How it should be done;
Dangers and harms to be avoided
By Roberto Assagioli, Course of Lectures on Psychosynthesis, Lecture XII 1933 (Unrevised notes). The Practice Of Psychosynthesis. Original Title: La Pratica Della Psicosintesi: L’esplorazione dell’inconscio, come va fatta. Pericoli e danni da evitare.Translated with Notes by Jan Kuniholm. From the Assagioli Archive in Florence.
In beginning to carry out the practical part of our Course, we indicated the various methods by which the unconscious can be explored so that its elements, the psychic forces it contains, can enter the circle of our knowledge. But those who undertake this work of exploration are often stopped from the outset by a strange reluctance and resistance, which can variously manifest itself to consciousness with a sense of uneasiness, bewilderment, and sometimes even anguish.
It is an impression similar to that felt by a child who is alone in the dark in an unknown room filled with unfamiliar objects, or in a forest full of shadows, whispers and noises. And indeed modern man — so strong and bold, so confident in the outside world — is generally similar to an unsuspecting and bewildered child when he is forced to turn within himself, to face the dark and tumultuous abyss of the inner world. In this reluctance to do so there is certainly moral laziness and cowardice; that is, a shying away from a task that presents itself as arduous and strenuous; but there is also a legitimate sense of self-protection, the intuition that one lacks the necessary preparation.
It is appropriate, therefore — before embarking on that work — to clearly realize the drawbacks and dangers involved in it, and to make adequate preparation that will enable one to avoid them and to reap all the good fruits one can receive from that adventure.
To do this, let us recall briefly how our conscious personality is formed. It has a slow and gradual development, a gradual differentiation from the formless psychic mass of the collective unconscious with the formation of self-consciousness: the juxtaposition of the “I” with the “not-I;” egoism and self-assertion are appropriate as a stage of development. I- consciousness is not only egoistic, but also social. Social coexistence has brought limitations and corrections: a social sense, the restraint of instincts and impulses by means of prohibitions (taboos in primitive societies) and condemnation by society: parents, leaders and judges; public opinion, religion.
To these social brakes, these external inhibitions, were added — increasingly — a series of inner restraints, of freely accepted inner principles. Moral standards gradually became internalized; they became part of consciousness. Thus, little by little the personality formed, defended itself more or less satisfactorily against unconscious forces with barriers, dams, and protective inhibitions; it built a more or less thick and impermeable barrier between itself and its unconscious.
Now, opening the doors, breaking down those dams and barriers without proper and necessary precautions is dangerous in several ways. The first danger consists in being overwhelmed by passions and instincts, by the eruption of lower forces that one does not know how to “keep in hand,” with a resulting lowering of moral tone; also rash and impulsive actions with all their related reactions and feelings. In my opinion, this is a danger of which psychoanalytic has not taken sufficient account; in fact, it tries to remove barriers without reckoning the dangers it faces.
A second serious drawback is “dispersion.” This is the danger of getting lost in the chaos, in the multiplicity of the collective unconscious; of regression to atavistic, barbaric states — getting lost in the mare magnum [great sea].
The third danger is that of “hype,” of exaltation — forces that give a sense of grandeur, of power of the personal self, that tend to “swell” it without its mastering, possessing, or truly assimilating them. This is a hype, a psychic inflation, to use the witty term of Jung, who described these facts at length in his book, Die Beziehungen des Ichs zum Umbewussten (The Relations of the Ego to the Unconscious). [1] Especially interesting in this regard is the first part, entitled, “Die Wirkungen des Umbewussten auf das Bewussten” (“The Effects of the Unconscious on Consciousness”).
These drawbacks are clearly seen:
- In mental illness:
a. The manic form. There is uncontrolled exuberance and disconnected ideas, without any control, without any critical judgment.
b. Melancholia. Flooding of depressive elements, distressed, distraught periods; emergence of sub-personalities.
c. Schizophrenia and various delusional forms. These are extreme but indicative cases.
