{"id":6225,"date":"2017-06-02T20:23:47","date_gmt":"2017-06-02T19:23:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/kennethsorensen.dk\/?p=6225\/"},"modified":"2026-04-04T12:16:21","modified_gmt":"2026-04-04T11:16:21","slug":"why-assagioli-put-a-star-in-the-sky","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kennethsorensen.dk\/en\/why-assagioli-put-a-star-in-the-sky\/","title":{"rendered":"Why Assagioli put a star in the sky"},"content":{"rendered":"

Psychotherapist Kenneth <\/span><\/span>S\u00f8rensen, MA Psychosynthesis, argues that Roberto Assagioli’s placement of the star at the top of the egg diagram was a reflection of Assagioli’s belief in the perennial philosophy.<\/span><\/span><\/h2>\n
\"Roberto

Roberto Assagioli and his Egg Diagram<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/div>\n

By Kenneth S\u00f8rensen, MA Psychosynthesis<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

The change to Roberto Assagioli’s egg diagram suggested by Firman and Gila (1995) and others has been widely accepted by many and rejected by others in the field of psychosynthesis, while still prompting debate. Firman and Gila suggested it was unhelpful to position the star, representing the Higher Self, at the top of the egg diagram because this misleadingly suggests that the Higher Self is only accessible via the higher unconscious. Instead, Firman\/Gila suggested removing the star entirely from the diagram with the proviso that it be understood that “Self pervades all areas of the person \u2013 lower unconscious, middle unconscious and higher unconscious”. [I have recently published chapter six of my upcoming book, where I compare Assagioli’s and Firman and Gila’s understanding of self-realisation: See <\/span><\/span>What is Self-realisation?<\/span><\/span><\/a> )<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

My purpose in writing this paper is not so much to revive this debate \u2013 I have expressed my own opinion that the star be kept in the egg diagram elsewhere (S\u00f8rensen, 2008) \u2013 rather I want to explore the overall philosophy, vision and background from which Assagioli was writing in an attempt to explain his original inclusion of the star in his diagram.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

It is my premise that he didn’t place the star where he did because he came from a patriarchal past in which hierarchies were part of the inherent cultural mindset; neither did he do so because he was fond of mountain climbing or trapped in a dualistic gnostic illusion. Rather, the star in the diagram symbolizes a reality that is as real to Assagioli as the physical world.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Assagioli maintained that psychosynthesis was an experiential approach to life based upon ‘facts’, claiming that “certain fundamental facts exist, and their relative conceptual elaboration, deep experience and understanding are central” (Assagioli, 1974). And among these facts is the existence of the Self.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Reading literature written after Assagioli’s death, we often find psychosynthesis compared to a variety of metaphysical and philosophical schools, including yoga, Jewish mysticism, gnosticism, Neo-Platonism, theosophy and other esoteric traditions. This makes sense \u2013 Assagioli was an integral thinker who embraced and explored many different philosophies \u2013 yet his eclecticism also makes the task of defining the philosophical background of psychosynthesis difficult. In his classic work ‘Psychosynthesis’, Assagioli (1975, pp. 6-7) writes: “Psychosynthesis does not aim nor attempt to give a metaphysical or theological explanation of the great Mystery \u2013 it leads to the door, but stops here.” In the same place he writes that psychosynthesis is “neutral to the various religious forms” because it is based on science. However, this latter point is certainly debatable. Reading Assagioli, it becomes clear that his work is steeped in metaphysical considerations. He opens the door wide to concepts such as Cosmic Synthesis, Emanation, Levels of Reality, Evolution, Atman, Brahman, Universal Self, etc. In other words, Assagioli’s approach to spirituality is clearly theistic. God, Brahman, the Universal Self \u2013 whichever label we use \u2013 is a reality for him. These concepts are not neutral and it would be difficult to integrate, say, a classic Buddhist view within this philosophical framework. Assagioli clearly believed in a Self \u2013 what might be called a Universal Self \u2013 not just an impersonal ground of being.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Outside of psychosynthesis I believe the nearest expression of Assagioli’s philosophy can be found in evolutionary panentheism. This is a concept that Ken Wilber (2005) and Michael Murphy (2012), the co-founder of the Esalen Institute, have used to define their philosophy. In his article on evolutionary panentheism, Murphy (2012) shows how this concept has been arrived at by some of history’s greatest intellectual giants, such as Fichte, Hegel, Schelling and Aurobindo; they used different names for the concept, but there are enough common features to link them.<\/span><\/span>
\n