The New Dimensions of Psychology: The Third, Fourth and Fifth Forces, By Roberto Assagioli, M.D.

By Roberto Assagioli

First published in the AAP Online Journal Sep. 2016

If we observe the situation now existing in the field of psychology, we will notice that it is one in which a large measure of confusion and disagreement prevails. Trends emerge, schools and conceptions gain ground, which frequently develop independently, usually ignoring one another, if not engaging in open conflict. A proper understanding of this situation can be acquired through a survey of the historical development of the science of psychology from its inception in the last decades of the nineteenth century up to today.

In general it can be said that a more or less definite succession of conceptions, methods and schools have appeared. I say “more or less definite,” since in fact the various trends have to some extent followed parallel courses of development, at times partially superimposing themselves one upon another. At the present time all are current and active.

First of all, psychology began by detaching itself, as a science, from philosophy, of which it had heretofore formed a part, and thus asserted its independence. However, their eagerness to accomplish this caused the first psychologists to adopt the methodology and techniques of the natural sciences as they then existed, particularly those associated with physics and physiology, to the extent that psychology was first called psycho-physiology.

Its aim was the study of the elementary psychological phenomena, such as sensations, memory, and the learning process, and these provided the principal fields of research, which was conducted on experimental, quantitative and statistical lines. These researches gave rise to a mechanistic conception of psychic activity, which subsequently became formulated in the behaviorism elaborated by Watson and recently restated by Skinner. While this current has yielded a body of useful data for various practical applications, it is limited to the study of human beings and animals from without , regarding them as “objects” of observation and experiment. It can thus be called a “superficial”, i.e., two-dimensional psychology.

Almost at the same time the study of clinical psychology, or psychopathology, was commenced. Perforce concerned with human problems of an individual and real nature, and necessarily with the patient-doctor relationship, this advance led to a further and differentiated development of psychological knowledge.

The observation of procedures such as hypnosis and suggestion, and of manifestations such as psychic dissociation, led to the discovery and investigation of the extensive region of subconscious, or unconscious activities. In these studies, Charcot and Pierre Janet were pioneers, followed very soon by Freud. Thus were laid the foundations of the psychoanalytic movement, whose development has greatly extended and enriched our knowledge of the human psyche, a movement that can be said to have marked the inception of investigations directed along the third dimension of psychology, that of depth.

But since the field studied by its proponents was the pathological, and their approach predominantly materialistic and deterministic, they placed the accent on the lower and instinctive aspects of human nature and neglected the healthy and higher aspects. This neglect resulted in investigations being consistently directed “downward” and on this point we have a significant statement by Freud. In one of his letters to Binswanger he admitted: “I stay always on the ground floor of the building.”1  So we may say that this psychological conception is two-and-a-half-dimensional. Freud’s analogy is interesting for its implication that the “building,” which is man’s psychic structure, comprises floors above the foundation, basement and ground floor. Furthermore, in many residential buildings there are roof-terraces, from which one may contemplate the sky or enjoy the benefits of exposing oneself to the health-giving rays of the sun. (No explanation of the analogy is needed.)

This, then, has been the course taken by the development of depth psychology, which includes not only Freudian psychoanalysis, but also currents branching off from it, such as the Jungian. It is true that Jung did not limit himself to the study of the underworld of the psyche. Indeed he applied himself vigorously to the investigation of the higher aspects of the unconscious and asserted the existence and importance of spiritual experiences and values.

However, in his conception of the individual and collective unconscious, Jung does not clearly distinguish the different psycho-spiritual levels. In his theory of archetypes, for example, he considers them to be both of archaic, collective origin, and prototypes related to Platonic “ideas.” It therefore seems justified to apply the term “height psychology” (as others have already done) to the field of investigation constituted by the higher levels of the psyche, its upper “stories”; thus contributing to the formation of an integral psychology that is truly three-dimensional.