2. In mediums, extremely sensitive psychics: They have supernormal faculties but they have not owned or mastered them. Hence there are sufferings, imbalances and the danger of neuro-psychic diseases. Great precaution is therefore needed. Their experiments should always be done in in the presence of those who can understand, help and cure them; those who can, in short, direct and protect them.
3. In artists: They have a very fine sensitivity and are easily subject to the eruption of unconscious elements, even in their higher aspects. Often these eruptions have human value, but they can also be a source of great suffering and anguish in the difficulties some artists have in adapting to the demands of practical, external life. They are often weak-willed and easy prey to imaginings and emotions.
4. In mystics: It is difficult to speak about them, because there are various types and degrees of mystics. Their difficulty is to sustain even the higher spiritual forces that burst into consciousness from the superconscious. Such an eruption of higher forces is at odds with the lower forces, and this sets up a great struggle, a strenuous and intense ordeal (I spoke about this in my lecture, “Spiritual Development and Nervous Diseases”).
But here a question may naturally arise, “If there are all these inconveniences and dangers, then should we give up exploring the unconscious?” The answer is, “No.”
* * *
The Necessity and Value of Acknowledging and Exploring the Unconscious
Drawbacks of the present state of separation and contrast between conscious personality and unconscious psychic forces
When the personality is rigid, like the inside of a Chinese wall, there is a state of limitation, withering and thus dissatisfaction, and real nervous and psychic illnesses.[2] There is thus a state of tension between conscious and unconscious personality: covert and violent struggle, lack of security, eruption of lower impulses and instincts — [the person is] compromised and unbalanced, exhausted and unstable.
In recent years an attitude of condemnation, absolute exclusion, denial and hardening had been taken to excess, especially in the religious field; hence the modern reaction represented by the exaltation of the irrational, of full life, unrestrained self-assertion, the free course of desires and instincts.
This tendency toward freedom was expressed in Germany by Nietzsche,[3] and in Italy by D’Annunzio.[4] In the social field it is represented by the rebellion of modern youth (in general, but especially in America) against all restraint, and in the psychological field by psychoanalysis.
The exploration and mastery of the unconscious can be implemented in a healthy, safe, harmonious and satisfying way, provided that proper preparation is made and appropriate standards are followed. Advances in psychological methods provide the necessary tools.
Analogy: In the past, there were adventurous voyages of isolated explorers to completely unknown lands, without preparation, without scientific instruments, with insufficient weapons and without means. But these daredevils often paid for their daring with their lives, or returned having been able to achieve only a small part of their purpose.
Now, on the other hand, the expeditions are scientific, well organized and equipped with suitable instruments and means: maps, telescopes, radiotelegraphy, airplanes, medicines, money, etc. Thus much greater scientific and practical results can be achieved with much less risk. The same can be said of the exploration of the “Continent of the Unconscious.”
We are no longer in the time of imperfect maps. There are now certain exact maps of the unconscious, and we can therefore arrive at scientific knowledge of it. We can study the results of others’ explorations in order to be able to boldly and consciously undertake our own. It is no longer hic sunt leones.[5] There have been valuable harvests, even at the cost of mistakes.
- Nature and Laws of the Unconscious. Knowledge of Individual Cases and Types.
First of all, our difficulties are also everyone else’s; we can more or less free ourselves from the mistaken impression that we are a unique, abnormal and extraordinary case. In all cases, in all types there are lower elements: we all have the same fundamental problems, the same travails, the same vicissitudes, the same way to go, the same goals to reach. Implementing such liberation, feeling this solidarity — this brotherhood — is good and it does good: it quiets and reassures us, and avoids the dangers and depressions that come from considering oneself sick or abnormal; it takes away that excessive preoccupation with one’s own person and gives us a right sense of proportion.
This is the first method of preparation; the second then is even more important.
2. Strengthening the Center. Development of Spiritual Self-Consciousness, of the Will that Masters and Organizes.
In order to broaden the field of consciousness, extend the periphery, assimilate and master other contents, it is necessary for the Power at the Center to be firm and strong.
Here we break away in practice from Freud’s psychoanalysis, which is not concerned about this. If our “I” does not yet have the power to master the small center, it will not be able to assume higher mastery. It is therefore necessary to simultaneously carry out the exploration of the unconscious and the strengthening of the Unifying Center, by the methods we shall see.
