{"id":11513,"date":"2018-12-18T04:26:25","date_gmt":"2018-12-18T03:26:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kennethsorensen.dk\/?p=11513"},"modified":"2026-03-04T12:10:48","modified_gmt":"2026-03-04T11:10:48","slug":"dialogue-with-roberto-assagioli","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kennethsorensen.dk\/en\/dialogue-with-roberto-assagioli\/","title":{"rendered":"Dialogue with Roberto Assagioli"},"content":{"rendered":"

A Scholarly Conversation on the Self, Will, and Psychosynthesis<\/h2>\r\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\r\n
\r\n


<\/strong>A Conversation with Roberto Assagioli.
<\/strong>By Martha Lazura Crampton<\/strong> and Dr. Graham C. Taylor,<\/strong> May 1966
From Assagioli Archives \u2013 Florence<\/p>\r\n

Editorial note
<\/strong>This text is a structured dialogue recorded in May 1966 between Roberto Assagioli, Martha Lazura Crampton, and Dr. Graham C. Taylor. It is neither a journalistic interview nor a formal lecture, but a scholarly conversation addressing core concepts of psychosynthesis. The abstract and cross-sections in this online edition have been added by the editor, Kenneth S\u00f8rensen, to support readability, navigation, and archival consistency. The original wording and sequence of the dialogue have not been altered.<\/p>\r\n

\r\n\r\n\r\n

Abstract<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/h3>\r\n

In this extended dialogue, Roberto Assagioli explores central themes of psychosynthesis, including the distinction between progressive and regressive spiritual experiences, the nature of the personal and spiritual Self, the role of will, imagination, and intuition, and the active use of symbols in psychological and spiritual development. Responding to questions from Martha Crampton and Graham C. Taylor, Assagioli clarifies his differences with Jung, elaborates on personal versus transpersonal psychosynthesis, and discusses synthesis as a creative, evolutionary process. The conversation provides a rare, in-depth articulation of Assagioli\u2019s mature thinking on consciousness, symbolism, and the integration of psychology and spirituality.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n

\r\n

Progressive and Regressive Spiritual Experiences<\/h3>\r\n

RA: I do not think that the problem raised at the Bucke Society about progressive and regressive experiences is a very difficult one. I think the difference is generally so clear that confusion or mistaking one for the other is not likely to happen to those who have had a true spiritual experience. In my opinion it is rather a theoretical or artificial problem, with those who have had no direct experience of an illuminative nature. In genuine, progressive spiritual experiences there always remains a sense of Self-awareness – even with the expansion of consciousness which has been called “cosmic consciousness” in Bucke’s terminology (an expression which is perhaps not quite appropriate).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n

Individual and Universal Consciousness<\/h3>\r\n

In genuine expansion of consciousness, there is no complete loss of self-awareness of the spiritual Self as center. It can be compared to a sphere which can expand indefinitely; but the Center of the sphere remains. There is the paradoxical impression of not losing oneself, but being more oneself, while losing the empirical limitations of the ego. It is a synthesis of individuality and universality. The individual feels identified with the universe, but there remains some awareness that he is identified with the universe.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n

The Self<\/span><\/span><\/h3>\r\n

GCT There’s no complete loss of awareness of the self?<\/span><\/span> RA No. No loss of self-awareness. . . Or in the reverse experience, when one feels that the universe, so to speak, invades us, there is a joyful sense of acceptance without any fear of losing oneself.<\/span><\/span> ML What would be the difference, if any, Dr A., \u200b\u200bbetween your definition of the spiritual Self and Jung’s definition of the Self?<\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n

Jung\u2019s Concept of the Self and Psychosynthesis<\/h3>\r\n

RA There is a marked difference. I gave three lectures in Italian on Jung and Psychosynthesis, in which I have dealt with this, but I can give you some points. For Jung the Self is a ”psychological function”, a “point between the conscious and the unconscious”, and he doesn’t attribute to it any transcendent reality. He sticks to the empirical standpoint – the agnostic standpoint – and this shows that he has not had the genuine spiritual experience of the Self. If he had had, he’d speak in a different way.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n

He considers the Self to be the result of a psychological process, of “individuation”.<\/span><\/span> It is not for him a living Reality which is latent but of which we can become directly, experientially aware. Thus there is a great difference between the two definitions: according to one the Self is a psychological concept; according to the other it is a living reality – even more, a living Entity.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n

The Self is the <\/span><\/span>Subject<\/span><\/span><\/em> par excellence. Jung’s Self is merely “psychological”; the spiritual Self is a transcendent, glorious reality, and one can have direct, immediate proof of it, that is, one can <\/span><\/span>experience<\/span><\/span><\/em> It. You know the happy expression of Bergson – “les donnees immediates de la conscience”. The awareness of red or green or blue are “donnees immediates de la conscience”. You cannot scientifically demonstrate the existence of blue or convey it to someone born blind. But there is no problem in the <\/span><\/span>experience<\/span><\/span><\/em> of blue. There is no problem in experiences of ethical awareness or aesthetic awareness or in heroic awareness. And there is no problem, and no need of proof, in <\/span><\/span>experience<\/span><\/span><\/em> of the Self.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n