![\"Science](\"https:\/\/kennethsorensen.dk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/Science_parapsychology_featured_1200x675.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\r\nBy Roberto Assagioli<\/strong> In this 1958 conversation, Roberto Assagioli outlines a methodological framework for science and applies it to psychology and parapsychology. He distinguishes between three stages of scientific inquiry\u2014collection of facts, examination of conditions, and interpretation\u2014emphasizing that the critical task lies in understanding how phenomena are produced and verified. Using psychometry as an example, he explores the symbolic function of the psyche and the need to distinguish realistic perception from symbolic imagery. The discussion moves to the unconscious and superconscious, critiquing the personification of the unconscious and proposing a synthesis between rational psychology and higher intuitive faculties. Assagioli argues that symbolism is not merely archaic but also the language of the superconscious, and that scientific refinement can translate intuitive insights into rational terms.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n \u00a0<\/p>\r\n Dr. Assagioli:<\/em> Given our synthetic approach, we always wish to frame each particular topic within an overall vision. Therefore, allow me to repeat things that have already been said, but repetita juvant [repetition helps!].<\/p>\r\n There are three main stages of science:<\/em><\/p>\r\n (This methodological framework is one of several contributions Assagioli made to the serious study of parapsychology \u2014 for an introduction to his complete body of work on the subject, see Roberto Assagioli on Parapsychology<\/a>. Ed.)<\/p>\r\n Now, let us apply this to psychology [and parapsychology]. Much has been done with regard to the first stage stage, and a great mass of facts has been reliably established. Those who deny them, either out of a priori reasoning or ignorance, are simply far behind, have lost their diligence; they are now 50 years behind. But, of course, there is still much to do, to experiment and observe. But we must not stop at this stage.<\/p>\r\n While those who feel more inclined to do so are right to experiment, check and observe, we can now move decisively on to the second stage, which is the most difficult and critical, the one in which there are more doubts, discussions and contrasts, but which, precisely for this reason, may be more interesting.<\/p>\r\n The third stage is, curiously to say the least, relatively easier, or perhaps it would be better to say less difficult; in that the more advanced sciences can provide help and enlightenment to younger sciences such as parapsychology. An example of this is precisely the topic that was discussed here at the last meeting. The concept of syntropy is a valuable aid in interpreting and framing parapsychological phenomena within a unified vision.<\/p>\r\n I will not talk today about the fourth stage, that of applications and uses, except to recommend the utmost seriousness and great caution. In fact, self-interested or fanatical exploitation by amateurs does parapsychology a great disservice. It can be said that in pure [science] there are just as harmful internal enemies as external ones.\u00a0<\/p>\r\n Returning to the second stage, that of the examination of phenomena, which can lead to useful contributions, [in psychology and parapsychology] it is the subjects themselves in whom, or through whom, the phenomena occur. The subjects are in the difficult, but ideal condition of being or becoming actors or spectators at the same time. Therefore, encouragement has often been given to make observations of this kind and to report them.<\/p>\r\n Today, we will give an example of self-examination by a subject who has carried out psychometric experiments. As you know, psychometry consists in capturing data connected with an object, especially those concerning personality, entities, and the moods of those who have possessed it and imbued it with their presumed influence. Psychometric experiments . . . have various advantages. First of all, they are easy to verify, either positively or negatively. The owner of the object, or those who know it, can immediately say whether the data has been correctly identified or not. Secondly, they are harmless, provided they are carried out with self-control and in the right measure. Finally, they are particularly suitable for observing the objective conditions and parapsychological faculties that produce them. I believe this will become clear from the report of a subject that will now be read.<\/p>\r\n Mrs. Nella Assagioli reads.<\/em> [Content of the reading not available]\r\n Dr. Assagioli:<\/em> One [aspect for us to consider] is the psychological process of identification, which is complete or partial. In the last comment that was read, we see that while emotional identification is complete, physical identification is less so, and the person begins to distinguish those sensations that were received in the experiment from their own.