The study of parapsychology, the accumulation of established facts, of evidence, has forced open the doors of some universities and academies. The study of those facts, under the name of parapsychology, is becoming “respectable!”
By Roberto Assagioli, MD. From the magazine UOMINI E IDEE, January 1961, Year III, No. 1. From the Assagioli Archives, Florence. Doc. #23408. Translated by Jan Kuniholm. See also the free e-book. Psychosynthesis and Parapsychology for a complete overview of Assagioli’s thoughts on this matter.
Throughout the ages and in all parts of the world men have believed in the existence of supernormal sensitivities and powers. By contrast, modern science, which has devoted itself primarily and almost exclusively to the study of matter in its most tangible and measurable aspects, has long denied and neglected them, or regarded them with distrust and suspicion. In recent times, however, the accumulation — I would say almost the avalanche — of definitely established facts, of evidence obtained by means of unimpeachable experiments, has forced open the doors of some universities and academies, which are generally hard to open. The study of those facts, under the name of parapsychology, is becoming “respectable!”
But while the recognition of the existence of those phenomena and faculties is now becoming general, their interpretation and evaluation are still hotly, and sometimes bitterly, debated. Much confusion and fierce struggle between opposing attitudes still exist in this field. On the one hand, we often find in the public an overestimation of those faculties, a tendency to develop and use them without restraint and prudence, to accept their results without discrimination. On the other hand, because of materialistic or other preconceptions, because of fear of compromise, or because of the difficulties and dangers that really exist in this field, many are inclined to fear them, or to despise them, to advise against their use and to repress their spontaneous expressions.
There is therefore a need for an examination: an impartial, serene and objective — that is, truly scientific — study of this entire field, which is still largely unknown. This task presents a particular urgency in the medical field, given the close relationships between parapsychological faculties and a considerable number of mental, emotional and even physical disorders; and also because one of them, the bio-radiant power, may have useful curative applications. [1]
Within the limits of this study I shall be able to offer only a general overview of such a vast and complex subject; but I hope it may succeed not unhelpfully as a preliminary setting and orientation.
In my opinion, one of the reasons for the confusion and disagreements consists in the lack or insufficiency of a clear and integral conception of the structure of the human personality, of what has been called “the psychic organism.” [2]
Therefore, I consider it appropriate to propose an attempt at such a conception as I have formed it on the basis of my studies, and my not-so-short experience. To expound it I will make use of an outline. I will preface it — to prevent facile objections — by saying that I am well aware that it is too simple and can give only a first idea of the structural, static, I would say almost anatomical, aspect of the psyche, and does not show its dynamic aspect, which is the most important and essential. But I believe that here — as in any other discipline — it is necessary to proceed by degrees, by successive approximations, and that especially in the study of such a plastic, complex and elusive reality as psychic life is. It is especially necessary to first of all clearly establish the broad outlines and fundamental distinctions, and then never to lose sight of them. Otherwise unfocused multiplicity confuses the mind; the wealth of details obscures the whole picture and prevents one from discerning the connections of the different parts and their varied meanings, function and value.
With these reservations and justifications, here is the outline mentioned: [3]
This contains: 1. The elementary but admirable psychic activities that preside over organic life. 2. The instincts, the passions. 3. Many “psychic complexes” with strong affective tonality, remnants of our near and distant past. 4. Dreams and imaginative activities of elementary, lower type. 5. Various morbid manifestations (phobias, obsessive images and impulses, delusional ideas). 6. Certain non-dominant sensitivities of a parapsychological nature.
This consists of psychic elements similar in nature to those of waking consciousness and easily accessible to it. In it takes place the processing of experiences, the preparation of future activities, much intellectual (theoretical and practical) and imaginative work, and artistic creation of medium degree and value.
3. HIGHER UNCONSCIOUS OR SUPERCONSCIOUS
From this come higher insights and inspirations — artistic, philosophical and scientific, genius creations, mystical states of enlightenment, contemplation and ecstasy. There reside, in their latent and potential state, the higher energies of the spirit and faculties of an elevated type.
4. WAKING CONSCIOUSNESS (Field of Consciousness)
It is customary to use these terms — not entirely scientifically exact, but clear and convenient in its brevity — to describe the part of our personality of which we are directly aware; the continuous coming and going of psychic elements and states of mind of all kinds (sensations, images, thoughts, feelings, desires, impulses, etc.) that we sense and can observe, analyze and even direct and modify.
