This lecture by Roberto Assagioli was given in 1966 at the Instituto di Psicosintesi, Florence, Italy. It is the first in a series of three lectures. You can read the introduction to the series here.
Among psychotherapists, Jung is one of the closest and most akin to the conceptions and practice of psychosynthesis. But the body of his work is so large, his range covers so many different fields, that a complete examination of it would require a sizeable book. I shall thus have to limit myself to a comparative survey of some of the fields that are more directly concerned with psychosynthesis; the structure of the psyche of the human being; the dynamics of the psychic energies; the methods of psychological therapy and education.
The comparative procedure is very productive, because it contrasts the respective positions as to their points of agreement and divergence. But comparison does not imply judgment or criticism; and I will attempt to be as objective as possible, to stick to facts, leaving the reader to draw his own conclusions.
The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche
Carl Gustav Jung was a keen investigator and an able therapist of the human being, who carried his work forward with a mind free from preconceptions and academic fetters. His life lacked any outstanding and dramatic event; born in Switzerland, he lived with his family mainly at Kushacht, in a comfortable but not luxurious house agreeably situated-on the shore of the Lake of Zurich. In the second part of his life, however, he travelled and spent considerable periods abroad (in India, Africa and America) studying the customs of the people and the characteristics of ancient civilisations. He had a kindly welcome for the stream of visitors from all countries, and I have vivid memories of pleasant and animated conversations with him in his book lined study full of curious exotic objects.
He had great and diversified gifts: he possessed deep human feeling, an insatiable thirst for knowledge, an admirable integrity and intellectual modesty, coupled with a sincere recognition of his own limitations and those of others as well. In his The Psychology of the Unconscious he does not hesitate to admit:
“The work in this field is work for pioneers. I have often gone astray and many times have had to go back and learn from the beginning. But I am aware of it and for this reason am resigned to having to admit that, as the day emerges from the night, so truth is born of error.
“But I have never been frightened by error, nor have I regretted it seriously. Scientific investigation was never for me the cow that gave milk, and not even a means of acquiring prestige, but an often bitter confrontation with reality forced on me by my daily psychological experience among the sick. For this reason not all I present is written with the brain but not a little with the heart, and the well-disposed reader is asked not to forget it when, as he follows the main course of the intellectual argument, he comes across breaks that are not satisfactorily re- paired. A harmonious flow in the presentation can only be looked for when one writes of things already known. When, instead, prodded by the necessity of helping and curing, one seeks new means, one is forced to speak about matters that are not known.”
This confession of Jungʼs should be greatly appreciated. His understanding of the relativity of our knowledge and the recognition of the unavoidable subjective element in every researcher made him shun all systematic formulations and categorical statements. He took up a firm position on the ground of psychological experience and the empirical method, thus demonstrating a true scientific spirit. With it, however, he combined some lack of precision in thinking and writing and an unwillingness to admit a substantial reality transcending the strictly psychological sphere. But this limitation of his shows how unjust was the accusation of “mysticism” levelled at him many times. Such a charge reflects a lack of comprehension both of Jung and of mysticism. In reality the two standpoints are not only different but quite opposite. The mystic believes firmly in the existence of God of a Universal Spirit; he is convinced of being, or of having been, in a state of union with that transcendental Reality. Jung, on the contrary, assumes an agnostic attitude towards it; he admits the subjective, “psychological” reality of the experience, but maintains that its essential, transcendental reality cannot be regarded as demonstrated. This can be considered a merit or a limitation, according to the point of view. In any case it absolves Jung of the charge of mysticism-a serious one in the opinion of some people.
Let us turn now to the fundamental problem of psychology: the structure of the psyche. Jung has a keen sense of the complexity of the human psyche. To quote his words “Our psychic nature is of an unimaginable complexity and diversity.” He has pointed out the relative autonomy of the various psychic contents and the existence, often quite incompatible, of different sub-personalities or, as he calls them, personae (in the Latin sense of “masks”).
He makes a distinction, however, between these personae—which also correspond to social, interpersonal roles and functions—and the “inner personality”. In his view, “The inner personality is the manner of oneʼs behaviour towards the inner psychic processes. I term the outer attitude, or outer character, the persona, the inner attitude I term the anima, or soul.” (Psychological Types, p. 593)
Concerning the psychic functions, Jung, as is well known, differentiates between four fundamental ones: sensation, feeling, thought and intuition. In this he differs from almost all other psychologists by his acceptance of the existence of the intuition as a normal psychological function of the human being. Psychosynthesis assumes the same position and lays much emphasis upon the importance and value of the intuition and upon the necessity of developing it. According to Jung, it is the psychological function that permits perceptions to arise from the unconscious and causes their contents to emerge as complete wholes. He continues: “Intuitive cognition, therefore, possesses an intrinsic character of certainty and conviction which enabled Spinoza to uphold the ʻscientia intuitivaʼ as the highest form of cognition.”
