I just finished two articles on psychosynthesis. according to the author (Douglas Russell) there is an ‘ego’ concept in the psychosynthesis framework, however that is not really the point of this blog. Much more interesting is the scope and lucidity of this thoughsystem. I am intrigued by it actually, especially the practical aspect of it. I have been doing yoga for several years now, and do a daily routine for more than 3 years… I have been going deeper into the mystery (not just yoga )since…well honestly since I could think, I have read several philosphical texts and several ‘new age’ texts as well. but they seemed either to academic to be practical and new age stuff seemed to lack the analytical grounding one needs to be didactically relevant. And here is a guy who lives 50 years ago who basically developed a system that seems logical at closer reading, at least to me. I do need to read more on the subject to see the deeper distinctions better.
Do you recommend any good books on the subject?

Which reminds me, I have one recommendation for you, this thoughsystem has a planetary shift as its basis (or end result, that depends on your perspective). I have read several ‘channeled’ works on the subject but I am not entirely convinced on this subject, mostly i read them like fairy tales not as ‘truth’, for that I prefer more grounding and less speculation for now, David Bohm was a physicist and groundbreaking in the field quantum physics. I assume you have heard about the film ‘what the bleep do we know’ and other quantum ‘dilemma’s’. However, the writings of david bohm were set a decennium sooner. Its much less spectaulair and much more indepth and profound. There are several text availible on the net. And all his book are concerned with the nature of thought, what is it? How do we act on the basis of thought and how do we change it if its destructive? and all focused on how a planetary shift of awareness couldbe possible and scientifically has a basis as well.

I can talk a fair amount on these subjects as you undoubtly have noticed. So let me leave it for now.

Regards,

alexander

“to define, ‘ego’ psychosynthesis can turn to psychoanalysis: ‘ego’ is the aspect of the individual which is adapted to society. It consists of various functions, habits and defenses. It is comprised of conscious and unconscious contents of the personality.”

This fits with the concept I suggest that the ego is a collection of subpersonalities. These can be transformed, but I don’t believe they can be destroyed. Only in a cup-half-full, cup-half-empty argument can we say that the transformation into something more beneficial is death.

Thanks for your comments. To be clear, Psychosynthesis (as outlined by Assagioli) doesn’t actually define the ego or use it as a term or concept. My Psychosynthesis teacher taught that the Psychosynthesis equivalent to the ego would be a group of subpersonalities, as mentioned in the article. It is important to remember that arguments over ego, persona, self, etc., can easily become arguments in semantics. Think particularly in the term death. What does death mean to you? To me, there is no “death” per se; there is a transformation of energy. I do not believe that parts of ourselves “must ‘die’” – I believe that they must be transformed. It may seem like death. Or what we experience we may call “death” – perhaps because we don’t know how else to describe it. When experiencing a transformational event, I don’t think it matters whether we ‘know’, ‘believe’, or ‘hope’ that it is simply a phase. If it didn’t effect us to our core, then it probably wouldn’t be sufficient to bring about transformation. From my experiences, once you’ve been through a number of transformational events you will ‘know’ that you will survive, and you will know that you will learn and grow from the experience, although doubt and fear can still lurk in the background.