Roberto Assagioli’s lectures on precognition explore the phenomena of precognition and its implications for determinism and freedom
By Roberto Assagioli. Translated and Edited with Notes by Jan Kuniholm [1] First article: (Doc. #23754 – Assagioli Archives – Florence). Lecture by Dr. Assagioli on March 10, 1957 Original Title: La Precognizione.
I. PRECOGNITION
Abstract : Roberto Assagioli’s lectures on precognition explore the phenomena of precognition and its implications for determinism and freedom. He begins by acknowledging the existence of precognitive experiences, which often provoke questions about whether everything in life is predetermined. Assagioli argues against a rigid view of determinism, suggesting instead that life is complex and governed by various spheres of reality, each with its own laws—physical, biological, psychological, ethical, and spiritual.
He emphasizes that while the physical world may appear deterministic, the biological and psychological realms exhibit greater degrees of freedom and complexity. Assagioli introduces the concept of “syntropy,” the tendency towards organization and complexity in living systems, contrasting it with the principle of entropy in closed systems. He proposes that freedom exists in varying degrees across different levels of reality, culminating in spiritual freedom, which is the highest form of freedom.
Assagioli also discusses the relationship between precognition and free will, suggesting that while certain events may be predisposed, they are not fixed and can be influenced by human actions and decisions. He presents examples of successful precognition experiments, such as the “empty-chair” experiments, which demonstrate the potential for accurate foresight.
In his follow-up lecture, he further elaborates on the nature of freedom and determinism, using theatrical analogies to illustrate how life can have predetermined elements while allowing for improvisation and choice within those frameworks. He concludes that understanding the interplay of determinism and freedom can lead to a more profound understanding of human existence, encouraging a holistic view that transcends materialistic and deterministic paradigms. Ultimately, Assagioli advocates for a path towards spiritual liberation, where individuals can realize their true nature and freedom as part of a larger cosmic plan.
Precognitions, or premonitions, constitute the type of phenomena that most impress and indeed disturb those who become aware of them. And this is not surprising. By now these phenomena have surely been noted by hundreds, perhaps thousands of people. They exist; this is a fact that cannot be ignored. But what are the consequences?
The first natural and spontaneous reaction is to say: but then is everything determined? If psychics can predict future events even years later, if they can give precise details of them, then is everything predetermined? Then are we puppets in an immense mechanism? Now this conclusion would be truly troubling and depressing. It is therefore urgent to see whether from the phenomena of precognition it is really necessary to draw this inference or not.
This has already been discussed in previous meetings, but I wish to take up the subject from another point of view, and frame it in an overall view from which I hope it will become clear that that conclusion of determinism is not at all necessary. I will begin by mentioning an initial piece of evidence — which I must say right away, is not proof, nor a demonstration — but which does provide food for thought. Namely, there are examples of tutelary precognitions, i.e., precognitions that constituted a warning of a future danger, and from which it turned out that the person was able to avoid that given danger, avoid leaving on a certain date, avoid taking that given vehicle, etc. These tutelary precognitions would be hard to explain by the principle of determinism: for one would not understand why a force “X” would predetermine that a person would have that given misfortune and then somehow be forewarned so that the misfortune would not occur. However, this is not a sure proof of non-determinism. Indeed, one could say that even this little game is determined. It would seem a bit strange, even a bit silly, but one cannot deny its possibility. It is good, therefore, to frame the problem much more broadly, and draw conclusions gradually as we go along, and at the end.
The problem of freedom in general is posed by philosophy in a way that is too absolute and too static; in a way that is, I would say, totalitarian: “Freedom is either there or it is not. Either we are free and responsible beings always, or we are not.” Now, this approach is too rigid: because life is not like that, it is not painted in black and white. On the contrary, it is varied and there are many shades of gray. Metaphors aside, I believe that by observing both the external world and the no less real internal world, one can see distinct fields or spheres or levels of reality; I do not say split and separate, but distinct from each other, each with certain qualities, with certain functions, and each governed by a set of laws specific to that given level, or plane of reality or dimension.
This is clear from the most modern studies of physics and chemistry. Let us examine, for example, the physical-chemical world: it in turn consists of two spheres or domains of different dimensions: the sub- or intra-atomic world, and the molecular atomic world. Now, the laws that govern them are very different. The laws of classical chemistry, the laws of mechanics, etc., do not work for the subatomic minimum dimension. It was formerly believed that this physicochemical world was rigidly determined; now that concept is doubted. Last Sunday you heard mention of Heisenberg’s “uncertainty principle,” according to which the predictability of phenomena has a statistical, not an individual character. One cannot predict the [specific] behavior of a given electron or nucleus, but only their behavior as a whole. [2]
Then there is the wonderful phenomenon of the transformation of matter into energy, which is a form of liberation. Energy liberated from matter no longer obeys the laws of matter, it is freed from them, it is liberated from them. Here, then, is already an indication of freedom in this transition from a relatively static constraint, to a dynamic energy. However, even if Heisenberg’s principle is right, this indeterminacy constitutes a negligible minimum. In effect, we can say that the physical-chemical world is practically determined, and therefore predictable in its phenomena. This predictability allows us to use it technically.
Then there is the biological world, as Dr. Mackenzie, a psycho-biologist,[3] has shown us very well. Now this world, this new sphere of reality, is different from the chemical-physical sphere. It includes it, but it is governed by different laws. Indeed, the laws of living matter indicate an obvious “finalism” [or entelechy], thus implying a psychism and intelligence. I would ask then, whose intelligence is this? And if it has consciousness, whose consciousness is it? It certainly seems not that of single individuals, that is, of elements such as cells, organs or lower organisms; but nevertheless there is a marvelous overall intelligence, which aims at an end. And the end can be summarized as follows: the preservation, development and propagation of life itself. It could be said that certain biological phenomena have an aesthetic element, although it is not clear whether it always has a purpose. That of flowers can be said to attract insects, but for example certain designs of diatoms or other things would indicate something disinterested. I mention it only to show how mysterious life is, but I cannot dwell on this.
Then there is the human psychological world. Here, too, man, taken as a physical-psychic being, is composed of matter, namely, of chemical-physical elements; and he is also a living organism, and as such obedient to biological laws. Moreover, there are typically human elements in him that animals do not have to the same extent, in the same development. There are, for example, impulses, tendencies, emotions, feelings, imagination, intelligence, reason and will. But what is most specifically human is self-awareness. The consciousness of being self. I am. Then in the psychological world there are various other laws of psychological life which I cannot dwell on now, which are not directly within our theme.