Among the moderns, the greatest advocate of the intuition has been, not a psychologist, but a philosopher, Henri Bergson. Much as there is to be said about the intuition, I will mention only that there are various types or levels of it: the Bergsonian intuition, which occurs predominantly at the normal personality levels, is very different from that of Plotinus, which is purely spiritual. Jung asserts that the intuition exists at both these levels, on which it assumes different aspects but is fundamentally the same.
An important difference from psychosynthesis exists in connection with the psychological functions. Psychosynthesis maintains that Jungʼs four fundamental functions do not provide for a complete description of the psychological life; but that there are other functions as fundamental, which merit inclusion as well. The first is the imagination. Jungʼs lack of recognition of the imaginative function appears strange in view of his attributing such great importance to images and symbols. The explanation lies in his belief that imaginative activity can evidence itself in all the four other functions. But he asserts this without demonstrating it or dealing with it. It seems impossible to admit that fantasy or imagination can be manifested in the function of sensation, which is a perception, by means of the senses, of the so-called external reality; that is, of impacts coming from the external world. On the other hand, other psychologists correctly give the imagination a fundamental place in psychological life.
Another group of functions that must be accorded a similar consideration are the dynamic hormic functions (from the Greek word “orme” meaning tendency or impulse). This group includes the instincts, tendencies, impulses, desires and aspirations, in fact all that impels to action. Desire has been included among these hormic activities, though desire is generally conceived in terms of only, or at least principally, its subjective aspect-desire as something one feels, an emotion one has. But this is solely its subjective aspect; in reality desire is or has a dynamic energy that impels to action. It has been said of it that it is a primordial tendency, the attractive impulse towards the not-self. The Dictionary of Psychological and Psychoanalytical Terms by H. and E. English (New York, Longmans Green, 1958), an excellent compilation of marked objectivity, defines desire as something active to which the terms “want”, “need”, “craving” to possess something are applied. The Lexique de Philosophie by A. Bertrand comments: “According to Spinoza, desire is the fundamental tendency to persist in being.”
It may seem surprising that, among these active tendencies, the will has not been included. But a fundamental difference exists between the drives, impulses and desires, on the one hand, and the will on the other. We can all verify the difference, even the opposition between them; and one might say that the “human condition” is a constant conflict between drives, impulses and desires and the will.
In a certain sense the will is something of a mystery, and if academic psychologists have neglected desire, they have for the most part ignored the existence of the will. I shall quote in this connection the Dictionary of Psychological and Psychoanalytical Terms already referred to. Under the item “Will” and “Voluntary action” it says:
“Scientific psychology has not yet reached the point where it is possible to define how these terms should be used; and yet it does not seem possible to do without the concept of a praxis of behaviour patterns that should be termed voluntary and which differ from other patterns in various ill-defined ways.” Vague as this may be, one can detect a rather tight-lipped admission that there exists this disturbing something in psychology, which is the will.”
One of the reasons for this mystery about the will lies in its intimate association with the “I”, the subject, the centre of consciousness. In reality, all functions are functions of a living, self-conscious being and thus of an “I”. It is the “I” that feels and thinks, that imagines, desires and wills above all that wills—and therefore as one has in general a vague and dim sense of one’s self, of self-consciousness, it is not surprising that one’s sense of its fundamental function—the will is equally confused and faint. The diagram below, though only approximate, is intended to indicate this structure of the psyche.
- Sensation; 2. Emotion-Feeling; 3. Imagination; 4. Impulse-Desire; 5. Thought; 6. Intuition; 7. Will; 8. Central point: “I” or Ego.
The triangles starting from the central circle represent the psychic functions: sensation; emotion; imagination; impulse and desire; thought; and intuition. The will occupies a position apart from the others, a central position indicated by the circular area surrounding the point of self-consciousness, the “I” or Ego.