How is it done?
The primary method, the fundamental and necessary basis for the use of all others is:
Detachment, objectification, non-identification. And the follow-up of this one is: Do not allow yourself to be absorbed by the unconscious psychic elements.
First it is necessary to learn how to do it with the conscious [elements], because if we do not know how to do it with these, so much less will we know how to do it with the others. It is necessary to properly understand the meaning of detachment: it is neither repression nor condemnation nor inert passivity; neither renunciation nor insensitivity. It is a state of full vigilance, awareness and supremacy, which, it should be noted, has the double advantage of providing mastery over both the inner and outer worlds. Detachment should be considered primarily toward the outer senses.
But the distinction between outer world and inner world is relative. The outer world cannot “touch” us unless it becomes inner, unless it becomes a “fact,” a state of consciousness. The struggle is provoked from outside, but the battlefield is within us. This “detachment” is very important and is taught by all the Masters of spiritual life, especially in the East (Yoga — Vedanta — Buddha). In these they always talk about the discrimination between the self (“I”) and the non-self (“not-I”); between the personal self and the Spiritual Self.
In the West almost all Christian doctrine is based on detachment. The Stoics (Seneca, Epictetus, etc.) also talked about it. One great mystic and thinker wrote, “detachment is best, for it purifies the soul, purges the conscience, kindles the heart, awakens the spirit, quickens the desire, makes us know God; it distances us from every created thing and reunited the soul us with God.”[6] “True detachment requires that the Spirit remains still in all events, whether of joy or sorrow, honor, shame, or disgrace, as a rocky mountain stands unmoved by raging winds.” [7] “A Master says, ‘that the Spirit of him who stands detached is of such power that what he intuits is true, what he desires he obtains, and in what he commands he is obeyed.’”[8]
This may give some people the impression of something so high, and make the attempt and hope of attaining it seem futile. I will therefore bring some modern testimony that is particularly significant and very close to us.
There is much talk in Keyserling’s books[9] about detachment, but I prefer to quote a very modern writer, the Italian Filippo Barzio, who proposes a new type of modern man (demiurge), whose character would indeed ben universality, detachment and magic, in the sense of having power over oneself, over men and over the world.[10] I read from the chapter on Detachment in The Demiurge and the Western Crisis, pp. 55, 56, 57. [11]
Our civilization, when it was Christian, had saints, and their motto was “renunciation”; then, having become pagan again, it invented the superman; its motto is “possession” and enjoyment. This is still today’s motto; however, it does not protect our contemporaries from the malaise we have described. With rapid comings and goings of people, civilizations with secular rhythms swing between these extremes of earthly things which are craved, yet unsatisfactory. Is it possible to stop the pendulum in a suitable position? His idea is that the wandering in the turmoil of contradictions of the psyche that is now greedy, now satiated, now deluded, now disappointed, is to be mastered. To do so it is necessary to put oneself beyond feelings; the ascetic and the superman are the passionate terms of an antithesis awaiting its synthesis.
There is another way of mastering the flood of feelings, and that is to master them from within rather than from without; to transform them rather than mutilate them; and this method consists precisely in detachment. Detachment is an altogether intimate position whereby the spirit no longer identifies with the various movements and states of the psyche; not even experiencing their full influence: it remains outside of them. Every spiritual act, even simple thinking, implies a virtual asceticism, a concentration and isolation which are also a restriction and a sacrifice; and would have no raison d’être for the Demiurge if it were not the prerequisite for a higher life from which worldly things remain excluded.
Between the opposite perils there is no choice: either to sink into the ascetic void or to plunge into full modern chaos: inaction or indigestion. Between these two, detachment represents balance. Detachment is the diving suit with which the diver’s spirit descends without harm into the sea of the world. In fact, it alone permits great abundance of experience and achievement by saving us from the rush of passions and preventing us from being distracted by trivialities, such being the two dangers of real life. It treats the trivial life from “above,” preserving “distances.”
