The Unity and Diversity of the Psychosynthesis Community

By Kenneth Sørensen, MA Psychosynthesis

2025 has been a rich year for my professional life, as I have attended and contributed to two high points within the psychosynthesis community. The Synthesis Conference in New York was an extraordinary summit where 130 psychosynthesis practitioners engaged in rich exchange, group work, and high-level inquiries into the inner dimensions of Psychosynthesis. My takeaway was definitely that the expressed love between participants always trumps any theory you can imagine, because, as Assagioli states:

“…the Spirit working upon and within all creation is shaping it into order, harmony and beauty, uniting all beings (some willing but the majority as yet blind and rebellious) with each other through links of love, achieving—slowly and silently, but powerfully and irresistibly—the Supreme Synthesis.” (Psychosynthesis, p. 31.)

Synthesis is simply love and will in action, and we are Spirit doing precisely that, however often unthinkingly and rebelliously. The other event on the days around World Psychosynthesis Day in Florence at the Psychosynthesis Institute, Roberto’s and Nella’s beautiful home, was also a fantastic experience. To be present in the house of the Assagioli’s is a love experience, because that quality permeates the walls so much so that one feels instinctively at home there. (Watch a short video of the event here. https://www.instagram.com/p/DP3XNxcjPef/ )

When 30 people meditate, study, and practice Psychosynthesis together, it generates a vibe of generosity, an overflowing of meaning and purpose, because you are at the wellspring of the very movement that, for many of us, is a prominent part of our lives. Both experiences, in New York and Florence, created a sense of being part of a common purpose, united by a spirit of synthesis, even though we are also very diverse in our backgrounds and outlooks.

Differences can lead to synthesis

This experience of the community’s unity and diversity[1] is where my main objective with this article comes into play, because what are we unified around, and where do we see the process and beingness of psychosynthesis differently? I think it is an important question to ponder, because if we are going to be more than a scattered bunch of maybe ineffective, atomised individuals, doing our thing, we must know what unifies and diversifies our community.

Not that unity is good and diversity is bad; no, both are needed. But diversity without unity often ends in conflict, and unity without diversity ends in uniformity. Neither are to be pursued separately if we want a healthy, vibrant community that can catalyse beneficial change in the world.

I have had many encounters with psychosynthesis practitioners during the years, having trained at three different institutes and engaged in rich conversations with people all over: on my podcast, at conferences, in growth groups, and privately. Very often, I have been stunned by how differently we understand Psychosynthesis, and without any public debate about it. It is almost as if we shun our differences, maybe because we are so attuned to unity and synthesis that we gloss over them. I don’t know what the cause is, but I know that no synthesis can be achieved by ignoring viewpoint diversity or even by repressing it through dogma and control.

Conflict is a necessary stage before harmonisation, integration, and synthesis; the latter is not uniformity but rather a stable and dynamic balance between opposing interests. This is true at the individual level, where subpersonalities are brought into alliance through the center (the self’s) loving awareness and wise dynamic will, but also true at the community level, through a common purpose that unites the various interest groups, like in a thriving democracy.

The unity and diversity in our community

Well, let me come to my point: what are the differences that I have become aware of? I have summarized some of the more essential ones in my slide titled “The Diversity of Ontology.” However, there are many more than are covered here.

The unity and diversity in our community

I don’t have the space here to go deep into an analysis of the philosophical differences, I have done so in my other writings[2], so I will just try to give the reader a feel of the fractures that go through the psychosynthesis community, and remember, they are not necessarily bad in themselves; they are problems only if they are unrecognised and are a cause of unresolved conflicts in the community.

My point is, it is my experience, that it is not the concept of the self/Self, of a superconscious, or the notion of subpersonalities that are the unifying elements in Psychosynthesis, because the community holds so many conflicting and contradictory viewpoints that they cannot be the unifying principle. I am speaking here of the ontological dimension of these concepts and experiences, what we consider ultimate reality.

Some believe in a Higher Self, defined by Assagioli as a unifying, permanent, and contentless transcendent experience; however, others do not. Some reject the notions of a higher Self, what they call Self is God, or they have a Buddhist background, and reject the whole idea of a permanent self.[3]

Some believe and experience the conscious “I” as a center of pure consciousness and will, something made of dynamic consciousness itself, the inner observer and actor, as Assagioli defined it. However, others do not see the “I” as made of consciousness, only that it has a function of consciousness. [4]

Some believe, on an ontological level, that they are not their bodies and use the phrase “I am not my body” in the disidentification exercise, as advised by Assagioli. Others reject that phrase and proclaim, “I am my body,” and use the alternative phrase, “I am more than my body,” and reach a completely different type of experience, because it allows them to identify holistically with all their experiences instead of piling all the layers off and standing naked as pure liberated consciousness.[5]

Some believe that we can become one with Spirit—the universal Self—in a monistic way, as Assagioli points out. Others reject that possibility because they either don’t believe in a Spirit or regard the I-God relationship as only relational.[6]

Finally, there is also deep viewpoint diversity regarding the understanding of subpersonalities, with some believing they evolve throughout our lives, as part of our various roles or functions, as parents, partners, and professionals. This is Assagioli’s understanding, but others see them distinctly as childhood split-offs. [7]

What are we unified around?

Well, if the above is true, and I claim that they are, what is then the unifying principle of Psychosynthesis? My suggestion to this fundamental question is that synthesis is the unifying principle, not the understanding of Self, will, “I”, or superconscious. I have never encountered a psychosynthesis practitioner who argued against synthesis. Some have different understandings of what synthesis fundamentally is and how it is achieved, but they never dismiss it entirely.

