Baltes, Paul B. and Schaie, Warner, et al. (1973). Life-Span
Developmental Psychology: Personality and Socialization. New York:
Academic Press.
Keats, John (1818). Letter to John Hamilton Reynolds from Keats, May 3,
1818. In Rollins, Heyder Edward (Ed.) (1958). The letters of John Keats.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Kendler, Howard (1968). Basic Psychology. 2nd ed. New York: Appleton-Century-
Crofts.
Kleitman, N. and Engelmann, T. G. (1953). Sleep Characteristics of Infants.
Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 6, p. 266-282.
Klir G. J. (1969). An Approach to General Systems Theory. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold Company.
Kluckhohn, Clyde and Murray, Henry A. (Eds.) (1948). Personality in nature,
society, and culture. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Klukhohn, Clyde (1951). Values and Value-Orientations in the Theory of
Action. In T. Parsons (Ed.) Toward a General Theory of Action.
Cambridge.
Kluckhohn, Clyde. (1962). In Richard Kluckhohn, (Ed.), Culture and Behavior.
New York: Free Press.
Koch, Sigmund (1954). In W. K. Estes, S. Koch, K. MacCorquodale, P. E.
Meehl, C. G. Mueller, Jr., William N. Schoenfeld, & William S.
Verplanck (Eds.), Modern Learning Theory: A Critical Analysis of Five
Examples. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
 Bibliography 525

______ (1956). Behavior as “intrinsically” regulated: work notes towards a pre-

theory of phenomena called “motivational.” Nebraska Symposium on
Motivation. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. p. 42-87.
______ (1951). The current status of motivational psychology. Psychological
Review. 58, 147-154.
Kohlberg, Lawrence A. (1964). Development of Moral Character and Moral
Ideology. In M. Hoffman and L.W. Hoffman (Eds.), Review of Child
Development Research, Vol 1, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, p.
383-431.
______ (1966). Cognitive-Developmental Analysis of Children's Sex-Role
Concepts and Attitudes. In E.E. Maccoby (Ed.), The Development of Sex
Differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
______ (1969). Stage and Sequence: The Cognitive-Developmental Approach
to Socialization. In D.A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of Socialization: Theory
in Research. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. [NY: Rand McNally in
Mosher].
______ (1975). “Scoring Manual – Revised.” Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Center for Moral Education. Mimeographed.
Kohlberg, Lawrence, Kauffman, K., Scharf, P., and Hickey, J. (1972). The
Justice Structure of the Prison: A Theory and Intervention. Prison
Journal 51:3-14.
______ (1973). The Just Community Approach in Corrections: A Manual. Niantic
Connecticut: Connecticut Department of Corrections.
______ (1974). The Just Community Approach to Corrections: A Manual. Part II,
Manuscript. Harvard, CT: Moral Education Research Foundation.
______ (1976). In Thomas Likona (Ed.), Moral Development and Behavior; Moral
Stages and Moralization. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, CBS College
Publishing.
Kohlberg, Lawrence and Kramer, R. (1969). Continuities and Discontinuities in
Childhood and Adult Moral Development. Human Development, Vol.
12, p. 93-120.
Kohlberg, L. & Turiel, E. (1971). Moral development and moral education. In
G. Lesser, (Ed.), Psychology and educational practice. Scott Foresman.
Krasner, Leonard and Ullmann, Leonard P. (Eds.) (1965). Research in Behavior
Modification: New Developments and Implications. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Inc..
Krech, David (1950). Dynamic Systems as Open Neurological Systems.
Psychological Review, Vol. 57, p. 354-361.
______ (1956). Dynamic Systems as Open Neurological Systems. In General
Systems, Vol. 1, p. 144-154.
Krech, David and Crutchfield, R. (1948). Theory and Problems of Social Psychology.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Krech, David and Klein, George S. (Eds.) (1952). Theoretical Models and
Personality Theory. Durham, NC.
526 Bibliography

Krechevsky, I. (1937). Brain Mechanisms and Variability I: Variability Within a

Means-Ends-Readiness. Journal of Comparative Psychology, Vol. 23, p.
121-138.
Kris, Ernst (1952). Psychoanalytic Explorations in Art. International Universities
Press.
______ (1975). Selected Papers of Ernst Kris. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Kroeber, Alfred L. (1953). Anthropology Today: An Encyclopaedic Inventory. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Kuhlen, Raymond G. (1968). Developmental changes in motivation during the
adult years. In B.L. Neugarten (Ed.), Middle age and aging. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
______ (1970). Psychological Backgrounds of Adult Education. Syracuse, NY:
Syracuse University.
Kuhlen, Raymond G. and Thompson, George G. (Eds.) (1952). Psychological
Studies of Human Development. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts,
Inc..
______ (1959/1963). Psychological Studies of Human Development (2nd edition).
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts (See also Pressey and Kuhnen).
Laing, R. D. (1969). Self and Others. New York: Pantheon Books.
______ (1970). Knots. New York: Pantheon Books.
______ (1971). The Politics of the Family and Other Essays. New York: Pantheon
Books.
Laszlo, Ervin. (1972). Introduction to Systems Philosophy: Toward a new paradigm of
contemporary thought. New York: Gordon & Breach Science Publishers.
______ (1972). The Relevance of General Systems Theory: Papers presented to Ludwig von
Bertalanffy on his seventieth birthday. New York: George Braziller.
______ (1972). The Systems View of the World. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Laszlo, E. and Wilber, J.B. (Eds.) (1970). Human Values and Natural Science. New
York.
______ (1971). Human Values and the Mind of Man. New York.
Lawrence, D. H. (1947). The portable D.H. Lawrence. Diana Trilling, (Ed.) New
York: Penguin Books.
Lee, William R., Cowan, Christopher C., and Todorovic, Natasha (Eds.) (2003).
Graves: Levels of Human Existence. Santa Barbara, CA: ECLET Publishing.
Legum, Colin (1961). Congo Disaster. Baltimore: Penguin.
Letter to the editor (name withheld) (1970, March 7). Schenectady (NY) Gazette .
Levin, Meyer. (1956). Compulsion. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Levine, S. (1962). The Effects of Infantile Experience on Adult Behavior. In A.
J. Bachrach (Ed.), Experimental Foundations of Clinical Psychology. New
York: Basic Books.
Locke, John (1690). On Civil Government: An Essay Concerning Human
Understanding. See also J. W. Gough, (Ed.), John Locke’s Political
Philosophy; Eight Essays (2d ed. 1973).
Loevinger, Jane (1966). The Meaning and Measurement of Ego Development.
American Psychologist. March, p. 195-206.
______ (1976). Ego Development. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
 Bibliography 527

Loevinger, Jane and Ruth Wessler (1970). Measuring Ego Development. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Looft, William (1973). Personality and Socialization. In Paul B. Baltes and
Warner Schaie, et al. Life-Span Developmental Psychology. Academic Press,
p. 47-52.
Lowenstein, Rudolph M. (1953). Drives, Affects, Behavior. New York:
International University Press, Inc..
Lowenstein, Rudolph et. al. (1966). Psychoanalysis: A General Psychology Essays in
Honor of Heinz Hartmann. New York: International University
Publishers.
Lyons, Joseph. (1963). Psychology and the Measure of Man. New York: Free Press of
Glencoe, Crowell-Collier Publ. Co.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Chapter 17.
Maddi, Salvatore (1972). Personality Theories: Comparative Analysis. Homewood:
Dorsey.
______ (1967). The Existential Neurosis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 72:311-
25.
Mahabharata. (1953). The Ramayana and the Mahabharata. Translated by Romesh
C. Dutt. London: J. M. Dent & Sons.
Maier, Norman R. F. and Schneirla, T. C. (1949). Mechanisms in Conditioning.
Psychological Review, Vol. 49, p. 117-134.
Maier, Norman R. F., Solem, Allen R., and Maier, Ayesha (1964). Supervisory &
Executive Development. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc..
______ (1963). Problem-Solving Discussions and Conferences. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
______ (1967). Assets and liabilities in group problem solving: The need for an
integrative function. Psychological Review, Vol. 74, No. 4, p. 239-249.
______ (1970). Problem Solving and Creativity in Individuals and Groups. Belmont,
CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
Malinowski, Bronislaw (1944). A Scientific Theory of Culture and Other Essays.
Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
______ (1960). Freedom & Civilization. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press.
______ (1954). Magic, Science & Religion. New York: Doubleday Anchor Book.
______ (1961). The Dynamics of Culture Change. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Manchu Dynasty (1904). See “The Holy Edict of K'Ang-Hi” translated by Paul
Carus, with (Daisetz) Teitaro Suzuki. The Monist: A Quarterly Magazine
Devoted to the Philosophy of Science. Volume XIV. Chicago: The Open
Court Publishing Company.
Mao, Chairman (1958) Introducing a Co-operative. [and initiating the Great
Leap Forward leading to the Cultural Revolution] April 15, 1958 in
Selected Works of Mao Tse-Tung. Vol. IV. 1965 Peking: Foreign Language
Press.
Maskin, Myer (1960). Adaptation of Psychoanalytic Techniques to Specific
Disorders. In Jules Masserman (Ed.) Science and Psychoanalysis Vol, III.
528 Bibliography

Psychoanalysis and Human Values. New York: Grune & Stratton, p.

321-352.
Maslow, Abraham H. (1943). Toward a Psychology of Being; A Theory of
Human Motivation. Psychological Review, Vol. 50, p. 370-396.
______ (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper.
______ (1959). New Knowledge in Human Values. New York: Harper & Bros.
______ (1962). Toward a Psychology of Being. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand Co..
______ (1962). Some basic propositions of growth and self actualization
psychology. In Perceiving, Behaving and Becoming. A New Form for
Education. Washington, D.C.: Yearbook of Association for Supervision
and Curriculum, Development.
______ (1964). Religion, Values, and Peak Experiences. Columbus, OH: Ohio State
University Press.
______ (1965). Humanistic Science and Transcendent Experiences. Journal of
Humanistic Psychology, 5, p. 219-227.
______ (1967). A Theory of Metamotivation: The Biological Rooting of the
Value-life. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Vol.7, p.93-127.
______ (1967). Self-actualizing and Beyond. In Bugental, J.F.T. (Ed.), Challenges
of Humanistic Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
______ (1968). The Farther Reaches of Human Nature. Journal of Transpersonal
Psychology, Vol.1, p.1-9.
______ (1968). Human Potentialities and the Healthy Society. In Otto, Herbert
(Ed.) Human Potentialities. St. Louis: Warren H. Green, Inc.
______ (1971). The Farther Reaches of Human Nature. New York: Viking.
Masserman, Jules (Ed.) (1960). Psychoanalysis and Human Values. Science and
Psychoanalysis Vol. III. New York: Grune & Stratton.
May, Rollo (1950). The Meaning of Anxiety. New York: Ronald Press.
______ (1953). Man's Search for Himself. New York: Norton.
______ (1961). Existential Psychology. New York: Random House.
May, Rollo, Angel, E., and Ellenberger, H. F. (Eds.) (1958). Existence: A New
Dimension in Psychiatry and Psychology. New York: Basic Books.
McGregor, Douglas (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-
Hill Book Co..
McGraw, M. B. (1943). The Neuro-Muscular Maturation of the Human Infant.
N.Y.: Columbia University Press.
Melzack, R., & Scott, T. H. (1957). The Effects of Early Experience on the
Response to Pain. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, Vol.
50, p. 155-161.
Mehrabian, Albert (1968). An Analysis of Personality Theories. New York: Prentice
Hall.
Menzies, R. (1937). Conditioned vasomotor responses in human subjects.
Journal of Psychology, 4, 75-120
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice (1963). The Structure of Behaviour (Alden L. Fischer,
Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.
______ (1962). Phenomenology of Perception. (Colin Smith, Trans.). New York:
Humanities Press.
 Bibliography 529

Miles, Lawrence D. (1961). Techniques of Value Analysis and Engineering. New

York: McGraw-Hill Book Co..
Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., and Pribram, K. H. (1960). Plans and the Structure of
Behavior. New York: Holt.
Millon, Theodore (1967). Theories of Psychopathology. Philadelphia: WB Saunders
Co..
______ (1968). Approaches to Personality. New York: Pitman Publishing Co..
Moltz, H. (1960). Imprinting: Empirical Basis and Theoretical Significance.
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 57, p. 291-314.
Morgan, C. T. (1951). The Psychophysiology of Learning. In S. S. Stevens (Ed.),
Handbook of Experimental Psychology. New York: Wylie, p. 758-788.
Mosher, Ralph L. (1976). “A Three Democratic School Intervention Project.”
Unpublished proposal to the Danforth Foundation, Boston
University.
______ (1978). A Democratic High School: Damn It: Your Feet are Always in
the Water. In Norman A. Sprinthall and Ralph Mosher (Eds.) Value
Development…As An Aim of Education. Schenectady, NY: Character
Research Press, p. 69-116
Mosher, Ralph L., and Sprinthall, Norman (1971). Psychological Education: A
Means to Promote Personal Development through Adolescence. The
Counseling Psychologist 2: 3-82. (see also Sprinthall)
Mowrer, O. Hobart and R. R. Sears (1939). Frustration and aggression. New
Haven: Yale University Freer.
Mowrer, O. Hobart (1947). On the dual nature of learning: A reinterpretation
of ‘conditioning’ and ‘problem-solving.’ Harvard Educational Review,
Vol. 17, p. 102-148.
______ (1951). Two factor learning theory: summary and comment. Psychological
Review, Sept., 58(5):350-4.
______ (1953). Psychotherapy, Theory and Research. The Ronald Press Company, J.
Dollard, L. W. Doob, N. E. Miller.
______ (1953). The new group therapy. In Kentucky Symposium: Learning Theory,
Personality Theory, and Clinical Research. Princeton: Van Nostrand, 81-90.
______ (1954). Ego pscyhology, cybernetics, and learning theory. In Kentucky
Symposium. New York: Wiley. (also in Adams, et al., Learning Theory and
Clinical Research. New York.)
______ (1954). A psychologist looks at language. American Psychologist, Vol. 9, p.
660-694.
______ (1960). Learning theory and the symbolic processes. New York: Wiley.
______ (1960). Learning theory and behavior. New York: Wiley.
______ (1960). “Sin,” the Lesser of Two Evils. American Psychologist, 1960,
15(2), 113-118.
______ (1964). The New Group Therapy. Princeton, New Jersey: Van Nostrand.
______ (1966). Ego psychology, cybernetics and learning theory. In O. H.
Mowrer, (Ed.), Morality and mental health. Chicago: Rand McNally.
530 Bibliography

Mowrer, O.H. and C. Kluckhohn (1944). A dynamic theory of personality. In J.

