I was browsing through a psychology magazine recently when I noticed a brief article announcing the development of a "new form of therapy"--new because it looks for what is working in people, for times in their lives when they feel whole, rather than focusing just on the problems. Sound familiar? But there was no mention of psychosynthesis in the article.

In fact, I rarely see psychosynthesis acknowledged in the literature on psychology and spirituality, even in discussions of its trademark features like dialoguing with parts of the personality or evoking the will. People seem to happen upon psychosynthesis when they're not looking. It found me twenty years ago when I accidentally ran into an old friend at a rest stop on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, and he slipped me a scrap of paper with the words "Roberto Assagioli" scribbled on it. My friend and I went on to start a Center of our own, as it turns out, and we frequently receive calls at the Center from people who've stumbled upon psychosynthesis in a bookstore, or taken a workshop and feel like they've "come home." Psychosynthesis is a hidden treasure that people are delighted to find.

Even the word itself is a little hard to unwrap. How many times have people looked at you with a puzzled look in their eye and asked, "photosynthesis?" As Tom Yeomans says, "the openness and comprehensiveness of Assagioli's synthetic framework is both an asset and a liability. The asset is its power and usefulness as a way of seeing human life and development as a whole, both on micro and macro levels. Its liability is the difficulty in defining it." (1984, p. 7) Personally, I love its simplest definitions, like: "psychosynthesis is a way of helping life live itself more fully and deeply." (Ibid.) and "just as 'psycho-analysis' means the analysis of the psyche, 'psycho-synthesis' means the synthesis of the psyche." (Brown, 1993, p. 3)

Part of the beauty of psychosynthesis is that it derives from and is continually refined by the process of human experience and development. In that sense, it is constantly evolving and difficult to pin down. Assagioli was the first to point out that psychosynthesis was unfinished and had yet to be developed in many ways. He felt that no one person or center could or should be the authority on it:

There is no orthodoxy in psychosynthesis, and no one, beginning with myself, should be considered as its exclusive representative or leader. Each of its exponents tries to express and apply it as well as he or she is able to, and all who read or listen to the message, or receive the benefit of the use of the methods of psychosynthesis can decide how successful any exponent has been, or will be, in expressing its 'spirit'..." (from a letter by Assagioli in 1967)

In reflection, perhaps, of its elusive spirit, no formal, external organization has emerged over the years within the psychosynthesis community. Assagioli envisioned the relationships between practitioners and centers as that of a "constellation" rather than a solar system-all part of the whole, and yet each one autonomous and free to develop their work as they will. Thus each person has taken psychosynthesis into their own fields, added to it, freely blended it with other disciplines, and expanded its applications. As might be expected, there are now many different emphases and understandings of its essentials. In fact, I have heard a number of my colleagues question whether they should still be calling what they do or teach "psychosynthesis." The aversion to doctrine, taken to extremes, can lead to a scattering of essence, everyone doing their own thing, and a loss of integrity in the whole and in that which is unique and eternal about psychosynthesis. In response, there is the need for clarity about what the core of psychosynthesis is, no matter where its applications may take it, as well as a sense of how its gifts are distinct from its sibling approaches-existential and humanistic psychology, transpersonal psychology, Jungian thought, and eastern spiritual disciplines.

However, if, in our attempts to answer these questions, we become too narrow in our delineations or think that we or psychosynthesis have any inside line on "the truth," we run the risk of squeezing the life out of something that is and will always remain, by definition, alive, flexible, and ever-evolving. It seems to me that if we are to balance and synthesize these apparent opposites, we need "cooperation...so that we can see all the pieces and attain a sense of how they fit...Psychosynthesis by its nature invites us to find those ways of cooperating so that no aspect is left out and each finds its appropriate place in the evolving discipline." (Yeomans, 1991, p. 15)