Direction of Vital Interest
We now come to the direction of the vital interest, and so pass from the descriptive to the dynamic aspect. One of Jungʼs most valuable contributions was the discovery and description of two fundamental psychological types based on whether the vital interest is directed outwards or inwards, and thus “extraverted” or “introverted”. I should mention at once that it is less a matter of “types” in a precise and static sense, and more of the prevailing direction of the vital interest, and thus of the consequent evaluations, chokes, decisions and actions. This predominating tendency can be strong (for instance, indicating this intensity in percentages—ninety per cent) or weak (sixty per cent, or say forty per cent). There is little need to describe the characteristics of the extravert and introvert; by now they are a matter of common knowledge. It is worth remembering that this prevailing tendency is subject to extreme, even pathological, variations. In its almost pure form, extraversion is to be observed in manic states, introversion in melancholia and depression. This direction of the vital interest is susceptible to alternations and oscillations ranging from the normal and moderate to the extreme and pathological. The extremes in alternation are to be found in cyclothimia and manic-depressive psychoses, which may or may not be intercalated by periods of equilibrium. In addition, the alternation can be rapid or slow, the cycles long or short. It is interesting to observe how a normal alternation occurs in relation to the various ages from birth to old age. The infant is totally introverted, totally absorbed in his organic sensations. As childhood progresses, he becomes increasingly extraverted and directs his interest towards the external world. The adolescent reverts to introversion when the awakening of energies, feelings, and emotions creates problems and crises that focus his interest upon himself. This generally gives place again to extraversion as the young man and adult become involved in relationships with others (interpersonal and social) and in professional activities. Maturity and especially old age produce a return to introversion, accompanied by detachment and waning interest in the external world, and by a tendency towards the inner life, contemplation and dispassionate observation.
By combining the tendency to extraversion or introversion with the four psychological functions he postulates, Jung arrives at a classification of eight types: the extraverted sensory, the extraverted emotional, the extraverted mental, the extraverted intuitive, and four corresponding introverted types. But this and other classifications expose those who adopt them to the dangers of schematicism and pigeon-holing, of yielding to the (so comfortable!) tendency to “label” human beings. We must be on our guard against overlooking the multifarious and complex facets of human reality. It is all too easy to regard others as “objects” instead of “subjects”. And this labelling, with its associated attitudes of judging, or more often of depreciation, often provokes hostile reactions, sometimes of an intense kind, which are thoroughly justified.
But to the eight types recognised by Jung, others must be added. Opposite interest-directions can be associated simultaneously with different levels in the same personality. For instance, a man may be predominantly extraverted physically, introverted emotionally and again extraverted mentally. His will can also be extraverted or introverted. Furthermore, another distinction must be made: the direction of the vital interest is subject to two separate “modalities” attitudes the active and the passive. Jung mentions this, but does not develop the point, which, in my opinion, has a fundamental importance. A passive extravert, endowed with excessive sensitivity, who succumbs to every external influence and is dominated by the will of others, is very different from an active extravert who tends to dominate things and people, to bend them to his will. In this sense, they are opposite types.
To this must be added the fact that there are two other interest-directions to be recognised and given the utmost consideration; the direction downwards towards the low, which may be called subversion, and that upwards towards the high or supra-version. Subversion is the tendency to plumb the unconscious in its lower aspects; and it can be said to be the province of “depth psychology” in its more restricted sense (the “descent into hell”) and can be compared to sub-aquatic sport. Freudian psychoanalysis displays an almost exclusive interest in the lower aspects of human nature.
In supraversion, on the other hand, the vital interest and search are directed towards the higher aspects of the psyche, towards the superconscious, towards spiritual experiences. This, in contrast to sub-aquatic sport, can be compared to mountain-climbing. To Jung must be given the credit of having recognised and demonstrated the existence in the human being of the natural tendency towards the high, of a genuine need, which he called instinctive, for spiritual satisfaction. He gave prominence to the fact that the neglect or repression of this need can create serious neuro-psychic and psychosomatic disturbances.
Another, and important, difference is one of quality, which is different from direction. There can be a supra-version of an inferior kind: the dreamer, the passive idealist, the sterile theoretician, the utopian are examples of supra-version of a negative type. There is again a subversion of a superior kind, such as the scientific investigation and exploration of the lower aspects of the unconscious, what could be termed psychological geology and archaeology.
Although I cannot now discuss the psychosynthetic tasks connected with the various directions of the vital interest, I should mention that there are also other psychological types deriving from the differences in the personality “structure”. There are individuals who are relatively coherent, well “shaped”, even rigid. 0n the other hand there are others who are diffuse, continually changeable. Others, again, are habitually contradictory or ambivalent. All this shows the great complexity of the human psyche and the impossibility of framing or pigeon-holing it in some designation or description arrived at from a single viewpoint. Only the sum of the various points of view, of the different approaches or “frames of reference”, can give a less imperfect conception of the psyche of that strange creature, a member of the fourth kingdom of nature—the human being.
The Psychology of the Unconscious
Up to this point I have scarcely mentioned the unconscious. Its existence is by now generally admitted, except by a few psychiatrists and psychologists bound by old conceptions which can be considered outdated. According to Jung, the unconscious is an exclusively psychological concept and includes all the psychic elements, contents and processes not associated with the “I” or Ego in a conscious way. Therefore, Jung maintains, the unconscious has no “personal centre”. This is in agreement with psychosynthesis, which warns against the tendency to make an “entity” of the unconscious, almost a personality, more or less in accord or in contrast with the conscious. “Unconscious”, as I have stressed elsewhere, should be considered an adjective, not a noun, and it indicates a temporary condition of the “psychic contents”, many of which may have been conscious and may become so again.