The investigation of these levels has proceeded parallel with, and independent of, the principal currents referred to above. Although the work of various investigators is conducted in different ways, it may be given the general name of “Humanistic Psychology,” since its point of departure and the aspect to which it ascribes maximum importance is the human being in his living reality, and since it makes use of the methods of introspection, biographical data and various techniques of inner action.

I do not propose on this occasion to examine the contributions made by many writers in this field as I have dealt fairly extensively with them in my study, “Dynamic Psychology and Psychosynthesis,” later incorporated as the second chapter of my book, Psychosynthesis: A Manual of Principles and Techniques (New York: Hobbs, Dorman, 1965; Paperback edition: The Viking Press, 1971). I will merely suggest that this ‘human” psychology has been and still is neglected and looked upon with distrust or even hostility by the academic “scientific” psychology entrenched in the universities. Proof of this is provided by the fact that in the broad classification of the different branches of psychology published in the Dictionary of Psychological and Psychoanalytical Terms, by Horace B. and Ava C. English (1958), humanistic psychology is not even mentioned!

This is an appropriate point, I think, at which to clarify what the “scientific method” truly consists of, in view of the confusion and misunderstanding about it that now prevails. It was applied first and especially in the field of the natural sciences, thus becoming identified with the special techniques evolved to serve them. These techniques are by their very nature quantitative, in that they involve measurements, statistics, mathematical relationships, etc., and are largely experimental; based, that is, on experiments conducted in the laboratory and repeatable at will, which eliminate (or are believed to be able to eliminate) every subjective factor introduced by the experimenter.

Thus, when psychology severed its links with philosophy and, establishing its independence from it, assumed autonomy as a science, its proponents believed it possible, indeed their duty, to appropriate the same techniques as those hitherto employed by the natural sciences, and only those. They thereby excluded from their field of investigation all that is qualitative and subjective and only admitted it to their province provided it could be associated with phenomena observed externally and translated into quantitative terms. But, in doing this, they eliminated what is specifically human, what is in fact the true concern of psychology. There is no justification whatever for this exclusion. It is undeniable that all subjectively lived psychological phenomena are facts, even if not susceptible to direct weighing and measuring procedures, and as such can be studied scientifically. The pragmatic principle must be accepted that everything has its reality which produces an effect that modifies a preexistent state.

Goethe had already anticipated this pragmatic conception in stating with conciseness and clarity:

“Wirklichkeit was wirkt” (That is real which produces an effect and is operative.) Well, an emotion, a feeling, a complex, an ideal, an intuition, these are real facts, since they modify reality. Ideals, good or bad as the case may be, have ever prompted individuals and communities to action. But who has measured or weighed an ideal?

Speaking generally it may be said that the scientific method essentially consists in sound reasoning. It means, after due observation and description of facts and experiences, to think correctly about their meaning, nature, effects, and possible utilization. The true scientific mind is one that functions accurately, avoids sophisms, rationalizations and other causes of error in the operation of the mental machine—such as the “personal equation” of the observer, rigid adherence to a particular school of thought, arbitrary generalizations—in short, all the “idols” mentioned by Bacon, of which he distinguished four classes: the Idola Tribus (of the tribe), the prejudices common to mankind (or to a culture, as we should now say); Idola Specus (of the cave), the prejudices of specialization; Idola Fori (of the marketplace), the prejudices that come from association with other people;2  and Idola Teatri, the prejudices due to a received philosophical or religious doctrine.3

Locke considers the problem from another angle and also finds four sources of error:

1. Lack of proofs;
2. Lack of the capacity to make use of proofs;
3. Lack of the will to use proofs;
4. Erroneous evaluation of the potentialities of proofs.

In its turn, Locke subdivides this fourth class into four categories:

1. Assumption of doubtful propositions as principles;
2. Accepted hypotheses;
3. Dominant passions;
4. Principle of authority.4

From a synthetic point of view, we may say that the method in a precise sense, must be distinguished from the techniques that can be used. In reality there is only one scientific method, while the techniques are many and diverse, and each must be chosen or created in accordance with the field or fields in which it is to be applied or with the intended purposes.