<\/p>\r\n But an interesting thing that complicates these experiments is the . . . synthetic, more symbolizing aspect of the human psyche. As you heard in the first psychometry, the subject saw a series of real scenes, which corresponded to the beach, plants, summer; so he had a whole series of realistic images, undoubtedly as he saw them. But in the second example . . . that of the writer, he had equally vivid images that were clearly symbolic, and the subject himself understood and recognized that they were . . . He described this green path, the poplars, a whole scene just as in the other example . . . he saw the beach, the plants, echoes, which were real in the second example. . . He had a clear visual image of the green path, then a pleasant, harmonious scene, then a sloping path, and he was aware that it was only a symbol. Then, the other one with the shell: that was clearly symbolic; so, we see that a series of images of scenes can be either realistic or symbolic, and correspond to an external reality, or are symbols of situations.<\/p>\r\n Therefore, we must always remember this: the symbolizing function of the human psyche, which is a gift, is also a cause of doubt and difficulty in the parapsychological field, because the subject must learn to distinguish, and scholars must observe, whether and to what extent the scenes described correspond to objective truth, or are symbols of a reality which are expressed in this imaginative form. This is an observation that is clear from what has been said.<\/p>\r\n Dr. Racanelli:<\/em> It seems to me that psychometry takes us back to an instinctive stage \u2014 not a childish stage, but an instinctive stage in which we delve into this language of images, because when the rationality of the subject or psychometry enters, it is inhibited.<\/p>\r\n Dr. Assagioli:<\/em> Unless . . . this splitting is interesting, and I would say that this is the important part:[2]<\/a> learning this splitting, that is, keeping the rational waking consciousness intact but without inhibiting the free, spontaneous flow of images. The unconscious has a childish psychology. In general, the unconscious is not rational; it works entirely through symbols and images, so it is good to understand its nature well and support it without inhibiting it. This is what scientists should understand, convincing themselves that subjects should not be treated as objects, but as living beings, who have a subconscious and faculties that have their own style, their own way of functioning and perceiving, which must be respected. After that, yes, they can carry out all the checks and analyses they want, but the phenomenon in its living spontaneity and reality must be understood according to its nature and not subjected to artificial or contrived conditions that can distort or inhibit it.<\/p>\r\n Dr. Racanelli:<\/em> . . . evolutionary or, rather, are two ways of expressing activity. One can be symbolized by the \u201cHomo divinus,<\/em>\u201d[3]<\/a> which is the man who has preserved these instinctive, natural faculties within himself, in which this psyche, this subconscious, plays a role. And then there is \u201cHomo faber<\/em>,\u201d[4]<\/a> in which rationalizing technology enters. In general, \u201cHomo divinus<\/em>\u201d is distracted by \u201cHomo faber<\/em>.\u201d In my opinion, all parapsychological phenomena are . . . from \u201cHomo divinus.\u201d The integral person is the one who has managed to preserve the qualities of \u201cHomo divinus\u201d integrated with \u201cHomo faber.\u201d. . .<\/p>\r\n Dr. Assagioli<\/em>: Now this creates a natural bridge for us to move on to the topic of the superconscious (responding to Prof. Siciliano). A survey was conducted some time ago that focused precisely on this point. The one [about] . . . comedien<\/em>.[5]<\/a><\/p>\r\n The problem was this: is the excellent actor the one who identifies so much with his role that he almost forgets himself, to the point of experiencing Othello\u2019s passion or Hamlet’s doubts, or is it the actor who, while performing, remains fully lucid, a spectator and regulator of his own performance? Well, the result of this survey was that there are two distinct types. Some said that they identify with the character, and that the more they forget themselves, the more they live the character, feeling the feelings, the better they act, and in fact, the audience appreciates them. Others, however, say that they remain completely divided.\u00a0Pavlova[6]<\/a> said that when she acted, she was so dissociated [from the character] that in moments of silence, she would joke with the other actors, make witty remarks, and sometimes play little pranks on them.<\/span> She was completely dissociated, yet she acted very well, and remained completely in control of herself, dispassionately and almost ironically. And so did other actors who were just as excellent as she. So, it turns out that for some it is almost impossible. The actors in the first category could not have performed if they had not identified with the character \u2014 they would have been unable to act; those in the second category, on the other hand, not only did not find it difficult because they did not do it on purpose: this splitting was spontaneous and natural for them.