What is common to these three worlds is the tendency toward organization, complexity and synthesis. One thinks of the albumin molecule,[4] which is very complicated, consisting of 1,000 or 2,000 elements, I think . This tendency toward organization and synthesis is what Fantappié[5] calls “syntropy.” Speaking of syntropy, I mention a very recent article published by the Voice of America magazine entitled “Bertalanffy’s [6] General Systems Theory,” in which a very interesting fact is highlighted. He says that entropy[7] applies in a closed system, but only in a closed system. In open systems it no longer holds. Now, since the universe does not consist of closed systems, but each system is open and connected with other systems, we can see how [the concept of] entropy has a very relative and limited value. This syntropy is revealed in wonderful coordination, cooperation and solidarity among organs and systems in animal organisms, and especially in the human organism. Just think of digestion, of the whole digestive system in its marvelous coordination, ranging from chewing, assimilation to elimination of waste. A whole chain system that is far more complex and refined than any factory.
In the human being this is then joined by the organization of conscious experiences; the coordination of psychological functions; and finally the formation of personality, what Meyer[8] rightly called “the organism of the psyche.” Unfortunately, I must admit that this organism of the psyche is much less “organized” than the physical organism. In fact, the psyche is still in the process of organization; we could say that the human personality is a building site, not a constructed building. What is typical of man are the centers of consciousness — I will come back to that.
But above the psychological world there is another world, another sphere of reality, and that is the ethical world, the world of moral consciousness, responsibility and moral laws. To some extent this moral consciousness exists in every human being, except in pathological cases. Its elementary manifestations are found even among primitive people, and they are: a sense of justice, a sense of honor, and a certain kind of solidarity, however partial. This has even been observed among bandits and criminals: various bandits had a certain sense of honor; they killed certain people of a social class from which they had suffered injustice, or when they believed such injustice had occurred; but they did not kill others. There was Musolino[9] who cared a lot about his sense of honor, and the Camorra[10] is called the “honorable society.” The phenomenon of omertà[11] also represents a form of solidarity. In fact, among those bandits there is a great contempt for spies and informers; therefore, everything is relative, but in short, a rudiment of moral conscience is there too.
And this is the basis of the laws of human justice, however gross and imperfect: it is the principle of legal responsibility. This has been much criticized — and in theory it can be done — but in practice one cannot eliminate it, because it is based precisely on this sense of good and evil, of ethical conscience that is in all human beings. However, ethical consciousness is not the highest expression of human beings. Indeed, it has limitations on the one hand, and excesses on the other. First of all, it is (. . . ) dualistic: good, evil. Justice can be harsh, implying severe sentences, and above all morality or moralism tends to repress and condemn rather than to regulate and transform. It tends to judge others, to condemn expressions of life excessively. Puritanism and the Victorian era, and also certain occurrences in the Middle Ages, have demonstrated all this — the excesses of moralism, which like any excess, produces an equal and opposite reaction, going to the opposite excess.
This explains the current violent reaction against morality — especially traditional morality — especially by young people. It can be said that now the norms, prohibitions and condemnations of traditional morality no longer work. This is an observation. It is an obviously dangerous and excessive reaction, but it must be understood; and above all, it is vain to try to bring young people back. One must rather understand them and try to find with them a new presentation of the eternal and necessary principles of ethics and morality, which does not lend itself to those reactions, which does not fall to those excesses, and which is suited to their mentality. I will only say that one “spring” [or incentive] that works with young people is the appeal to their sense of dignity and responsibility. It is not a matter of saying, “you must not do this, it is a sin, it is terrible;” no, you have to say “you are responsible for yourselves.” I would say that even the existentialist position that is now fashionable implies and admits individual responsibility; indeed, sometimes it does so in an exasperating way: so, “you are responsible.”
I said earlier that the ethical world is not the highest expression; there is in fact the spiritual world, which is distinct from the purely ethical world, which is still strictly human. In the first place, the spiritual world includes the sphere of the superconscious, where there are psychospiritual functions — faculties that ordinary humanity does not yet possess, or possesses minimally: that is, intuition, inspiration and higher parapsychological faculties, among which there are also certain kinds of foresight and precognition (the great prophets). But the highest level of spirituality lies in that mysterious sphere of reality in which the individual enters into communion with universal life, with the supreme reality, with the transcendent, with God (all terms to designate the great mystery).
Here we have a paradox, namely that of the synthesis of individuality and universality. The individual is not lost, not annihilated in this communion with universal life; on the contrary, he feels more truly himself, yet expanded and transcending his personal limitations. From precisely this constitution of the human being emerges his dignity, his great dignity. The human being is a microcosm, a small world in which all spheres of universal reality are represented, from the mineral to the divine.
I have tried to depict this constitution of the human being in a very elementary diagram, but one that can give an initial orientation, to which I will refer later for other details. Each of these worlds has its own laws: there is a hierarchy of laws corresponding to the hierarchy of these worlds. Each of these spheres of reality includes, controls and freely regulates the phenomena of the world and of the worlds below it. For example, among innumerable possible chemical combinations the biological factor intelligently chooses and causes to operate only those suitable and necessary for its purposes, for the purposes of life; thus there is intelligent choice. The simplest phenomenon of food assimilation demonstrates this intelligent choice. Similarly in turn, among the innumerable possible biological activities — for example, muscular movements — the human psychological factor — in this case the conscious self — chooses what is useful for its purposes. If it wants to become stronger it does gymnastics, or it chooses the muscular movements suitable for transporting its body to a given place, or for speaking, or for writing. At the following octave [or level], at the fourth sphere of reality, among the innumerable psychological possibilities, the moral factor chooses and implements — or attempts to do so — those that have a specifically moral purpose. Finally, among all possible ethical activities, the spiritual factor, the soul, the spirit in us, can choose those that have a transcendent or heroic character or purpose.
Socrates would have behaved morally well if he had taken the opportunity to leave prison and continue his teaching outside Athens.[12] Peter Micca[13] would have been a valiant soldier if he had been fighting in the [regular] army, obeying precisely the moral principle of doing his duty. Instead, Socrates preferred to give a heroic example of victory over the instinct of self-preservation by happily and freely going to the death of the physical body; Peter Micca did more than his duty as a soldier, also sacrificing his own body. Another shining example is that of Albert Schweitzer, who could have continued doing most noble and highly ethical deeds as a lecturer, composer and performer of Bach’s music, but instead wanted to do something more heroic by going to Africa [as a physician] to care for the natives.[14] We see here in action the difference between ethical laws and spiritual laws.
