Roberto Assagioli and Mariella Crocellà in conversation

In this rich interview Assagioli presents his thoughts on the scientific method, raja yoga, the psychosynthesis of the couple and much more.

By Roberto Assagioli and Signora Mariella Crocellà [i] of the magazine Nazione, February 21, 1968. Assagioli Archive Doc.#23493, Translated and Edited With Notes by Jan Kuniholm[ii]

Abstract: In this interview from 1968, Dr. Roberto Assagioli discusses his views on psychology, psychosynthesis, and the influence of the mind on health. He emphasizes the importance of recognizing the reality and efficacy of psychological facts, even if they cannot be measured. Assagioli also highlights the need for a shift in medical education to prioritize psychology and the understanding of the healthy psyche. He discusses the different stages of psychology, the role of parapsychology, and the benefits of yoga and psychosynthesis. Assagioli emphasizes the responsibility of therapists to prepare themselves mentally and spiritually to positively influence their patients. He also touches on the importance of individualized treatment and provides examples of how psychosynthesis can be applied to couples and parent-child relationships. Assagioli suggests that all physicians should undergo general psychotherapy to better understand themselves and foster the healing forces within their patients. He advocates for a holistic approach to health that includes nature, exercise, and proper breathing.

R.A.: . . . and yes, I do care. Every progress, every scientific discovery has an unorthodox initial phase. I’ll tell you this but I don’t . . . there are three stages, [the first is when people say] “but they are impossible, mystical, fantastic indemonstrable things — you can’t measure them;” then [a second stage is] when the thing is established [and] no longer new — “Plato and Hippocrates had already said it;” and the third stage is that [people say] “we have always said it too;” this magic is often found in the history of science; but this is a diversion[iii] . . . I don’t know a example [better] than [when] the astronomer Leverier[iv] announced in 1884 that in astronomy there was nothing more to be discovered; and then [there was ] the French Academy which had refused to admit the [existence of the] phonograph, etc.

I’ll give you an article on the psychology in misoneism,[v] but again I’m not insisting on that, but just to frame my attitude, it should be here; it’s a youthful article so it’s a bit polemical, but what’s important is what the scientific method is, and the difference between the techniques of the natural sciences and that of the humanities. The scientific method basically was well stated by Francis Bacon: observing, experimenting and interpreting the errors, what he calls the “idols” (the three or four idols); basically it is reasoning well, and recently even semantics has refined this method.[vi] Now on the scientific method I can give you . . .

M.C.: Now doctor, let’s do this; first you tell me what you have prepared, then I can ask you questions about what is useful for my paper.

R.A.: . . . so you have to shed the preconception that you have scientific analysis only when you can weigh or measure something; there are psychological facts that you cannot measure in any way, but they are on the other hand real facts, because reality is that which produces something, it is that which is efficacious; in German this is very well expressed . . . reality is that which works— what is operative; which produces a change in a pre-existing state. Now a hope, an ideal, a (love or) value changes the behavior of the person, and therefore reality also changes.

M.C.: We could say it is a spring, a spring of . . .

R.A.: Exactly — of feelings, of aspirations, of beliefs; these are psychological facts as real as nature.

M.C.: You read about the . . . it’s no longer a theory— let’s call it regeneration, Prof. Sirtori[vii] talked about it recently; regeneration is a way to keep the person alive, to keep him young for a very long time, because it exercises his [memory] cells, the ones that are deteriorating.

R.A.: This, I tell you, [is something] that seems obvious to me, however, it is still not accepted; there is always that preconception of wanting to weigh and isolate, otherwise it is not [considered] scientific. Now I will give you one example among many. [There is] a book by Kohler, The Place of Value in a World of Fact,[viii] and in the introduction it says, “Scientific procedures involve continuous evaluations, yet science rejects observations which lead to an absolutely unsuspected conclusion; values have a definite place in the world of natural facts.”