<\/p>\r\n Therefore, there are those [cases of splitting] apart from parapsychology, and here is the confirmation that normal psychology can use to shed much light on parapsychology. Just as actors in the second category can have this spontaneous [splitting in an] easy, natural way, and just as those who do psychological exercises can increasingly develop this faculty of [intentional] splitting, so the same happens in parapsychological experiments. There are subjects who really have to dramatically relive the character, whether it is an entity or a psychometric connection with a living person, they have seen the type of death of a being with whom they have been in contact . . . you can actually see the symptoms, suffocation, echoes. In those cases, there is no splitting, but identification. In other cases, however, such as the one described tonight and others . . . in the literature, there is no identification at all, or there is only partial identification. In the other subject, as we have seen, that there was an identification of feelings and not of physical sensations.<\/p>\r\n Therefore, this splitting is real: it exists in normal psychology, and it exists in parapsychology. It can have various degrees, and it can be partial for certain states of mind and not for others. The main criticism that can be made of psychoanalysis is this: that psychoanalysts wanted to create a kind of dream book: the snake means this, the cave always means that, etc. This is not true. Clinically, we see that the same symbol, when analyzed without preconceptions and without a dream book, means one thing in one case and another in another, depending on previous experiences.<\/p>\r\n Psychometry has the great advantage of easy verification. When a person describes a beach with those particular details, and the owner of the ring says, \u201cYes, this beach exists in that place,\u201d it is clear that it is not a symbol. When, on the other hand, the subject himself, after describing a scene and learning about the person\u2019s biography, says, \u201cThis is clearly symbolic of that person’s life,\u201d then, in certain cases, it is clear, or not so difficult, to distinguish between what is realistic and what is symbolic. In other cases, however, it is very difficult. So we have to look at each case individually. But symbols exist in dreams, they exist in \u201cdaydreams,\u201d and they exist in parapsychology; and in parapsychology it is good to take them into account. We do not yet know enough about psychometry, and this is the next step that needs to be taken. If psychometry is a faculty in itself, as is more likely, psychometry is a way . . . [osf expressing] a general parapsychological faculty.<\/p>\r\n Now I come to the bridge of the superconscious. You asked whether parapsychological faculties are ancestral, a remnant of a past and suppressed study, atrophied by the development of \u201chomo faber,\u201d of reason and investigation in the objective world, or not. Well, there are two extreme positions: one is that of those who hold that these are clearly faculties that primitive savages had, but which have been surpassed by the development of the intelligence of modern man. The other extreme position is to consider them as something divine, extraordinary, superior; and certain psychics get carried away and believe themselves to be far superior than ordinary mortals because they experience phenomena of telepathy or clairvoyance. Now, both of these extreme positions, in my opinion, are wrong.<\/p>\r\n And now I come to the scheme of the superconscious (explaining). Let’s start with the history of the word \u2018subconscious\u2019. It was called this because it indicates phenomena that occur below the threshold of conscious perception. Leibnitz[7]<\/a> had already spoken of it . . . but above all there was Fechner,[8]<\/a> the founder of psychophysiology, who, through experiments on sensations, found that [responses to] sensations exist up to a certain point, then the subject feels nothing, but it can be demonstrated that something in him has perceived, but that this weak perception has not reached the level of consciousness, and therefore, with this spatial image, it was said these sensations remained \u201csubconscious.\u201d<\/p>\r\n The concept was then extended to many other facts, not only sensations that do not surface at the threshold of consciousness. This was a very simple image: a level of consciousness, a level of subconsciousness. Then, the terminology changed, and with psychoanalysis, we no longer spoke of \u201cthe subconscious,\u201d but of \u201cthe unconscious.\u201d Unconscious<\/em> was originally an adjective; that is, it was an attribute of psychic phenomena of which we are not aware, but of which we have indirect proof of their existence within us. Then, unfortunately, the \u201cunconscious\u201d became a noun. Here too, it has been personalized, like certain personifications in the field of parapsychology.