Now, each sphere [or level] of reality is partially free in relation to the lower ones, and is regulated by the higher ones: therefore, there are hierarchies of spheres of reality, and a corresponding hierarchy of laws and degrees of freedom. There is no such thing as freedom in the abstract: there is perhaps the infinitesimal freedom of the electron, there is certainly the limited biological freedom, there is psychological freedom, which as we shall see is very partial, there is ethical freedom, and there is full spiritual freedom. Therefore, one must always understand which freedom one is talking about, according to the sphere [or level] of reality and the beings living in it. The supreme freedom is the spiritual freedom, the freedom of the hero, the saint, the sage. The freedom of the sage was highlighted well by Hermann Keyserling[15] and Maurice Maeterlinck.[16] In his book Wisdom and Destiny, which is not philosophical but has some very striking insights, Maeterlinck says, “the wise man who passes by, interrupts a thousand dramas.” He also says, “If there had been a sage — Socrates or Jesus — in place of Hamlet or Macbeth, the respective tragedies would not have happened, because the brightness and this freedom from human passions of the sage would have prevented that concatenation of crimes.”[17]
Now, let us examine a very important fact: all these choices, adjustments and directions — that a sphere of reality as well as the subjects living in it have these relative but ever-increasing freedoms, vis-à-vis the inferior ones — they do not violate, do not abolish the laws of the subject worlds. Rather, they accept them and use them by respecting them. This is an important point: freedom is not against the law. Freedom, and determination according to a law, are not two irreconcilable facts. An obvious example I often cite is that of the conquest of the air. Airplanes do not abolish, do not go against the law of gravity; all the calculations of design engineers aim to use that law, not to circumvent it; they aim to act in cooperation, in harmony with it.
Therefore, I repeat, we have a number of degrees of freedom, but all within the law, or rather within the scope of all laws. The negative proof of this is that every usurpation of power, every demand that conflicts with the laws of a lower world, produces conflict, disorder, failure and harm. Examples, unfortunately, are not lacking. Man’s violation of biological laws, even done with good motives (e.g., unhygienic living, overwork, excessive exertions), produces disorders and diseases; this is the upper world tyrannizing the lower world, and the latter rebels; that is, the upper world violates the laws of the lower world, and this produces disorder and reactions.
The same happens when excessively demanding moralism goes against psychological and biological laws. This explains a frequent misunderstanding concerning the great principle of acceptance, which has been taught by all masters of life — Chinese and Indian sages, Jesus, Christian saints, and even modern psychotherapists such as Jung and Han.[18] Acceptance is not passivity, inertia and resignation; rather, its true meaning is the willing acceptance of the universe and its laws — all its laws — and the great lawgiver who established them. Let us remember at this point that if one admits that there are laws, one must postulate that there is the one who formulated them, the one who created them. Even in the human field there are no laws without a legislator, or without a legislative body. But it is still a matter of an active acceptance, a wise and loving cooperation with the laws and their maker, and an adherence to and cooperation with his plan and ends. In this precisely lies our true freedom, the freedom of man; and it is the secret of peace, joy and success.
Now let us return for a moment to the finalism connected with precognition. It is a way, a path (. . . ) in advance; that is, finalism implies a goal, and a striving toward this goal. But what does this mean? It means that it implies foresight; a goal must necessarily be known, that is, foreseen. Man therefore continually makes forecasts.
There are psychological precognitions, and there are spiritual, prophetic and inspirational precognitions. Now, it is good to realize that a prediction affects our conduct, and thus changes the future. The fact that we foresee something causes our conduct to adjust according to that prediction. For example, the prediction of a danger tends to make it avoidable, and so on. But purpose, foresight and direction toward a goal, imply will. We shall speak about the will in a moment.
We come now to the more practical part of applying the (. . .) — the ways and means of liberation, and the corresponding methods. We feel freer or limited in various ways, and there is in us a deep aspiration toward freedom, toward liberation. Let us take the human level; that is, what can be called psychological liberation. A human being who has not deluded himself, who knows himself a little, knows that he is very often dominated by instincts, by passions, by suggestions — but he is more so than he knows. Indeed, studies on the unconscious and psychoanalytic investigations have shown that very often we are duped by our unconscious — that is the right word, we are led by the nose by our unconscious. We are like those who undergo post-hypnotic suggestion. And this is serious. It has been shown by psychoanalysis how two of the most important choices and decisions in life are often determined by completely unconscious motives: these are the choice of career and the choice of spouse, and these are therefore serious mistakes and consequences. Therefore, it is necessary to know this, and by a suitable exploration of the unconscious — which to some extent can be done by oneself — to free oneself from these suggestions. Then there is mental liberation from errors and sophistry, to which our mind, our rationality, not infrequently, is enslaved; it is at the service, like a lawyer paid by our conscious or unconscious passions and tendencies.
Next, the development of personal will. There is ethical liberation: it consists above all in liberation from egocentrism and excessive individualism. It consists in a full recognition of human relationships and bonds, sociality and its laws, and the establishment of right relationships. Here, too, it is necessary that this be done harmoniously. For this is not the subservience to collectivity on the one hand, nor a rebellion against social duties on the other: it is rather a consciousness of human groups, and groups of groups, of their hierarchy and right relationships among all. This is the current social-political problem about which there would be so much to say.
At the upper octave [or level] there is finally spiritual liberation, which can be defined as an enlargement of our field of consciousness to include the superconscious, and which involves the awakening of higher faculties and functions, such as spiritual telepathy, intuition, inspiration and precognition in geniuses, prophets, and initiates.
Parallel to the development of consciousness toward this higher region, there is the development of self-consciousness in the spiritual sense; namely the conscious self becoming increasingly aware of its original source, the spiritual Self or Soul, and their gradual mutual rapprochement, until there is identification. This implies a gradual disidentification of the conscious self from all the contents we have been talking about: passions, feelings and mental limitations. By virtue of this disidentification, the self or “I” must feel free from these elements to which it usually attaches. Keyserling made this fine observation, “the infallible index of inner freedom is a sense of humor.” All this implies the development of the will, the development of a personal will.
The will is an essential faculty of the “I” or self. It is necessary for the organization of the personality, for the creation of the broadest syntheses, for the increasing mastery of multiplicity, for the subordination and control of psychobiological, psychological and even ethical forces and faculties. This necessarily implies vigilance, tension, struggle and responsibility, and this gives us the key to explain a strange paradox found precisely in the field of freedom. That is, we note in human beings the presence of two strangely opposite tendencies: on the one hand the profound aspiration for freedom (“he goes to win his freedom; and how dear that is the man who gives his life for it best know.”[19]), and on the other hand the antipathy and resistance of so many elements in us toward this freedom. The revulsion toward freedom, the flight from freedom — these are less obvious, but they exist. They have been described very well by Keyserling, and also by Erich Fromm[20] in his book Escape from Freedom.
