The following is an extract from an article by Roberto Assagioli called Vertical Telepathy, translated from Italian by Gordon Symons. Original Italian title: TELEPATIA VERTICALE from the Assagioli Archive in Florence.
THE SUPER-EGO AND THE SPIRITUAL “I”
I have already mentioned the clear distinction between Freud’s super-ego and the spiritual higher “I”. The two things are very often confused, and the translation of a beautiful book by Brunton, (whose two books I recommend: “The Telepathic Relationship Between Consciousness and the Spiritual Self, and The Realization of the Spiritual Self”), has contributed to this confusion. The volume The Secret Path had great success in the original edition, and engendered a number of letters requesting clarifications, developments, etc. This prompted the author to write more extensively around the topic in The Search for the Super-Ego. The translator has improperly used an expression here that is now technically reserved for psychoanalysis. The exact translation instead would be “the higher “I””.
The Freudian super-ego is a caricature, a counterfeit of the spiritual “I”.
In fact, according to Freud, this (hypothetical) super-ego would be an artificial construction that would be formed from the set of prohibitions, impositions and norms given, first by the parents and teachers to the growing child, and then gradually through knowledge of the social-ethical rules of the community, and of the various social taboos. At the beginning of this artificial formation, there would be a ban on the child freely relieving himself, then being told not to make noise, not to break things, etc., in short, all those restrictive rules imposed by parents, teachers and society – and these would constitute this super-ego which then – according to a somewhat abstruse psychoanalytic terminology, would be introjected, that is, what were previously external norms, would be accepted as their own by the person, thus creating a dualism between his tastes, his aspirations and impulses, and this moral censorship, which creates inhibitions, prohibitions and taboos, not obeying which creates a sense of guilt.
More simply, it can be said that this super-ego is demanding, rigid, inhuman and formalistic, and that the conscious “I”, being unable to fully satisfy it, transgresses these rules, and therefore a sense of often obsessive guilt, almost pathological, arises. This is the Freudian conception of the structure and origin of many neuroses. As you can see, we are far from the spiritual “I”, which is characterized by a sense of love and full understanding, and which is by no means a rigid censor. It can be energetic and severe, yes, but it does not have this kind of formalism and taboo which is actually its counterfeit, namely the super-ego. In comparison with the soul, the conscious “I” knows that it is inferior and imperfect, but this does not create a sense of guilt, an inferiority complex. […] The issues raised are very interesting, and, although off topic, they deserve clarification.
Here comes another quote from Assagioli where he differentiates between the superconscious or the transpersonal unconscious and the super-ego, it is from his article about Henri Baruk’s technique:
“There is one point that needs clarification; and that is that there are different levels of moral consciousness, and it is important to distinguish between them. On the one hand, there is the moral consciousness that Freud referred to by the name “super-ego,” which is largely derived from prohibitions and parental commands. This type of “conscience” is linked to intense emotional charges, such as fear of doing wrong and guilt for every transgression, and consequently is harmful. This type of morality, produced by introjected external influences, is rigid, strict and intransigent.”
“In contrast, the moral conscience that is an expression of the transpersonal is completely different: it is benevolent and understanding toward self as well as toward others, and its highest manifestation can be said to be expressed in the words of Christ, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Therefore, this type of moral conscience is not rigid, does not adhere to specific codes of conduct, but is inspired by essential and universal ethical values.” (End of quote)
« Back to Glossary Index