McV. Hunt (Ed.), Personaloity and the behavior disorders. New York:
Ronald.
Moynihan, Daniel Patrick (1973). The Politics of a Guaranteed Income: the Nixon
Administration and the Family Assistance Plan. New York: Random
House.
Munn, N. L. (1946). Learning in Children. In L. Carmichael (Ed.), Manual of
Child Psychology. New York: Wiley.
Mumford, Lewis (1940). Faith for Living. New York.
______ (1922). The Story of Utopias, (reprint in 1940).
______ (1926). The Golden Day. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.
______ (1944). The Condition of Man. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co..
______ (1946). Values for Survival: Essays, Addresses, and Letters on Politics and
Education. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
______ (1951). The Conduct of Life. New York: Harcout, Brace & Co..
______ (1955). The Human Prospect. Boston: The Beacon Press.
______ (1956). The Transformations of Man. New York. Harper and Row.
______ (1967). The Myth of the Machine: I. Technics and Human Development. New
York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
______ (1970). The Myth of the Machine: II. The Pentagon of Power. New York:
Harcourt, Brace, Janovich.
Murphy, Gardner (1947). Personality: A Biosocial Approach to Origins and Structure.
New York and London, Harper & Row.
______ (1958). Human Potentialities. New York: Basic Books Inc..
______ (1965). Human Natures of the Future. In Walter D. Nunokawa, (Ed.),
Human Values & Abnormal Behavior. Chicago: Scott, Foresman.
Murray, H. A. (Ed.) (1938). Explorations in personality: A clinical and experimental
study of fifty men of college age by the workers at the Harvard Psychological Clinic.
New York: Oxford University Press, p. 530-545.
______ (1951) Toward a classification of interactions. In T. parsons and E. A.
Shils (Eds.), Toward a general theory of action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
______ (1971). Thematic Apperception Test: Manual. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Nance, John (1975). The Gentle Tassaday: A Stone Age People in the Philippine Rain
Forest. New York: Hartcourt Brace Jovanovich.
MacLeish, Kenneth (1972). Stone Age Cave Men of Mindanao. National
Geographic Magazine, 142 (2): 219-249.
Neissen, H. W., Chow, K. L., and Semmes, J. (1951). Effects of Restricted
Opportunity for Tactual, Kinesthetic and Manipulative Experience on
the Behavior of a Chimpanzee. American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 64, p.
485-507.
Nietzsche, Friedrich (1956). The Birth of Tragedy and the Genealogy of Morals. New
York: Doubleday & Company.
______ (1968). Thus Spoke Zarathustra (Walter Kaufmann, Trans.). The
Portable Nietzsche. New York: Viking Press.
 Bibliography 531

______ (1973). In Solomon, Robert (Ed.). Nietzsche: A Collection of Critical

Essays. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books.
______ (1901). Will to Power.
Nixon, Richard M. (1969). The “Silent Majority’ Speech.” Televised address
from the White House, November 3.
Olds, J. (1956). The growth and structure of motives. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.
Olds, J. and Olds, M.E. (1961). Interference and Learning in Paleocortical
Systems. In A. Fessard, R.W. Gerard, and J. Konorski, (Eds.) Brain
Mechanisms and Learning. Springfield, IL: Thomas.
______ (1965). Drives, rewards and the brain. In F. Barron, W. C. Dement, W.
Edwards, H. Lindman, L. D. Phillips, T. Olds, & M. Olds. New
directions in psychology II. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Olds, M. E., & Olds, J. (1962). Approach-escape interactions in rat brain.
American Journal of Physiology, 203, 803-810.
______ (1963). Olds, M. E., & Olds, J. Approach-avoidance analysis of rat
diencephalon. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 120, 259-295.
______ (1964). Olds, M. E., & Olds, J. Pharmacological patterns in subcortical
reinforcement behavior. International Journal of Neuropharmacology, 2,
309-325.
Paine, Thomas (1942). Age of Reason: Being an Investigation of True & Fabulous
Theology. Willey Book Company. (See also Conway, Moncure D. Life of
Thomas Paine. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, Vols. 1-4. 1894-1896.)
Papandreou, Andreas (1970). New Democracy at Gunpoint: The Greek Front. York:
Doubleday.
Parsons, Talcott and Shils, Edward (Eds.) (1951). Toward a general theory of action.
New York: Harper & Row.
Pavlov, Ivan P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
______ (1950). Selected works. London: Central Books.
______ (1960). Conditioned Reflexes: an Investigation of the Physiological Activity of the
Cerebral Cortex. (Andrep, G., Trans.). Mineola, NY: Dover
Publications, Incorporated.
Peck, Robert and Havighurst, R. (1960). The Psychology of Character Development.
New York: John Wiley.
Pechman, Joseph A. and Timpane, Michael (Eds.) (1975). Work Incentives and
Income Guarantees: The New Jersey Negative Income Tax Experiment.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Perry, William G., Jr. (1970). Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the
College Years: A Scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Piaget, Jean (1929). The Child's Conception of the World. NY: Harcourt, Brace
Jovanovich.
______ (1932). The Moral Judgement of the Child. NY: Harcourt, Brace
Jovanovich.
______ (1936). The Origins of Intelligence in Children. Paris: Delachaux & Niestle.
(Republished: New York: International University Press, 1952).
______ (1954). The Construction of Reality in the Child. New York: Basic Books.
532 Bibliography

______ (1964). Development and Learning. In R. E. Ripple & V. N Rockcastle

(Eds.), Piaget Rediscovered. Ithaca, New York: School of Education,
Cornell University.
______ (1972). Intellectual Evolutionfrom Adolescence to Adulthood. Human
Development 5: 1-12.
Piaget, Jean and Szeminska, A. (1952). Child's Conception of Number. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Piaget, Jean and Inhelder, B. (1958). The Growth of Logical Thinking from Childhood
to Adolescence. New York: Basic Books.
Pirsig, Robert M. (1974). Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into
Values. New York: William Morrow & Co..
Platt, John R. (1966). The Step to Man: The Evolving Nature of Man Social and
Intellectual What he is and What he May Become. New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
Polanyi, Michael (1958). Personal Knowledge. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
______ (1959). The Study of Man. University of Chicago Press.
______ (1964). Science, Faith, and Society: A Searching Examination of the Meaning
and Nature of Scientific Inquire. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press,
Phoenix Books.
______ (1966). The Tacit Dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
______ (1968). Life’s Irreducible Structure. Science, 160.
______ (1974). Scientific Thought and Social Reality. M. Polanyi and F. Schwartz,
(Eds.) International Universities Press,.
Postman, Leo, Bruner, J. S., and McGinnies, E. (1948). Personal Values as
Selective Perception of Danger Signals: 21 factors in perception.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 43, p.142-154.
Postman, Leo (1953). Perception, motivation, and behavior. Journal of Personality,
22, 17-32.
Postman, Leo and Schneider, Jay S. (1951). Personal Values, Visual
Recognition, and Recall. Psychological Review, Vol. 58, p. 271-284.
Pressey, S. L., and Kuhlen, R. G. (1957). Psychological development through the life-
span. New York: Harper & Row.
Rand, Ayn (1936). We the Living. New York: Macmillan.
______ (1943). The Fountainhead. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
______ (1946). Anthem. Los Angeles: Pamphleteers, Inc..
______ (1957). Atlas Shrugged. New York: Random House.
Rank, Otto (1958). Beyond Psychology. Mineola, New York: Dover Publications.
Ramayana (see Mahabharata).
Razran, G. (1955). Conditioning and perception. Psychological Review, Vol. 62, p.
83-95.
Reich, Charles (1970). The Greening of America. New York: Random House.
Rensch, Bernhard (1959). Evolution above the Species Level. New York: John Wiley
and Sons.
______ (1971). Biophilosophy. New York: Columbia University Press.
 Bibliography 533

Riesen, A. H. (1958). Plasticity of behavior. Psychological series. In H. F.

Harlow & C. N. Woolsey (Eds.) Biological and Biochemical Bases of
Behavior. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
______ (1961). Stimulation as a Requirement for Growth and Function in
Behavioral Development. In D. W. Fiske & S. R. Maddi (Eds.),
Functions of Varied Experience. Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey.
Riesman, David (1950). The Lonely Crowd. Garden City: Doubleday.
______ (1952). Faces in the Crowd: Individual Studies in Character and Politics. New
Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Roberts, E. (1960). Biochemical maturation of the central nervous system and behavior:
Transactions of the third conference. New York: Josiah Macy Foundation.
Roe, Ann (1956). The Psychology of Occupations. New York: Wiley.
Rogers, Carl R. (1942). Counseling and Psychotherapy: Newer Concepts in Practice.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
______ (1951). Client-Centered Therapy: Its Current Practice, Implications, and Theory.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
______ (1961). On Becoming a Person: a Therapist’s View of Psychotherapy. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
______ (1963). Phychotherapy Today or Where do we go from here? American
Journal of Psychotherapy, Vol XVII, No. 1, p. 5-16.
______ (1969). Freedom to Learn: A View of What Education Might Become.
Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, p. 1057-
1066.
Rogers, Carl R. and Burrhus F. Skinner (1956). Some Issues Concerning the
Control of Human Behavior: A Symposium. Science Vol. 124
(November), No. 3231, p. 1057-1066. (Also published in L. Gorlow
and W. Katkovsky (Ed.), Readings in the Psychology of Adjustment. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1959; and in Evans, R. I. Carl Rogers - the Man and
His Ideas. New York: Dutton, 1975.)
______ (1960). American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Conference on
Evolutionary Theory and Human Progress: Conference C, The
Individual and the design of culture, Dec 2-4, 1960. Mimeographed
transcripts, p. 75-6, 79.
______ (1963). Psychotherapy Today or Where do we go from here? American
Journal of Psychotherapy. Vol XVII, No. 1, pages 5-16.
Rokeach, Milton (1960). The Open and Closed Mind. New York. Basic Books.
______ (1960). The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press.
Rotter, Julian B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. New York: Prentice-
Hall.
______ (1955). The role of the psychological situation in determining the
direction of human behavior. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation.
Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, p. 245-269
______ (1960). Some implications of a social learning theory for the prediction
of goal directed behavior from testing procedures. Psychological Review,
Vol. 67, p. 301-316.
534 Bibliography

______ (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of

reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, (Whole No. 609).
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques (1755). The Social Contract and Discourse on the Origin of
Inequality. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1950.
______ (1907). Rousseau's Emile, or Treatise on Education. New York: D. Appleton
and Company.
______ (1953). The Confessions. New York: Viking Penguin.
______ (1959). In B. Gagnebin and M. Raymond (Ed.), Oeuvres complètes.
Pléiade.
______ (1971). The Social Contract. Baltimore: Penguin Books.
Samuels, I. (1959). Reticular Mechanisms and Behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 56,
1-25.
Sanford, Nevitt (1970). Issues in Personality Theory. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
______ (1973). Personality and Socialization. In Baltes, Paul B. and Schaie,
Warner, et al. (Eds.), Life-Span Developmental Psychology. Academic
Press.
Schacter, Stan and Bibb Latane (1964). Crime, Cognition, and the Autonomic
Nervous System. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Vol. 12, p. 221-275.
Scharf, P. and Hickey, J. (1974). (see Kohlberg, L., Kauffman, K., Schar, P, and
Hickey, J. The Just Community Approach to Corrections: A Manual.
Cambridge, MA: Moral Education Research Foundation.
Scharf, P. and Hickey, J. (1976). Just Community programme.
Hickey, J. & Scharf, P. (1972 and 1980). Toward a just correctional system. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Scharf, Peter (1973). Moral Atmosphere and Intervention in the Prison. Ed.D.
dissertation, Harvard University.
Schein, Edgar H. (1956). The Chinese Indoctrination Program for Prisoner of
War. Psychiatry, 19 (1956): 149-72
______ (1961). Coercive Persuasion. New York: Norton.
______ (1965). Organization Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
______ (1971). The individual, the Organization and the Career: A Conceptual
Scheme. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 7, No. 4, p. 401-426.
Schroder, Harold M., Driver, Michael J., and Streufert, Siegfried (1967). Human
Information Processing: Individual and Group Functioning in Complex Social
Situations. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.
Scott, J. P. (1958). Critical Periods in the Development of Social Behavior in
Puppies. Psychosomatic Medicine, 20(1), 42-54.
______ (1962). Critical Periods in Behavioral Development. Science, Vol. 138, p.
949-958.
______ (1963). The Progress of Primary Socialization in Canine and Human
Infants. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 28 (1), p.1-47.
______ (1967). The Development of Social Motivation. In D. Levine (Ed.),
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of
Nebraska Press, p. 111-132.
 Bibliography 535

Scott, W. A. (1965). Values and organizations: A study of fraternities and sororitites.