And to try ( . . . ) to call the gregarious instinct, to try to blend in, to spread among the masses, conformism, acceptance of leaders, of dukes, of tyrants, of rulers. Freedom is a beautiful thing, but it is burdensome, precisely because it implies responsibility, tension, vigilance and presence. It can be said of freedom — as has been said of war — that it is beautiful but it is uncomfortable. And the fundamental tendency, that is, the inertia that is present in human beings, flees from freedom. So man is torn between many contrasts, by this fundamental aspiration for freedom and rebellion against external constraints; on the other hand, however, he does not know what to do with this freedom, he squanders it and tries to take refuge in some conformity. And this also explains another strange fact that I would call “the scandal of modern psychology:” that modern psychology systematically ignores the will. It’s easy to prove this: Freud never talks about it; in Freud’s books there is never mention of will; there is talk about so many conscious and unconscious things, about instincts, and never about freedom. Jung, who made a very good study of the human being, studied his four functions very well: sensation, feeling, imagination, thought and intuition; but the will does not exist in the psychological structure of the human being according to Jung. Adler, then, was a slanderer of the will: he only pointed out its deteriorating aspects, the will to power. All of his therapy is based on the development of sociality, namely, on the abolition of the individual will. (. . .) Then he also slandered freedom and said that when will and imagination are at odds, the will gets the worst of it.
In short, it can be said that modern psychology ignores the will. How can this strange fact be explained? It is explained as with moralism; that is, as an overreaction to the voluntarism of the past. Indeed, in the past there was a misconception of the will, of its power and functions. Therefore the will was always appealed to, meaning by will something hard and imperious, which had to suppress, repress and condemn other psychological expressions. Of course there came a rebellion, and the will was thrown overboard. Now even this is an overreaction, and I would say it is stupid. We must therefore put the will back in its rightful place, which is high, and give it back its valuable function, but without abuse of power.
I will only say briefly that the function of the will is to direct, to guide and to transform, and not to repress. And especially not to try to do so by violent effort, by imposition. One could make a somewhat simplistic comparison, but (. . .). One who wants to do everything by will, by voluntarism, would be like someone who wanted to push a car from behind, struggling hard and going at a walking pace at best. Instead, volition consists in sitting comfortably at the wheel and with little effort, skillfully and intelligently sending the automobile where it wants to go. Therein lies the difference. Hence the methods of liberation are clear: first and foremost, an ever-growing and distant foresight of the goal to be achieved. Foresee as much as possible. And this is already clearly seen in the trend of modern life, the complexity of which has led to the need for a whole series of plans — five-year plans, ten-year plans, etc. — and projects. Now, planning implies foresight; I would say, precognition. One tries to foresee and know in advance gradually what can be done, until a given goal is reached.
Now here we have a fact that can give us some light on precognition. Projects, programs, and plans, often do not get implemented as they were intended, but are changed in the course of construction; many times they even have to be abandoned. Let me repeat here an example that I have also given other times, but which is very clear, regarding the project, the plan of a building. When the plan is ready, with all the drawings and descriptions in the architect’s office, whoever would go and see the drawings and read the plan could predict all the characteristics of the building that will be constructed. All this we say very probably, but not certainly. Personal and general factors may indeed interfere, from the time of planning the project to the time of its full implementation.
And so I believe this is also the case with many human projects and plans, individual or collective. And so there is no reason why it should not also happen for plans that are prepared of future events. Here, too, we need to abandon the overly personal idea of a God who meticulously arranges every personal or collective event. Religions themselves admit the existence of great hierarchies of Beings who are intermediate between man and God. And it is said that angels — and other higher beings or demiurges, etc. — are the collaborators, the instruments God uses for His purposes, but they are not perfect and infallible Beings. Now I mention them only to say that it may well be that the plans of future events are indeed arranged, but they are also changeable up to the last moment. This is the point that can reconcile predetermination — and thus precognition — with freedom.
I will mention briefly that plans imply images and drawings, like that of the architect; they imply models, and these models have creative efficacy. There are external models and internal models. For example, the model of the ideal self-image: a very effective psychotherapeutic and psychological method. Man can also enter into communion and cooperation with the energies and laws of beings of the level which is progressively higher than human. This is by the methods of prayer, meditation, invocation and communion. In religious language, these are the means of communication with God, which have various stages and modes. The main ones are: illuminative union, the revelation of meanings and purposes of individual and collective life, and then revelations of the future, prophetic revelations. Here we always find precognition: the possibility, the reality of precognition. Here it would no longer be a matter of precognition in the individual’s own faculty, but of precognition inspired by higher beings.
Then there is the union of love or mystical union, and the union of wills. Here again there is an admirable reconciliation, or rather a synthesis, between will and freedom. Indeed, when the human will harmonizes with the divine will, it realizes its highest freedom. Dante has admirably expressed this. The effects of the union between the human will and the divine will are, first of all, peace: “In his will is our peace.”[21]
So this union gives man the greatest power. This was said in a somewhat playful but effective way by some writer: “God and I are in the majority.” This power is expressed in the supernormal powers of saints, mystics and initiates. These three modes, the illuminative union of love and wills converge, and at the summit merge into a great synthesis. Dante tells us, “as I wished, the truth I wished for came cleaving my mind in a great flash of light.”[22] That is, the union of knowledge, illumination and radiance “and will in which his desire came.” Then he tells us: “light of the intellect, which is love unending; love of the true good, which is wholly bliss; bliss beyond bliss, all other joys transcending;[23] that is, the union of knowledge, love, and joy. Finally, the union of human will and desire with the will of God, which is love: “but already I could feel my being turned — instinct and intellect balanced equally as in a wheel whose motion nothing jars — by the Love that moves the Sun and the other stars.”[24]
II. PRECOGNITION
Follow-up Lecture by Dr. Assagioli
(Doc. #24234 – Assagioli Archives-Florence)
Original Title: Seguito della Conferenza del Dott. Assagioli
March 17,1957
Last Sunday, in order to deal with the scientific subject, I did not have time to talk about the facts of precognition, assuming that these were already known to those present, who are all interested in parapsychology. But tonight — since there is time — I will mention some of them, because facts are always interesting, and when well documented, they are convincing. The facts I will mention now are “first fruits;” that is, facts that have been observed here, but not yet publicized.[25] One of the most interesting types of precognition is that constituted by the so-called “empty-chair experiments.” They consist in this: before a lecture occurs, the psychic goes to the [empty] lecture hall, and is shown — or chooses — an empty chair; he sits in it, or touches it, and then says his impressions of the person who will occupy the chair during the lecture. This sounds like a very difficult experiment, yet it is one of the most successful types of experiments. A number of them have been done, and I can tell their story.