Jungʼs most important contribution to the psychology of the unconscious is represented by his extensive studies of the collective unconscious. Before him, psychoanalysis had concerned itself almost exclusively with the study of the personal unconscious. Jung then showed the great extent of collective psychic elements and forces, which exercise a powerful effect on the human personality. In my diagram of the constitution of the psyche, the collective unconscious is represented as lying outside the individual psyche. The demarcation line is dotted, to suggest the continuous exchanges going on between the collective and the personal unconscious.
The unconscious exists at all levels, in both the personality and the collective psyche. The collective unconscious is a vast world stretching from the biological to the spiritual level, in which therefore distinctions of origin, nature, quality and value must be made. It should be noted that Jung often disregards these distinctions: he speaks of the collective unconscious en bloc and is inclined to confuse what he terms “archaic”, that is, what originates in the ancient collective human experience, with what is higher (we would say superconscious) and in the spiritual sphere. Thus Jung speaks or “archetypes” as “images”; but at times he describes them as archaic, racial images, charged with a strong emotional tone accumulated during the centuries, and on other occasions he treats them as principles, as “ideas”; and he himself suggests their affinity with the Platonic ideas. In reality, there exists not only a difference but an actual antagonism between these two conceptions of “archetypes”, and from this confusion between them arise various debatable consequences, debatable at the theoretical level and liable to be harmful in therapy, as I shall have occasion to mention in speaking of Jungian therapy. In my opinion, it can be said without disrespect that Jung himself has been dominated by the potent fascination of the collective unconscious, against which he puts his patients on guard.
Jung rightly attaches great importance to symbols and symbolism, to which he devoted much study. He recognised the plurality of meanings associated with one and the same symbol, in contrast to the all too frequent tendency to interpret a symbol in only one way and on the basis of the preconceived theories of whoever interprets it. Jung showed that the same symbol can have different meanings, not only in various individual cases, but also in the same person. He showed, furthermore, that there are regressive and progressive symbols, symbols that relate to the archaic symbolism of the collective unconscious and symbols that indicate the attempts, the efforts to resolve certain problems, to bring about certain developments. Jung says that some symbols are messages from the unconscious (we would say of the superconscious) to the conscious personality, and he frequently utilises these progressive symbols in his method of treatment.
We come now to an important subject: spirituality and religion. Jung possessed the great merit of recognising and proclaiming (along with very few modem psychologists) the reality and importance of spiritual needs. He maintained that man has the need to reach an understanding of the meaning of life, to believe it has a value and purpose of a spiritual nature. He ascertained that many neuro-psychic disturbances are rooted in the lack of satisfaction of this need, in its repression. To quote his own words:”…the lack of meaning in life is a soul-sickness whose full extent and full import our time has not yet comprehended.” (Jung, “The Soul and Death,” in Spring 1945, p. 415) He therefore fully admits the importance of the spiritual factor, and of the religions in so far as they reflect spiritual values and further the satisfaction of spiritual needs.
On the other hand, although Jung had psychic experiences of a high order, there is no evidence that he had the direct experience of a spiritual, metaphysical reality. This can be surmised from his declarations of agnosticism. He insists on a distinction between spiritual consciousness as a subjective state and a presumed metaphysical, transcendental reality; and while he affirms the existence and value of the former, he does not pronounce on the latter. He goes as far as to say that God is a “psychological function” of the individual. He does not categorically deny the possibility of God’s existence, but says its objective reality cannot be demonstrated.
Jung can be coupled in this respect with the great American psychologist William James, who in his lectures on The Varieties of Religious Experience, given at the beginning of this century with considerable courage, advances the possibility and importance of a scientific psychological study of religious experience. James did not have—and he says so—a direct religious experience; and this lack in the case of both James and Jung makes their recognition of the reality and value of the spiritual experience all the more significant. Here is evidence of the true scientific spirit which leads to the admission of the existence of certain realities, if they have been ascertained and documented, even if one has not verified them personally.
Another subject of importance; that of the ego and the Self, will be dealt with in the following sections on the therapeutic and educational applications. Jung is considered a researcher, an explorer of the vast and little known territory of the psyche, but we can add that he was a courageous and brilliant pioneer who opened up new paths and gave new dimensions to the human mind. He contributed greatly to the freeing of psychology from the narrow trammels of a purely descriptive objectivism and expanded immensely its field by demonstrating the existence and the value of the higher psychic functions, of spiritual levels and needs.
Moreover, as we shall see subsequently, he points the way to liberation from the conditioning pressures on the personality and from the powerful influences exerted by the images and structures of the collective unconscious. In this way he gave effective aid in furthering the “individuation” process, the discovery and development of one’s true being, one’s Self.