R.A.: But you will see that here; later I will tell you the state of psychology. [First] an example, a clear example of the difference between purely quantitative method and the psychological, scientific method. Suppose we have before us a glass half-filled with water. Well, the quantitative evaluation in the sense of the natural sciences is that in this glass there is water that certainly occupies 50 percent of the volume of the empty glass; so it can be said indifferently that it is half-full or half-empty. From the point of view [of the natural sciences] this is so. Whereas from the psychological point of view the two expressions “half-full” and “half-empty” have opposite meanings, and these meanings produce consequences of the utmost importance. One who says, “the glass is half empty” demonstrates an attitude of discontent, exigency, pessimism, criticism, and assumes that the glass should be all full and complains that it is half empty. The one who says, “this glass is half full” demonstrates an attitude of right evaluation, appreciation, gratitude for what God has given, and optimism. Well, the psychological consequences are that the first attitude, if it is habitual and accentuated, can even lead to neuropsychic disorders, conflicts with other people and unhappiness. The second one leads to satisfaction, joy, and gratitude to others, which attracts sympathy and benefits. So from the quantitative point of view the thing is the same; from the psychological point of view the consequences are opposite and important. Now this is just as scientific as if I were to say, “50% water.”

M.C.: Right.

R.A.: So let’s proceed because, now there is a fact that you could say is mainly about psychology and psychotherapy: that there is a “semi-heterodox” medicine in this sense: that there are many conceptions and methods that are allowed theoretically, but in practice they are forgotten and neglected or not used.

M.C.: True.

R.A.: It has become or is . . . it gives way to the incompetent and profiteers. It doesn’t matter to say, “yes psychotherapy exists, it can do good,” if then they don’t use it — it is actually worse.

Let’s move on to something else. Psychology. Psychology is the Cinderella of Italy, especially in medical faculties; it is not [taught] in all of them and the study of it is an option. But [psychology] is the science of man, and as such should have the first place among the sciences, not only from the humanistic and social side, but also from the statistically scientific side, since the external world is perceived through the senses, and sensations are psychic facts interpreted and understood by the mind. One person who has put this very well is Prof. Ronchi of the Arcetri Institute of Optics,[ix] and he says that light as a physical fact does not exist — it exists in vibrations. “Light” is a subjective fact, it is the luminous sensation experienced by the human psyche.

Then for The Nation I give you this, this very fact was published: one of the traveling editors, one of the correspondents, went to interview two professors from a university in Indonesia and asked them how their universities worked. One of the professors told him that after attending elementary school, middle school, etc. an Indonesian [who] entered the university in the first year has to pass exams in general, experimental, child, social and educational psychology! Here the first year for each faculty is “psychology, the science of man.”

I give you this . . .

M.C.: Thank you, I’ll get it back to you.

R.A.: So you see, you could say we are in the stone age in psychology . . .

M.C.: One more thing.

R.A.: . . . Sciences are thus put in reverse order.

M.C.: I had round table [discussions] with students, and they were saying that in faculties such as Magisterium[x] they don’t have it.

R.A.: It’s outrageous. Let’s come to psychiatry. Worse than going out at night in Florence, as they say — in universities they teach a little bit about diseases of the psyche without having first taught what the healthy psyche is — so it’s like studying pathology without having first studied anatomy and physiology.

M.C.: Right.

R.A.: Otherwise, here is this psychiatry. Psychology itself is seldom taught, and that very little is an optional subject, whereas for the science of man you should have it as the prerequisite for all the others, as it is in Indonesia.

M.C.: They only have a neurological approach.

R.A.: Let’s come to psychology. As you see from this catalog of [books on] psychology, there is not much published, very little compared with abroad; but also in Italy [this is][xi] what is published. So even abroad it happens that materialistic currents still clearly prevail; that is, behavior, behaviorism, the psychology of behavior, etc. and the psychology of conditioned reflexes, — which is not psychology, but physiology — still dominate. Therefore a little story has been made of “the sad fate of psychology.” Psychology first lost the soul — we don’t talk about the soul; then the will — we don’t talk about the will; then consciousness, [because] behavior excludes consciousness, it only concerns external actions. Therefore only behavior is left. But for some time [psychology has been] recovering — it is regaining consciousness, let it regain its will. If it wants to.