The best known and most classic is the one done by Dr. Osty,[26] director of the Institut Métapsychique International in Paris, with an exceptionally gifted psychic, Forthuny.[27] Two or three hours before a conference, Dr. Osty, Forthuny and a stenographer went to the empty room. Forthuny approached a chair, touched it, and then dictated a series of expressions about the person who would occupy the chair. A signed report was made, which was sealed in an envelope; outside the door, there was a crush of people waiting to enter. Then the door to the hall was opened, and a stream of people entered the hall in a disordered way, and occupied all the seats. Then Dr. Osty told of the experiment that had been made, and asked the lady who had occupied the chair if she was willing to confirm the possible accuracy of what Forthuny had heard. The envelope was opened and the stenographic account of what Forthuny had said was read. Well, the statements turned out to be almost all very exact, with some very precise details. [28]
Other such experiments were done in Holland by Prof. Tenhaeff.[29] We know that Holland is in the forefront of these studies, because there is a university chair of parapsychology in Utrecht. This experiment was also fully successful.[30] But the most surprising of these precognition experiments was a fairly recent one, done with a psychic whom I think was Dutch. The experiment was done in Germany a few days before the psychic arrived in Verona, where the lecture was given. So, the psychic did not see the room, and he did not see the chairs; he only had a drawing of the room with the chairs, he pointed to a chair on the drawing, and he did the precognition of the person, who would sit in the room that he did not know in Verona a few days later. Well, that too gave fully positive results, with some inaccuracies, but with absolutely precise details which were published in Luce e Ombra.[31] Also here in Florence last year we did some experiments in empty-chair precognition as a test, and they gave positive results. Then we also did some in the past few Sundays, and now I will give you these “first fruits” — I will read you the results.
(He reads the results of the experiments). [32]
Now, these are the phenomena of precognition. Something is predicted, something is said before it has happened, before a given chair is occupied. Then there are also thousands of spontaneous precognitive phenomena, which are found in the parapsychological literature. So, there is no arguing about the facts: they exist. Last Sunday I tried to frame them in, I would say, a scientific conception, which might make them not less interesting, but less disturbing in their philosophical implications. I tried to show that precognition does not imply determinism at all. Now, on this we can now have a conversation.
(Prof. Siciliano interjects [question or comments were not given])
Freedom should not be understood as something absolute, because nothing is absolute in cosmic becoming and in human life. But rather there is a margin of freedom, a percentage of freedom, and above all a freedom that gradually increases from level to level, in the dimensions going from matter to spirit. This is where what Prof. Siciliano said fits very well. There would indeed be a cosmic plan or a divine plan; there would be something preordained, predisposed; but the intermediate means and events between the point of departure and the point of arrival would have considerable freedom. I find that this to be a very accurate and ingenious perspective, which truly reconciles — not abstractly, but concretely — the facts on the one hand, and the needs of our spirit on the other.
A theatrical comparison comes to mind, which is not at all irreverent, because cosmic becoming has also been regarded as a sacred performance. There is a beautiful sonnet by Tommaso Campanella,[33] which begins like this, “In the theater of the world souls are masked from their bodies and affections . . .” Well, in the commedia dell’arte,[34] in which acting is almost [completely] improvised, exactly this happens. The author gives the plot of the play; that is, the play has this given beginning and has this ending, to which one must arrive by successive stages generally indicated; however, the text is not written. Each actor improvises the words he has to say, but within that outline. Here there are two freedoms: one is to formulate what the actor has to say in the sense indicated in the script, more or less happily, more or less well done; and second, the way of acting it out, either good or not so good.
So we see that in a very simple human phenomenon we would have an obvious example of how there can be two things: a prearranged plan with an ultimate end to be arrived at, but also a certain latitude, a certain elasticity, a certain freedom of choice as to the means of expression and the more or less happy and skillful way in which the actor performs the task indicated to him. And precognition would consist precisely in this: one might say, “tonight in the theater this subject will be treated, and a play on this subject will be performed, and the end of the play will be such and such.” Any analogy is not to be taken strictly literally; in fact, the analogy consists in the concept of the parallelism of the concept; after all, certain key phrases could also be assigned to the actor, and he would have to speak them.
This complements what I said last Sunday, which is that every event would be prepared and arranged like every human project, going from the five-year plans of a nation, to a blueprint of a building, to the outline of a book, and so on; and this is all done by successive approximations. It is not that when the idea comes, it is implemented with a magic wand. Instead, there is a whole series of stages and elaborations, especially in a democratic regime: that is, the idea of implementing a given thing goes through the Council of Ministers, committees, two branches of Parliament, amendments, back to the other branch of Parliament, etc. So there is a whole lot of successive approximations and modifications from the time the idea is born to the time it is implemented.
Now, those who know where things stand at a given stage can make a prediction, which in the best of cases may be almost entirely exact; in other cases — which are the most frequent — there is instead a mixture of exact and non-exact data, as in the precognitions I mentioned just now. And so it would be — for that given bill or legal proposal — that for the part that is not changed, the prediction is exact; however, in the part that is changed by the House or the Senate, it is no longer exact. So, it seems to me that one can come to confirm and corroborate this concept in many different ways: everything is arranged, but everything is also amendable until the last moment, by some interference or intervention of other facts. And this is indeed very logical because (. . . ) .
( . . .) science is revealing to us, more and more, what one might call “cosmic solidarity.” First man believed himself to be isolated, then there was socializing, then tribes, then nations, continents and the planet. And now we try to escape from the planet in a physical way with instruments, with space vehicles, but especially in a scientific way with astronomy, astrophysics, etc. We recognize how many influences and interferences there are in the world, starting with cosmic rays. Therefore, no fact, or group of facts can be isolated. All are connected with the great cosmic becoming, and therefore any preparation, any predisposition on the part of a man, or even a large group, cannot fail to be easily changed by influences coming from outside the closed system.
Now we are just scientifically studying the concepts of closed systems and open systems, and here we come back to entropy. Entropy had been asserted as something absolute, because it did not take into account everything that happens outside the closed physico-chemical system, within which — in that given dimensional structure — entropy actually works. Precisely all these arguments corroborate and confirm each other. The starting point was entropy — it was syntropy, which was so lucidly illustrated by Prof. Cirinei.[35]
This is a very clear example: within a closed and circumscribed system certain laws hold, and therefore certain predictions can be made in a safe way. But such a system is not isolated in a cosmic vacuum, but rather is part of larger systems, and these are part of larger and larger systems. The interferences between the smaller systems and the larger systems leave precisely that degree of indeterminacy and freedom that we spiritual beings feel as an intimate experience and as an inescapable requirement of the dignity of human life. Under the hypothesis that fixed points are infinite, there is no freedom; but what we say is precisely that these fixed points are not infinite at all: they are only some, not all. [36]
Let us refer again to the analogy — again in a broad sense — of the commedia dell’arte. The author has indicated certain plot ideas, but [in a closed, deterministic system — a scripted play] those ideas would then represent every word that all the actors have to say. No, [in fact] the author would say that he gave only a few ideas [for the plot] — statistically very few points in comparison to all the words that will actually be spoken by the actors during two or three hours of the play. So, most of the words are not determined at all, only a minority are; so there remains that latitude we were talking about.