From a synthetic point of view, we may say that the method in a precise sense, must be distinguished from the techniques that can be used. In reality there is only one scientific method, while the techniques are many and diverse, and each must be chosen or created in accordance with the field or fields in which it is to be applied or with the intended purposes.

The difference between the purely objective, quantitative conception and that which takes into account subjective psychological data can be illustrated by a simple example. Let us imagine that we have before us a glass half-full of water. From the objective point of view it is a matter of indifference whether we say it is half-full or half-empty.

From the psychological standpoint, on the other hand, the two expressions, half-full and half-empty, have very different meanings. They are indications of two opposite reactions which have important consequences. A person who says, “the glass is half-empty,” reveals a sense of grievance, a pessimistic and critical attitude. He starts with the presupposition that the glass ought to be quite full and is complaining that it is half-empty. One who instead says, “this glass is half-full,” shows a sense of appreciation, of gratitude for the water which he can drink.

The former manner of reacting if habitual and accentuated, is conducive to neuro-psychic disturbances, to conflicts with other people, to unhappiness. The latter, on the contrary, leads to satisfaction and a feeling of gratitude towards others which evokes their goodwill. Thus, while from the quantitative angle there is no difference, the effects are quite opposite viewed from the psychological standpoint. Now, these opposite effects are scientific facts, just as real as the fifty percent of liquid in the glass. So the quantitative datum has no significance in itself other than demonstrating the existence of the phenomenon. But its modalities, its relationships with the observer, and its consequences are objects of scientific study, not in opposition, but complementary to the objective observation.

The same fact is humorously expressed in the reply to the question, “What is the difference between a paranoiac and a neurotic?” Answer: “The paranoiac believes that two and two make seven and is quite happy about it; the neurotic knows that two and two make four but he does not like it.” This means that, while the neurotic mentally recognizes the objective fact, his emotional reaction is negative. There is, furthermore, another aspect of the scientific attitude which some prominent scientists have spontaneously or deliberately utilized. It is the recognition and use in scientific research of certain psychological functions, such as imagination, intuition, and creativity. Many scientists have testified to this, among those having done so in precise terms was the mathematician, Henri Poincaré.

Let us now take a further look at humanistic psychology, which is also known as the Third Force. It differs from other psychologies in its principal characteristic purposes, which are: to study the nature and qualities of the healthy human being, with particular reference to his higher aspects, to discover his latent potentialities, and to develop and use techniques for actualizing these potentialities and giving them practical expression in every sphere of life and human activity.

The eminent psychologist William James, a pioneer in this field as in others, early recognized the existence of the immense stores of energy and valuable potentialities latent in the human being, and expressed his conviction in very definite terms.

I have no doubt that the great majority of people live, in both a physical and an intellectual and moral sense, using but a limited part of their potentialities… The so-called normal man, the one we may term the “healthy Philistine,” is only a fraction of what he could be, while we all possess reserves of life to draw upon which we do not even dream of.

—(Henry James, Ed. The Letters of William James , Atlantic Monthly Press, Boston. Retranslated from the Italian.)

A number of researchers—therapists and educators, most of them American—have produced a series of books and articles reflecting their humanistic orientation. Some of them have aligned themselves with existential psychology to the extent of speaking of a humanistic-existential psychology. Prominently associated with the emergence of this movement are Rollo May, Erich Fromm, Carl Rogers, and Gordon Allport. This movement has had its adherents also in Europe, and Adrian Van Kaan has presented a broad, if incomplete, survey of it in his paper, “The Third Force in European Psychology” published by the Psychosynthesis Research Foundation of New York in 1960. Its major representative in Europe is Viktor Frankl, whose book, The Doctor and His Soul, is a document of the highest humanistic value.