M.C.: Thank you I’ll put all the material together.

R.A.: So this can be said succinctly. The stages of psychology are as follows: first, [there was] the psychology of the contents of consciousness only, classical psychology, which is superficial, [focused] in two dimensions. Then came the psychology of the external, of behavior and reflexology which is related to bios or physiology. Then came depth psychology, or psychoanalysis in a general sense — dynamic psychology, [which] however is insufficient, because it is directed only “downward” — one could call it a two-and-a-half dimension psychology. The whole upward dimension, toward the superconscious and the spirit, has been neglected. This “psychology of the upward” is in its infancy; there are already Maslow and others, but they are a small minority generally and are ignored; for example in all the books in that catalog there is no mention of it at all except of Kohler[xii]. . . the one that I showed you and what seems astonishing, [is that in it] there is no mention at all of height psychology; there is no mention of the genius, there is no mention of the super-gifted kids; they all say [these things] may exist, but they don’t deal with it, they look away from it. I made this outline of the psychological structure of the human being, which can give an idea. Then there is parapsychology which very few people admit, but it is now a science.

M.C.: How can parapsychology be defined, doctor?

R.A.: The phenomena that are outside the normal faculties.

M.C.: I want to try to break this down, can we?

R.A.: Above all, let’s say that for psychotherapy, in practice what matters is telepathy. Telepathy was admitted by Freud; he noted certain telepathic reflexes and also others, and now it is becoming, I would say, respectable; there are already university chairs in Holland and America . . .

M.C.: Is telepathy a parapsychological phenomenon?

R.A.: Yes, because everything that happens in it does not occur by means of the sense organs, the five normal senses. Now there are pathogenic and parapsychological factors that should be taken into account — now I won’t go into that, because there would be . . . Now I tell you about psychosynthesis, which is my method. Do you read English?

M.C.: Yes.

R.A.: So meanwhile [handing out material] this gives you a prospectus of my book, then I will also give you a review of my book that is coming out in America, which is very positive — here it says precisely — that the affirmation of the spiritual self, of the higher part [of the psyche], has a great importance, it has brought a revolution in psychology. So the material about the last point you will be able to [share]. Abroad it has spread very much — there are Centers: two foundations in America, one in England, one in India, two Centers in France, etc.

M.C.: Of psychosynthesis?

R.A.: Yes, exactly, of psychosynthesis, so now it has been formed in a precise way.

M.C.: Did you say in India? Two in India or America?

R.A.: Two foundations have just legally formed in America, just for psychosynthesis.[xiii] Here, this is a pamphlet from years ago but in fact it will give you an idea of it; then others started, — I’ll bombard you, but it is all light stuff.

M.C.: I have this, thank you.

R.A.: I thought I had sent it.

M.C.: In fact I always kept it.

R.A.: Then we come to India and Yoga.

M.C.: Here yes, that interests me very much.

R.A.: Here — this is a special issue devoted to psychosynthesis in an Indian magazine, you can review it at your leisure, and this — look — is a dissertation entirely on psychosynthesis and Indian philosophy.

M.C.: Let’s keep this one here to see, I’ll put this in here and send it all back to you, these notes here I don’t need, excerpts of articles.

R.A.: You can keep them.

M.C.: Thank you.

R.A.: So psychosynthesis is yoga. You have to make a preliminary distinction: the yogas are various and very different from each other, and here in the West there is a lot of confusion, but in general we refer to the physical yoga, the lower one, is called Hatha Yoga — those strange postures, with exaggerated breathing exercises, etc. Now these postures are not suitable for Westerners or Western life, except for some, and the breathing exercises are dangerous if not done very carefully.

M.C.: Why, doctor?

RA. Because they produce psychophysical reactions — that would be a long discussion.

M.C.: It would interest you that I would like to do a television report on breathing as a substitute for cigarettes.

RA. Who would that?

M.C.: I wanted to do it myself, because they say that breathing, the oxygenation that I was doing just now, produces the same effects as smoking.

RA. That’s why, if you want, you can do it [i.e., the long discussion mentioned earlier] another time, separately.