( . . .) However, it is true that [in geometry] there is only a single straight line connecting between two points by the shortest route — but this can be answered by remembering that in the universe straight lines do not exist. Einstein gave the latest demonstration of this: everything in the universe is curved, even light rays are curved by gravitational fields. The latest hypothesis presented is that the universe is not infinite in an absolute sense, but that there is a possible curvature of its space, which could be either flat, or spherical, or hyperbolic.
But the point I would like to come back to — rather than the abstract one — is the concrete one that concerns us living beings, and it is the point that perhaps has not, to my knowledge, been emphasized much by others. It is that of degrees of freedom, and inversely of determination, in relation to different levels or worlds. ( . . .) That there is a psychological world, we all know, as psychological beings who enjoy, who suffer, who are conscious. There is also a spiritual world, which is not admitted by all. But I would say that the flower of humanity — that is, the beings who have attained higher development — these have specifically attested that there is a world of the spirit, with its own sphere of experience. This is not a hypothetical or abstract world, but a world of actual experience and spiritual consciousness that is different from the psychological consciousness of normal man. It has characteristics, intensities, values and effects that are clearly distinct from those of the purely psychological world, formed by emotions, feelings, imaginations, concepts and ideas.
Now, in each of these levels there is a corresponding type and degree of freedom. This may be questionable at the level of the chemical-physical world. According to certain non-deterministic theories, it has been said that there would be a minimum there as well; but that does not matter to us, we may well grant the determinists that the chemical-physical world is determined. But when you get to the biological world, all modern studies of psychobiology show that here there is a finalism, a pathway or bridge that exceeds, that transcends chemical-physical mechanical determinism. Then in the psychological world there is the internal experience of a certain freedom. Finally, in the spiritual world, each of those who have had the experience triumphantly states, “ubi spiritus, ibi libertas ” — where there is spirit, there is freedom.
Thus, there are different spheres of life, each with an increasing degree of freedom: minimal or zero in the chemical-physical world, maximal in the spiritual world. This conception, in addition to seeming reasonable, gives us a key to understanding and solving the determinism-freedom, precognition-freedom problem; it also has an ethical-spiritual value; that is, it shows us the way to liberation, as I mentioned last time. Freedom is not something static which is given to us in one lump, so to speak; but is only a first principle of psychological and moral freedom (in my description tonight I skipped the ethical sphere, which has special characteristics, which are different from the purely psychological, and different from the purely spiritual sphere as well). So in this way we clearly see the path of successive and increasing liberations from the weight of the element that is determined in us, and the achievement of more and more freedom.
And in fact (I would say not as an absolute, but a significant confirmation), those who practice the divinatory arts in various ways, including astrology, etc., say that with simpler and more elementary people it is much easier to make correct predictions than with more advanced and more complex people. This is a finding — I would say a naive one — that they have ascertained in their more or less minimal experience, but it would confirm in full what I have said now about degrees of freedom.
As for that, you raise an interesting point, which has been raised by others. Now, in this regard one could perhaps say ” obscurum per obscurius ,’ [37] because the fourth dimension is a rather obscure thing. There would be a lot to say, but first of all it should be made clear that there are various conceptions of the fourth dimension: there is the purely geometric conception, there is the physical conception, and there is the psychological-philosophical conception. Therefore, it is good to clarify which “fourth dimension” we are talking about. The geometric fourth dimension, in the specific field of geometry, is a fact. Mathematicians can perfectly calculate, they can tell what the properties of the hypothetical four-dimensional object are, by means of the phenomenon of inverse projection. [38] Any drawing of a building, or of a solid, take for example the simple solids such as a pyramid, cone, etc., of all these what is the relationship between the three-dimensional object and its projection in two dimensions. And conversely, from the two-dimensional drawing we go back to the properties and dimensions of the three-dimensional object. What did mathematicians do with four-dimensional geometry? They considered a three-dimensional object as the projection of a hypothetical four-dimensional object, and then calculated the geometric qualities that a four-dimensional object has once it is projected onto three dimensions.
Not only that, but geometers have gone further: they — Lobachevsky [39] and others — have discovered a very ingenious four-dimensional geometry, which I look at with a certain awe reverentialis , because it greatly transcends my mathematical abilities, which are modest, but which I have no reason to question. Mathematical friends, like Prof. Cirinei, confirm that in a closed system they are valid. So this is the geometric fourth dimension, which is very interesting, but has nothing to do with our precognition problem.
Then there is the Einsteinian fourth dimension — so called because Einstein is one of those who worked most on it — which would be time. Time as the fourth dimension of space. An object, a being does not only exist in space, but also has its own life that develops in time. And this is also a fact. Now, the interplay between the three spatial dimensions and the fourth temporal dimension has also produced these very interesting physical studies leading to such ingenious theories as Einstein’s. Again, I have no competence to evaluate it, but I have the utmost respect for it, and I have no reason to doubt that — no matter how much some parts of this theory may have been questioned — in some way the time dimension may also represent a [real] dimension, precisely because time is measurable, not with the meter stick but with the clock. That therefore a four-dimensional [theoretical] system is being created, seems to me beyond question. And this can have a direct application to our problem.
I will then mention the other “fourth dimension,” the one I have basically seen out just now: that is, the dimension that could be called “inward,” or “upward,” in the psycho-spiritual sense. That is, the one that goes from matter to spirit, through the various degrees of bios , psyche and ethos to spirituality. It can also be called a dimension, in the sense that the psychological distance between two contiguous worlds and two non-contiguous worlds also has its own “thickness,” and thus a dimension.
It can be said that the distance between bios and psyche , between organism and human psychism (because according to psychobiologists, bios is imbued with psyche , but let us take the human self-conscious psyche) — that the distance between bios and psyche is much less than the distance between matter and ethos or spirit: and therefore it exists. Now, it is a matter of words, but I think you can very well call this series of degrees and levels from matter to spirit “a dimension.” This — as I mentioned last Sunday, and summarized today — is also a key to being able to interpret the phenomena of precognition. So, these two — the second and third conceptions, that of the fourth dimension as time, and that of the fourth dimension as the distance between spheres of reality — can help to understand the phenomena of precognition.
The dimension of time must be understood well in order not to fall into determinism. That is, it should not be understood in a mechanical way, in the sense that we are in a time train that arrives at successive stations and places that are already predetermined, rigid and decided, so that one who knows, for example, the Florence-Milan railway line, can say a priori that after a certain time there is such and such a tunnel, and then Bologna, etc.; and that only for those who were unaware of the route would the journey be a novelty, a discovery, with the various successive stages. No, this is not the conception of the time dimension. The dimension of time can very well be understood in the sense I have already mentioned. It is the dimension where the future is prepared and elaborated; it is a construction site, it is a forge of the future, in which they pass (. . . ) and there is always the margin of the unexpected. Even in the Florence-Milan route, with all its predetermination, this [variability] is evident in the disastrous delays not foreseen by the timetables.