Chicago: Rand McNally.
Segundo, J. P., Naquet, R. and Buser, P. (1955). Effects of cortical stimulation
on electrocortical activity in monkeys. Journal of Neurophysiology, Vol. 18,
p. 236-245.
______ (1960). Apelbaum, J., Silva, E., Frick, O., and Segundo, J. Specificity
and biasing of arousal reaction habituation. Electroencephalography and
clinical Neurophysiology, Vol. 12, p. 829-840.
Seiler, John with Ralph Hower (1967). Organizational Inputs. In John A. Seiler,
Richard D. Irwin (Ed.) Systems Analysis and Organization. Homewood,
IL. Richard D. Irwin, Inc..
Selman, Robert L. (1974). “A Developmental Approach to Interpersonal and
Moral Awareness in Young Children: Some Theoretical and
Educational Perspectives.” Paper read at the Montessori Society
National Seminar, Boston.
______ (1975). “The Development of Social-Cognitive Understanding: A
Guide to Educational and Clinical Practice.” In Lickona, Thomas
(Ed.), Morality: A Handbook of Moral Development and Behavior. New
York: Holt, Rinehard, and Winston.
______ (1975). “The Development of Social-Cognitive Understanding: A
Guide to Educational and Clinical Practice.” In Thomas Lickona
(Ed.), Moral Development and Social Issues. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Selman, Robert L. and Byrne, D. F. (1972). “Manual for Scoring Role-Taking
Stages in Moral and Social Dilemmas.” Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Center for Moral Education. Mimeographed.
Selman, Robert and Lieberman, Marcus (1974). “The Evaluation of a Values
Curriculum for Primary Grade Children Based on a Cognitive-
Developmental Approach.” Paper presented to the American
Educational Research Association, Chicago, April. Mimeographed.
Selye, Hans M.D. (1946). The general adaptation syndrome and the diseases of
adaptation. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology, 6, 117-230.
______ (1950). The Physiology and Pathology of Exposure to Stress. Montreal: Acta.
______ (1956). The Stress of Life. New York: McGraw-Hill.
______ (1974). Stress Without Distress. Lippincott.
Seltzer, Louis (date not located). "Can't we tell right from wrong?” Cleveland
Press; Cleveland Press Collection, University of Cleveland.
Shakespeare, William. As You Like It. Act II, Scene 7.
Shaie, K. Warner (1973). In Baltes, Paul B. and Schaie, Warner (Eds). Life-Span
Developmental Psychology: Personality and Socialization. Academic Press.
Sharpless, S. and Jasper, H.H. (1956). Habituation of the Arousal Reaction.
Brain, Vol. 79, p. 655-680.
Shaw, T.E. (Trans.) (1935). (aka Colonel T. E. Lawrence) Odyssey (of Homer).
London: Oxford University Press.
Sheldon, William and Stevens, S. S. (1942). The Varieties of Temperament. New
York: Harper & Brothers.
536 Bibliography

Skinner, B. F. (1956). Some Issues Concerning the Control of Human

Behavior: A Symposium. Science, Nov. 30, Vol. 124, p. 1057-1066.
______ (1956). A case history in scientific method. American Psychologist, 11, p.
221-33.
______ (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Knopf.
______ (1948). Walden Two. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co..
Skinner & Rogers (see Rogers)
Soloman, R. L. and Howes, D. H. (1951). Word frequency, personal values and
duration thresholds. Psychological Review, 58, p. 256-270.
Solomon, Richard L. and Rush, Eleanor S. (1957). Experimentally derived
conceptions of anxiety and aversion. In Jones, Marshall R (Ed.),
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Oxford, University of Nebraska
Press, p. 212-305.
Sorokin, Pitirim A. (1937-1941). Social & Cultural Dynamics, Vols. I-IV. New
York: The American Book Company.
______ (1941). The Crisis of Our Age, New York: E.P. Dutton & Co. Inc..
______ (1942). Man and Society in Calamity. New York: E.P. Dutton & Company
Inc..
______ (1947). Society, Culture, and Personality: A System of General Sociology. New
York: Harper & Brothers.
______ (1947/1962). Society, Culture, and Personality: Their Structure and Dynamics.
New York: Harper & Brothers.
______ (1948). The Reconstruction of Humanity. Boston: Beacon Press.
______ (1950). Social Philosophies of an Age of Crisis. Boston: Beacon Press.
______ (1954). The Ways and Power of Love: Types, Factors and Techniques of Moral
Transformation. Boston: Beacon Press.
______ (1957). Social and Cultural Dynamics: A Study of Change in Major Systems of
Art, Truth, Ethics, Law and Social Relationships. Boston: Porter Sargent
Publisher.
______ (1964). The Basic Trends of Our Times.
______ (1966). Sociological Theories of Today. New York.
Spearman, Charles E. (1904). General intelligence objectively determined and
measured. American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 5, p. 201-293.
______ (1927). The abilities of man, their nature and measurement. New York:
Macmillan.
Spence, Kenneth W. (1944). The Nature of Theory Construction in
Contemporary Psychology. Psychology Review, Vol. 51, 47-48.
______ (1956). Behavior theory and conditioning. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
______ (1960). Behavior Theory and Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Sprinthall, Norman A. and Mosher, Ralph L. (1969). Studies of adolescents in the
secondary school. Cambridge: Harvard University Center for Research
and Development on Educational Differences. No. 6.
 Bibliography 537

Stellar, E. (1960). Drive and Motivation. In J. Field (Ed.), Handbook of Physiology.

Section I: Neurophysiology. Vol. III. Washington, D. C.: American
Physiological Society.
Stein, Morris I. (1963). Explorations in Typology. In White, R. W., The Study of
Lives: Essays on Personality in Honor of Henry A. Murray. Atherton Press,
A Division of Prentice-Hall, Inc., p. 281-303.
Stein, M.I. and Neulinger, J. (1963). A typology of self-descriptions. Paper
presented at the Conference of Role and Methodology of
Classification in Psychiatry and Psychopathology. Washington, D.C.
Streufert, Siegfried (1966). Conceptual structure, communicator importance,
and interpersonal attitudes toward conforming and deviant group
members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol.4, p.100-103.
Suedfeld, Peter (1964). Birth order of volunteers for sensory deprivation. Journal
of Abnormal Social Psychology, 68, p.195-196.
______ (1964). Conceptual structure and subjective stress in sensory
deprivation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 19, p. 896-898.
______ (1964). Attitude manipulation in restricted environments: I. Conceptual
structure and response to propaganda. Journal of Abnormal Social
Psychology, 68 (3), p. 242-247.
______ (1971). Attitude Change. Chicago: Aldine/Artherton, Inc..
Suedfeld, P., Grissom, R. J., & Vernon, J. (1960). The effects of sensory
deprivation and social isolation on the performance of an
unstructured cognitive task. American Journal of Psychology, 77, p. 111-
115.
Suedfeld, P., & Vernon, J. (1964). Visual hallucinations in sensory deprivation:
A problem of criteria. Science. 145, p. 412-413.
Suedfeld, P., Vernon, J., & Goldstein, K. M. (1964). The relationship between
sensory deprivation and social isolation on the performance of an
unstructured cognitive task. Eastern Psychological Association paper.
Sullivan, C., Grant, M.Q. and Grant, J.D. (1957). The Development of
Interpersonal Maturity: Apps to Delinquency. Psychiatry, 20, p. 373-
385.
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry. New York: Norton.
Sutherland, John Derg (1959). Psychoanalysis and Contemporary Thought. New York
Grove Press.
______ (1968). The Psychoanalytic Approach. Edited by John D. Sutherland.
Contributors: Elizabeth Bott and others. London: Institute of Psycho-
Analysis.
______ (1994). In Jill Savege Scharff (Ed.), Autonomous Self: The Work of John D.
Sutherland. Library of Object Relations, Rowman and Littlefield
Publishers.
Taylor, Frederick W. (1911). The Principles of Scientific Management. From
Chapter 2 of Scientific Management, comprising Shop Management, The
Principles of Scientific Management and Testimony Before the Special House
Committee. New York: Harper Brothers.
538 Bibliography

Terzuolo, C. A., & Adey, W. R. (1960). Sensorimotor Cortical Activities. In J.

Field (Ed.), Handbook of physiology. Section I: Neurophysiology. Vol. II.
Washington, D. C.: American Physiological Society.
Thistlethwaite, D. (1951). A critical Review of Latent Learning and Related
Experiments. Psychological Bulletin.
Theobald, Robert. (1963). Free Men and Free Markets. Proposed: A Guaranteed
Income. Clarkson N. Potter, Inc.
Thoreau, Henry David (1958). In Walter Harding & Carl Bode (Eds.), Thoreau,
H. D. Correspondence. New York: University Press.
Thorndike, Edward L. (1913). Educational Psychology: The Psychology of Learning.
New York: Teachers College Press.
______ (1914). Unity scale for measuring educational products. Proceedings of
the Conference on Educational Measurement. Indiana University
Bulletin, 12, 10.
______ (1931). Human Learning. New York: D. Appleton-Century.
______ (1932). The Fundamentals of Learning. New York: Teachers College,
Columbia University.
______ (1935). The Psychology of Wants, Interests, and Attitudes. New York: D.
Appleton-Century.
______ (1940). Human Nature and the Social Order. New York: Macmillan.
______ (1943). Man and His Works. Cambridge, MA.
Thorndike, Edward L, Bregman, E. O., Cobb, M. V., Woodyard, E. (1926). The
Measurement of Intelligence. New York: Teachers College, Columbia
University, 1927.
Thorndike, E., Bregman, E., Tilton, J.W., and Woodyard, E. (1928). Adult
Learning. New York: Macmillan.
______ (1932). The Fundamentals of Learning. New York: Teachers College
Press.
______ (1935). The Psychology of Wants, Interests, and Attitudes.
Thorndike, Edward L. and Lorge, Irving (1944). The Teacher’s Word Book of
30,000 Words. New York: Columbia University Press.
Thorndike, Robert L. (1949). Personnel Selection: Test and Measurement Techniques.
______ (1955). 10,000 Careers.
______ (1964). Concepts of Over- and Under-Achievement.
Thorpe, W. H. (1963). Learning and instinct in animals. London: Methuen.
Tillich, Paul (1952). The Courage to Be. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Toffler, Alvin (1970). Future Shock. New York. Random House.
Tolman, Edward Chance (1922). A new formula for behaviorism. Psychological
Review, Vol. 29, p. 44-53.
______ (1932). Purposive behavior in animals and men. New York: Century Co.,
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
______ (1948). Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychological Review, Vol. 55,
189-208.
______ (1951). Operational Behaviorism and Current Trends in Psychology. In
E.C. Tolman: Collected Papers in Psychology. Berkeley: University of
California Press. p 89-103.
 Bibliography 539

______ (1951). A psychological model. In T. Parsons and E. A. Shils (Eds.),

Toward a general theory of action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, p. 279-361.
______ (1952). A Psychological Model. In T. Parsons and E. A. Shils (Eds.),
Toward a General Theory of Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
______ (1959). Principles of Purposive Behavior. In S. Koch (Ed.). Psychology: a
Study of Science. Vols. 1 and 2. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Travis, A. M. and Woolsey, C. N. (1956). Motor Performances of Monkeys
after Bilateral Partial and Total Cerebral Decortications. Journal of
Physical Medicine, Vol. 35, p. 273-310.
Tsanoff, Radaslov A. (1942). The Moral Ideals of Our Civilization. New York: E.P.
Dutton & Co., Inc..
Turnbull, Colin M. (1972). Mountain People. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Ullman, L. P. and Krasner, L. (1965). Introduction. In L P. Ullman & L.
Krasner (Eds.), Case studies in behavior modification. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
______ (1969). A psychological approach to abnormal behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Vlachos, Helen. (1970). House Arrest. Boston: Gambit.
von Bertalanffy, Ludwig (1959). Human Values in a Changing World. In A. H.
Maslow (Ed.), New Knowledge in Human Values. New York: Harper.
______ (1968). General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. New
York: George Braziller, Inc..
______ (1967). Robots, Men and Minds. New York: George Braziller, Inc..
von Goethe, Johann Wolfgang (1803). “Constancy in Change.”
von Neuman, John and O. Morgenstern (1944). Theory of Games and Economic
Behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Wallace, Alfred Russel (1869). A Review of Principles of Geology by Charles
Lyell. Quarterly Review, Vol. 126, p. 359-94.
______ (1891). Darwinism: an Exposition of the Theory of Natural Selection with Some
of Its Applications. London: Macmillan & Co. (Reprint: A.M.S. Press,
New York, 1975).
______ (1895). Natural Selection. New York: MacMillan and Co., p. 197.
______ (1911). The World of Life. A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind
and Ultimate Purpose. New York: Moffat, Yard.
______ (1913). Social Environment and Moral Progress New York: Funk &
Wagnalls.
Walters, R. H. (See Bandura)
Watson, John B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological
Review, 20, p. 158-177.
______ (1914). Behavior: An introduction to comparative psychology. New York: Henry
Holt & Co.
______ (1919). Psychology from the Standpoint of a Behaviorist. Philadelphia: J. B.
Lippincott Co.
540 Bibliography

______ (1930). Behaviorism. Revised Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.
Watson, John B. and Rayner, Rosalie (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3(1), p. 1-14.
Welker, W. I. (1961). An Analysis of Exploratory and Play Behavior in Animals.
In D. W. Fiske and S. R. Maddi (Eds.). Functions of Varied Experience.
Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey.
Werner, Heinz (1940). Comparative psychology of mental development. New York:
International Universities Press, Inc..
Werner, H. and Kaplan, B. (1963). Symbol formation: An organismic developmental
approach to language and the expression of thought. New York: John Wiley.
______ (1978). In Barten, S.S., & Franklin, M.B. (Eds.), Developmental processes:
Heinz Werner's selected writings, Vols I & II. New York: International
Universities Press.
West, G. B. (1951). Can adrenaline potentiate the action of noradrenaline?
Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology. Sept 3(9):571-5.
______ (1952). The analysis of pharmacopeial samples of adrenaline; a limit
test for nonadrenaline in adrenaline. Journal of Pharmacy and
Pharmacology, 1952 Feb:4(2):95-7.
______ (1955). Adrenaline and Noradrenaline. Journal of Pharmacy and
Pharmacology. 1955 Feb;7(2):81-98.
West, Louis Jolyon (1964). Psychiatry, ‘brainwashing,’ and the American
character. American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 120, p. 842-850. (Professor
and Chairman of the Department for Psychiatry and Behavioral
Research, Director of the Neuro-psychiatric Institute of the University
of California, Los Angeles.)
______ (1962). Lysergic Acid Diethylamide: Its effects on a Male Asiatic
Elephant. Science, Vol. 138, No. 3545, 7, Dec., p. 1100-1102.
______ (1968). See also: Allen, JR., & West, L. J. Flight from violence: Hippies
and the green rebellion. American Journal of Psychiatry, 125(3), p. 364-
370.
White, Leslie (1949). The Science of Culture: A Study of Man and Civilization. 2nd
edition. New York: Grove Press.
______ (1959). The Evolution of Culture. New York:McGraw-Hill.
______ (1959). The Concept of Culture. American Anthropologist, vol. 61, no. 2,
p. 239 (quoting Lowie, 1917 Culture and Ethnography. Boni and
Liveright, New York. Martin, Paul S.).
______ (1966). The Social Organization of Ethnological Theory. Monographs in
Cultural Anthropology, Rice University Studies, 52:4, p. 1-66.
Whyte, Lancelot Law (1948). The Next Development in Mankind. New York: The
Universe of Experience.
______ (1962). The Next Development in Man. New York: Mentor Books.
______ (1965). Internal Factors in Evolution. New York.
______ (1973). The Structural Hierarchy in Organisms. In William Gray and
Nicholas D. Rizzo (Ed.), Unity in Diversity: A Festschrift for Ludwig von
Bertalanff. New York: Gordon and Breach, p. 271-285.
 Bibliography 541

Whyte, William H. (1956). The Organization Man. New York: Simon and
Schuster.
White, Robert. W. (1959). Motivation Reconsidered: The Concept of
Competence. Psychological Review, No. 66, p. 297-333.
______ (1963). The Study of Lives: Essays on Personality in Honor of Henry A.
Murray. New York: Atherton Press, p. 280-303.
Wicker, Tom (1975). A Time to Die. New York: Quadrangle Books.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig Josef Johann (1965). The Blue and Brown Books (Preliminary
Studies for the Philosophical Investigations). New York: Harper, 1965.
______ (1966). The Philosophical Investigations: A Collection of Critical Essays.
George Pitcher (Ed.), Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Witkin, H. A., Lewis, H. B., Hertzman, M. K., Machover, P., Meissner, Bretnall,
and Wapner, W. (1954). Personality through Perception. New York:
Harper.
Witkin, H. A. (1962). Psychological Differentiation: Studies in Development. New York:
Wiley.
Wolfe, R. (1963). The Role of Conceptual Systems in Cognitive Functioning at
Varying Levels of Age and Intelligence. Journal of Personality, 31 (1), p.
108-122.
Wolff, Werner (1943). The Expression of Personality: Experimental Depth Psychology.
New York: Harper & Bros.
______ (1950). Values and Personality. New York: Grune and Stratton.
Woolf, Leonard (1931 and 1940). After the Deluge: A Study of Communal Psychology.
(2 vols) New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.
Wriston, Henry M., et al. (1960). Goals for Americans: The Report of the President’s
Commission on National Goals. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
542
 543