Above all, it is necessary to fathom the sea of the inner world, for which detachment is necessary; without it we cannot descend to explore and know it. Think of the example of Einstein’s three dimensions, popularized with his theory of relativity. For the flat two-dimensional being, the psychic circle is everything; he is immersed in it and wanders around it. Detachment is the acquisition of a third dimension, the spiritual dimension. But the other two remain, let this be clear. Demiurgical detachment, unlike asceticism, is not an antithesis, but a true synthesis of elemental spiritual positions. The more does not exclude the less, as the prevalent mathematical mindset believes. As one frames feelings, so one can remain still while experiencing them. Musicians and poets generally hold fast to feeling, and this is their weakness. Much of their work is outpouring of the psyche; that is, they express a primitive spiritual state. On the other hand, nowadays more than one person feels that pleasure and pain, love and hate are embryonic reactions regarding the cosmos. Can you imagine a God who gets lost and submerged in the world He Himself created and loves? Well then, be the gods of your world. Detachment marks the transition from the mentality of creature to the mentality of creator.
. . . If obstacles to action are expected, what is the point of suffering from them? They are simply taken into account. The game of acting [in life] should be played in the intimate and impassive atmosphere of complete calm, like a game of chess; and in this it really helps to be detached from one’s goals, to become accustomed not to depend on them, not to commit the soul to any single card. If universality is having many strings stretched to one’s bow, detachment is knowing how to do without each one . . . Do what you must, do what you can.
One need not hope to undertake, nor win in order to persevere. Note that detachment should also be practiced with regard to “good” things. In principle nothing should overwhelm the self (“I”). The Spiritual Center should be above everything. This is the principle of inner freedom, free will, which is spiritual essence.
Is this detachment easy? Nothing worthwhile is easy. It is a gradual mastery, going from a minimum that can be implemented by everyone, to a maximum that is liberation. In detachment, desires are transformed. The vital force is not destroyed, but must be “taken over,” used and mastered. Use all life forces, owning and channeling them. What is needed is an inner splitting, so as to maintain a firm vigilance. A life lived in calm and gladness under the dominion of the Spirit.
[1] This was published in 1928, with a second edition in 1935, and as Two Essays on Analytical Psychology is included in Volume Seven of The Collected Works of C.G. Jung.—Tr.
[2] The expression “Chinese wall” became common to indicate “an insurmountable barrier,” like the Great Wall of China which was erected to keep out enemies. —Tr.
[3] Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) was a German philosopher, poet, philologist, and social critic.—Tr.
[4] Gabriele D’Annunzio (1863-1938) was an Italian poet, playwright, orator, journalist, and Italian Army officer. —Tr.
[5] In Roman times cartographers would use the inscription hic sunt leones (“Here Be Lions”) to mark off unexplored, presumably dangerous territories. In some medieval European maps the phrase used was “Here Be Dragons.” —Tr.
[6] see Eckhart, The Complete Mystical Works of Meister Eckhart, Translated and Edited by Maurice O’C. Walshe, Crossroad Publishing Co. 2009, 574. Note: The three quotations from Meister Eckhart are a mixture of my translations of Assagioli’s versions and this recent published English version. —Tr.
[7] Eckhart, Ibid. 569. See Note 6 above. —Tr.
[8] Eckhart, quoting Avicenna, ibid., 568. (Assagioli’s citation for these three quotations is “Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, pp. 20-30-13”). See Note 6 above. —Tr.
[9] German-Baltic philosopher Hermann Keyserling (1880-1946) whom Assagioli quoted frequently. —Tr.
[10] Filippo Burzo (1891-1948), Italian engineer, scientist, philosopher and writer. Many of his writings concerned what he called “the demiurge”, a selective and balancing force, a moderating element of society and of the contrasts between opposing European civilizations (from Enciclopedia Italiana). Note that Burzo’s use of the term “demiurge” is a departure from other historic and philosophical usages from Plato down to medieval times—Tr.
[11] Il demiurgo e la crisi occidentale, Milan, Bompiano, 1933. No English edition is available. —Tr.
Leave a Reply