Let us take one of the most obvious biological phenomena of predisposition, and that is gestation: from conception to birth, everything is in fact predisposed, but even here exogenous or endogenous accidents can always intervene, producing, for example, abortion; and so the predisposition is there, but it is not everything. This again is a very clear example of a predisposition that is not rigidly deterministic and fatalistic. That is to say, the evolution of the embryo and later of the fetus in the womb is a closed system, but it is so in a way that is not absolute, but only relative, because any influences from outside — such as the mother falling — are external phenomena which alter or even suspend the course of the closed system, by interfering with it.
Thus, [there is a ] fourth dimension in the two senses — temporal, or of two spheres of life — but never closed systems, and therefore there is always the possibility of interference in what is predisposed, and insofar as it is predisposed, predictable and pre-knowable: both predictable by ordinary means and pre-knowable by parapsychological faculties. It seems to me that all this comes more and more to confirm this reconciliation of a partial determinism — in the sense of predisposition and preparation — and a freedom of interference up to the last moment. And parapsychological phenomena, to return to them specifically, fully confirm this, because every psychic experiences a strange mixture of exact precognitions and wrong precognitions.
Osty highlighted this very lucidly in a chapter on errors in his classic book La connaissance supernormale , [40] which I recommend to anyone interested in this subject. Osty and Geley [41] have themselves been the object of most interesting precognition. Geley, who was director of the Institut Métapsychique International before Osty, perished in a plane crash in Poland [in 1924]. Well, this accident had been predicted by several, I think about ten, psychics independently of each other, some of whom had predicted to Osty that an unforeseen event would cause him to change his kind of life and location. In fact, Geley’s death resulted in Osty’s being called to the leadership of the IMI, and thus his move to Paris, with his consequent abandonment of the medical profession. They too [the psychics researchers themselves], therefore, were the subject of impressive precognitions. However, Osty was not impressed by them to the point of admitting determinism, for in his study of no less than 104 psychics — all those he could find in Paris — he came to the conclusion that there is a mixture of truth and error, and of right precognitions and wrong precognitions, which fully rescues the indeterminacy of the future. [42]
( . . .) they are of great help to us and to others, especially to young people, to combat every materialistic, deterministic and skeptical conception. They are, I would say, a valuable weapon, almost the best science has to offer to open the way to every form of spirituality and religion. All the presumptuous claims made by the materialistic and deterministic science of the past century have thus been proven wrong, and all those who had been fascinated — and there have been many latecomers to the culture who are still charmed or hypnotized by the claims of a Heckel [43] and others — are ( . . . ) therefore the mind that is fully predisposed by freeing and clearing of those prejudices, opens the door; and science and parapsychology cannot be asked to do more than open the door to the spirit, because the spiritual or religious system transcends the scientific system. [44]
Rather than retrogression, I would speak of rediscovery. I would say that metapsychic phenomena have always existed: they are found, for example, in primitive tribes, and the Bible itself is full of them. They are therefore universal phenomena. Now it is precisely a question of understanding them and including them in a system of knowledge. As for Kant’s critique, I would say that it is very fair, and I agree with it wholeheartedly.[45] I would say that one could express this in modern language by saying that Kant made the mistake of creating two closed systems without any communication between them; that is, the phenomenal and the noumenal. This situation does not exist, precisely because there are no “watertight compartments” in the universe. Yes, there are some in ships, and there they are very useful; but in the universe and in becoming there is nothing “absolutus;” that is, separate, autonomous.
Rather, there are varying degrees of communication and communicability, and it is interesting to see how right now science, even sociological science, is placing more and more emphasis on everything that is [related to] communication. Even cybernetics itself is currently based on the discovery and recognition of the science and use of intercommunication. I would really say that the whole modern science of automation — with its various biological, political, etc. applications. — is based on intercommunications. So parapsychology is but one of the many fields that study the infinite and wonderful intercommunications of this living universe of which we are a part; albeit as “roseau pensant,” as Pascal said.[46]
So we can conclude: there are ways to liberation, there are ways to rise to ever greater freedom, until [we reach] the full realization of our spiritual nature as children of God, and the world of freedom.
[1] Editor’s interpolations are shown [in brackets]. Ellipses (. . . ) are as found in the original typed manuscript. These are presumably parts of the lecture which were not intelligible to the transcriber. Some repeated phrases have been omitted. Some punctuation has been altered or added, as the verbal nature of the original allows for particular emphasis that may not be obvious in a verbatim typed transcript. -Oath.
[2] The uncertainty principle, also known as Heisenberg’s indeterminacy principle, is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics . It states that there is a limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum , can be simultaneously known. In other words, the more accurately one property is measured, the less accurately the other property can be known. -Oath.
[3] William MacKenzie, Ph.D. (1877-post1960) was a British biologist and writer who was born and studied in Italy, associated with the Universities of Turin and Genoa, and was President of the Italian Society for Parapsychology and editor of the journal Parapsicologia.
[4] Albumin is a family of globular proteins commonly found in blood plasma. -Oath.
[5] Luigi Fantappié (1901–1956) was an Italian mathematician , known for work in mathematical analysis and for creating the theory of analytic functionals . Later in life, he proposed scientific theories of sweeping scope. His findings indicate that negative entropy (see Note 7 below) is associated with life in the same way as consciousness is. Consciousness could be a process based on negative entropy. In 1942 he put forth a unified theory of physics and biology and the syntropy concept. Syntropy is a term used interchangeably with “negative entropy.” -Oath.
[6] Karl Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1901–1972) was an Austrian biologist known as one of the founders of general systems theory (GST). This is an interdisciplinary practice that describes systems with interacting components, applicable to biology , cybernetics and other fields. Bertalanffy proposed that the classical laws of thermodynamics might be applied to closed systems, but not necessarily to “open systems” such as living things. -Oath.
[7] Entropy is a scientific concept that relates to the degree of disorder in a system, commonly associated with the second law of thermodynamics and indicating that ultimately there is an irreversible degradation of the matter and energy in the universe, ending with an ultimate state of inert uniformity. -Oath.
[8] probably Adolf Meter (1866-1950), Swiss-born American psychiatrist and first president of the American Psychiatric Association, author of numerous articles in scientific and academic journals. He developed a theory of psychobiology. -Oath.
[9] Guiseppe Musolino (1876-1956), “Bigante Musolino” or “the King of Spromonte,” was an Italian brigand and folk hero from Calabria who escaped from prison and committed a string of murders in retaliation for false testimony delivered against him during his trial for violence during a massive brawl. -Oath.