5. CONSCIOUS “I” [4]
The “I” (or self) is often confused with the field of consciousness, but in reality it is quite different from it, as anyone with some practice of internal observation can see. The changing contents of consciousness (the thoughts, feelings, etc. mentioned above) are one thing; the “I,” the center of consciousness that perceives them, is another. In one respect, this difference could be compared to that between the white light of the movie screen and the cinematic images projected onto it. True, the ordinary person — who “lets himself live,” who does not linger to study himself and does not care to know himself — generally does not make this distinction. He gradually identifies himself with the contents of his own consciousness. Hence the confusion mentioned above.
6. HIGHER , SPIRITUAL “I” (THE SELF)
Not only is the conscious self almost always intimately confused with the ceaseless flow of psychic elements, but often it seems to “switch off” and disappear; e.g. during sleep, fainting, hypnosis and narcosis — only to suddenly find itself again and recognize itself, without knowing how. This fact leads to the admission that “behind” or “above” the conscious “I” there must be a permanent spiritual center, the true “I,” untouched by the changing psychic life or by the conditions of the physical organism: an “I” of which the conscious “I” would be a reflection or “projection” in the personality field.
There are various confirmations and evidence of the existence of the “I” or Spiritual Self. There are a whole host of “witnesses” who have claimed to have had, more or less temporarily, the consciousness or direct “experience” of the Higher “I” — a direct “projection” of it — which for them constitutes a certainty no less than the experience of the explorer who has penetrated a previously unknown region.
Such testimonies can be found in various autobiographies, and a good number of them have been collected in some books, such as: Cosmic Consciousness, by Dr. Bucke (Philadelphia, Innes, 1901); Tertium Organum, by Ouspensky (London, Kegan, Trench, Trubner,1934); Mysticism, by E. Underhill (London, Methuen, 1913); The Secret Path and The Quest for the Overself, by P. Brunton (Verona, Casa Ed. Europa, 1948).
Then there are various philosophers, such as Kant and Herbert, who have affirmed the clear distinction existing between the noumenal or real self, and the phenomenal or empirical self. Note that the higher “I” is not to be confused with Freud’s “super-ego,” which, according to his theory, is a construction, an artificial product.
This relationship is indicated in the diagram by the point at the center of consciousness (Conscious “I”) connected by a dotted line with the star placed at the top of our personality (Spiritual “I”). Such a depiction helps to reconcile two facts that at first seem contradictory:
1) The apparent duality — the apparent existence of two “I’s.” In fact, it is as if there were two “I’s,” since the ordinary “I” ignores the other theoretically and practically, even to the point of denying its existence; and the latter is latent, not revealing itself directly to consciousness.
2) The real unity and oneness of the “I.” There are not really two “I’s,” two entirely different and separate entities. The “I” is one, and only has different degrees of manifestation, actualization and awareness. The reflection is distinct from the light source, but it has no reality in itself, no autonomous substantiality of its own; it is not another, different light.
Human beings are not isolated, they are not “windowless monads,” as Leibnitz believed. At certain times humans may feel inwardly isolated, but the extreme existentialist position is not true, neither psychologically nor spiritually.
The outer line of the oval is dashed to indicate that it is considered analogous to the membrane that surrounds a cell, which is semi-permeable, so as to allow a continuous active exchange of vital fluids with the rest of the organism to which the cell belongs. Similarly, processes of psychological and spiritual “osmosis” take place continuously between the psyche of one human being and those of others, and also between it and the general psychic environment. This corresponds to what Jung called the “collective unconscious;” but he did not clearly define this designation, in which he actually included elements of a different, even opposite nature: that is, primitive and archaic structures and “archetypes” on the one hand, and also higher, creative and integrative activities of a superconscious nature on the other. In our view, the distinctions of function and value found at the various levels of psychospiritual reality in the individual also exist outside of him.
It is good to realize how general and widespread this “interpsychism” is. We are continually flooded by influences, both desirable and undesirable, wanted or unwanted. Whether we realize it, want it or not, we in turn continually exert influences on others and on the psychic environment. Indeed, it could be said that such an environment is not something derivative, or secondary; it is in fact the original psychic state. Before the self-conscious individual, aware of its own separation from others, was formed, a collective psyche existed; this is demonstrated in the animal kingdom by a number of facts. Studies on termites and other animal colonies have shown that there is a collective psyche of the termite mound, hive, etc.