M.C.: Yes, thank you.

RA. Instead, the higher Yoga is neglected; it is called Raja Yoga, which means Royal Yoga. This shows that the Indians give it a higher position.

M.C.: The one of the spirit, let’s say.

RA. Yes — psychological, I would say; because you have to distinguish between psychological and spiritual, now you will see [this] from the rest. But there is so much that is useful; what needs to be done is an adaptation of yoga to the mentality, to the conditions of life, to the needs of Western man: so this is an aspect of psychosynthesis.

M.C.: Psychosynthesis is definitely derived from yoga.

R.A.: NO, you can’t say that it is derived — psychosynthesis uses a number of techniques from Yoga by framing them in the scientific psychosynthetic conception of the human being. This is what I want to say, that it is not an adaptation of Yoga. It has developed from itself, or rather out of the trunk of psychoanalysis, as you will see from the history of psychosynthesis. I did my [doctoral] dissertation on the history of psychoanalysis when it was completely [new] in Italy,

M.C.: Imagine.

R.A.: I’ll tell you the date —1910.

M.C.: Truly a forerunner.

R.A.: The dissertation on psychoanalysis [was done] in 1910, and then I saw limitations of it as I developed psychosynthesis. Then I got to know Yoga and saw that you can very well do some . . .

M.C.: — Exchanges.

R.A.: Yes. So these are mainly psychological exercises of concentration, visualization, exercises of the will, mind mastery, and meditation. Here, to save time and breath I’ll give you two lessons on psychosynthesis meditation; [hands out material] you can keep them.

M.C.: Thank you.

R.A.: Now this mental Yoga, these trainings and mental exercises do not necessarily have a spiritual character and are “self-centered,” they are for personal purposes. It includes — you have to always distinguish psyche and spirit; there are so many in America who try to successfully establish themselves with [only] psychological methods to . . . but this involves nothing spiritual, they are psychological techniques used for the purposes of the self. Whereas what is spiritual is instead the awakening of the superconscious, of the higher third of the psyche where there is artistic inspiration, insight, genius, even impulses to heroic acts and overcoming the instinct of self-preservation. But this is a characteristic of spirituality that is different from the pure psychological mechanism; if you want I’ll give you this note so you can use it [hands out material]; and now the last one, and then I’m at your command.

Now we come to the cultum bolens or the function of the therapist. There is a book called The Physician as Medicine[xiv] that states that the personality of the physician has an emanation, a curative or pathogenic iatrogenic influence, as you mentioned. So [there is a ] necessity for the psychospiritual preparation of the physician, a powerful influence that is not analyzable. It is a physical irradiation at all levels by healers; an emotional magnetism [that occurs] because of the psychological relationship — it is mental, [because] the mentality of the doctor influences that of the patient, so much so that it has been proven that many times the patient has tailor-made dreams: that is, [his dreams conform] to the doctor’s theory. When the patient knows which theory [the doctor] has, the Freudian one or another, then his unconscious kindly provides dreams of that kind; and then [this aligns with the] parapsychological, telepathic and spiritual influence of the doctor.

This is recognized somewhat by certain therapists, but too little; and it is unknowingly not used, [because it would have] revolutionary and difficult consequences . . . [The therapist] must cure himself and must prepare to develop his powers; it is a great responsibility, but it  has admirable possibilities for development. Now, this is not enough of an intellectual culture as far as that goes, so . . . it is precisely that the physician must apply methods and techniques to himself before [using them on a patient]. . . he should. I am talking about ideal conditions, but in short, [one should] feel the responsibility of what he personally is, and one’s inevitable influence on the patient, even if it is unintentional and unintended. Don’t you think so?

Ms. C.:Of course, yes it is indispensable, what I always strive for.

R.A.: That’s it, I’m done. But I think it was good that I gave you this overall view, so you can frame the topic.

Ms. C.: Tell me, meanwhile, about yourself: how do you want me to characterize you as a doctor; because we always use two terms.

R.A.: Officially, I am a specialist in nervous diseases but I am already known as a psychiatrist.