INDEX

A
AN, 199 167, 182, 184, 428, 449, 454, environment to the organism, 201,
456, 457, 458, 461, 480 285, 378
concept of space and time, 201 organism to the environment, 214
CP and, 209 more effective, 476
DQ guilt, 208 Adler, Alfred, 144, 146, 272, 317, 462
ER relationship with, 209 see will to power
examples, 202 Adorno, T. W., 124
management of, 211-212 adrenaline, 245 see noradrenaline
motivation, 200 adult
pre-cultural, 55 behavioral system, 1, 120
transition from, 213 educational problems, 4, 6, 39
A’N’, 365, 184, 421, 428, 433, 448, mature, 42, 171 see behavior and
455, 456, 459, 465, 509 conceptions and mature and
A' problems of existence, 359 personality and psychological
as seen from DQ or ER, 385 personality, 488
change, 189 psychological development
readiness for, 388 15 key points, 129
character of a society, 392 vertical orientation, 488
compulsiveness, 377 see affect, 227, 293 see emotions
compulsiveness deliberate inarticulation, 348
contextual knowledge, 377 Africa, 204, 219
feelings, 340 age, 34, 35, 36, 346, 367, 452
formulation of the theory, 370 see research, subjects
intellectual doubt, 137 aggression, 68, 92, 98, 123, 233, 312,
learning, institutions of, 392 362, 419, 448, 455, 500
less fear, 373 CP, 227, 241, 249, 341
management, 375, 382-388 DQ, 284, 287, 292, 295
mismanagement, 385, 386 FS against self, 341
motivation, 382, 386 DQ/cp, 455
overview, 368 disappearance, 125
systemic thinking, 380 express self, not at expense, 96
transition, A’N’ to B’O’, 389 subordinated in higher levels, 378
values A’N’, 368, 369, 370, 380, aggressiveness, 122, 124, 125, 312,
383, 388, 390-391 424, 426, 430, 480
absolutism, 62, 65, 68, 69, 76, 87, 78, appearance of, 341
108, 110, 130, 147,184, 254, 263, 309, CP, DQ, and ER, 378
310, 314, 316, 317, 320, 338, 409, 435, homo homini lupus view, 22
436 Ahammer, Inge M., 34, 37
absolutistic existential state see DQ Allport, Gordon, 417
acceptance, 79, 231, 346 Alor people, 500
prescriptions of authority, 261 Amazon, BO living in, 219
Adams, D.K., 320 ambiguity (DQ), 278, 280, 298, 303
adjustment, 285 and (ER), 332
544 Index

America, 13, 290, 302 B

Greening of, 493, 501
American BO, 215, 182, 184, 428, 449, 456
Robber Barons, 317 animistic existence, 216
cities, 224 entering from AN, 213
dream, 501 existential state, 170
Goals For, reconsidered, 492 learning, 219
motif, 430 management, 220-224
society, 359 mismanagement, 221
Ways of Life, 282 motivation, 218, 220
American Council on Education, 123 negatively, 221
anger see emotion transition, BO to CP, 500
animistic existence see BO tribalistic, 55, 217
approach, 33-50 values BO, 218, 222, 223, 398
Arapesh, 500 B’O’, 395, 190, 391, 448, 455
Aronoff, Joel, 463 change, readiness for, 401
arrested, 136, 207, 211, 357, 473, 478, characteristics, 396
494 see open and closed comments on conceptualization,
Ashby, W. Ross, 483 see General 399
Systems Theory emergence of, 397
assessments (of E-C theory) Experientialist Existential State,
understand what to assess, 69 395
verbal of BO, 220 limited data, 191
Athos, Anthony, 457 management, 401
Attica Prison riot (1971), 500 values B’O’, 397, 398-399
Ausubel, David P., 442, 452 Baltes, Paul B., 34
authority, 77, 264, 266, 312, 327, 345, Baltes, Paul B. and Shaie, Warner K.,
346, 430, 501 37
absolutistic (usually Divine), 263 Bandura, Albert and Walters, R.H.,
disdain for, 74 350
ER and FS negative to, 349 [CP?] Bandura, Albert, 17
extra-human, 268 Barker, Roger, 420
Godly, 89 barriers see change, six conditions
oppositional to, 79 Barron, Frank, 54
righteous man in, 293 Bavelas, Alex, 118
social expedient as, 87 behavior see emergent cyclical theory
autistic (automatic) existence, 199 aberrant, 17
see AN adult, 12, 13, 27, 142, 428-429, 477,
autonomy, 87, 124, 270, 278, 314, 382, 480
384 see individual behavioral freedom, 188, 429,
awareness, 41, 88, 217, 408, 494 430, 508
see self breakdown in, 12-13 see immoral
cognitive, 148 change in, 19, 34, 35, 81, 97, 106,
conscious, 230 138, 140, 232, 238-239, 361,
death, 182, 252 416, 475, 483 see change
differing value systems, 280 confusing and contradictiory, 1,
emotions, 330 91, 123, 127 see confusing
guilt, 247, 249 cyclic aspect, 368
own existence of, 211, 412 deficiency, 26
delinquent, 455
delusional, 300
 Index 545

behavior (continued) belonging, 26, 147, 148, 189, 326, 334,

dysfunctional and functional, 45 335, 338, 344, 347, 349, 353, 354, 410,
emergent state, 141 496
emotional, 289 Bentham, Jeremy, 461
evil, 24 Bergson, Henri, 153
fixate, 495 Berlyne, Daniel E., 408
forms of, 97, 140, 144, 163, 180,421, biochemistry, 29, 30, 410, 507 see brain
477 biopsychological development, 506
unforeseen, 148 bio-social ecological systems, 193
emergent, 141, 142 Black Muslim, 20, 500
pathological, 137 Black Power movement, 499
hiererchically ordered, 30, 114, 185 Blackboard Jungle, The, 224
immature, 11, 18, 24, 31, 42 Blake, Robert R. and Mouton, Jane,
immoral behavior, 31 302, 322, 356, 396, 446, 452
infinite process, 37 managerial grid, 322, 490
interrelated with character, 109 blank slate, 31
mature, 16, 18-19, 22, 27-28, 43, 45, Blasi, Arthur, 414
46, 74, 92, 142, 489 Blatt, Moshe, 414
classes of, 47, 126 Blatz, William, 17
conception of, 149 Blos, Peter, 6
non-conforming concepts, 149 Boas, Franz, 14
study of, 55, 109 Boy Scout merit badge, 281
moral, 21 brain, 36, 163, 164, 167, 170, 207, 174,
neurotic, psychotic, 269 258, 407, 475, 481 see dynamic
new model, 142 neurological systems
principles which govern, 152 activation, 338, 360, 367, 415, 416
psychosocial, 185-188, 419, 438, 506 awakening, 216
theories of, 417 basic structure, 240, 373, 449, 479
standard for evaluation, 155 cells, 174, 202, 361, 367, 397,
systems, 124, 145-146, 295, 422, 410, 464
423, 424, 437 chemistry and dissonance, 415, 487
theory of, 3-5 chemistry, 258, 367
behavioral sciences, 3 fear, 367, 373 see emotions
behaviorism, 16, 20 guilt, 258 see emotions
behaviorists, 16-21, 201 elaborating system, 410 see Z
conception, 20, 21, 22 general activating system, 412
humanistic, 27 hemisphere dominance, 164, 186,
modeling, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 350 187, 338, 438, 507
reinforcement, 17, 19, 20, 21, 240, hierarchical and systemic, 37,
461 361, 407, 410
negative, 409 hierarchically ordered, 413, 416,
positive, 238, 239, 409, 411 475, 481
therapy, 490 systemically ordered, 37
becoming, 155 large brain of humans, 37, 174, 361,
being levels, 163, 169, 174, 363, 456, 407, 410
463, 509 see A’N’ and B’O’ possibility of latent systems, 412
Being Level I, II, III Systems, 163 psychochemical, 131
first, 365, 369, 440 tissue in for self-awareness, 230
second, 395 uncommitted cells, 174
Bricker, P.D. and Chapanis,
Alphonse 464
546 Index

Brock, T.C., 432 Canada, 219

Bronson, Gordon, 37 Camus, Albert, 140
Broughton, John, 444, 452, 457 category see conceptions and behavior
Bruner, Jerome, 6, 464 and levels of existence
Brust-Carmona, H., 408 expres self, 96, 97, 112, 126, 127,
Buddhist 137
monk, 261 sacrifice now, 101, 254
principles, 22 categorical
Bugental, James F.T., 53, 54, 417 certainty, 331
Buhler, Charlotte, 34, 451 thinking, 68, 69, 71, 86, 255, 263,
Bull, Norman, 452 436
Catholic, 100, 218, 266
doctrinaire Catholicism, 257
C celibacy, 296
CP, 225, 182, 184, 230, 427, 446, 448, authority, 105, 266
455, 458, 461, 478, 493 caveat emptor, 311
and AN, 209 change, 486, 507-509
aggressiveness, 378 see behavior change and conceptions
approach to living, 228 attitude toward, 75
change, readiness for, 245 behavior see behavior
classification of humans (as strong, beliefs, 257
desirous, weak), 233, 244 single, 465
dominant-submissive, 226 systems of, 465
distinct self, 226 central see conceptions, central
examples, 228 closed
conception #1, 228 belief system, 465
conception #2, 229 mind, 386
transitional CP/dq, 246 personality, 270, 303, 476
transitional DQ/cp, 248 conceptual, 154-155, 379
impulses, control of, 236 conditions for change (six), 30, 103,
learning, 235 104, 105, 107, 170, 171-172,
punishment, 238 413-416
reward, 235 barriers, 26, 88, 104, 106, 107,
teacher, 235 172, 180, 223, 416
management, 227, 240-245 consolidation, 104, 107, 172,
mismanagement, 244 415, 479
motivation, 233, 247 dissonance, 104, 106, 172, 180,
origin, 230 353, 414, 484
psychology of, 231-233 regressive search, 223, 414
social issues, 242, 244 see regressive
state, 240 insight, 104, 105, 106, 172, 180,
transition CP to DQ, 241, 246, 247, 415, 484
248 specific to category, 106
value system, 234, 237, 245, potential, 30, 104, 107, 170, 171,
249 213, 412, 476, 481
Calhoun, John, 6, 190, 388, 389, 444, biochemical, 367
448, 452 genetically equipped, 30, 509
on population, 388 neuropsychological, 170
test of E-C by, 460 resolution (solutions), 104, 106,
Calvinist, 21, 23 113, 413
existential problems to, 171
 Index 547

change conditions resolution (continued) readiness, 35, 157, 222, 291, 495
DQ, 432 see change, rediness in BO, CP, etc.
ER, 321-323, 324 social, 170
FS, 353, 354-355 step-like, quantum-like, 484, 485
A’N’, 383, 386 systems, 188
particular to the level, 492 tendency, 481-482
support for six-elements view, values, 31, 334, 370, 402
413 China, 12, 17, 494
conditions for existence, 104, 207, Red Guards, 12
479, 480 Christian, 253, 262
conditions of existence, 29, 30, ethics, 261
155, 181, 213, 319, 464, 482, 490 form of existence, 255
cultural, 449 Roman attack on early, 253
difficult to stop once started, 492 class, 254, 256, 258, 310
direction of, 100, 106, 113, 156 class-ordered life, 268
environmental, 170 CP sorting, 233, 244
change or adjust to, 184-185, middle, 492, 501
447 closed, 136, 270, 302, 303, 465, 468,
excess energy required, 222, 492 473, 476-478, 488, 494 see open and
four demarcation points in: a, b, c, arrested and systems
d, (also alpha, beta, gamma, behavior, 477
delta), 178 closed system, 29, 30, 149, 303,
fixation, 180 465, 486, 509
intellectual climate, 150 minds, 386
instigators for sub-types, 100 unalterable, 269, 302
external authority, 100, 102, DQ, 267, 269
105, 109, 270, 278 ER, 472
information, 102, 377 cognition, human characteristic, 362
need to know principles, 489 cognitive, 129, 351 see psychology
own actions, 81, 321-322 activation, 366
peer pressure, 101 awareness of the self, 148 see
long term, 346 awareness and self
managing, 384 brain substance, 202
organismic-environment complex, capacities, 162, 237
151 complexity, 129
personality, 477, 483, 484 dissonance, 296
point of reference, 189, 378 see change, conditions, six
principles of, 489 employee, 383
process of, 107, 170, 270, 438, inadequacy, 178
455, 482 level of existence, 362, 367
progressive or regressive, 99, 114, man, 223, 224, 367, 368
148, 160, 178, 484, 506 processes, 373
psychology, 29 see psychology realm, 363, 369
regress, 107, 113, 178, 180, 185 state, undifferentiated, 223
see regressive structure, 284
AN to, 202 communism see cultural systems
DQ to ER ‘regressive’ competition, 57, 274, 310, 318, 319
disorganization, 271 cooperation more valued than, 339,
societal, 390 354, 359
responsibility for, 19 fixing in electrical industry, 345
non-competitive, 344, 382
548 Index