This need for cooperation is one of the impulses that has created the new Association for the Advancement of Psychosynthesis (AAP). Another is the need and desire for community, from the Latin, communitas, meaning community or fellowship, from communis, meaning common-in other words, fellowship with those with whom we share something in common. Personally, I have done a lot of what could been called "kything" over the years with my psychosynthesis friends all over the world, because I needed connection with people who were kindred, but far away. The word, kything, adapted by Madeline L'Engle, refers to a soul-to-soul way of relating with someone, or communing with their essence, whether you are physically present with them or not. Recently, when I was working with a young part of myself, I discovered that what she most needed was to be seen with "the eyes of blessing"--eyes that say, "I see the best in you" (even when I may be out of touch with it myself). When asked from whom I had experienced this, it was my psychosynthesis friends who came to mind-and memories of feeling seen just sitting around the kitchen table together having tea.

The truth is, we need each other. It is said that we are "in the world, but not of it." The gift of psychosynthesis is its recognition of the part of us that is transcendent. But we are also now beginning to acknowledge that we have a part of us that is , in fact, of the world, and that we depend, inextricably on each other and our earth. In Assagioli's words, "An isolated individual is a nonexistent abstraction. In reality each individual is interwoven into an intricate network of vital, psychological and spiritual relations, involving mutual exchange and interactions with many other individuals...Therefore individual psychosynthesis is only a step towards inter-individual psychosynthesis." (1965, p. 5) The reality of our interconnectedness is becoming evident as much through the new physics as through psychology. Margaret Wheatley says: In the new science, the underlying currents are a movement toward holism, toward understanding the system as a system and giving primary value to the relationships that exist among seemingly discrete parts. Donella Meadows, a systems thinker, quotes an ancient Sufi teaching that captures this shift in focus: 'You think because you understand one you must understand two, because one and one makes two. But you must also understand and.' (1992, p. 9)

I see the impulse to start this Association as evidence of a deep longing to externalize and make conscious the web of connections, or, literally, the "association," that already exists among us. Wheatley says, "we do not...create reality, but we are essential to its coming forth. We evoke a potential that is already present." (1992, p. 36) The work of psychosynthesis is not and cannot be carried on in isolation alone. Even the roots of different species of trees nourish and help each other in a vast underground network of intertwining root systems, which allow water and nutrients to move from tree to tree, and strengthen individual trees to better withstand the force of winds. This discovery knocks "the notion that plants are always independent self-serving organisms...into a cocked hat." (Swain, 1989, p. 18.) Of course, if the trees are isolated, they are deprived of the benefits of this kind of "radical" cooperation (radical literally meaning 'of or from the roots').

John Firman has put flesh on the bones of psychosynthesis theory with regard to the central and ongoing role relationships play over the human lifespan. He suggests a change in Assagioli's egg diagram, which originally depicted the Self as a point at the top of the egg, in the higher unconscious. Firman (and Brown as well) now show the egg diagram without mapping the Self on it at all, since it does not exist solely in the higher unconscious, but rather is known, through experience, to be embedded in and available through all dimensions of human life, especially relationships. The problem with the notion that the Self exists in the higher unconscious is that it can too easily encourage "a devaluation of intrinsic human relatedness and embeddedness in the world." (1995, pp. 39-40) What seems closer to the truth, according to Firman, is that our relationships with parents, mates, teachers, friends, colleagues, etc. serve as our "external unifying centers," the medium through which the I-Self relationship gets lived out. In the work of Self-realization, "the choice for or against communion with Self is not made only in some pure, ultimate moment of contentless meditation...but via all the unifying centers of one's life." (1994. p. 193) In traditions that call the Divine "the Beloved," these relationships are considered "the Beloved manifest."

The empathic I-Self connection, then, resonates through fellowship with the communities in which we find our place. For many of us, the psychosynthesis community is one of these-a place where potentially: "'Yea' or 'nay' in these relationships, care or neglect in these relationships, honesty or deceit in these relationships, all form aspects of the process of Self-realization." (Firman, 1994, p. 193)

The principles of psychosynthesis apply at all levels of life. From this perspective, the emergence of AAP represents a readiness and an opportunity for us to live the principles of psychosynthesis in our own group, and to embark in a conscious way on the process of group and inter-group synthesis. Assagioli called social relationships "a very important and urgent field of application for psychosynthesis: between individuals and groups, between groups and groups on increasingly larger scales." (1974, p. 222) But what does inter-individual or inter-group psychosynthesis look like in daily lived experience?