Ms. C.: But I wanted to talk about your Institute: [you are the] founder of the Institute of Psychosynthesis.

R.A.: Yes, since 1926. First in Rome, until 1938-39, after which there was persecution. And then I took it up again in 1958-59 here in Florence.

Ms. C.: Framing it, so you noticed the subtitle of our column: “The Mysterious Boundaries of Our Health.” This is the subtitle.

R.A.: Very good.

Ms. C.: So it can be related to your studies, in the sense that you believe in this determinative power of the mind in causing disease.

R.A.: Certainly. But I would say that you could insist on the fact of the superconscious. Because the power of the mind is now admitted theoretically: they just don’t draw their own consequences from it; but now psychosomatic medicine is recognized . . . I can give you this program [hands out material], where you will see that I gave my lecture in the combined sections of the Rome Psychosomatic Week.[xv]

So, psychosomatics recognizes the influence of the psyche on the body and this is generally recognized, but the superconscious is still unknown territory. I would say one of the characteristics of psychosynthesis is to have given the superconscious its rightful place. This includes genius, inspiration, ecstatic states of enlightenment and the study of the conditions of the particularly gifted. This too, to me, is a scandal; that is, so much is done for the subnormal, which is a beautiful, humanitarian thing; but what I call the uranium of humanity — that is, those who have the highest possibilities and who could be the future leaders, geniuses, scientific workers, etc. — is neglected. This has a humanitarian scope, I would say, and also a medical scope because those who are unrecognized and unappreciated become the rebels, the anti-social ones. [They are put in] those so-called “re-education houses” that are not for re-education at all.[xvi] Among these misfits and rebels have been found to be quite a few high achievers.

Ms. C.: That is true. I made an investigation!

R.A.: You see, on the one hand they leave idle the most valuable material, which could create a new and better civilization; and on the other hand they even allow these affairs to be conducted in an antisocial way. Now, psychosynthesis — in fact the real name, as I have already said, is bio-psychosynthesis (I don’t use it because it is a bit long) — generally deals not only with the mind as a psycho-biological factor. There is the purely psychological one, and then the spiritual side. You can make the comparison that it is like a building: psychoanalysis in general deals with the basement, the cellars that it is necessary to clean up; then normal, official psychology deals with the second floor; but there is also the upper floor and the terraces, and these are taken care of [by] psychosynthesis.

Ms. C.: Can I call it a spiritual world?

R.A.: Yes — the world of values; very good, Madam. “Values” — that particularly characterizes the individual exactly — and that’s what psychosynthesis deals with. Not exclusively, but it examines all that material that is habitually overlooked.

Ms. C.: Does Yoga and Raja Yoga deal with that as well?

R.A.: Some yogis do, some don’t. Physical yoga, no. It deals with developing certain powers over physiological functions: making the heart beat slower or faster at will, etc. But this has nothing spiritual about it. So, you have to distinguish the various yogas. And the best yoga is Raja Yoga with Patanjali’s Yoga aphorisms. I don’t know whether you have a spiritual conception of life.

Ms. C.: Ah, of life yes, of course. I met a big person in the . . . Kanagiunblaka[xvii]is the head of the Lebanese Druze.[xviii] He practiced yoga and is a very interesting character.

R.A.: But that must have been spiritual Raja Yoga. But the Patanjali Sutras are the essence of true Spiritual Yoga: mental and spiritual.

Ms. C.: To make the readers understand how Yoga works as well as possible . . .

R.A.: So, Yoga are training methods — I’m talking about the best Yoga — physio-psycho-spiritual or, I would say, more psycho-spiritual.

Ms. C.: Where does the benefit come from?

R.A.: Each technique brings its own benefit, in this case: concentration of the mind, meditation, contemplation, visualization. Each one has its own [benefit].

Ms. C.: Is there a specific benefit for each technique?