The most articulate and ardent advocate of humanistic psychology has been Abraham Maslow. He presents a general survey of it in his book, Toward a Psychology of Being, whose title clearly indicates the author’s approach to the study of the human being, whom he considers in the entirety of his existence, in which are inherent the truly human values and from which they stem. He calls them B-values, a term derived from Being, and he enumerates them as follows:

1. wholeness (unity; integration; tendency to oneness; interconnectedness; simplicity; organization; structure; dichotomy transcendence; order);
2. perfection (necessity; just-right-ness; just-so-ness; inevitability; suitability; justice; completeness; “oughtness”);
3. completion (ending; finality; justice; “it’s finished”; fulfillment; finis; telos; destiny; fate);
4. justice (fairness; orderliness; lawfulness; “oughtness”);
5. aliveness (process; non-deadness; spontaneity; self regulation; full functioning);
6. richness (differentiation; complexity; intricacy);
7. simplicity (honesty; nakedness; essentiality; abstract, essential, skeletal structure);
8. beauty (rightness; form; aliveness; simplicity; richness; wholeness; perfection; completion; uniqueness; honesty);
9. goodness (rightness; desirability; oughtness; justice; benevolence; honesty);
10. uniqueness (idiosyncrasy; individuality; noncomparability; novelty);
11. effortlessness (ease; lack of strain, striving or difficulty; grace; perfect beautiful functioning);
12. playfulness (fun; joy; amusement; gaiety; humor; exuberance;effortlessness);
13. truth; honesty; reality (nakedness; simplicity; richness; oughtness; beauty; pure, clean, and unadulterated; completeness; essentiality);
14. self-sufficiency (autonomy; independence; not-needing-other-than-itself-in-order-to-be-itself; self-determining; environment-transcendence; separateness; living by its own laws).

These are obviously not mutually exclusive. They are not separate or distinct, but overlay or fuse with each other. Ultimately they are all facets of Being rather than parts of it.5

We have here a very different image of the human being from the picture presented by current psychologies, and from that held by modern man of himself! This is no “idealistic” portrait but one based on the lived experience of many persons and on man’s primary, intrinsic tendencies. In order to accentuate the “naturalness” and authenticity of these tendencies; Maslow has used the appropriate neologism “instinctoid,” meaning that they are innate and as genuine as the other instincts.

Extensive information concerning both American and European psychologists, psychiatrists and others whose findings relate to Maslow’s views is contained in Chapter 14 of Frank Goble’s fine book, The Third Force: The Psychology of A. Maslow, New York, Grossman, 1970.

“Humanistic Psychology”—that’s what it’s being called most frequently—is now quite solidly established as a viable third alternative to objectivistic, behavioristic, (mechanomorphic) psychology and to orthodox Freudianism. Its literature is large and is rapidly growing. Furthermore it is beginning to be used , especially in education, industry, religion, organization and management, therapy and self-improvement, and by various other “Eupsychian” organizations, journals, and individuals.6

I must confess that I have come to think of this humanist trend in psychology as a revolution in the truest, oldest sense of the word, the sense in which Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, Freud and Marx made revolutions, i.e., new ways of perceiving and thinking, new images of man and of society, new conceptions of ethics and of values, new directions in which to move.

This Third Psychology is now one facet of a general weltanschauung — A new philosophy of life, a new conception of man, the beginning of a new century of work (that is, of course, if we can manage to hold off a holocaust). For a man of good will, any pro-life man, there is work to be done here, effective, virtuous, satisfying work which can give rich meaning to one’s life and to others.

This psychology is not purely descriptive or academic; it suggests action and implies consequences. It helps to generate a way of life, not only for the person himself within his own private psyche, but also for the same person as a social being—a member of society. As a matter of fact, it helps us to realize how interrelated these two aspects of life really are.”7

At this juncture I feel it incumbent on me to mention an independent contribution made in Italy to the  development of this humanistic psychology. As early as 1909 I had outlined some of its essential points in a paper entitled “The Psychology of Forces and Psychagogy,” which was published in the Rivista di Psicologia Appllcata (Review of Applied Psychology), September-October, 1909, 5th Year, No.51. Then in 1926, the year of the founding of the Institute of Psychosynthesis, I began courses of lectures on The Energies Latent In Us and Their Uses in Medicine and Education, one of which was later incorporated in my book.