It is well known that among primitive humans an interpsychism, or psyche of the tribe, predominates; the individuality and self-awareness of individuals are only rudimentary. Well then, there are two kinds of interpsychism: normal interpsychism, through the five senses, and extra-sensory interpsychism; that is, what might be called a continuous telepathic relationship between individuals and the collective. From this results the existence of a parapsychological interpsychism of the elemental kind, the existence of which has been demonstrated in the life of termite mounds, in long-distance communications among primitive peoples, etc.
At the level of the personal middle unconscious, exchanges of parapsychological influences of corresponding quality take place. This is what is manifested in the ordinary spontaneous or induced phenomena of extra-sensory perception, telepathy, telekinesis, etc. I will mention two of the most remarkable cases of conscious telepathic intercourse performed at will. The first is that of American novelist Upton Sinclair, who managed to establish a regular exchange of telepathic messages with his own wife. The second is that of Alice A. Bailey, who telepathically received a long series of instructions, on subjects of most of which she had no previous knowledge, from a living Eastern teacher in Tibet.[5] These teachings have been published in 14 volumes and occupy a total of thousands of pages. Those who may be interested in this case, which in several respects may be considered unique, can find first-hand information about Mrs. Bailey in her Unfinished Autobiography (New York, Lucis Publishing Co., 1951)
Then there is a higher parapsychological interpsychism that is spiritual in character that is often demonstrated by mystics, initiates, founders of religions, prophets, yogis, etc. If we study their biographies from a metaphysical point of view, we find there are numerous and varied parapsychological phenomena described in them. Almost all of those beings had healing powers; they appeared to others from a remote distance; they predicted the future; they also exhibited phenomena of levitation and materialization; etc. But generally they used such faculties consciously, at will; therefore they had supernormal powers quite different from the unconscious or subconscious interpsychism of primitive people.
So at every level of life, from animal colonies to the most highly spiritual beings, there are corresponding classes of parapsychological phenomena. But they are not sharply distinguished in the various individuals; in fact, faculties and phenomena of various levels may coexist and intermingle in each. This explains certain strange contrasts that are not infrequently noticed in the personalities of “psychics:” the interweaving of higher and lower manifestations, of genuine phenomena along with fantastic or erroneous manifestations.
* * *
This “framing” of parapsychological faculties can help us to understand the relations that exist between these faculties and nervous and psychological disorders. The existence and frequency of such disorders, especially at the present time, shows how people only very poorly and imperfectly master the elements and forces that exist within them, as well as the influences that come from other individuals and the environment, by the ordinary ways of the five senses. Well, in addition to those normal influences, it is evident that those who are also subjected to metapsychic[6] ones can be disturbed and overwhelmed all the more .
The pathogenic action of these influences has various causes and acts in different ways. First, sensitives or “psychics” are like houses in which windows and doors are always left open. Even when these are kept closed, theft and aggression can always occur by some unfaithful servant or guest, or by someone opening the door with forged keys or by forcing a window open. Of course, it is far easier for theft and aggression to occur when access is free and unguarded!
Other causes of disturbances are the subjects’ own erroneous or unbalanced emotional and mental reactions to the phenomena of which they are instruments. Some show excessive credulity, become strongly impressed, and attach exaggerated importance to those facts, getting excited and inflated. In others, however, those phenomena instill fear and even terror, and may arouse ideas of persecution.
But even those who do not have such mistaken or exaggerated reactions may suffer serious harm from an excessive and imprudent use of their parapsychological faculties. I will briefly mention two cases I have observed in which this has occurred. The first is that of an investigator who, as a result of excessive use of his “bio-radiant faculty” suffered severe exhaustion with a sense of vertigo, so much so that he lost consciousness. Another kind of ailment he had was that of feeling in himself the symptoms and sufferings of those he treated. This phenomenon is not uncommon among “healers” and has been called “repercussion.” I observed this in myself in a distant healing treatment experiment done many years ago.
The other case concerns a lady who possesses a strong “radiesthetic” sensitivity; after excessive use of it, she not only had an acute nervous breakdown, but suffered an invasion of psychic impressions that she could not master, such as threatening voices, visions of fearful scenes, etc., and had to struggle for a long time before she recovered.[7]
Higher psychospiritual influences, whether they come from the individual’s own superconscious or have some other origin (it is difficult to ascertain this distinction, especially since influences from both sources can be intertwined), can also produce a variety of disturbances, whether because of their intensity, their sometimes sudden and unexpected onset, or the emotional reactions and conflicts they bring about.