complexity, 148, 149 DQ/cp transition, 57, 248, 455

controlling device, 481-482 DQ/er, 72-74, 275-278
see systems dq/ER, 76-77, 279-280
integrative, 435-437, 441 ER nodal, 79-80, 311-313
stimulus, 432 ER/fs, 81-83, 330-331
thinking, 497 FS/er, 88-89, 332-334
compulsion, 299, 300, 380, 390 FS, 88-89, 342-344
compulsiveness, 300, 346, 369, hierarchy of, 127, 128, 149
374, 378, 392, 455 open-ended series of, 191
without, 372, 381, 382 open minded conceptions, 102, 191
conceptions of mature personality, 11, personality systems in miniature,
52, 55, 59-89, 98, 128, 149, 156, 185- 97-98
187, 407 say about versus think about, 69
additional categories added, 125, systematically organized, 137
126 judging the conceptions, 93
approach to, 33-37, 40-47, 54, conceptual framework revised, 92
92-93, 125, 406, 417 conceptual space, 181, 369, 379, 508
categories, 59-89, 128 odd/even systems, expansion in,
express self, 56 189
express self to avoid shame conceptualizations of adult personality
entering, 57 information overlooked, 36
nodal, 59, 228-230, 461 perspectives
exiting, 60-62, 246-248, 456 psychoanalytic, 21
express self calculatedly homo homini lupus, 21, 25, 31
entering, 76-77, 279-280 behaviorist, 16, 18-20
nodal, 79-80, 311-313 Gravesian, 31
exiting, 81-83, 330-331 humanistic, 24, 26, 141, 359
deny self, 56, 92 Life Span psychologists, 34
sacrifice self for reward later Third Force, 24, 28
entering, 62-63, 456 what adults say personality is, 56
nodal, 65-67, 69-71, 254, conceptualizers, 36, 37, 144, 145, 146,
258-263 418, 453
exiting, 72-74, 275-278 behaviorists 19-20
sacrifice self to obtain now existential, 141
enter, 84-86, 332-334 Harvey, Hunt, and Schroder, 419-
nodal, 88-89, 342-344 439
change of, 186 other conceptions, 417-418
change in conceptions, 99, 102, 106, phenomenological, 141
137, 366, 370 see change projecting self into, 54
case of Linda S., 110-112 psychologists 12, 115, 30, 34, 36-38
case of Mike M., 110 stage developmental
self-actualizing people, 148 conceptualizers, 439-464
sub-type, 52, 60, 98-99, 101, 103, conditioning, 37 see behaviorism
104, 112-114, 148, 160, 278, 280 conditions see change, conditions
central change in, 64, 71, 99, 103, of and for human existence, 176
104, 107, 114 for existence, 162, 166, 475
classification, 30, 56, 59-89, 92-93, of existence, 162, 166, 508
114, 128, 134-138, 155-137, 254 Condorcet, Marquis de, 24
examples included in the text, 60-89 conflict, 15, 119 see data, conflictual
B'O' (discussion), 399 between members of groups, 119-
CP/dq transition, 60-62, 246 120
 Index 549

conflict (continued) food gathering, 202

between theories, 142 healthy, 489
between theorists, 14, 38, 48 less developed, 126, 202
righteous man and, 294 nature of, 154
controversy and, 13, 38, 51, 91, theory, 14, 15, 150, 153
133 Utopian see Utopian
confusion and contradiction, 14, 51, ways of man (and personality), 176
91, 138 world, 442, 450
Congo, 224 cybernetics, 484
congruence, 30, 211, 301, 482 cyclic, 36, 113, 129, 147, 185, 335, 368,
higher education, 497 427, 451, 459, 483, 507 see emergent-
management and governance, cyclical
320, 323, 324, 355, 490, 493
rather than promoting growth, 463
values, 269, 358
D
consciousness, 218, 220, 226, 270, 342, DQ, 251, 183, 184, 252-305, 413, 421,
398, 449, 488, 500 428, 433, 435, 446, 448, 449, 453, 456,
Consciousness III, 20, 499, 502 462, 465, 480
interest in, 335 absolutistic characteristics, 255
new forms emerge, 19 AN and, 208
self-consciousness emerges, 85, authority, 263
182, 201, 226, 230, 252 readiness for change, 271
revolutions in, 223, 226, 309, 335, conception, 258, 262
360, 497, 499-502 examples, 258
consolidation, 417 see change conception #1, 258
coping, 30, 180, 362 conception #2, 262
cells and equipment, 367, 416, 507 DQ/er conception (exiting), 276
devices, 298 dq/ER conception (entering),
of righteous man: rationalization 279
and denial, 294 guilt, 253 see guilt
means, 178 learning, 265-267
systems, 161-162, 173, 397, 411 objective testing, 281
activating - X, 161 teacher, 265
elaborating - Z, 161 closed DQ, 267
supporting - Y, 161 leadership, 254
crime, 74, 291, 292, 378 management, 261, 267-271, 290-
against self, 378, 341 302
against property, 455 mismanagement, 270
homicide, 341 motivation, 266, 304
cultural institutions, E-C as theory of, obeisance in, 252
33 see obedience and obeisance
cultural system, 131, 478 orderly world, 94, 253, 256
autocracy, 270, 302 Righteous Existence, DQ/ER,
communism, 155, 257, 493 282, 284, 285
democracy, 155, 270, 381, 491, 493 managing, 301-305
culture, 4, 24, 39, 126, 151, 159, 160, mismanagement, 325-326
163, 166, 175, 186, 188, 191, 449, 451, origins of the righteous state,
475 296-297
change in, 178, 483 reaction to stress, 297-301
development, 15 organizational structure, 301
drug, 349
550 Index

DQ (continued) fixate, regress, new form, 160

win-lose psychology, 294 process of, 7, 151, 185
self-sacrifice, 254 psychological, 2, 33
see sacrifice self adult, 129
state, 266 ever-evolving, step-like process,
teacher or manager, 273 489
see teacher results from interaction, 166
transition DQ to ER, 272, 273, psychosocial development, 405
275, 282, 285, 287, 317, 501 environmentosocial-organismic
values, 246, 252, 253, 255, 257, 271, field, 166
272 complex wave-like, 178
Darwin, Charles, 37, 51, 52, 174, 361 double-helix, 174
Darwinian concept, 315 organismic as delimiter, 407
data (in the Gravesian work), 2, 51-90 resultants of interaction, 167
see Verification, 405-473 spurt-like, plateau-like, 178
A’N’ difference, 371, 374 systems, 506
rigidity and dogmatism, 377 systemic, 188
B’O’ cases, 396, 399 social, 1
3 basic kinds of, 46 stage-like, 417
conflictual and confusing, 114, 115, dialectic, 463
116, 123, 142 dictatorship, 292
forms of human existence not differentiation, 28, 182
included in the data, 55 self from others, 201
gathered prior to 1962, 129 disintegration, 15, 62, 483
messages in, 134-138 see equilibium
structuring a language, 137-138 dissenters, 366
questions arising from, 71 dissonance see change conditions
perplexing results dogmatism, 68, 77, 93, 123, 189, 258,
functioning and production, 284, 309, 347, 397, 428, 430, 465, 508
94-96 Dogmatism Scale, 122, 465 see
opposed categories, 93 Rokeach
rationalizing, 7, 133, 418 rigidity and, 377, 465
tachistoscope, 466, 468-471 dominant-submissive, 226, 256
deference (to authority), 124, 254, 287 Doty, R.W., 220
delinquency, 455 double-helix, 131, 160-162, 174, 187,
democracy see cultural systems 406, 437, 504
denial, 294 environmentosocial forces, 160
dependence, 74, 334 organismic forces, 160
depression, 299, 300, 409, 411 Drews, Elizabeth, 6, 452
designation of levels see nomenclature Driesch, Hans Adolf Eduard, 153, 154
developing nations, 126 Driver, Michael J., 432
development, 29, 33-35, 37, 57, 69, dynamic neurological systems, 161,
113, 129-131, 150-153, 163, 176, 172, 361, 412, 414, 419, see Krech
405, 477, 489, 499, 506-509 structures latent in the brain, 412
barriers to, 35
cognitive stage, 7, 29 see cognitive
conceptualizations of, 34
E
continuing process of, 35, 452 E-C see emergent cyclical
cyclic, oscillating movement in, 113 ECLET (emergent, cyclical levels of
direction, not a state or form, 151 existence theory). see emergent
emergent states in, 20
 Index 551

ER, 307, 184, 309, 421, 428, 435, 447, emergence, 1, 2, 29, 141, 159, 185, 223,
449, 453, 456, 459, 462, 465, 501 319, 397, 417, 476, 480, 506
AN and, 209 behavior, 141 see behavior
change, 321 higher levels of, 148
readiness for change, 326 ends, 497
closed, 472 growth, 160
examples, 310 levels of, 30
nodal ER conception, 311 man's nature, 480
example #1, ER/fs conception, organism, 500
330 psychosocial systems, 5
example #2, FS/er conception, process, 465, 508
332 stages, 7, 20
five states of existence, 283 emergent cyclical (theory of adult
interpersonal relations, 314, 334 biopsychosocial systems
learning, 319 development)
management, 315, 320-326, 357 34 principles of E-C theory, 486
mismanagement, 325-326 adult personality and cultural
motivation, 320 institutions, 175
self-motivated, 430 basics of, 167, 168
transition ER to FS, 327, 334, 341, compared to stage conceptualizers,
360, 472 418, 439
values ER, 272, 309, 310, 311, compared with other theories, 440-
314, 315, 316, 317, 326, 334, 446
338, 344, 359, 360 conception 2, 29, 33, 56, 160, 167,
education, 13, 29, 482, 507 405
see learning and AN, BO, CP, etc. double-helix model see double-
A’N’ society in, 392 helix
broader meaning for, 496 formulation of, 370
experience, 328 model, 159, 163
forms appropriate to levels, 497 or unfolding pattern, 468
in the person for FS, 352 points in the process of life, 166
methods, 375 psychological life space of, 163
move to more complex levels, 497 spurt and plateau, 188
subsidized, 64 support from general psychology,
success, 391 407
Edwards Preference Inventory, 124 theory, 166, 506
egalitarian, 351 adult of, 51, 196, 417
ego, 68, 70, 442 formulation of, 369
definition, 347 personality and cultural
development, 461, 463 institutions, 33
see Loevinger wave-like manifestation, 113, 176,
ego-less (in A’N’), 379 435, 506
encroachment, 314, 319 spurt-like, plateau-like, 178
involved, 267 successive equilibrations, 477
superego, 455 formulation of, 370
egocentric, 22, 60, 78, 225, 248, 258 movement, 113
see CP emotion, 29, 70, 87, 103, 412, 502, 508
egoistic, 209 AN, 208
elaborating system, 162, 165, 173, 410 A’N’, 372
see Z affection, 87
Elkind, David, x, 31, 416 affective, 293
552 Index

emotion (continued) fourth level (DQ), 208, 209,

distinguish self, 202, 459 249, 253
person affective, 227 free self from, 265, 269, 314-
warmth, 342, 348 315, 347
anger, 11, 22, 72, 180, 201, 266, 285, lack of, 227, 233, 458
299, 459 hate, 201, 227, 244, 318, 325, 340,
intellectually used, 375 357, 447, 501
modulated, 314 Taylorism causing, 290
control over, 108 hostility, 25, 232, 244, 284, 290,
CP and, 227, 233 298, 319, 372, 496
delight, 393, 409 transfer onto authority, 305
disappear, 205 jealousy, 201
disgust, 227, 358, 458 over-reactional (in BO), 218
DQ and, 262, 273 pseudo-emotions
ER/fs ‘great’ appraiser of, 330 depression, 299, 409, 411
FS, 338, 339, 340, 348, 349 discomfort, 244
fear, 15, 57, 59, 60, 64, 141, 201, excitement, 244, 409, 411
233, 249, 366, 409, 458 frustration, 95, 106, 201, 242,
abandonment, 299 244, 352, 477
barrier of, 107, 379 rage, 227
being disliked, 353 Righteous control, 289, 304
chemistry of, 367, 373 loss of power,
sensitivity 353
to, 273
demise, of our, 2, 392 sub-systems, 409
dissolution in A’N’, 369, 372, 373, shame, 58, 60, 78, 81, 92, 126, 130,
379, 390 226, 233, 238, 247, 280, 315, 380,
expressing hostility, 300 392, 409, 445, 458
frightened DQ existence, 253 see conceptions, express self to
inferiority, 265 avoid shame
influx of stimulation, 253, 256 ashamed, 11, 128, 313
loss of self, 360 fear of, 62
own powers, 141 unashamed, 110
punishment, of, 298, 299 empathy
reduces, 291 disdain for, 80, 81, 314, 328,
resolved, 366 others’ difficulty empathizing with
shame of, 58, 60, 130 A’N’, 369
sex relations, 299 required for DQ/ER teacher, 273
social disapproval, 369 Engen, T., 408
tool as, 318 entering, 56, 57, 62, 76, 84, 506
grief, 227 see nodal and exiting
guilt, 58, 62, 64, 68, 92, 100, 129, environment
227, 249, 253, 265, 319, 458 side of development, 161
see conceptions and express environmentosocial conditions, 160-
self 167, 171, 407, 412
adrenaline and, 245, 258 see psychological space
awareness of, 247, 249, 285 determinants, 506
change, 60, 247, 275, 280 environmentosocial-organismic
express self without, 105, 107, field, 166
110, 112, 114, 115, 116, 119, forces, 163
120, 121, 123, 124, 307 epistemologies, natural, 457
first appears, 129, 460 equilibrations, 477
 Index 553

equilibrium, 29, 270, 482, 483 source of, 193

even-numbered systems, 480 existentialists, 140, 489
levels as theoretical state of, 477 exiting, 56, 60, 72, 81, 506
out of, 298 see entering and nodal
restoring earth’s by A’N’, 390 experience
equipment see brain and BO, 218
neuropsychological stimulus-response, 220
risk-taking, chronological time and B’O’, 399
space-perceiving, 226 educational see education
Erikson, Erik Homburger, 6, 23, 49, CP operant conditioning and many
452 positive, 243
Esalen Institute, 393, 501 factor in conception change, 52
Establishment, the, 11, 12, 17, 22, 222, human, 53, 60, 202
416 level-specific to activate neurology,
ethics, 2, 6, 29, 255, 354, 370, 381, 498, 170
507 own (ER), 78, 81, 100, 101, 320
Kantian, 255 peer group (FS), 102
Judeo-Christian, 22 shared (FS), 340, 349
Machiavellian, 323 see Machiavelli students in the research, 46
power ethic, 233 to reject or assimilate, 482
system, 317, 489 tried-and-true (ER), 280, 309
Ethiopia, 489 experiential, 5, 169, 395, 401 see values
evolution, 151, 378 express self, 57, 128 see conceptions
as process, 51 to hell with others, 57, 59, 60
psychological, 389 calculatedly, 76, 79, 81
existential, 29, 365 but not at the expense of others,
dichotomies, 112 103
jargon, 263 Eysenck, Hans, 144, 146
Means for Living, 162
problems, 106, 162, 183, 492, 494
in time, 160
F
resolution and creation, 183 FS, 337, 184, 349,421, 428, 435, 449,
realities, 481, 482 455, 456, 459, 462, 465, 480, 492, 501,
staircase, 195, 391, 399, 490, 499 502
see ladder basic operation, 347
state, 162, 167, 175, 188, 417, 439 change, readiness for, 358
development of in time, 479 readiness for change, 358
AN, 167, 171, 207, 212, 454, 458 examples, FS conception, 342
see AN learning, 350
BO, 170, 179, 191, 454 see BO teacher, 351
CP, 224 see CP management, 353-358, 359
DQ, 253, 258 see DQ mismanagement, 357-358
DQ/ER ‘righteous existence,’ origin, 344
282-305 see DQ transition, FS to A’N’ 352-353, 362
ER, 309, 338, 473 see ER values, 334, 339, 340, 342, 345, 347,
FS, 350, 455 see FS 359, 360, 368
A’N’, 365, 367, 189 see A’N’ faith, 183
cognitive, 369, 370, 374, 382, human, not Godly, 393, 398
384 keep, 318
B’O’, 191, 368 see B’O’ fear see emotion
intuitive existence, 395, 397
554 Index