It might be thought that humanistic psychology constitutes the avant-garde, the spearhead, so to speak, of the new scientific psychology. But it is not so: another kind of psychology is being developed on the basis of the Third Force, a psychology no less empirical, i.e., experimental and scientific. Its province is the higher aspects of the human being, those aspects of his nature generally called spiritual. But this is too general a term and it has lent, and continues to lend itself, to confusion and misunderstandings arising out of a bit too close association with the fields of religion and philosophy. Therefore the term “transpersonal psychology” was rightly proposed and is used to denote this new field. It possesses the advantage of being neutral and simply indicative of a level (or “height”) above the “normal” human one. Called the Fourth Force in psychology, it has had various precursors, such as William James and Dr. Richard Bucke, author of the classic book Cosmic Consciousness.

Abraham Maslow has been its courageous advocate and exponent. Here is how he speaks of it.

I should say also that I consider Humanistic, Third Force Psychology, to be transitional, a preparation for a still “higher” Fourth Psychology: transpersonal, trans-human, centered in the cosmos rather than in human needs and interests, going beyond humanness, identity, self-actualization and the like. These new developments may very well offer a tangible, usable, effective satisfaction of the “frustrated idealism” of many quietly desperate people, especially young people. These psychologies give promise of developing into the life-philosophy, the religion-surrogate, the value system, the life-program that these people have been missing.

Without the transcendent and the transpersonal, we get sick, violent, and nihilist, or else hopeless and apathetic. We need something “bigger than we are” to be awed by and to commit ourselves to, in a new, naturalistic, empirical, nonchurchy sense, perhaps as Thoreau and Whitman, William James and John Dewey did.8

The rapid and vigorous development of this current is evidence of the extent to which it is fulfilling a real need. It already has its own journal,9  while an Association of Transpersonal Psychology has been formed, whose prospectus contains the following definition of the Fourth Force:

Transpersonal psychology is the title given to an emerging force in psychology and other fields by a group of men and women who are interested in ultimate states. The emerging transpersonal orientation is concerned with the empirical scientific study and responsible implementation of the findings relevant to: spiritual paths, becoming, meta-needs (individual and species wide), ultimate values, unitive consciousness peak experiences, B-values, compassion, ecstasy, mystical experience, awe, being, self actualization, essence, bliss, wonder, ultimate meaning, transcendence of the self, spirit, oneness, cosmic awareness individual and species wide synergy, theories and practices of meditation, sacralization of everyday life, transcendental phenomena, cosmic self-humor and playfulness, and related concepts, experience, and activities.10

The Instituto di Psicosintesi of Florence has contributed to the development of this psychological “dimension.” During the year 1971, a course of lessons was given on Expansion of Consciousness-Exploration and Conquest of  the Inner Worlds.

I shall not dwell further on this movement on the present occasion, in order to pass on to the exposition, albeit necessarily limited by space to little more than an outline, of what may be termed the Fifth Force in Psychology – a recent development in psychology that has assumed major importance and appears to be extremely promising. In its starting point and line of development it departs markedly from those of its predecessors in the field of psychology. At first this may make it seem surprising, yet it rests on a firm foundation, since it springs from the advances made by modern physics, and in particular from the discovery that matter is energy or more precisely, a special state of energy. This relationship has been expressed by Einstein in the famous equation: e=mc2, which states that energy equals mass multiplied by the square of the speed of light.