There are cases in which neuropsychic disturbances, which physicians believe to be produced by ordinary physical and psychological causes, turn out instead — upon examination by experts in parapsychological phenomenology — to be due, at least in part, to such causes. Numerous cases in which there has been a diagnosis of hysteria belong to this category. This can also be seen by careful examination of clinical reports or biographies.
Therefore, it would be the duty of every physician to acquire an adequate parapsychological education, until this science is taught in medical schools. Unfortunately, in Italy this seems highly unlikely, or at least far off, since neither psychology nor psychotherapy is yet taught to future physicians! Yet it would seem obvious that these should be of greater concern and utility to them than zoology or physics. Even abroad, parapsychology has not yet been admitted into medical faculties, but there is already some beginning in this direction. I will give as an honorable mention Prof. Urban, Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Innsbruck, who in his clinic also examines patients from a parapsychological point of view and has done experiments with them on extrasensory perception.
* * *
On the basis of all that has been set forth so far, some people might think that the simplest and most radical way to avoid all the aforementioned disorders and dangers would be to discourage and as far as possible to prevent the development and use of parapsychological faculties. But this . . . draconian solution could hardly be implemented, and in any case would often be unsatisfactory.
The fear of evils and dangers could by itself easily produce a state of continuous apprehension and suspiciousness in subjects endowed with metapsychic sensitivities, and this in itself would constitute a neurotic state. Resuming the previous analogy, it would be like exchanging a modern, bright, cozy house with wide windows for a medieval castle surrounded by a deep moat, with a single drawbridge and guarded continuously by armed sentries.
But even apart from that, such an attitude would be contrary to the general principle — amply demonstrated by psychoanalysis (although certain psychoanalysts have made excessive and questionable applications of it) — that the vital tendencies, aptitudes and faculties existing in a human being cannot actually be ignored and suppressed. When they are too rigidly inhibited and repressed in the unconscious, then they remain at a primitive stage and manifest themselves insidiously with deviations and perversions, or erupt violently, producing neuropsychic and psychosomatic disorders of all kinds. This also applies to parapsychological faculties.
Moreover, many of those who have come to realize that they possess such sensitivities and powers have a keen, indeed often exaggerated, interest in them, and would certainly not be persuaded not to make use of them. Such a ban would impede the exploration of one of the most interesting and promising fields of scientific inquiry, and hinder the knowledge and mastery of psychological and spiritual energies that can be used for the benefit of humanity.
But there is more. A well-directed and regulated use of certain parapsychological faculties can be not only harmless, but beneficial to the subject. For example, I was able to observe that a pianist who suffered from hysterical disturbances improved greatly when she discovered that she possessed a strong “bioradiant” faculty and made active use of it, while when she suspended this activity for some time her disorders increased. In another case, that of a lady about 35 years of age who suffered from a variety of mainly psychosomatic ailments, I was able to find that when she took up clay modeling, at first semi-automatically, making artistically valuable statues and bas-reliefs, her symptoms disappeared or improved. Similar facts were noted or reported, in an excellent study by Dr. Cassoli.[8]
Other such examples have been reported by Dr. Laurence J. Bendit in his book Paranormal Cognition, [9] which is one of the best recent contributions to the study of the phenomena that interest us. It is significant and encouraging that this topic was accepted as a doctoral thesis at Cambridge University (French translation: La Connaissance Paranormale, Paris, L’arche, 1951. See also: P.D. Payne and L.J. Bendit, The Psychic Sense, London, Faber and Faber, 1956).
Let us now see what are the inferences and therapeutic applications of what has been said so far.
The first task is to properly ascertain what are the true relationships between parapsychological and morbid manifestations. These relationships may be: of cause and effect, in one sense or the other; of mutual action; or of more or less independent co-occurrence. Sometimes the nature of these relationships can be ascertained easily, but not infrequently it is rather complex and obscure. In such cases, a thorough investigation of the unconscious by appropriate psychoanalytic techniques is needed — done, however, while refraining from interpretations based on the theories (discussed and debatable) of the various schools of psychoanalysis.[10] The results should be communicated and explained as much as possible to the patient. This alone has a beneficial effect on him, freeing him from misconceptions, unjustified worries and fears, and enabling him to cooperate intelligently in treatment.
