When Assagioli defines the conscious “I” (and the Higher Self), he speaks about a contentless self that is not the content of the awareness (sensations, feelings, and thoughts). Sometimes he calls this I or self for pure self-consciousness or pure self-awareness to underline the fact that it is always a self that has an experience of itself as pure consciousness. However, at other times he simply speaks of our innermost self as pure consciousness and pure awareness because the self is something made out of consciousness. This compilation of quotes by Assagioli highlights some of the latter uses.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n
“… the body, feelings, and mind are instruments<\/em> of experience, perception and action, tools that are changeable and impermanent. But the \u201cI\u201d is essentially different: it is simple, unchanging, self-conscious. The experience of the \u201cI\u201d can be formulated as follows: \u201cI am I, a Center of pure consciousness.\u201d Affirming this with conviction does not mean that one has already achieved the experience <\/em>of the \u201cI,\u201d self-identification, but it is the path that leads there and is a means of mastering our psychic activities. …<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n All this is preparation for the final positive<\/em> stage, the affirmation and experience of self-consciousness: \u201cI am convinced and affirm that I am a Center of pure awareness, of pure self-consciousness; I am a Center of will, capable of mastering, directing and using all my psychic functions and my body. I AM.\u201d<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n Let us dwell on this statement, striving to realize this pure consciousness of being<\/em>, this stable, unchanging Center, steady as a rock amidst the churning waves of becoming. \u201cI AM.\u201d” (From the Disidentification and Self-identification exercise<\/a>)<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n M.L. How is it possible that a person obtain synthesis around the personal self? You say that someone who is not ready for spiritual psychosynthesis must have as a center the personal self, but couldn\u2019t this be harmful eventually to the person to have him identified with the personal self?<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n R.A. There is one thing that is hard enough to realise: the ego has, or rather\u00a0is<\/em>, a center of pure consciousness, of pure self-awareness, at the personal level, devoid of all empirical and historical contents, This is often the first step \u2013 to discover the I, the ego, as distinct from the various constituents of the personality. At present, in psychology, this distinction is generally ignored.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n Now the new Freudians are giving increasing attention to the ego, but they have a very hazy conception of it. As I have said in my book, the ego or I or personal self is devoid of\u00a0any<\/em>\u00a0content; it is pure self-awareness, persisting throughout the stream of experiences and changes. The exercise of dis-identification helps in the realisation of this. (Dialogue with Martha Crampton<\/a>)<\/p>\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n