This is a mathematical relationship, that is, it is based on a mathematical law. But the laws of mathematics are rational; they are of a mental character, the product of thought. Thus the astronomer Eddington could assert as early as 1931 that the “stuff of the world is mind-stuff.”11  The physicist Sir James Jeans expressed the same thing in more explicit terms:

Today there is a wide measure of agreement, which on the physical side of science approaches almost to unanimity, that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine.12

The latest discoveries in physics and astronomy provide ample confirmation of these facts. Approximately one hundred elementary subatomic particles have been identified, some of them having the strange property of behaving either as corpuscles (matter) or as electro-magnetic waves (energy) by turns, according to circumstances, as de Broglie as pointed out. They constitute a world of which Arthur Koestler says:

It is also a world of great mystery and beauty reflected in those fantastic photographs of events in the bubble chamber, which shows the trajectories of unimaginably small particles moving at unimaginable speeds in curves and spirals, colliding, recoiling or exploding and giving birth to other particles or wavicles.13

Moreover, recent research has demonstrated the existence of the mysterious “neutrino,” which had been predicted on a theoretical basis by W. Pauli as far back as 1930, and which has neither mass, nor electrical charge, nor magnetic field.

On the subject of the relations between mind, energy, and matter, the astronomer V. W. Firsoff suggested that:

mind was a universal entity or interaction of the same order as electricity or gravitation, and that there must exist a modulus of transformation, analogous to Einstein’s famous equality E=mc2 whereby ‘mind stuff’ could be equated with other entities of the physical world.14

He further suggested that there may exist elementary particles of the mind-stuff, which he proposed to call “mindons,” with properties somewhat similar to the neutrino’s.

…From our earlier analysis of mental entities, it appears that they have no definite locus in so-called ‘physical’, or, better, gravi-electro-magnetic, space, in which respect they resemble a neutrino or, for that matter a fast electron. This already suggests a special kind of mental space governed by different laws, which is further corroborated by the parapsychological experiments made at Duke University and elsewhere. It seems that this kind of perception involves a mental interaction, which is subject to laws of its own, defining a different type of space-time.15

An engineer psychologist, James Vargiu, Director of the Psychosynthesis Institute of Redwood City, California, has followed another way to indicate the close relationship existing between matter, energy, and psyche. He formulates an ingenious “model” of mental and emotional “magnetic fields,” which are analogous to the physical ones, and by means of which he explains the process of scientific and artistic creativity. This conception would take too long to expound on this occasion. Suffice it to say that, by means of it, Vargiu gives a persuasive interpretation of the phases of the creative process:

1. Preparation
2. Frustration
3. Incubation
4. Illumination
5. Elaboration

These phases receive ample confirmation in descriptions given by Einstein, the mathematician Poincare and the Chemist Kekule of the ways in which they reached solutions of their scientific problems. Therefore, as Vargiu says, the knowledge of these stages in the process can serve as a useful guide for consciously promoting and fostering it.16

Vargiu’s concept of the “creative model” lends itself to extensive development and application in the field of psychosynthesis. The phases of the process leading to the solution of scientific problems are to be found also in the inner process leading to the solution of individual existential problems and to the actualizing of the various stages of psychosynthesis. This should not be found surprising, since in this case as well, it is a question of integrating elements and scattered, or disorganized, groups of elements conflicting with each other, in orderly and harmonious “configurations,” which become larger and larger until the psychosynthesis of the whole personality is accomplished. Thus it is a true and proper process of self-creation, which process can be determined and fostered by various psychosynthetic techniques, such as the use of symbols, the “ideal model,” imaginative training, etc. In all forms of creativity, a process of synergy, or syntropy, is involved.

Parallel with all the lines of development discussed up to now, a series of researches has been initiated and actively carried on which afford a scientific demonstration of the actions of the psyche on matter and, up to a certain point, of its mechanism. The value of these researches is such, and their potential applications in the fields of medicine, education re-creation (psychosynthesis) are so important that in spite of limitations of space, a summary of their results is justified here. Brief as it must be, it should however, suffice to stimulate in the interested reader a desire to acquaint himself with what has been accomplished in this field, to the point of encouraging him to participate in this research and apply these results.