But the most important psychotherapeutic task is to develop — or rather, help develop — in “psychics” and mediums the qualities that they are lacking, and to moderate and master those that are exuberant and excessive. More often than not, they are hypersensitive and hyperemotional, passive and easily influenced; they do not know how to discipline their imaginations or concentrate their minds; their will is weak and often can be said to be rudimentary. It should be remembered, however, that these shortcomings also exist — to a greater or lesser degree — in all neuropsychic patients in general; and actually also in most so-called “normal” people! The fact remains, however, that such deficiencies are in any case particularly pronounced in “psychics”. Therefore, therapeutic action must aim to eliminate them, and first and foremost to awaken and strengthen the will, both because of its central importance and as a necessary tool for implementing all other curative tasks.
But here we are faced with a strange and, I would say, paradoxical situation. Indeed, the currently most popular methods of psychotherapy ignore, or at least neglect, the will, and offer no methods for developing it. Freudian psychoanalysis aims primarily at abolishing inhibitions and unleashing repressed tendencies in the unconscious, without providing any active methods for mastering and using them. Adler, while he rightly highlighted the neurotic disorders and characteristics produced by exaggerated self-assertion and the “will to power,” does not deal with the right use of the will. Jung, in his insightful analysis and description of what he considers the four basic functions (sensation, feeling, thought and intuition), completely neglects the will. The same deficiency is found in the methods of suggestion and hypnosis. Only in the techniques of self-suggestion, re-education and “occupational therapy” can one find an indirect use of the will, but not its deliberate and methodical training.
The causes of this strange and regrettable omission are various. One of them consists in the over-reaction (as reactions almost always are) to the excessive inhibitions and condemnations of natural tendencies, against which psychoanalysis arose. But the fundamental cause lies perhaps in the fact that the will is the essential quality and direct expression of the “I” (or self), whereas modern psychology generally neglects, or even denies, the real and independent existence of the self, regarding it as a “complex,” or presents a caricature of it in the form of the Freudian “super-ego.”
Instead, for a complete psychotherapy of the human personality, and especially for that of “psychics,” it is necessary to awaken the clear awareness of the “I” or self, its nature and powers. And then the teaching and introduction to the use of techniques by which one can succeed in mastering and harmonizing all one’s tendencies, sensitivities and functions, both normal and parapsychological.
These techniques have been developed and used primarily in the East and are found in the various forms of Yoga, but they exist to some extent in the West as well. It is a matter of using them appropriately, together with the other methods of psychotherapy, in an integral healing plan. There are also psycho-spiritual methods by which one activates the latent faculties in the superconscious and elevates the conscious self to that higher sphere, so that it acquires an ever-increasing and more vivid awareness of the “I” or spiritual Self.
This is what I have attempted with the conception and method, or rather methods, of psychosynthesis. I cannot deal with them, even summarily, in this article. I will only point to its principal and most effective method, which is particularly suitable, indeed necessary, for the investigation, mastery and constructive use of parapsychological faculties. It is the method of “detachment” and “disidentification.” It is based on a fundamental principle that can be formulated as follows:
We are dominated and enslaved by everything with which our self identifies. We can master everything from which we disidentify.
In this principle lies the secret of our enslavement and our freedom. Whenever we identify with a weakness, or a defect, we become paralyzed by ourselves. For example, whenever we admit, “I am discouraged,” or “I am irritated,” we become weak and discouraged by those very thoughts; we become dominated and overwhelmed by depression and anger. We have accepted these limitations, attached ourselves to them, and put the chains on ourselves.
If, on the other hand, under the identical conditions, we say, “a wave of discouragement is trying to invade me,” or “an impulse of anger is trying to overwhelm me,” the relationship is different. Then there are two forces facing each other: on the one hand our vigilant self; on the other hand discouragement or anger. And the vigilant self first of all does not allow itself to be invaded and overwhelmed; then it can objectively observe and critically examine this movement of discouragement or anger, searching for its origin, discerning its groundlessness, foreseeing its harmful effects and dangerous consequences.