R.A.: Yes. I will gladly tell you about it. Then I will also give you exercises that we do in psychosynthesis, which are related, but always adapted to the West. Now I will make a parenthesis: I don’t know if you have seen this article on Maharishi [Mahesh Yogi] . . . in the last issue of Epoch, February 28.[xix] He consciously adapted Eastern Yoga for Westerners. In fact, in my opinion, he even did it too much because he made it a little too easy . . . but for the Beatles it was needed. For example, he doesn’t make them do any “postures;” he makes them sit with the crossed legs and that’s it. Here, look at this article . . . then, relaxation is a basic technique, both for . . . relaxation is now also used by quite a few doctors — for example, Shultz’s technique of autogenic training.[xx] Psychosynthesis has this character, that it is synthetic; that is, it uses all the valid techniques of all psychotherapies and yoga: each for its specific purposes.

Ms. C.: Let’s illustrate them; let’s give some clear examples for the readers.

R.A.: It is the means of integral personality construction. You see, another basic point of psychosynthesis is to individualize treatment. Each case is unique. Now I’ll give you an example: there are those who are tense, often because of stress, tension, or activity. They need a lot of relaxation, calming exercises, so there is an exercise on serenity. On the other hand, there are the soft, abulic[xxi] superficial types to whom, on the other hand, we need to give the opposite exercises: exercises on willpower, active concentration or other active techniques. Also psycho-physical techniques; that is, sports, but not as an end in itself but as a method of psycho-physical coordination. As you see, these are examples of two opposite cases, treated differently. Other cases could be cited, but everyone needs . . . I would say we create a special method for each patient, with a unique combination of the techniques according to the concrete needs of the patient.

Ms. C.: So let’s say that through the study of related techniques you choose, you prescribe a treatment. Just as one chooses medicines, one studies the type, the structure of the personality and prescribes one’s remedies, medicines, let’s say of the mind.

R.A.: Psychological medicines — I have cured many patients with this system. I hardly treat any now, with some exceptions; I do didactic psychosynthesis. You know that they do didactic psychoanalysis; that is, they train people in the practice of psychoanalysis; well, I do didactic psychosynthesis, and now I have five or six doctors who come for didactic psychosynthesis.

Ms. C.: And these psychological medicines one chooses from related techniques. Any other examples?

R.A.: Precisely. Paranoid people cannot [use these methods]; severe psychiatric cases do not lend themselves to psychosynthesis. To certain psychotherapies, yes; but not . . . however, given the need and the increasing number of neurotic people, I have always preferred to give my time and energy to treatable psychological cases. To “character pathologies.” Then there is the whole field of neuroses, and also the field of interpersonal conflicts, starting with those in the couple, between parents and children, and so on. And there are techniques for those as well.

Ms. C.: Do you want to tell me about that? Husband and wife, for example. What would you recommend to a couple who cannot live together?

R.A.: This would deserve an interview of its own. The first thing is to know that the specific characteristics of man and woman are psychologically different. Now I will give you my paper, “The Psychology of the Woman and Her Psychosynthesis,” in which you will find much. Then, [what is needed is a] general understanding of psycho-sexual differences and the possibilities of mutual integration. Cooperation between the sexes must replace it, but always on the psychological basis. There, there is the outline of the various levels . . . (gives descriptions or diagrams which were not transcribed) . . . So this creates a whole new vision. There is the fact that fortunately no man is 100 percent “man” and no woman is 100 percent “woman,” otherwise they would be two completely different species of animals. In everyone, in the normal human being there is, I would say, 30% of the psychological characters of the other sex — a percentage that varies, of course, until you get to the rare cases of bisexuality, etc. But the fact is that understanding the other sex acts as a bridge to mutual understanding. Now I’m going to tell you something very practical and amusing with regard to spouses. Very often, conflicts depend on the fact that the husband comes home tired from his work and would like to find a peaceful environment; the wife on her part who has been dealing with a servant or helpers, children, and suppliers is “loaded up,” and would like to unload on her husband, so . . . This is the current existential situation. so do you know what two American spouses did? They agreed to alternate: Monday he unloads, Tuesday she unloads, and so on until Saturday. So comes the Sunday, the day of leisure. And on Monday the wife [again] accepts that her husband will unload, she is good and kind, knowing that on Tuesday it will be her turn. It’s a good system, because it’s a game that looks funny, but it’s very wise.