federalization, 263, 311, 491 controlling device complexity of,

feedback from others, 81 see complexity
feelings see emotions mini-maxing, 484
inner subjective, 338 model, 163
judging feelings, 264 principles and E-C theory, 486
Fenton, Edwin, Colby, Ann, and theorists, 149
Speicher-Dubin, Betsy, 414 theory, 150, 152, 153, 159, 484
Festinger, Leon, 414 generation gap, 359
Five Ages of Man, 6 see Heard goals, see America
Flavell, John H., 34 related to all human kind in FS,
force field, 162 see existential state 347
Ford Motor Company, 323 God, 13, 51, 63, 65, 71, 87, 101, 135,
4-H, 281 141, 201, 207, 252, 255, 272, 296, 321,
framework, 3-4, 15, 16-17, 25, 30, 32, 352, 373, 392, 393, 414, 420
145, 208, 334, 353, 417, 457 see master plan in DQ, 263
conceptualizers and behavior righteous man, 296
behavioral, 145 word of, 309, 316
conceptual, 36, 92, 99, 123, 145, Godric, 272
417, 418 Goldstein, Kurt, 6, 145, 147, 149, 419
E-C, 243, 437, 438, 454, 455, 456, Gough, H.G. and Sanford, R.N., 123,
460 465
explanatory, 51 Gough-Sanford Rigidity Scale, 464
thought, 489 governing, 388, 390
Perry, 456 A’N’ approach, 391
Frankl, Viktor, 36 DQ values for, 263
French Canadians, 219 figures, prime goal of, 484
Freud, Sigmund, 31, 49, 68, 144, 146, new systems of, 391-392
256, 292, 316, 400, 462, 484 Graves, Dr. Clare W., 22, 65, 147, 196,
Freudian 216, 234, 351, 439, 448, 464
ethic, 257 consulting, 265
psychoanalysts, 21 workshop handouts, 506
slips, 68, 259 Gray, Thomas, 415
Fromm, Erich, 191, 256, 346, 360, 400, Gray, William, 483, 484
441 great divide, 190, 402, 503
Funkenstein, D.H., 411, 415 Greece, 292
future 1, 2, 11, 15, 129, 142, 144, 163, Greening of America, 492, 501
354, 356 see consciousness, Consciousness III
mankind’s 53, 282, 283, 391 Griffin, Merv, 372
modes of life, 363, 369, 388 growth, 26, 148, 463, 491, 496, 501
multiple, 499 biological, 34
possibilities, 362, 389-390 consolidation and, 189, 479
prediction, 389, 438 devalued, 391
sustainable, 390 economic viability and, 490
emergent phenomenon, 160
healthy, 26
G life, 209
Gandhi, Mahatma, 257 limits to, 359
Garden of Eden, 214 man’s, 211, 326
Gastaut, H., 408 mature behavioral systems, 148
General Systems, 6 see behavior
means of, 85
 Index 555

growth (continued) hierarchy, 2, 128, 136, 151, 413, 419

moral, 315 behavioral hierarchies, 147
motivation, 362 emerging personality, 91
odd numbered systems, 189 personality systems, 151
phenomenon, 148, 160 systems in the brain, 481
population, 388 Hindu, 261, 257
principles for managing, 211 Hoarding Character see Fromm
psychological, 35, 189 Hokfelt, Bernt, 412, 415
sign of, 15, 16, 17, 360 Homer’s Odyssey, 126
tendency, 483, 484 homo homini lupus see conceptions of
guilt see emotions adult personality
Homo sapiens, 33, 161, 164, 174, 180,
407, 506
H homogeneity
habituation, 200, 219, 408, 409 group, 274
Hall, Calvin S. and Lindzey, Gardner, societal, 491, 493
405 homogeneity to heterogeneity, 152
harmony, 344, 349, 359 homogenization, 346, 498
organization of current state as honesty, 358
‘maturity,’ 155 Hoover, Herbert, 498
Hartman, Heinz. see psychoanalysts Horney, Karen, 144, 410
Harvard Business Review, 196 hostility, 25, 137, 292, 298, 305, 494
Harvey, O.J., Hunt, David and avoiding to self in ER/fs, 384
Schroder, Harold M., 6, 134, 135, CP tendency to manifest, 232
400, 419, 438, 439, 465 intellectually used in A’N’, 372
characteristics in model, 424 perceived by others of ER, 315, 319
concreteness-abstraction, 421 world as life condition, 166
data, 424 and rearranged, 426 Howe, M.J.A., 453
verification with approach, 419 human, 169, 202, 209 see existence and
Harvey, O.J., 6, 421 behavior and conditions and
Hassler, R. 407 development and personality
haves and have-nots, 227, 233, 326 awakened to inner man, 252
Havighurst, Robert, 6, 34 behavior reconceptualized, 142, 154
Hawkins, Robert, 17 being, 155, 166, 189
Heard, Gerald, 6, 36, 134, 417, 448, drives, lustful, 296, 309
449, 450, 451, 499 existence, 155
Hebb, D. O., 407 existential helix, 2
hedonism, CP tendency toward, 228 faith in, 393
Hegel, G.W.F., 317 group animal, 354
Heider, Fritz, 6 knowledge reconsidered, 491
helix, 2, 4, 71, 407 see double helix living, ER as ‘epitome’ of, 283
Hernandez-Peon, R., 408, 410 mature, 138, 142
Herzberg, Fred, 23 nature
Hess, E. H., 415 objective and subjective sides, 36
hierarchical revised conception of, 136
rise of existential problems, 160 needs, distinctly human, 189
systems, 36 philosophical thought, 351
systems perspective, 29 relations, 301, 353, 356
ordered stages, 489 survival, 172
organization of systems, 173 symphony with six themes, 396
see six themes
556 Index

human (continued) boredom as result, 226

threshold of being, 367 learning takes place without, 220
variability, 322 intentionality, 226
wants, 296 interdependence, 75, 182, 184, 272,
Human Needs Foundation, 7 308, 314, 370, 509 see ER
humanism (vs. animalism), 190, 200, authority teaches dictates of, 278
339, 360, 368 desires for, 296
humanistic feeling of, 271
Conception see conceptions of need for, 130, 283, 284, 278, 284,
adult personality 296, 334
weakness of, 28 selfish, 282, 283, 284, 285, 292
goal, 417 ultimate sign of depravity, 272
subjectivistic world, 334 interdependence, 184, 332, 366, 382,
tradition, 368 391, 509
humanness, 24 Ionesco, Eugene, 135
Hummel, Dean L. and Bonham Jr., S.J, Isaacs, Kenneth, 444, 452, 458, 460
490 Israeli Kibbutz, 17
Hunt, David E., 6, 419
Huntley, W.C., 464
J
I James, William, 420
Japan, 290, 302, 509
Idi Amin, 13 government, 317
Ik tribe (Uganda), 204, 390, 414, 500 Jaspers, Karl, 204
immature see behavior and mature Jefferson, Thomas, 24
immediacy, 495, 496 job enrichment, 23, 269
impulsive, 58, 59, 64, 232, 233, 237, Josephson, Matthew, 346
266, 305, 448 see CP Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 196
independence, 75, 130, 271, 272, 278, judgmental about judgmentalism, 347
282, 292, 308 see ER Jung, Carl, 36, 146, 408
Indian tribes, 219
individual, 176 see autonomy
individualism, 227, 311, 316
K
last gasp of, 502 Kahn, Herman, 499
individuality, 85, 278, 338, 342, Kalahari Desert, 203
347, 360 Kant, Emanuel, 316 see ethics
obsession with, 87 Katz, Joseph, 34, 35
Industrial Revolution, 308 Keats, John, 138, 139, 140
information, 36, 383, 399 Kendler, Howard, 20
inhumane human state, 205, 209 King, Rev. Martin Luther, 257
insights see change conditions Kluckhohn, Clyde, 15
integrated living, 476 knowledge, 159, 220, 316, 321, 338,
integration, 483 366, 393, 398, 503
A’N’ into organization, 386 A’N’ in specific settings, 377
knowledge of all, 13 about adult behavior, 1
integrative accumulation of, 185, 399
complexity, 435-437, 441 DQ either-or, right-wrong
management, 353 conception of, 255
intelligence, 124, 128, 129, 186, 371, ER callous use of, 334
428, 437, 508 see studies leadership and A’N’, 118, 384
 Index 557

knowledge (continued) learning, 30, 165, 186, 214, 217, 391,

man’s, 3, 155, 491 409, 464, 507 see AN, BO, CP, etc.
power of, 390 and education
FS consideration of, 340 associative, 141
self, 352, 359 avoidant, 246, 249, 253, 256, 385,
Koch, Sigmund, 145 410
Kohlberg, L., Hickey, J. & Scharf, P., change to latent, signal, 320
414 fractionated, 13
Kohlberg, Lawrence, 6, 21, 34, 414, hierarchy, 410
445, 448, 452, 453, 454, 462 intentional instrumental, 202, 233,
Krasner, Leonard, 17 238, 239, 409
Krech, David, 165, 407, 410, 415 observational, 350
Kris, Ernst, 23 see psychoanalysts process, 266, 328 see habituation
Kroeber, Alfred L., 145 and operant and Pavlovian
Kuhlen, Raymond G., 34 punishment, by, 239, 240
social-learning, 37
systems, dominant, 409
L two-factor theory, 146, 256, 266
LaBier, Douglas, 464 Legum, Colin, 224
labeling see nomenclature Lenin, Vladimir, 257
labor, 354, 355 Leopold-Loeb murder case (1924), 291
contracts, 302 letter to Schenectady Gazette , 210
leaders and members, 13 letter pairs see nomenclatures
management relations, 353, 354, level(s), 402, 477, 481, 487, 489, 492
355, 357, 490 see conceptions and hierarchy and
management wars, 392 emergent cyclical and AN through B’O’
strike behavior, 13 constructs, not obtainable states,
ladder of existence, 361, 389 477
see existential staircase Gravesian eight, 147
first (subsistence levels), 361, 389, human existence of, 1, 29, 33, 38,
391, 502, 503 56, 146, 169, 409, 440, 475, 476
second (being levels), 389, 502 conceptual needs for, 160
Law of Requisite Variety, 483 personal organization of, 176
Lawrence, D.H., 398, 504 sense-making way of looking, 482
leadership, 118, 119-120, 295, 321, subsistence compared, 409
362, 384, 493 see AN through A’N’ Maslow's original 5, 147
authoritarian, 309 Lickert, Rensis, 355
change, 118, 120, 382, 383, 463 life circumstances, 148, 476
congruence, 320 life problems of species, group,
different levels of coping, 361 individual, 161, 165
falling psychologically behind, 321 Life Span psychologists,6, 34
man of, 283 Locke, John, 17
no concept, 201 Loevinger, Jane, 6, 444, 452, 456, 460-
political, 294 see governing 464
revolving, 137, 382, 383 Lonely Crowd see Riesman
soft, 294 Looft, William, 34, 37
success of, 321 Lowenstein, Rudolph M. 23, see
vying for, 116 psychoanalysts
Luzon, Phillippines, 219
558 Index

M condition or process, 38
personality
Machiavelli, Niccolo, 23, 317, 425, 426, criteria for, 41, 155
430, 480 views of, 399
principles, 317, 324 state, 39
Maddi, Salvatore R., 21 May, Rollo, 141
magic, 217, 218, 222, 353, 392, 502 McClelland, David, 281
Mahabarata, 126 McGregor, Douglas, 244, 270, 353,
Maier, Norman, 115 446, 452
majority rule, 503 Mead, Margaret, 500
Makaha, Hawaii, 134 meaning of the E-C concept, 491
Malinowski, Bronislaw, 14 medical service problem (for lower
man see Homo sapiens levels), 495
supremacy of, 502 meditation, 352, 358
problem-solving organism, 484 Mehrabian, Albert, 180
management, 3, 6, 29, 196, 490, 507 Menzies, R., 220
see AN, BO, CP, etc. methodology, 47, 406, 448
adult behavior of, 33 see research and data
congruent with levels, 30 change data, 105
participative, 325, 354-355, 356, observations, 370
360, 490 research design, 44
revised through E-C theory, 490 summary, 91
managerial means, 33 Millon, Theodore, 25
Manchu dynasty, 255 Mills, Wilbur, 210
Mao Tse Tung [Zedong], 12, 17, 255, Mindanao, Phillippines, 28, 127, 169,
257, 389 203
Marketing Character, 345-346 see Mittelman, James H, 13
Fromm model, 37, 142, 149, 159, 160, 174
Maslow, Abraham, 5, 6, 24, 25, 26, 49, see emergent cyclical and personality
140, 145, 147, 149, 396, 398, 400, 452 building, 147
ability, 25 ten basic criteria for model of
belonging system, 334, 498 mature personality, 155
doubts about hierarchy, 147 morality, 52, 62, 318, 443, 453, 498
self-actualizing person, 148, 399, conventionality, 453
400, 452 CP, 233, 247
Maslowian, 27 E-C theory, 453
conception of personality, 399 ER, 315
hierarchy, 27, 147, 464 immoral behavior, 31, 351
position, 27 Kohlberg, 453
terminology, 147 meanings of breakdown, 490
theory tested by Aronoff, 463 problems of, 6
thinking, 418 Morgan, C.T., 408
materialism, 23, 334, 339, 492 Moslems, 257
see ER and conceptions motivation, 109, 409, 463, 507 see
mature see behavior needs
assumptions about, 148 apppropriate to state, 29, 507
behavior, 16 deficiency and abundance, 128,
conforming and non-conforming 347, 358, 362
concepts of, 149 Mowrer, O. Hobart, 146, 256, 266
life for tomorrow, 17 Moynihan, Daniel Patrick, 212
ways of, 11
 Index 559