Often this is enough to repel the attack of those forces, to disperse them and win the battle. But even when the inner adversary is momentarily stronger, when the conscious personality is overwhelmed by the violence of the attack, the vigilant self is never entirely vanquished; it can retreat to an impregnable inner citadel and from there prepare its resources and await the right moment for recovery. He or she may lose a few battles, but unless the self surrenders her arms, unless she surrenders at her own discretion, the fortunes of the campaign are not compromised and the final victory will be hers.
The use of this method and other psychosynthetic techniques is the best safeguard for those who have sensitivities and do parapsychological experiments. When they have developed the “Observer consciousness,” and know how to firmly maintain it, metapsychic influences can no longer be harmful and dangerous to them. They will not allow themselves to be disturbed or frightened by disharmonious or hostile forces; nor will they allow themselves to be inflated by the successes they achieve through the use of their faculties.
This is an ideal goal to be achieved, but those who treat or train “psychics,” and the subjects themselves, should strive toward it with concerted efforts. To the extent that they approach it, they will no longer be victims of their sensitivities, as is often the case; but will be able to use their gifts for the advancement of parapsychological science, to demonstrate the reality of the wonderful powers latent in the human soul.
[1] Assagioli’s use of the term “bioradiant” refers to a parapsychological ability that was called “bioradiation,” and is apparently different from both certain modern alternative medical practices and also the products associated with them, and is also different from the modern field of radiobiology. Assagioli’s notes indicate that he and some colleagues experimented with what he called “bio-radiant emanations” but I have been so far unable to locate details of this work.It has been scientifically verified that both plants and animals give off different types of radiation.—Tr.
[2] Assagioli’s use of the Italian words psiche and psichiche do not contain the implied distinctions of the English words “psychic” and “psychological.” For him and for many Italians no such clear distinctions existed at the time he was writing. So in this writing it may be taken that the word “psychic” includes “psychological.” —Tr.
[3] This diagram is taken from Assagioli’s published work. The descriptions are parallel to but not identical with his published accounts. —Tr.
[4] Roberto Assagioli used the Italian word “io” in his text often; however it can be legitimately translated at different times as “I,” “ego” “me” or “self.” In English we use “I” as a grammatical subject in a sentence but “me” as a grammatical object in a sentence; but in Italian “io” can be used interchangeably in both positions. To make things more interesting, in Italian the grammatical object is also sometimes rendered by the Italian word “me.” I have occasionally used parentheses in this text to indicate this dual usage when the original word was “io,” but later in this text depending upon context I have translated the term as “self” or “I.” Assagioli also used “Io” as a specifically technical term denoting what some English-speaking people (and some of the authorized publications of Assagioli’s works) have referred to “the I” on some occasions, and as “the self” in other contexts. Many people have been confused by this apparent interchangeability of these terms; but it is clear from Assagioli’s many writings that he explicitly eschewed “hard” definitions of terms and relied on a reader’s or a hearer’s common sense to perceive that what the ordinary person experiences as “I” is the personal self. He usually distinguishes the higher or transpersonal Self with the use of capital letters and the explicit use of the Italian word Sè, translated as “Self,” which is the “source” of “the I” or “the self,” which is sometimes also designated as “the personal self.” In this essay Assagioli sometimes refers to the “higher ‘I”” and sometimes to the “Spiritual Self,” etc. —Tr.
[5] These telepathic teachings continued without interruption after the death of that instructor, known as Djwhal Khul or Master D.K., and eventually totaled 24 books. Assagioli was an associate of Bailey’s and a student of these teachings.—Tr.
[6] Assagioli often followed common usage in Italy in the first part of the 20th century in referring to what we now call “parapsychological” phenomena as “metapsychic” — that is, “beyond the normal psychological” — events. Later in his career he began to employ the term “parapsychology” more consistently. —Tr.
[7] See Note 1 above.
[8] Piero Cassoli, MD (1918-2005) was active in parapsychological studies in Italy and was the author of numerous books and papers on related subjects. —Tr.
[9] Bendit, Paranormal Cognition – Its Place in Human Psychology. London, Faber and Faber 1944.
[10] Roberto Assagioli affirmed the practice and use of what he called “psychoanalysis” — that is, analysis of the contents and activities of the psyche, especially of the unconscious — independently of the interpretations, theories and doctrines associated with the various “schools” of psychoanalysis, such as those of Freud, Jung, Adler and others. In this sense only, he affirmed that “psychosynthesis presupposes psychanalysis.”—Tr.
Leave a Reply