Ms. C.: That’s what I do with my husband. I have been married ten years — perfect.

R.A.: Congratulations! But you know, this simple agreement can save marriages: knowing that you have to alternate appropriately between the combative attitude of one, and and the receptive attitude of the other. Here, you see how much can be done, and this I call psychosynthesis of the couple.

On parents and children: I will tell you just a few hints of what I do with young people. When I see a young person, especially a group of young people who often come [in feeling] a little wary; I apologize to them, on behalf of all adults, about this world they are in; and I tell them that they are right to be wary of adults because we have created a very bad world. That disarms them. And then, because I speak sincerely, with conviction, it is not a trick, and they feel it. However, young people also have a reaction that is basically right, but often excessive, and they run the risk of destroying everything. So, I make a modest proposal: what if, instead of fighting each other, we work together to make a better world?

Ms. C.: But it is the adults who do not accept the collaboration of young people. Don’t look at yourself: you are an exceptional man . . . but think of the university world! You know how things go! And afterwards, when the young people have graduated . . .

R.A.: Then I say to the young people, “but what do you think?” And gradually, they end up asking me for advice. And I refuse to give it: what can I advise you? I don’t give advice. Let’s see together, let’s collaborate on an equal basis: you have your experiences, some things you can communicate to me; and I can give clarification, but let’s not talk about advice; otherwise we go back to the system of adult-guidance and imposition. I refuse to do that: let’s collaborate. And that works. These are all different from [the usual ways] but all based on experience, rather than [something] semi-secular.

Ms. C.: Could I call you a wise one?

R.A.: NO, no. First, because I have my own deficiencies that I know well; and second, because I am not a saint.

Ms. C.: No, not a saint; I said “wise,” in the Eastern sense.

R.A.: This — see if you believe it. Culturally, I can call myself ecumenical. Here, I give you one of my writings on “Smiling Wisdom,” which may amuse you.

Ms. C.: Do you recall any particular incidents in your research experience with your students?

R.A.: I don’t know. These doctors are all in their 40s — to me they are young. Fortunately, they are not yet followers of any school: they are researchers who culturally [have been exposed to] psychoanalysis or hypnoanalysis, but they had not been satisfied with any of them. Now, instead, they are satisfied. Basically I give them therapy, because no one is 100 percent healthy and no one is 100 percent ill. Another point I would like to clarify is this: this principle means that every therapist should know his own complexes, should know himself before treating others. This is also a principle of psychoanalysis, but there, knowing oneself [only] means knowing “the cellars” — certain complexes, certain dark spots that warp the therapist’s understanding, and then [not-knowing this makes] the treatment invalid.

All physicians should do a general psychotherapy, to be applied independently of the specific situation. Every doctor and every surgeon should do a general therapy: a psychological and psychotherapeutic preparation for every surgical operation, for example, which could be done by nurses who should take psychotherapy courses for that purpose. Precisely because every disease is a psychological trauma. The doctor should know how to foster the healing forces of each individual organism; and not just to fight the disease. Fighting it is fine, but one must also encourage the processes of physical and psychological  self-regeneration, of self-healing: everything that is helpful to the body, to a serene environment. I am a great believer in the efficacy of oxygen: oxygen is life; it is the thing the body needs most: its absence even for a few minutes can bring death. I am in favor of a healthy naturissimo — getting acclimated to contact with nature: air, sun, muscle activity, moderate sports, with wise training according to [one’s] strength. But this is now widely recognized — sport that is pure competition can become aggression: up to a certain point it discharges [aggression], but then the competition increases it. Good breathing recharges the organism. Tranquilizers do not solve [issues]: they do not heal, because they do not remove the causes but can — sometimes — create more favorable conditions to fight the real causes. This is psychotherapy . . .

[i] In the original typed manuscript, the interviewer is sometimes referred to as “X” and sometimes as “Signora” and sometimes as “Signora C.” It is not certain whether any other persons participated in this conversation. —Ed.