To elucidate the idea of "right relationship" between the individual and the group, Assagioli used the analogy of a cell in the physical body. The cell is like the individual. It has its own functions, it gives out and receives from other cells. And in order for it to be healthy, the cell membrane needs to be neither too thick nor too thin. If it is too thick or impermeable, the give and take with other cells will be difficult or impossible, in which case the individual cell will die. If the membrane is too open or too loose, the cell itself will be too much influenced by the surrounding environment and disintegrate. Therefore, Assagioli said, "it's a question of the right kind of permeability." (1974, p. 222)

Similarly, the new science shows that the "power in organizations is a real energy that can only come into existence through relationships...and what gives power its charge, positive or negative, is the quality of relationships." (1992, pp. 38-39) The challenge we are taking on by creating this Association, then, is to have the ways in which we come together fulfill our mission of conscious evolution and embodying wholeness-in other words, to live, in relationship to each other, the principles we know to be most life-giving. In the process, we not only enjoy the nourishment of our colleagueship and are strengthened by mutual support, we also have a laboratory in which to more deeply understand, integrate, and refine the discipline of psychosynthesis. It sounds wonderfully synergistic in the abstract. And yet we all know how difficult it is to do.

Although I felt drawn to help AAP get started, I have personally experienced the potential dangers of group life and was wary of working together with a group. As a result, I made the trip to Amherst last August for the Charter Commission meeting with both excitement and reservation. We began the meeting by sharing our reasons for being there, and it became clear to me that this venture of working together to form an association could be a healing step for many in the community. I was heartened when, along with setting our goals for what we wanted to accomplish, we also devoted time and care to creating guidelines for the process by which we would work together over the next three days. What we came up with was the following list:

• breathe,
• welcome the unknown,
• slow down,
• use silence,
• include all views and honor differences,
• work in the present,
• hold the intensity of the moment,
• speak the truth of your experience,
• listen deeply, and
• follow the principle of circularity.

The group agreed to make decisions by consensus, rotate the roles of focalizer and scribe, and respect every person's right to, at any time, call for silence, shift the discussion from the content to the process, or take a biobreak. Letters, faxes and e-mail messages arrived from distant colleagues assuring us that our efforts were supported from afar. One read, "Our thoughts and prayers are with each and every one of you. It is a grand thing to attempt to discern what psychosynthesis wants to do with this organization, and then dare to facilitate this...We are with you-both in spirit and e-mail!" Things were off to a good start. I thought of Carol Gilligan's statement that "association can undo dissociation."

As providence would have it, a challenge arose for me in the late afternoon of the first day of our meeting, when I received a call from my husband, John, saying there was a family problem and he and my daughter needed me at home. I had just driven seven hours to Amherst to be part of what was, due to several last minute illnesses, already a small working group-eight of us-and I had committed my time for three days. It had been planned for months. I talked to John at length to see if we could work out the problem by phone. But, it became increasingly evident that the situation at home called for my presence. It may seem like a no-contest decision-if your family needs you, you go. But it wasn't that simple. Nobody was bleeding, and it felt more like a dilemma of conflicting commitments. Either way, I thought, I'm going to let someone down. Okay, here is a test- how is this psychosynthesis group going to respond to an individual member faced with the choice between family and the group work? I didn't know. But I knew what I needed to do. It was 7:00 p.m. and everyone had already left for dinner. So I wrote the group a note explaining my decision, packed the car, and began the long drive back to Philadelphia.

