Roberto Assagioli claims that every normal psychological function has corresponding parapsychological and supernormal faculties, in this way sight and clairvoyance are related.
By Roberto Assagioli, Undated, from the Assagioli Archive Florence. Translated by Jan Kuniholm. Original Title: Psicologia E Parapsicologia
I repeat two other pieces of advice: first, to mark the results in writing. Here again there is something that may surprise those who have no practice at this: at the moment the answer may seem so clear, so heartfelt, that we say, “I will never forget it;” but after a short time, in the same day, it escapes us. Precisely because the higher impressions are delicate, they cannot take root in an atmosphere of the usual psychological density, and escape. So I recommend writing them down right away — also so that we can better reflect on them and consider them and add to them, to compare them with other responses.
Let’s do the full exercise together now; I’ll do it myself and each person can apply what I’m going to say to himself; say it to himself. Let us happily begin to free our “I” (self ) from the weight that habitually pulls it down: “I have a physical body, but I am not my body. My body may be in various conditions of health or sickness, rested or tired, but this has nothing to do with me, with my self (“I”). My body is my valuable tool for experience and action in the outside world, but it is only a tool. I treat it well, I try to keep it healthy, but it is not me. I have a body, but I am not my body.”
Likewise, “I have an emotional life, which often gives me a lot of boredom, and a lot to do, but I am not my emotions, my feelings. These emotions, these feelings are changeable, fluctuating, not infrequently contradictory, in conflict with each other, and I can and will increasingly observe them by taking the attitude of a detached spectator. Therefore, if I can observe them, understand them, criticize or approve of them to some extent, at first very slightly, then gradually increasing, and thus master them, direct them, use them; this evidently means that I am not my own emotions. The same can be said of my mind, which is rather undisciplined, which tends to go its own way, which reacts quickly to external impressions, or emotional stirrings, which . . . [text missing].”
So, body, feelings and mind are organs of experience and perception, of action, but they are not myself, they are not “I.” What then is the “I?” What am I? First and foremost, and essentially, a center of pure awareness; a kind of inner eye, which observes, perceives and knows that it sees; and therefore perceives self-awareness. And as such, [it is] permanent, simple, immutable. We can doubt everything, except that we exist. Descartes said, “cogito ergo sum.” I think, therefore I am. One could also say, “I doubt, therefore I am.” I can doubt anything except my being, because the very moment I doubt my being, I would be the one doubting. If I were not there, I could not doubt. This is not a play on words. It is an observation, an internal experience.
The self (“I”), however, not only has this receptive self-consciousness of being an observer, it also has a dynamic power, and this power is the Will. In my opinion, the Polish philosopher Kochowski has put it much more rightly and profoundly than Descartes, saying, “I will, therefore I think and I am.” Truly the Will is the essential power of the self. Much earlier, St. Augustine had said, “Omines sunt voluntates.” Men are wills.
It is strange that in modern psychology the will has been, if not denied, then neglected. But this is explained because the “I,” self-consciousness, has also been neglected. The discovery and investigation of the subconscious was a great advance in modern psychology. It has really added a third dimension to psychology; but this interest has caused the conscious self to be forgotten as it becomes conscious of the unconscious. This is not a play on words either. So here again right proportion: full admission of the importance and vastness of the unconscious, and this diagram shows it.
The area of the ovoid is larger than the small circular area. Equally true, in my opinion, is the reality and importance of the conscious self, which is a reflection and spark of the Spiritual Self,  the Immortal Principle or Divine Spark in us.
There is no clear-cut difference between normal psychological functions and activities on the one hand, and supernormal, parapsychological, or spiritual faculties on the other. This is a fundamental principle, which is good to realize. There are many intellectually “hypoconscious” [or “under-conscious”] people, and they are the majority of normal people; there is a large minority of intelligent people, and a smaller minority of genius people; then there are a few true geniuses. Well, who can make a clear distinction? It is not possible; for there is, I would say, an intellectual spectrum from the subnormal to the genius. The same mind, the same human intellect, in different proportions and percentages, is found in different individuals. These are differences, which, in a sense, can be called “quantitative.”