[ii] This transcript was evidently begun some time after the conversation had started. Ellipses shown as . . . are present in the original document, signifying words not understood or missed or otherwise deleted. Emphases in italics are added by the editor; editor’s interpolations are shown in [brackets].—Ed.

[iii] It appears that Assagioli was approximating the aphorism concerning critical responses to new discoveries: First it was impossible; then it was difficult; third, we knew it all along. He is discussing resistance to new ideas. —Ed.

[iv] Urbain Jean Joseph de Verrier (1811-1877) was a French astronomer and mathematician who predicted the exitence and position of the planet Neptune using only mathematics.—Ed.

[v] Misoneism: hatred, fear, or intolerance of innovation or change (Merriam-Webster). The article Assagioli refers to is an essay titled I cavalli pensanti e i loro critici – Contributo alla psicologia del misoneismo [Thinking horses and their critics – Contribution to the psychology of misoneism], published in the magazine Psiche in 1913, in which he discussed the “thinking horses” he studied in Germany, and the psychology of resistance to what is “new.” He also wrote an essay titled Che Cosa Significa “Nuovo?” [What Does “New”Mean] which has been translated into English. —Ed.

[vi] In his essay “Psychology in the Future,” Assagioli listed the “idols” which Francis Bacon enumerated in his Novum Organum as being the main causes of error in thinking. He called them 1) “idols of the tribe,” 2) “idols of the den,” 3) “idols of the theater,” and 4) “idols of the market place.” These were tags for certain kinds of bias, prejudice, and notions that do not correspond to reality, that are accepted as truth. —Ed.

[vii] This may refer to Carlo Sitori, MD (? – 1998), a cancer specialist from Milan. —Ed.

[viii] Kohler, Wolfgang, The Place of Value in A World of Facts, Mentor Books, 1966. —Ed.

[ix] Vasco Ronchi (1897-1988) was an Italian physicist known for his work in optics. Arcetri is the historical site of the National Institute of Optics in Florence, Italy.—Ed.

[x] The magisterium is the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic church, administered by the pope and the bishops. —Ed.

[xi] Assagioli was probably at this moment showing the contents of the book catalog mentioned earlier. ­—Ed.

[xii] Wolfgang Köhler (1887-1967) was a German psychologist and phenomenologist (who left Germany for the US in 1935) who contributed to the creation of gestalt psychology. —Ed.

[xiii] Assagioli is probably referring to the Psychosynthesis Research Foundation in Delaware (later New York) and the Psychosynthesis Institute in California. —Ed.

[xiv] Il Medico come Medicina by Boris Luban-Plozza (1923-2002), a Swiss doctor who was Professor at the university of Heidelberg and President of the European Union for Social Medicine. One of his works was translated as Psychosomatic Disorders in General Practice. —Ed.

[xv] The International Conference on Psychiatry, Mental Disorders, and Psychosomatic Medicine has been held in Rome for many years. Conferences on psychosomatic medicine have been held in Rome since the 1920s. —Ed.

[xvi] This refers to juvenile penal institutions. In the US, such an institution is referred to as a “house of correction,” in which there is really no “correction.” —Ed.

[xvii] This is the spelling given in the transcript. However the reference may be to Kamal Jumblatt (1917-1977) who was a Lebanese Druze leader. —Ed.

[xviii] The Druze, (who call themselves by an Arabic term that means something like “monotheist” or “unitarian”) are an Arab and Arabic-speaking ethno-religious group whose religion is distinct from Islam and other middle-eastern faiths, found mainly in Lebanon, but also in Syria, Jordan and Israel. —Ed.

[xix] Epoca, or Epoch, was an Italian magazine published between 1950 and 1997. It resembled the American magazine Life, and the French Paris Match. —Ed.

[xx] Autogenic training is a relaxation technique first introduced by German psychiatrist Johannes Heinrich Schultz in 1932. Since then it has been widely used in clinical practice and research to produce relaxation in the body. —Ed.

[xxi] Abulic: abnormal lack of ability to act or make decisions (Merriam-Webster). —Ed.