The next day after handling the crisis at home, I called Amherst to continue my participation in the meeting by phone and e-mail, and was met with unanimous understanding and support for my decision. My initial reservations were dispelled. What had happened in the group was, for me, what Firman calls "an empathic resonance, an intimate communion in which individuality and free will are respected and supported." (1994, p. 193) One of the members called the experience a "radical correction" of the distortion that the spiritual is more important than the personal. This incident gives me faith in what we are doing as we attempt to work together. Perhaps this is what it means to be "in the shelter of each other."

As psychosynthesists, we talk about parts of life naturally wanting to come together. AAP is an opportunity for us to come together with our own professional community, dedicated to living the process toward synthesis not only in our own lives, but in relationship to each other, between ourselves and nature, in our own group, and between North America and the rest of the world.

Some have suggested that perhaps through AAP we are developing the "I" of the community, our capacity to reflect back on ourselves and our thinking, to see and disidentify from our blind spots as well as our gifts, and to act on our vision. I hope that also means we will have more access to our collective wisdom, and that the elders among us will come forward with their voices and their views to steward and guide the community. I hope it means that as psychosynthesis continues to make a difference in the world, it can be acknowledged for its unique contribution to psychology and spirituality.

But working together toward these ends entails the risk of being visible, making mistakes, disagreeing with each other, and finding out whether we can survive it with our connection to ourselves and to each other intact. For me, and I suspect for many of us, this is a supreme Self- Other challenge. In relationship, I risk losing the connection to my own ground. I risk being criticized, overwhelmed, minimized, or made too important. Yet, in isolation, I miss out on the possibility of empathic resonance, creative dialogue, mutual respect and blessing. So how do we embrace our connections with each other without losing touch with our individual sourceground which informs the exchange? Marion Woodman says, "Just come to the mouth of the cave to be with others. Don't let yourself get pulled all the way out." Yes, this is the challenge. If we can do this, caring together for psychosynthesis can strengthen our capacity to care for the suffering around us, and make this beautiful discipline an ever more viable and trustworthy vehicle for healing.

It is my hope that AAP can be a crucible through which the power of our pooled thinking, the checks and balances of our diversity, and the nourishment of our personal connections to each other will support and empower all of us in carrying the spirit of psychosynthesis into the world. Let us dedicate it to the healing and co-creation of sustainable life on what Joanna Macy calls "our beautiful water planet, hanging there like a jewel in space."

With love,
Cher

p.s. As I have held and worked on this newsletter, I have been filled with a deep sense of gratitude to every person who, over the years, in ways large or small, has contributed to the development of psychosynthesis. Thanks to you for your part. AAP is just the next natural step in 86 years of evolution. I can only think that Roberto is smiling.

References

• Assagioli, Roberto, "Psychosynthesis: Height Psychology: Dis-covering the self and the Self," An Interview Conducted by Beverly Besmer, in Interpersonal Development, 4, 1973-4, pp. 215-225.
• Assagioli, Roberto, Psychosynthesis: Individual and Social, Psychosynthesis Research Foundation, 1965.
• Brown, Molly Young, Growing Whole, Center City, MN: Hazelden Educational Materials, 1993.
• Firman, John, in collaboration with Ann Russell, Healing the Human Spirit: A Psychosynthesis View of Trauma, Healing, and Growth, Palo Alto: Psychosynthesis Palo Alto, 1994.
• Firman, John, "A Suggested Change in the Egg Diagram," in Psicosintesi, 11/95-3/96, pp. 37-42.
• Swain, Roger B., "Notes from the Radical Underground," in World Monitor, November 1989.
• Yeomans, Thomas, Psychosynthesis: An Introduction for the 90's, San Francisco: Psychosynthesis Distribution, 1991.
• Yeomans, Thomas, "Psychosynthesis in the Helping Professions," in Psychosynthesis in the Helping Professions: Now and for the Future, Toronto: Department of Applied Psychology/Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1984.
• Wheatley, Margaret J., Leadership and the New Science: Learning about Organization from an Orderly Universe, San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 1992.
• Woodman, Marion, Leaving My Father's House, Boston: Random House, 1992.