The same can be said for aesthetic qualities: for example, drawing or music. There are those who have them in a rudimentary way; there is a majority who can appreciate, who have some sense of aesthetics, albeit rudimentary . . . [text missing] . . . or other elementary, questionable forms, but who feel the rhythm; and still others who really appreciate music of a higher type. Then there are the connoisseurs, the good musicians like Toscanini; so there is a developmental continuum of these human psychological faculties, from the lowest to the highest.
The second point, which is a clarification of the first, is, “Every normal function has corresponding parapsychological and supernormal faculties.” What takes place within the sphere of individuality also takes place outside it; that is, the conscious self, while normally perceiving what is within the sphere of its individuality, can also perceive influences and currents that come from outside it. For example, the sensation of touch has a parapsychological counterpart in psychometry: that is, if the psychic touches an object, he or she not only feels the texture, the temperature, but also feels the psychic influence connected with that object. Thus, sight has its parapsychological counterpart in clairvoyance; that is, extrasensory vision of what is far away in space and time. And its spiritual counterpart, at the octave above the parapsychological counterpart, is spiritual enlightenment. Many people who have had a spiritual awakening talk about light, or illumination. In some cases there is also a combination of objective light and parapsychological sensations, and the internal senses of enlightenment, vision, clarification of problems, etc. Hearing has as its psychological counterpart in clairaudience; that is, the faculty of perceiving voices that correspond to telepathic impressions; and, as its spiritual counterpart, the sense of cosmic harmony, which Pythagoras called “the Harmony of the Spheres.” Muscular activity has its parapsychological counterpart in telekinesis; that is, mechanical action at a distance.
The “psychological faculty” — that is, the psychological understanding of others — which people who practice it as educators, doctors, etc., have developed normally, has its supernormal counterpart in the direct insight into the soul of others. The normal faculty of rational foresight, when someone who possesses a lot of information about the character, temperament, and previous conduct of a person who is known to him can predict, for example, that person’s behavior — this faculty has a parapsychological counterpart in precognition. So it is good to always keep in mind this connection of the three octaves: normal psychological faculties, parapsychological faculties and higher, spiritual expressions.
The third fundamental point which is of a practical nature is this: the proficient use of the parapsychological faculties, as free from errors as possible, presupposes the development and mastery of the corresponding normal psychological functions. For example, a psychic will not be able to accurately observe or interpret and evaluate his phenomena rightly if he has not developed the normal capacity for accurate and objective observation. He will not know the main elements of the scientific method and the standards of reasoning and logic.
This seems obvious, it is true. One must go from the easy to the difficult, from the simple to the complex. If one does not know how to observe the external world, and if one does not know how to draw logical, intelligent inferences from one’s observations, much less will one know how to do so in a field as complex and multifaceted as parapsychology. Yet, this “truth of Monsieur La Palice” is, in practice, ignored: that is, in general, psychics are not alerted or trained in this preparatory work. This is one of the reasons that “metapsychic” work has been discredited: because serious scholars have been confronted with psychics who did not know how to report their experiences, or reported them confusedly, making gross errors of interpretation and wrong evaluations of what they perceived. And so, not remembering the principle I have mentioned — that is, the patience that they must have — the scientists tired of it , and so overlooked and devalued these phenomena.
Instead, it is necessary for psychics to do this work of psychological preparation and education. The best psychics don’t ask for more than this, because they themselves realize, I would say, that they are a mystery to themselves; they recognize that they don’t understand well — that they have faculties that they don’t understand, just as many artists say; “yes, I have inspiration, inspiration comes to me, but I don’t know how it happens, and I am not master of it.”
Therefore, the fourth point that follows is: that methodical training of the various functions and qualities is needed, according to a well-defined program, starting with the normal functions and then moving on to its corresponding paranormal and spiritual developments.
 Translator’s Note: 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 used parentheses in the above paragraphs 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 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.”
 Io Spirituale or “Spiritual I” in Italian.
 Assagioli is humorously invoking a “lapalissade” — meaning a tautology or truism, derived from the epitaph of French Lord de la Palice (1470-1525), which reads, “here lies the Seigneur de la Palice: if he were not dead, he would still be envied.” — Tr.