Mumford, Lewis B., 1, 134, 184, 417, N’, 407, 410

442, 448, 449, 450, 451, 499 dogs, 407
Murphy, Gardner, 140, 142, 143, 149, for living, 161, 167, 173
152, 153, 154, 156, 419, 437 species, group, individual, 161
Murray, H.A., 15, 447, 448 potential, 163-164, 170, 413
system
X, Y, and Z, 165, 167, 410-412
N see X and Y and Z
Nance, John, 28, 127, 169 never-ending…
needs, 30, 41, 189, 367, 410 process of emergence, 400
affiliative, 335 see belonging quest (of human emergence), 4, 417,
conceptual for E-C theory, 160- 504
161 New Jersey income support plan, 212
deficiency and abundance, 26, 508 Nietzsche, Friedrich, 140
see motivation see will to power
gratification, 28 Nixon, President Richard, 282, 378
imperative, periodic, physiological, nodal, 56-57, 59, 65, 69, 72, 79, 88,
211, 413 see needs, physiological 170, 176, 191, 203, 348, 449, 453, 455,
lower level and higher level, 27, 28 456, 457, 458, 461-462, 467, 476, 489,
Maslowian, 27, 148 506 see entering and exiting
of others, 268, 354 system, 191, 449, 454, 455, 506
open, systems of see AN, BO, CP, etc.
ordering of per system, 410 stage, 457, 461, 462, 489
organizational, 383 state, 170, 176, 473, 475
physiological, 26, 167, 170, 199, 200, nomenclature (designation of systems),
202, 203, 204, 211, 216, 230, 253, 161, 169, 248
408, 411, 413-414, 451, 488 entering-steady state-exiting, 192
safety and security, 218, 253 lower case letters in Exhibit IX, 178
satisfaction to fixate behavior, 28 letter pairs (AN, etc.), 166
social see needs, affiliative numbers, 439, 440
subsistence, 163 odd and even, 429
survival, 148 odd and even systems, 149
neurochemical, 5, 231, 238, 412 organism (helix 2): N, O, P, Q, R,
changes for A’N’, 367 S, then primes (N’), plus X, Y, Z,
switching subsystem, 165 162
neurological systems, 203, 238, 361, primes (A’, N’, etc.), 161, 365
397, 408, 410 see dynamic problems of living (helix 1): A, B,
neurological systems and brain C, D, E, F, then primes (A’), 161
activation, 29, 300 psychosocial development, 166
hypothetico-deductive, 309 upper and lower case, 191, 248
neuropsychological non-violent, 369
equipment for living, 161, 167, 169, noradrenaline and adrenaline, 231-232,
173, 174, 180, 407, 414, 416, 417, 412 see adrenaline
506 adrenaline, 245
N, 172, 185, 200 noradrenaline, 238, 240
O, 170, 408 numbering of Gravesian systems
P, 172, 226, 409, 459 see nomenclature
Q, 253, 459 New York teachers' strike (1968), 20
R, 182
S, 338
560 Index

O -minded psychologists, 154 see

Driesch
obedience, 286, 443, 453 side of double helix, 161, 406, 437
disobedience, civil, 359 organization, 3, 116-119, 221, 237,
obedient, 294, 290 241-242, 244, 261, 267-268, 310, 355,
obeisance, 67, 75, 130, 227, 232, 249, 490, 493
252, 255, 261, 368, 507 characteristics for A'N', 386-388
when overpowered, 226 forms see CP, DQ, ER, FS, A’N’
obsessive and compulsive, 300 operations of, 1-2, 301-302, 323,
Olds, M.E. and Olds, J., 408, 410 354, 383
open, arrested, closed, 270, 476, 478 societal, 247
see personality and open and arrested structures (diagrams), 117
and closed subject groups, 137
open, 136, 302, 303, 399, 478, 486, viability, 3, 4 323, 357
490, 495, 506, 507 Organization Man, 326, 345, 354
see closed and arrested origins of the E-C studies, 38
DQ, 274, 303, 473 Orthodox, 21
ER, 473 oscillating, 113, 125, 129, 506, 507
A’N’, 473 see double-helix
man’s nature, 478
minded, 102, 191, 381
pattern, 472
P
personality, 477, 482 Packard, Vance, 316
Rokeach’s concept, 465 Paine, Thomas, 24
system, 29, 30, 148, 149, 361, 432, paradox, 377
485 Parsons, Talcott and Shils, Edward, 15
to change, 321-322 participative see management
open-ended, 148, 361 pathology, 180, 205, 490
development, 445 behavior, 137
hierarchy, 136, 138, 419 over- and under-development of
theory, 190, 438, 449 systems, 160
open-mindedness, 102, 191 treatment appropriateness, 490
operant conditioning, 213, 223, 224, Pavlov, Ivan, 146, 219, 220, 407, 491
226, 235, 237, 238, 240, 495 behavior, 214
organicist, 149, 151, 153 classical conditioning, 202, 219
organism, 127, 154, 212, 321, 367, 415, Peace Corps, 221
478, 480, 506 see behavior and Pechman, Joseph A. and Timpane,
development and conditions and Homo Michael, 212
sapiens and personality and potential Peck, Robert, 6, 452
biological, 2 permissiveness, 22
equipment for living, 161, 167 Perry, William, Jr., 6, 411, 452, 456
organism/environmental complex, personality, 151-153 see conceptions
151, 160, 166 attributes, 486
preprogrammed, not predeter- culture and, 176, 178, 186, 188, 191,
mined, energy system, 478 451, 489 see culture
organism-environment interaction, cyclic aspect of, 483 see cyclic
452 dimensions, 128, 129
organismic, 150, 165, 407 healthy
based needs, 15 see needs change instigators for, 100
complex, 161
 Index 561

personality (continued) growth, 387

psychometric data for 4 sub- over-population, 347, 365
types, 122 positivistic presentations with
levels of integration forming, 483 symptoms and hostility, 137
relativism and hierarchy, 151 Postman, Leo, 464, 466
systems, 115, 448, 484 Postman, Leo and Schneider, Jay S.,
as momentary, 166 464
General Systems, 153 Postman, Leo, Bruner, Jay S. and
mature, 39-44, 56 McGinnies, E., 464
describable state or condition or potential see change, conditions
process of becoming? 38, 41 poverty, 13, 210, 211, 316, 494, 496
existing conceptions of, 41 and wealth, 392
see conceptions of mature power(s), 13, 22, 88, 234, 249, 316,
personality 340, 346, 359, 376, 378, 446, 466, 476
reference points commonly see CP and expressive
used to describe, 41 assigned, 301
hierarchical rise of, 91 centralization of, 433
see hierarchy cognitive, 285
theories, 6, 14, 150 corporate, heirs to, 391
see conceptualizations delegated, 244
confusion in, 38 domestication of, 317
reconceptualizing, 40 ethic, 233, 317, 323, 324, 326, 344
travels of personality, 483 of the few, 316
valuing of, 340 pragmatic, 318
variables, 175, 176 exercised by others, 226
vertically-oriented multi- group opinion, 354
dimensional trend phase, 488 higher, 67, 78, 183, 254, 257, 280
ways of being, 128 prescriptions of, 261
phenomenologists, 141 ideas rather than raw power, 308
phobias, 299 is virtue, 317
physiological, 169, 202, 207, 213, 216, loss of, 324, 353
230, 252, 409, 459 over man and nature, 310
life space, 166 over physical universe, 283
needs, 148, 200, 450, 488 see needs own, 141
tension, 200 political, 87
Piaget, Jean, 6, 34 position, 227, 231
political, 12, 29, 294, 507 raw, 308, 413
convicition, 392 restraining outer, 453
dissenters, 366 ruthless, 233
dictatorship, 292 second level values of, 218
institutions, 257, 263 self, 231, 232, 321 see self
legislative process, 13 singular, 255, 256, 263
organization congruent with the that be or The Power, 308
people, 493 see power, higher
politicians’ level, 294, 463 threat to, 326
power, 87 to change things, 315, 318, 324
science, 491 to the managed, 354
systems, 255, 390 use of, 318
values, 323 will to, 311, 317, 318
population, 181, 358, 388, 460 values, Darwinian support of, 315
adult prison, 237 pre-cultural ways, 55
562 Index

predatory (CP), 223, 226, 253, 286, 372 psychoanalysts, 21, 23

prepotent, 161, 173 see conceptualizers
prison populations, 237 psychoanalytic circles, orthodox, 264
principles (aligned with General psychological, 409, 489
Systems Theory), 486 affairs, muddled state of, 91
problem solving, 115, 189, 428, 430 being(s), 2, 103, 162, 231, 417, 477,
problem(s), 11-32 506
bi-polar of DQ, 252 change, 319, 346
existence of, 2, 509 degrees of freedom, 374
see existential problems development and age, 33, 35-36
plural, not singular, 173 dimensions, 428, 430
solutions precede, 184 existence, 2
solutions creeate new, 173 field, 415
process, 40, 416, 432, 506 goal, 417
see change and development health, changed concept of, 151
actualization, 399 keynote for A’N’ society, 391
anabolic and catabolic, 202, 211 locked to ways and/or territory,
becoming, 38 491, 495, 496
change, 103, 415, 455 see change life space, 163, 164, 166
critical points in, 180 maturity, 2, 36-39, 40, 92, 103, 490,
cognitive, 372 503 see conceptions and emergent
continuing, 35, 231 cyclical
creative, 489 definition will change, 2
decision-making, 355, 356 no such single thing as, 136
development of, 7 nature of species, group, or
developmental, 461 individual, 162
see development need to survive, 148, 414
emergent, 29, 464 non-existence, 202, 209
ever-changing, 2 paradigms, 38
ever-evolving, 499 positioning along the double helix,
flowing, 166, 478 162
group, 355, 356 principles, varied, 494
infinite, 2, 172 revisions to consider to, 42-44
internal, 332 see emotion revolution, greatest, 388
learning, 37, 39, 328 space, 160, 169, 173, 176, 178, 180,
see learning and BO, CP, etc. 182, 189, 455, 475, 489
levels as, 488, 489 effects of changes in, 176
motoric, 305 time, 160, 178
organic, 475 species, 460
organism-to-the-environment, 335 state, differentiated, 28
psychological, 202, 205 test results, 123
psychological maturity as, 39 time, 113, 127, 160, 163, 176, 178,
rather than state, 493 185, 475, 487
step-like, 489 psychology see conceptualizations
successive equilibrations, 477 adult, 29, 31-33, 36, 45, 55, 124-
systematically ordered, 98 125, 127-131, 151, 153, 160, 432,
progressive-steady state-regressive, 483, 486-489
178, 179, 479 all systems represent the whole, 32
Promethean, 231 cognitive-developmental stage, 7,
Protestant ethic, 255 29
psycho-organismic principles, 30 contribution to of E-C, 7
 Index 563

psychology (continued) “…an unfolding or emergent

developmental, 6, 35 process marked by…,” 319
existential states of see AN, BO, “I am not saying…,” 482
CP, etc. and existential states “The psychology of the adult
general sources for testing E-C, human being…,” 29
407 “This level of existence
humanistic, 7, 24-28, 359 conception…,” 477
open-ended, 136 “…personality…an itinerant
particular to state, 29, 507 traveler…,” 483
previous research, 93
problems with, 34-36, 142, 145
questions for, 489
R
reconsideration of, 489 ‘radium’ as metaphor for E-C, 367,
state or process, 40 392, 450
unfolding, 29 Ramayana, 126
win-lose, 294 Rand, Ayn, 345, 360
psychologies, 29 see conceptualizations rationality, 84, 340
psychometric studies, 100 see studies rationalization, 107, 294, 418
psychopathology, 152 see pathology reactive, 199 see AN
psychosocial systems, nesting, 171 reconceptualization (of personality,
behavior see behavior culture, and maturity), 40, 154, 159
development see development personality, 155, 159
psychotherapy, 6, 14, 30, 266, 463, redundancy, 120
484, 491 see therapy redundant, 68, 69, 71, 120-121, 263,
appropriate to state, 29 284
punish, 213, 235, 237, 285, 297 regressive, 72, 99, 107, 113-114, 178,
self, 95, 303 185, 223, 271, 316, 414-415, 484, 500,
punishment, 220, 234, 237, 238, 240, 506, 509 see change, conditions
253, 261, 263, 266, 269, 298, 443, 453, relationships
462 controlled for survival, 231
CP inability to feel, 238 dominant-submissive, 257
righteous man and, 303 hierarchically ordered human, 263
importance, 332, 343, 360, 381,
Q 398
organization, 269
qualitative and quantitative, 165, 166, relativistic, 338, 346, 349, 369, 488
384, 418, 419-420, 501 existence, 337-338, 342, 350-351,
behavior change, 97 356 see situational
change through systems, 399, 415 thinking, 86, 147, 331, 348
differences in learning, 361 relativism, 411, 443 see situational
themes change, 72 cultural, 151
variations in groups, 176 entering ER move toward, 278, 319
quantitification, FS reaction against, relevancy
346 of approach study, 120, 430
quantum-like jump, 29, 107, 160, 415, of questions, 425, 426, 428
482, 483 religious(ness), 130, 252, 256, 339, 430,
questions asked in studies, 42 473
quotations, popular Gravesian attitude, 87, 340
“At each stage of human beliefs, 218
existence…,” 475 in conception of mature, 89
564 Index

remoteness (and A’N’), 385 role

Rensch, Bernhard, 415 assignment,433
repertoire, 375 in life, 254, 255, 261, 262
behavioral, 289 see behavior predestined, 268
research, 4-5, 38-40, 191, 240, 294, Rotter, Julian, 320, 350, 410
405, 406, 462, 506-509 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 24
approach, 44-49 rules, 110, 286
phase 1, generate conceptions, absolute, 264
44 circumvent, 315
phase 2, classification, 46, 51-52, DQ, 258
93 of righteous man, 295
phase 3, exploration of set by winner at ER, 324
categories, 47, 147 Russia, 272, 317, 493, 494
phase 4, library research, 48, Russian Academy of Pedagogical
127, 406 Sciences, 17
methodology, 464 ruthlessness, 233, 382, 388
judges, 47
questions, 42-43
subjects, 44, 54, 64
S
suggested by other theories, 38, sacrifice self systems, 83, 122, 128
410, 418 see conceptions
three assumptions to test, 54 sacrifice self now to get reward
resultant (of forces’ interaction), 160, later, 62, 65, 69, 72 see DQ
162, 167, 169 sacrifice self now to obtain now,
reward, 64, 67, 108, 122, 220, 234, 25, 84, 88 see FS
237, 323, 462, 496 see sacrifice self saintly existence, 251, 253, 256, 272,
learning by, 410 296 see DQ
operant conditioning, 239, 255, Sanford, Nevitt, 34, 35, 122, 123, 465
266, 281, 304 scarcity, 22, 506
punishment and , 240, Schacter, Stan and Latane, Bibb, 410,
see punishment 412
punishment or, 263 Scharf, P. and Hickey, J., 414
revolutions, 499 Schein, Edgar, 451, 446
see consciousness, revolutions schema , 165, 169, 254, 255, 256, 447,
Reynolds, John Hamilton, 138 486 see thema
Rhodesia, 13 schematic
Riesman, David, 256, 345, 346, 446 basis for model building, 149
right-wrong position (of DQ), 255 forms and values, 219, 255, 257,
rigid, 430, 465 see dogmatism 315, 478, 488
leadership, 309 see leadership Schopenhauer, Arthur, 316-317
rigidity, 122, 189, 258, 377, 424, 426 Schroder, Harold, Driver, Michael and
FS rigid opposition to, 347 Streufert, Sigfeid, 432-439, 460
scale, Gough-Sanford, 465 Schroder, Harold, 6
wave-like variation, 123 scientific, 489
ritual, 217, 222, 339 explanatory system, 140
see thinking, ritualistic management, 290
Robber Baron see America method, 309
Roe, Ann, 147 mode of existence, 310
Rogers, Carl, 14, 27, 145, 146 thought, 149, 154, 283 see thinking
therapy, 490 Scott, W.A., 122, 125
Rokeach, Milton, 122, 123, 135, 465
 Index 565