Some might argue that if we cannot agree on the Seven Core Experiences of Psychosynthesis, as they are laid out in Assagioli’s paper on training[8], then is there any coherent perception of Psychosynthesis? Is Psychosynthesis then not a non-entity? I have written a book on this topic, The Soul of Psychosynthesis, so I understand where this thought comes from, but the reality is that we do not agree on these experiences. Assagioli himself was aware of the limitations of Psychosynthesis when he, in an interview with Sam Keen, said the following:

“The limit of Psychosynthesis is that it has no limits. It is too extensive, too comprehensive. Its weakness is that it accepts too much. It sees too many sides at the same time, and that is a drawback.”

It can come as no surprise that Psychosynthesis must include all the various experiences and viewpoints if it is going to facilitate the synthesis of humanity — yes, even a cosmic synthesis! We also have a wise founder who avoided the cult of personality by giving us all the freedom to make up our own opinions. In his Letter of Freedom[9], he said the following (see image 2):

 Seeing the various branches of Psychosynthesis

The question is now: how can we strengthen our knowledge and understanding of the unity and diversity of the psychosynthesis community? How can we come together and synthesise the community around core principles and a respect for the group’s diversity, so we become a coherent entity of unity in diversity?

As I see it, we must understand the differences, accept them, engage with them, and create clarity about the typological differences, something that my work with the Seven Types has taught me.[10] It is when we step into the shoes of another ontological stream of consciousness —a particular branch of Psychosynthesis —that we can genuinely appreciate its emphasis and qualities in the growth and expansion of the tree of Psychosynthesis. Perhaps we can someday distinguish between them and note:

Hey, this is my sister and brother from the Shamanistic branch of Psychosynthesis. They are into psychedelic experiences and how we can establish a loving relationship with Mother Earth. They emphasise communication with the ancestors and parapsychological functions.

Or, this is my sister and brother from the Secular Branch of Psychosynthesis, they follow Maslow’s emphasis on our instinctoid higher nature without any need for supernatural forces; the superconscious is just natural states of the human biological being.

Well, we might even admit that we are inspired by Assagioli’s perennial understanding[11], seeing that all Life and lifeforms come from a single source and will eventually return to that source through the evolutionary drive inherent in all of us, and with the help of psycho-spiritual techniques and a life of service. That we ultimately are a transcendent divine being, having a human experience for the embodiment and manifestation of that inherent divinity. It is an understanding that all spiritual traditions ultimately lead to the same transcendent unity.

Let’s remember that the different branches are never entirely separated from each other; they overlap and combine in various ways— but how can we facilitate that development?

The Synthesis Community will be launched soon.

This is where the Mighty Network comes in. The AAP has been creative since the Synthesis Summit in July and has established an online community that will soon be launched. Some of you will recognise it as similar to the online community of the European Psychosynthesis Association. Every member of the AAP will soon receive an invitation to join us, and this will give us all the opportunity to help create the unity in diversity by presenting our diverse viewpoints and where we can unite.

There will be no unity in diversity without communication, engagement, disagreement, respect, and the sense of a common goal – the synthesis of our community, humanity, and the planet. We call the online network the Synthesis Community, and we hope you will all show up and present your creative work, because the platform will give you opportunities to post articles, create events and live streams, and engage with people who love Psychosynthesis.

To stir your imagination, here is a screenshot from the community webpage. Imagine if you could respond to this article as soon as you read it—well, you can, as soon as the platform opens—you can disagree, give a thumbs up, or contribute your own viewpoint—see you there soon.

Kenneth Sørensen, MA, is a psychosynthesis psychotherapist and the former Director of Training at the Norwegian Institute of Psychosynthesis. He is the author of six books and publishes his work on www.kennethsorensen.dk. He also offers video lectures and podcasts on his YouTube Channel Psychosynthesis Self-Mastery (https://www.youtube.com/@psychosynthesis_selfmastery). He is a member of the AAP Steering Committee and the CEO of Jivayou.com

[1] Read Assagioli’s essay on Unity in Diversity here: https://kennethsorensen.dk/en/unity-in-diversity/

[2] See; What is Self-realisation, by Kenneth Sørensen: https://kennethsorensen.dk/en/what-is-self-realisation/ and Why You Are not Your Body According To Roberto Assagioli: https://kennethsorensen.dk/en/why-you-are-not-your-body-according-to-roberto-assagioli/

[3] See: What is Self-realisation, by Kenneth Sørensen: https://kennethsorensen.dk/en/what-is-self-realisation/

[4] See this glossary item, which is a collection of quotes by Roberto Assagioli about the self as pure awareness: https://kennethsorensen.dk/en/glossary/pure-awareness/

[5] See Why You Are not Your Body According to Roberto Assagioli, by Kenneth Sørensen: https://kennethsorensen.dk/en/why-you-are-not-your-body-according-to-roberto-assagioli/

[6] See What is Self-realization, by Kenneth Sørensen: https://kennethsorensen.dk/en/what-is-self-realisation/

[7] See the E-book Subpersonalities for an understanding of Assagioli’s view: https://kennethsorensen.dk/en/product/subpersonalities-a-collection-of-articles/ and see Digging Up the Past, by Chris Meriam, (available online) for an alternative view.

[8] See: https://kennethsorensen.dk/en/psychosynthesis-training-a-statement-by-roberto-assagioli/

[9] See: https://kennethsorensen.dk/en/letter-of-freedom/

[10] See the book: The Seven Types, by Kenneth Sørensen

[11] See my short read on the Perennial Philosophy and how it relates to Psychosynthesis: https://kennethsorensen.dk/en/glossary/perennial-philosophy/