Peak experience as described by Abraham Maslow is “an altered state of consciousness characterized by euphoria, often achieved by self-actualizing individuals.” It is considered the self-actualization of the fullest potential of a human being. It is often the single greatest moment in a person’s life, and has the potential to permanently change their outlook and perspective. It is altogether wonderful, ecstatic, spiritual, deeply moving, and according to Maslow’s clinical work, has changed the mindset of multiple suicidal people to reconsider their life and choose to live, rather than kill themselves. 

This sounds thoroughly amazing, and something that nearly everyone would support, endorse, and wish to experience for themselves, right? 

But there’s a similar experience, called mania, that contains many aspects of a peak experience, yet is considered a form of mental illness, and is treated rapidly with hospitalization and drugs. What’s the difference? Is it subjective? Objective? Is it so gray that the difference can only be discerned by the ultimate impact of one’s actions, or whether there is more harm or joy being produced? Let’s delve a bit deeper. 

Mania is described in A History of Psychiatry as “a state of abnormally elevated arousal, affect, and energy level,” or "a state of heightened overall activation with enhanced affective expression together with lability of affect.” Many people experiencing mania experience euphoria, ecstasy, increased cognitive abilities, increased energy, and increased feelings of love. It seems then, that a manic experience without the negative side effects such as irritability, hypersexuality, or spending money wastefully, is quite similar to a peak experience. If a peak experience has negative components it may be labeled mania, whereas if it contains only positive components it could be labeled a peak experience; it seems that the same experience is occuring, just in the midst of a different environmental setting. In other words, if the person’s life is going well, the environment around them is pleasant and positive, their health and relationships are in a good place, and they trigger a peak experience, it will be largely devoid of negative outcomes, and is unlikely to be labeled mania. On the other hand, if the environment is less than ideal, the person’s health is compromised, their relationships are full of conflict, and they trigger a peak experience, it will likely contain negative outcomes, and be labeled mania. 

The other aspect of whether one has a manic or peak experience is the degree of addictive elements in the person. If the person is easily addicted to substances such as alcohol and nicotine, then they are more likely to ramp up the stimulation during these periods of intense euphoria and arousal. If the stimulation is increased, it will likely lead to a deterioration of the person’s health, and result in a diagnosis of mania. If the person, however, reduces the level of stimulation and arousal, inherently sensing that he is hyper-sensitive to stimuli at this time, he may avoid many of the negative side-effects, and have the experience labeled a peak experience. 

The final aspect that may determine whether a person has a peak experience or mania is the degree of openness to spirituality, oneness, or the great unknown. If the person remains rigid, inflexible, unyielding, and highly logical with regards to spirituality, the person may be unable to embrace the feeling of unity and oneness that is often felt during a peak experience. If the person remains stubborn, it may create tension and discomfort in the person, for their brain is trying to open up and embrace oneness, while their mind is trying to catalogue, categorize, quantify, and explain everything that is happening. This resistance to the experience can cause significant cognitive dissonance, and lead to feelings of irritability, frustration, and aggression. 

There is only a subtle difference between a peak experience or mania, between psychosis and revelation, between delusion and vision. All of these labels are really just opposite sides of the same coin. They are coexisting simultaneously, but are used with an either-or-dichotomy. It’s actually the person’s underlying mental state, his environment, his physical health, and his overall philosophy of spirituality that will dictate which direction he will take during these intensely emotional experiences. 

In other words, psychedelics, which open your mind, do not dictate either a positive or a negative experience. The experience they produce is largely dependent on both the environment, as well as the psychological framework in the patient’s mind before ingesting the drug. All mind-altering substances have the ability to bring us to a dark or wondrous place, be it alcohol, cocaine, or LSD. These mind-altering drugs cannot produce the exact same experience in each person every time, because everyone’s mind and environment differs. The nature and direction of the experience largely lies in the hands of the user. It is his responsibility to ensure that his psychological bed, and his environment, are primed and ready to receive this revelatory experience. Preparation for this experience is as important to the overall direction and outcome as the drug itself. But more importantly, the label that we apply to the experience is going to be determined by the exact course of the experience, and will be less influenced by the underlying “nature” of the person. I could take a sane person and, under the right circumstances, induce paranoia and psychosis - it doesn’t mean that this person is “inherently paranoid,” but rather that I induced it using mind-altering drugs and manipulating his environment. 

This is not to say that all people have the same likelihood of achieving a peak experience or mania. I acknowledge that many people have different psychological sensitivities, but sensitivity is only a prerequisite, and is somewhat modifiable anyway. Initially some people will have more intense experiences than others, without regards to the direction of these experiences. There are inherent genetic differences that make some people more prone to spiritual experiences than others. 

In summary, the people who are able to experience the most intense euphoria and enlightenment are probably also the same individuals who can experience some of the deepest and darkest depressions. There is an inherent instability in these people, but they can teach us so much about what humans, as a species, are capable of experiencing in a psychological way. Labeling someone as manic or enlightened is probably less useful than describing them as a person sensitive to peak experiences or deep depressions. Yes, the western world often labels these people bipolar, and gives them drugs to decrease their sensitivities and depth of experiences, but perhaps if we can help these individuals to modify their environments and minds in a way that catches negative experiences early and promotes positive experiences with structured environments, these people could live the highest potential that a human being can experience. I’m sure that Abraham Maslow would be pleased with that outcome,