second spiral of existence see spiral factors, 438

Segundo, J.P., 408 Skinner, B.F., 17, 31, 49, 52, 145, 146,
Seiler, John, 157 235, 237, 238, 462
self-actualization, 42, 148, 399, 480 principles, 18, 235, 240, 491
beyond, 147 see conceptions and positive reinforcement, 239
express self and sacrifice self psychology, 491
deficiency in the term, 42 Skinnerians, 410 see conceptualizers
style and degree of, 41 social, 222, 346, 355
self-actualizing man, 25, 49, 148, 399, approval, 339, 345, 347, 360, 382
452 see Maslow, Abraham change in a developing society, 491
change of conceptions by, 148 Goals for Americans, 492-493
concept of, 49 homogeneous or heterogeneous,
self, 110, 285, 344, 347, 476, 502 491
aggressive in CP, DQ, ER, 341, 378 institutions, 176
as all-powerful, 311 learning, 16, 37, 350
attack, 95-96 marketplace, 86
attitude toward, 41, 42 participation, 85
authority higher than, 67 planning, 3, 497
awareness, 148, 169, 182, 201, 217, social (continud)
226, 234 problems, 282
-centeredness, 227, 233, 252, 310 program, 243
concept of, 205 questions to ask, 493
control of, 430, 480 reorganization, 503
emergent, 393 stability, 217
-esteem, 147, 462 system, 141
free, 261, 269, 314, 319 sociocentric, 283, 337-363, 338, 339,
idea of, 184, 311 342, 344, 345, 349, 369 see FS
-interest, 22, 282, 314, 317, 339, sociocratic ethic, 326, 354
340, 345, 347, 360, 391, 462 Solomon, Richard L. and Howes,
physiological and external, 252 D.H., 464
power of, 141, 231, 232, 308, 321, Solomon, Richard L. and Brush,
protective, 444, 461, 462 Elinor S., 410
reflective, 87 solutions see change, conditions,
respect of, 366, 388 resolution and existential problems
-righteous, 68, 210 Sorokin, Pitirim, 414
search for, 52, 141 South Africa, 13, 273
selfism (CP), 226 Spearman, Charles E., 154, 155, 476
Selman, Robert, 443, 452, 457 Spence, Kenneth, 145, 146
Seltzer, Louis B., 498 spiral
Selye, Hans, 415 existence of, 191, 391, 506, 509
Shaie, K. Warner, 34, 37 A’N’ as beginning a second
shame see emotions spiral, 191, 366
Shakespeare, William, 138 first and second, 174
Sheldon, William and Stevens, S.S., first, 167, 170, 509
123 second, 173, 174, 178, 184,
significance of the E-C conception, 189, 366, 452, 453, 509
488 systems, 450
Silent Majority, 286, 293 spirits, 216, 217, 218, 221, 223, 255
six themes, 161, 396, 502, 509 spiritual, 92, 110, 335, 339, 476, 479,
see AN, BO, CP, etc. and conceptions 493, 501 see religious and DQ and FS
situational, 319, 367, 368 see relativism and sacrifice self now
566 Index

spiritual (continued) subjectivity, 201, 334

attitude, 339 Suedfeld, Peter, 431
thinking, 110 Sullivan, Harry Stack, 462
values, 21 Sullivan, C., Grant, M.Q., and Grant,
void, 335 J.D., 443, 452, 454, 455, 456
Stalin, Joseph, 257 Sutherland, John, 36
Stambaugh, John, 52, 53 symphony (of human history), 130,
status, 41 389, 502, 508 see six themes
Status Seeker, 316, 338 Systemic, 440
steady state, 29, 178, 180, 185, 222, development, 188
414, 454, 485 existential state, 365, 378, 384, 392
Stein, Morris, 14, 442, 447, 448 forms of behavior, 163
step-like manner of psychological organization of neurological
development, 489-490 structures, 37
stimulation, 320, 409, 429 stability, 300
aversive, 266 thinking, 191, 367, 378
influx of, 253 systems see behavior and conceptions
intensity and frequency of, 408 and psychosocial and personality and
repeated, 408 sacrificial / expressive and X Y Z
type of, 410 activating, 162, 172, 180, 185, 412
stress see X
closed DQ, 269 belief, 131, 465, 507
interpersonal, 278 belonging, 148
reaction to, 95, 112, 114, 137, 180, biopsychosocial, 478, 506
202, 278, 295, 458 change, pace of of, 176
righteous system, 289, 297, 301 closed, 29, 30, 149, 465, 486, 509
studies (in Graves’s research), 122-131 cognitive, 36
authoritarianism, 122, 124, 186, complex variation in, 423
424, 427 conceptual, 36, 78, 126, 133, 145,
dogmatism-rigidity, 122, 123, 147, 160, 406, 418, 423, 439, 492
186, 424, 426, 465 conceptualizing mature, 147
freedom to behave, 114, 115, 186 coping, 161, 165, 174, 185, 367,
intelligence and temperament, 122, 397, 410
123, 124, 128, 186, 371, 424, 426, cultural, 131, 155, 476
428, 437 differences and similarities, 128
preference (Edwards), 122, 124 double-goal, 485
psychometric, 100, 121, 122, 125 E-C as supraordinal, 485
relevancy of approach, 120, 429 elaborating, 162, 165 see Z
supplemental ethical, 489 see ethics
interaction, 119 feedback, 485
problem solving, 115 hierarchical, 36, 114, 127, 149, 151,
quality and quantity of solutions, 149, 186, 188, 418, 447, 453, 481,
121 489
values à la Scott, 122, 125 ideological, 140
subordination of older systems, 29, incentive, 324
464 integrating the whole, 483
Subsistence Level Systems, 163, 184, N,O,P,Q,R,S plus X,Y,Z, 174
191, 216 see Being Level systems and number, 128
spiral of existence, first order of appearance, 128
sub-types see nodal and entering and perceptual, 131
exiting potentially open, 30
 Index 567

systems (continued) status of, 265, 273

rationalizing data for, 148 tenured, 302
saltatory development of, 160 technology, 255, 360
specific and general, 112 behavior, 19
study of change in four, 98 temperament, 121, 124, 129, 162, 186,
structural differences, 432 508 see studies
sub-systems, 409 tendency, 86, 468
alternating, 188 alter existing structure, 149
beyond B'O', 190 binding – loose or tight, 188, 429
even-numbered, 188, 429, 430, CP, 232, 241
431, 493, 508 conforming in FS, 338, 455
externally oriented, 188, 435 defensiveness when criticized, 136
tightly bound, 188 dominant/submissive, 226
odd-numbered, 188, 429 ER, 314
internally oriented, 188, 435 growth and conservation, 483
loosely bound, 188 maintain existing structure, 149
six, 161, 163, 185, 189, 368 never-ending (beyond pleasure
supporting, 162 principle), 504
variations of form, 161 non-conforming in CP and ER, 456
subsistence and being levels, 162, thinking in alternative ways, 314
174, 509 toward ER in exiting DQ, 279, 282
surges, calms, rigidifies, 60 toward organizing and stabilizing,
value, 78, 213, 257, 280, 358, 362, 149
402 tentativeness, 86
valuing others, 147 territory, 78, 201
mapping experience, 318
pschologically locked into, 496
T thema, 165, 169, 183, 186, 219, 254,
tachistoscope study, 463, 465 255, 257, 309, 310, 335, 339, 366, 397,
dogmatism/rigidity, 464 447, 463, 481, 482, 486 see schema
words tested, 465 thema and schema, 254, 447, 486
Tasaday, 28, 127, 169, 203, 391, 448, thematic and schematic, 257
453, 497 thematic
Taylor, Frederick, 290-291 aspect of E-C theory, 459
teach, 18, 39, 236, 239, 267, 492 cyclic aspect of E-C, 459
dictates of independence, 278 form of valuing, 256, 257
indirectly, 327 physiological funcitoning, 488
what children are not, 391 styles of being, 478
teacher, 13, 20, 235, 241, 265, 273, 275, theme for existence, 72, 508
328, 351 see AN, BO, etc., learning Thematic Aperception Test, 458
and education Theobald, Robert, 212
accentuates positive for CP, 235 theory see emergent cyclical
avoids competition for DQ, 274 adult behavior, 3 see behavior
authority as, 267 formulation of, 369
expertise, 329 seeking complements, 31
handles feelings, 275 Theory X, 244
impetus to change, 274 Theory Y, 270, 490
importance of, 265 therapy, 25, 301, 463
logical reasoning as, 309 see psychotherapy
pose problems, 376 behavioristic, 490
congruent, 30
568 Index

therapy (continued) 7th level/A’N’, 367, 368, 369,

opens way but does not produce 392, 396
growth, 463 8th level, 396, 397
Rogerian, 490 9th level, 400
psychoanalytic, 490 learning systems, 350
thinking, 30 Maoist, 388
see conceptions and mature might-makes-right, 227
about man’s problems, 2 mixed sub-types, 57
atomistic additive, 76, 280 organicists, 149
Black Muslim phenomenological, 7
centralization, 57 psychological, new, 142
cerebral, 187 quantitative, 110
cognitive, 351 raw, 64
conceptual, 366 rational objective, 84, 110
Darwinian evolutionary, 37 research on, 410
educational, 497 right-thinking, 74, 278, 295
“Establishment” way to be scientific, 146, 149
overcome, 418 stereotypical, 217
existential, 6 systems-like, 417
for the group, 116 subsystems (six levels of), 409
General Systems, 6, 149, 152, 159, time of appearance, 344
485 way of, 352, 409, 440
“Greening of America” thinking, Third Force see conceptions of adult
493 personality
idinal raw, 58 Thoreau, Henry David, 138, 139
independent, 75 Thorndike, Edward, 462
industrial, 221 Thorpe, W.H., 408
levels thyroxin, 412
absolutistic, 147, 254, 316, 411 Tillich, Paul, 140
DQ, 448 time, 180 see psychological time
moralistic-prescriptive, 310 factor in conception change, 52
animistic, 411 psychological, not chronological,
BO, 181 160
tribalistic, 396 leading edge of mankind moved,
autistic, 147, 411 181
differentialistic, 412 scale of individual emergence
egocentric, 233, 411 reversed from that of species’, 178
multiplistic, 76, 280, 316, 321, Toffler, Alvin, 361
411 Tolman, Edward Chance, 145
ER, 359 tradition, 127, 215, 218, 219, 222, 383
hypothetico-deductive, 309 ways, 221
relativistic, 86, 147, 331, 348, 411 Traditional Directed Man, 441, 447
FS, 184 see Reisman
FS delusion of full transition(s), 86, 87, 188, 429, 454, 461,
development, 492 468
sociocentric (6th level), 345, 347 see conceptions and AN, BO, CP, etc.
subjective, non-linear, 339 sub-types, 56
ritualistic, 217-218, 222, 339 systems, 191, 195
see BO trust, 22, 314
systemic, 411 Tsanoff, Radoslav, 53
Turnbull, Colin M., 204
 Index 569

typology: E-C not a typological theory, managed and manager’s, 269, 323-
173 324
mature, 29
means, 255, 381
U never-ending quest for new, 504
Uganda, 13, 414 phenomenistic, 219
Ullman, L.P., 17 pluralism, 370
ultimate psychological or cultural state, reactive, 213
155 return to religiousness, 339
unethical behavior, 489 see immoral sacrificial, 256, 257, 272, 308, 318
Union Carbide, 387 Scott’s, 122, 125
United States Steel, 387 secular, 310
Utopian, 17, 49, 154, 172, 449, 474 traditionalistic, 218
valuing others, 147
verbal interaction, capacity for, 273
V verifiability, 405, 406
Value Analysis, 321, 356 tests of, 439
value system, 253, 271, 275, 318, 338, verticality, 488
360, 368 see behavior and express self Viet Nam, 378, 491
and sacrifice self violence, 3, 59, 213, 229, 291, 292, 359
A’N’ (7th level), 366, 367, 380, 393 non-violence, 357
BO (2nd level), 214 vitalism, 153, 154, 159
B’O’ (8th level), 401 von Bertalanffy, Ludwig, 14, 417, 432,
CP, 234, 245, 249 485
DQ (4th level), 246, 252, 257 von Goethe, Johann Wolfgang, 476
moral breakdown, 490 von Neuman, John, 483
sacrificial, 255 von Neuman, John and Morgenstern,
value systems, 78, 280, 310, 362, 489 Oskar, 483
higher level, 213
incongruent, 358 W
transitional state, 402
values, 2, 6, 19, 29, 30, 31, 238, 410, Wallace, Alfred Russel, 37, 174
490, 501, 503 see AN, BO, CP, etc. Walters, R.H., 17
and change war, 13, 234, 291, 315
absolutistic sacrificial, 256 for organizational power, 324
as value systems, 213 reasons for, 341
bodily-based, 21 stress of, 202
breakdown, 29, 223-224, 305, 345, World War I German soldier, 204
360, 368, 401 Watson, John, 17
casting aside old, 20, 308 wave-like, 113, 176, 177, 178, 186, 188,
change, 31, 339-340, 345, 354, 368, 428, 435, 447, 450, 506, 508
370, 401 see emergent-cyclical conception and
commonality over differential psychosocial development, complex
classification, 339 variation, 129
dissimilar but congruent for ways of being, 128
viability, 323 welfare, 205, 211, 242, 494, 495
from one's own experience, 78 facilitating movement through
future, 363, 369, 391 existential states, 495
‘generation gap,’ 359 housing, 496
individualistic, 503 human welfare as a goal, 491
570 Index

Werner, Heinz, 6
West Virginia, 219
West, G.B., 412, 415
what versus how a person thinks, 135
White, Leslie, 14
Whyte, Lancelot, 417
Whyte, William H., 345
will to power, 311, 317, 318 see Adler
and Nietzsche
win, 228, 298, 319
-lose, 184, 294, 301
circumvent rules to, 315
winning not everything, 503
Witkin, H.A., 27
Wolfe, R., 412, 415

X
X - activating system, 162, 165, 167,
172, 174, 180, 185, 397, 407, 412
see Coping Systems

Y
Y - supporting system, 162, 165, 167,
174, 366, 367, 397, 407, 412
see Coping Systems
Y system and A'N', 367

Z
Z - elaborating system, 162, 165, 167,
173, 174, 406, 397, 410
see Coping System