<\/p>\r\n The unconscious has been personified, and even Freud made this mistake: an almost different entity is often [taken as] the enemy of the conscious, but in my opinion this is not valid. There are a number of phenomena that take place outside our consciousness, but these are very different phenomena, not to be all grouped together in a supposed mythical entity, \u201cthe unconscious,\u201d but also . . . and above all, they are of different psychological value, meaning, and dignity.<\/p>\r\n And here we come to the diagram (explains the diagram). The symbolism that illustrates what Prof. Siciliano was saying is a very interesting episode in the life of St. Francis of Assisi. At the beginning of his mission, he heard a voice that said to him, \u201cGo, and restore My church.\u201d Well, he interpreted this literally, externally. Since there was a small church in ruins nearby, he went and began to restore it; then he realized that this command was something symbolic. \u201cGo, and restore the church\u201d \u2014 the church of his time, when there was corruption and disorder. And in fact, what he did was to rebuild and bring a spiritual wave into the church. So even a saint like him made this mistake of considering inspiration, which is often expressed symbolically, in a literal way. But it was clearly inspiration that came from above. Now, let\u2019s not specify that it came from the superconscious, because everything St. Francis did afterwards shows that it was spiritual inspiration, certainly not ancestral and inferior. Yet it was expressed symbolically.<\/p>\r\n So symbolism is not only the language of the archaic unconscious, but is the way the unconscious expresses itself at all levels, including the superconscious. After all, spiritual instructions are full of symbols. There are intuitions, truths, synthetic illuminations that are ill-suited to discursive, analytical exposition in our language, which, as Bergson[9]<\/a> said, \u201cserves above all the homo faber,<\/em>\u201d that is, practical purposes in the broad sense, including science and knowledge, but always objective. It is therefore natural that even for the higher spheres of life, the most spontaneous language is symbolic.<\/p>\r\n However, I believe that with the development and refinement of the scientific sense and the reason of the rational mind, we can arrive at a synthesis, or at least an understanding, and that we will increasingly be able to express, or at least indicate, superconscious content in rational terms. That is, intuitions can be interpreted and described in rational and scientific terms. And this is one of the tasks of parapsychology.<\/p>\r\n Notes:<\/strong><\/p>\r\n [1]<\/a> Editor\u2019s interpolations are shown in [brackets.] Ellipses . . . are shown as found in the original typed transcript. \u2014Ed.<\/em><\/p>\r\n [2]<\/a> for both subjects and observers. \u2014Ed.<\/em><\/p>\r\n [3]<\/a> Latin: \u201cDivine man.\u201d This is the term that appeared in the transcript, but one wonders whether the transcriber heard accurately, and whether the term used was \u201chomo originus\u201d or \u201coriginal man,\u201d or whether the speaker\u2019s intent was that \u201cdivine man\u201d was in fact the \u201coriginal man.\u201d \u2014Tr.<\/em><\/p>\r\n [4]<\/a> Latin: \u201cMan the craftsman.\u201d \u2014Tr.<\/em><\/p>\r\n [5]<\/a> Comic actor.\u2014Ed.<\/em><\/p>\r\n [6]<\/a> Anna Pavlova (1881-1931) was a celebrated Russian prima ballerina. \u2014Ed.<\/em><\/p>\r\n [7]<\/a> Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) was a German polymath who did work in mathematics, physics, philosophy, medicine, and psychology among other areas. He wrote about perceptions below the threshold of consciousness, which he called petites perceptions. \u2014Ed.<\/em><\/p>\r\n
March 9, 1958
Doc. #23906 \u2013 Assagioli Archives, Florence
Original title:\u00a0Conversazione del Dottor R.Assagioli
<\/em>Translated and Edited With Notes by Jan Kuniholm[1]<\/a><\/em>
Editorial Note:<\/strong>
The subheadings in this online edition have been added by Kenneth S\u00f8rensen for clarity and navigational purposes. They were not part of the original conversation transcript and do not alter the original text.<\/p>\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\nAbstract<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/h3>\r\n
\r\nThe Three Stages of Science<\/h3>\r\n
\r\n
Applying Scientific Method to Parapsychology<\/h3>\r\n
The Importance of the Second Stage: Conditions and Verification<\/h3>\r\n
Psychometry as a Methodological Example<\/h3>\r\n
Realistic Images and Symbolic Imagery<\/h3>\r\n
The Symbolizing Function of the Psyche<\/h3>\r\n
Splitting and Identification in Psychological States<\/h3>\r\n
Actors as a Model of Dissociation and Control<\/h3>\r\n
Symbolism Beyond the Archaic Unconscious<\/h3>\r\n
The History and Misuse of the Term \u2018Unconscious\u2019<\/h3>\r\n
Superconscious Symbolism and Rational Interpretation<\/h3>\r\n
\r\n