The principal researchers have been Elmer Green, director of the psycho-physiology laboratory of the Menninger Foundation, and his wife, Alyce M. Green. Their interest in problems of consciousness and of will drew their attention to the Autogenic Training of Schultz, and in 1965 they conducted a series of experiments that demonstrated its effectiveness.

Subsequently, they and other researchers using electrical apparatus of the kind employed in recording electroencephalograms, have shown that various inner, psychological conditions such as states of relaxation, concentration and meditation, produce specific electrical waves:

1. During sleep: Delta waves (Hertz-cycles 1 – 4)
2. In the hypnogogic state with production of pictures: Theta waves (4 -8 cycles)
3. In a state of relaxed vigilance (meditation): Alpha waves (8 – 13 cycles)
4. During the mental effort needed to solve problems: Beta waves (beyond 13 cycles)

But there is more than this. It has been demonstrated that by making subjects aware, with the use of ingenious apparatuses which give luminous or auditory signals revealing the various types of waves produced (a feed-back process of a cybernetic type), these subjects can facilitate, intensify, and even voluntarily create desired states of mind. At the suggestion of Gardner Murphy, the Greens have developed a self-regulating system which they have called Autogenic Feedback Training.17  Here we have a demonstration of the action which the will can exercise to produce electrical phenomena. The positive results of these experiments, and the light that they throw on the mechanism of psycho-physical interaction, point to possibilities of psychic control over matter which may have applications of a surprising and indeed unforeseeable scope.

The influence of psychic states on physiological functions had already been clinically established by psychosomatic medicine and its psychotherapeutic applications. Nevertheless, the latter are still far from being taken into consideration and utilized by official medicine, as their great importance demands that they should be. In every illness, even in every physical lesion, there is a psychological component. This fact imposes upon every doctor, general practitioner, specialist, or surgeon, the duty of recognizing its presence and treating it, or seeing that it is treated, with appropriate psychotherapeutic action.

In conclusion, it may be stated that all the developments briefly outlined above constitute the basis and the beginnings of a new direction and dimension of psychology, of a “Fifth Force,” which can be termed “Psychoenergetics.” The difference existing between psychoenergetics and what is called psychodynamics needs to be clarified. The latter is concerned with interactions between psychological functions in a specific sense (emotions, thought, will, impulses, etc.) and forms part of the “Third” and “Fourth” forces. The aim of psychoenergetics is, on the other hand, to investigate all forces existent in the universe and their interaction:

NOTES:

1 Quoted by Rollo May in Existential Psychology, p. 30.

2 The science of semantics, and especially the recent “General Semantics,” has made and is making useful contributions toward elimination of errors created by language.

3 Novum Organum sive indicia vera de interpretation naturae.

4 An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Book IV, Chap. XX, II.

5 Maslow, A. H., Toward a Psychology of Being, New York, D.Van Nostrand Co. (Second Edition), pp.83-4.

6 There is, for instance, a flourishing Association for Humanistic Psychology,and recently even the academic American Psychological Association organized within its body a section on humanistic psychology. The organ of this psychology is the Journal of Humanistic Psychology. Another review with a distinctively humanistic slant, as it’s title suggests, is Humanitas: Journal of the Institute of Man (published by Duchesne University of Pittsburg). It has issued several very good monographic numbers on Friendship, Love and Violence, Creativity, Motivation, etc.

7 Ibid. Preface to the second edition, p. III. Psicosintesi–Armonia della Vita (second edition, 1972, Rome, Edizione Mediterranee).

8 Ibid. Preface to the second edition, p. iv.

9 Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, Anthony Sutich, editor, P.O. Box 4437, Stanford, California, 94305, U.S.A.

10 The Prospectus of the original Assocation is not available to us, and we are relying upon Assagioli’s notes—ed.

11 Eddington, A. S., The Nature of the Physical World, Cambridge, 1928.

12 Jeans, Sir James, The Mysterious Universe, Cambridge, 1937, p. 122 f.

13 Koestler, A., The Roots of Coincidence, London, Hutchinson, 1972, p.61.