[10] The Camorra is an Italian mafia-type criminal organization in the Campania region of southern Italy, dating from the 18 th century, divided into several groups or “clans.” In recent years it is said to have acquired a strong presence in other European countries and South America. -Oath.
[11] Omertà: “code of silence.”
[12] Ancient Greek philosopher Socrates (c.470-399 BC) was condemned to death in Athens for teaching ideas that many considered impious and corrupting of youth. His sentence was to die by drinking poison, and he refused all offers to help him escape, following his ethical and moral principles to the end. -Oath.
[13] Peter Micca (1677-1706), aka Pierre Micha, was an Italian tunneler and bricklayer who became a national hero of the Duchy of Savoy for his sacrifice in the defense of Turin against French troops. -Oath.
[14] Schweitzer (1875-1965) was a German-French theologian, Lutheran minister, musicologist, and philosopher. He received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1952, which recognized his philosophy of “reverence for life.” -Oath.
[15] Hermann Keyserling (1880-1946) was a Baltic-German philosopher, author of numerous works in several languages. He and Assagioli had a correspondence although they met only once. -Oath.
[16] Maurice Maeterlinck (1862-1949) was a Belgian playwright, poet, and essayist, awarded the Nobel prize in Literature in 1911. —Ed.
[17] These quotes are translated from Assagioli’s Italian, not from the originals. — Tr.
[18] Source of this reference to “He” is unknown. -Oath.
[19] —Dante, Purgatorio,Canto I, vv.70-72, spoken by Virgil, this translation by John Ciardi, New American Library 1954-1970. -Oath.
[20] Erich Fromm (1900-1980) was a German-American psychologist and philosopher, author of works in both German and English. -Oath.
[21] Dante, Paradiso III vv.85-87. tr. Ciardi —Ed.
[22] Dante, Paradiso XXXIII vv.140-141. tr. Ciardi —Ed.
[23] Dante, Paradiso XXX vv.39-42. tr. Ciardi —Ed.
[24] Dante, Paradiso XXXIII vv. 143-146. tr. Ciardi —Ed.
[25] Assagioli and others conducted parapsychological experiments for many years, and apparently this is one of the first times he publicly mentions these particular activities. -Oath.
[26] Eugene Osty (1874-1938) was a French physician and psychic researcher. -Oath.
[27] Pascal Forthuny, aka Georges Léopold Cochet (1872-1962) was a French art critic, clairvoyant medium, and novelist. -Oath.
[28] Some skeptics have rejected these results because they were not replicated, ignoring the fact that such phenomena are specific to individuals, not interchangeable between persons, times or locations as if they were ball bearings in a factory. -Oath.
[29] Wilhelm Tenhaeff (1894-1981) was a Dutch psychologist and parapsychologist, appointed in 1953 to the world’s first university chair in parapsychology at the University of Utrecht, and editor of the Dutch Journal for Parapsychology . -Oath.
[30] Tenhaeff also conducted “chair tests” with Gerard Croiset, a psychic whose abilities had been successfully used by the police to locate missing children. -Oath.
[31] Luce e Ombra (Light and Shadow) is an Italian quarterly journal devoted to psychic research and related issues, founded in 1909 by Angelo Marzorati in Bologna as an organ of the Bozzano-De Boni Library Foundation, which houses materials dedicated to psychic research, philosophy, parapsychology, and other related topics. The journal is currently edited by Assagioli biographer Paola Giovetti. -Oath.
[32] The actual report is not available to this editor at this time. Assagioli had been involved with the founding of the Italian Society of Metapsychics in 1938, but that was shut down by the Fascist government. Assagioli announced the establishment of the Florence branch of the Italian Society of Parapsychology in January of 1955. This branch had its headquarters at Assagioli’s house; experiments in a variety of parapsychological phenomena were conducted and lectures and reports were delivered by a variety of doctors, professors, and researchers beginning in that year. See Assagioli Archive Doc. #17827. -Oath.
[33] Tommaso Campanella (1568-1639) was an Italian Dominican friar, philosopher, theologian, astrologer and poet. He wrote some of his most significant works while imprisoned for 27 years by the Spanish Inquisition, from which he was eventually freed by the intervention of Pope Urban VIII. -Oath.
[34] Commedia dell’arte was an early form of professional theater originating in Italy; it was characterized by masked “types” in which key points of the plot were scripted but much of the action was improvised. -Oath.
[35] Dr. Gabriello Cirinei was Vice President of the Istituto di Psicosintesi in Florence, where he lectured and was involved with many activities, including direct collaboration with R. Assagioli. -Oath.
[36] It appears that Assagioli is here using this terminology to indicate that some people hold the hypothesis that the infinite universe is governed by laws of a closed system, under which no freedom is possible and everything is determined; whereas he asserts that all closed systems are limited; there is always something beyond them, and therefore a fundamental freedom of action is a fact. -Oath.
[37] Latin “the obscure by the more obscure,” meaning the attempt to explain something obscure by means of something even more obscure. -Oath.
[38] An example of this is when one draws a representation of a cube, a cone, or a building or landscape, all of which exist in three dimensions (height, width, and length) onto a piece of paper or canvas, which only has two dimensions. The greatest artists can create a convincing appearance of three-dimensional reality on a flat canvas. -Oath.
[39] Nikolai Lobachevsky (1792-1856) was a Russian mathematician who developed non-Euclidian, hyperbolic or four-dimensional geometry. -Oath.
[40] La Connaissance supra-normale was published in 1922. An English version, translated by Stanley de Brath, Supernormal Faculties in Man, An Experimental Study, was published in London in 1923 and editions are still available. -Oath.
[41] Gustav Geley (1868-1924) was a French physician and psychic researcher. -Oath.
[42] Later evidence supported the assertion that, along with authentic findings, Osty was aware of some instances of fraud in reports of psychic phenomena, but he was persuaded not to publish his findings by several people, including the militant spiritualist who financed the Institut Metapsychique. -Oath.
[43] This is probably a reference to Ernst Haeckel, aka Heckel (1834-1919) a German zoologist, eugenicist, and philosopher, who is known as an advocate of evolutionary theory as well as “social Darwinism” and “scientific racism.” He located any “creator” within the physical world, which was governed by “evolutionary necessity.” -Oath.
[44] The ellipses ( . . .) in this paragraph, indicating missing text, add an element of ambiguity to what the author intended to say which this editor cannot completely resolve. -Oath.
[45] Although philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) never explicitly addressed the issue of “psychic phenomena,” his philosophical framework argued that our rational knowledge is fundamentally structured — and therefore limited — by our minds, and that human reason can only know things as they appear to us, not as they are “in themselves.” See Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. -Oath.
[46] French philosopher Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) said, “Man is but a reed; the weakest in nature. But he is a thinking reed ( roseau pensant). — Ed.
