These days there’s a lot of talk among spiritual seekers about the conceptual mind and mental constructs. Most often they’re described as something negative — something to be eliminated. Materialists, on the other hand, believing in Science as if it were God, lean towards the opposite polarity. They treat rational concepts (such as mathematics) as something real, tangible, and self-existing.
Meanwhile, any rational system or mental concept is, in truth, nothing more than a crutch on the path to healing. A healthy person has no need for a crutch. But for someone with a broken leg, it is absolutely essential.
This raises the question: what does a healthy person look like? If the answer isn’t obvious, we can turn to another concept — the system of personality levels developed by AP. A healthy person, in my understanding, is an integrated personality. One might also call this person Enlightened (though I am not entirely sure that’s the most accurate label).
An integrated personality does not need concepts as aids — they perceive the world as it is. If you are an integrated or realised person, concepts are nothing more than mental games, carrying neither benefit nor harm. But for everyone else (including the author), a concept that fits the moment and the circumstances is an invaluable assistant: you can lean on it to climb further up the evolutionary ladder of consciousness.
Just keep three things in mind:
- A) While you lean on a concept, the concept leans on you.
- B) A concept is not universal — it is your personal assistant in your specific situation.
- C) Once you heal, the crutch is no longer needed.
This brings us to the question of adequacy. Which systems are adequate, and which are not? We can describe the three parameters of a good mental concept: throughput, Complementarity and effectiveness.
Throughput
A mental concept is, by its very nature, a limiting tool. Its main function is to delineate a particular section of the information-energy flow. If we can distinguish a table from the endless ocean of consciousness, we can use it. If we can identify an aggressive person on the street, we can take precautions and avoid potential violence.
But it is precisely in their limitations that concepts pose their greatest danger. If the boundaries of a concept are too crude, it will fail to register subtleties — and those subtleties may turn out to be decisive.
Let me give an example. Among my clients, I often encounter this worldview: there is the ego — greedy, envious, angry, aggressive, jealous, and the source of all the mess in a person’s life — and then there is the soul/consciousness/spirit/higher self, which is immortal and infinitely wise. And so a person’s life becomes a battle between these two entities.
This view is undoubtedly a mental concept — and a very crude one. If we look more closely at a human being, we’ll see that the ego is not monolithic, but made of different parts that manifest differently in different situations. In our school, we called these parts subpersonalities.
Common examples include the Child, the Employee, the Partner, the Lover, the Friend. In all of these roles, a person behaves differently — something that becomes obvious under close observation, as well as in the natal chart, where each house (symbolising a different area of life) falls into different zodiac signs, meaning it manifests differently. Subpersonalities have their own character, personal traits, goals, tasks, desires, values, and ethics. Very often, they are not integrated and sabotage each other’s efforts.
A classic example of subpersonalities in conflict is the workaholic who supports their family but spends no time with them (Professional subpersonality vs Family one, or the 10th House vs the 4th House). Or the committed partner who is also a Casanova at heart (7th House vs 5th House).
This view of the human psyche allows for far more possibilities in terms of understanding one’s issue and the options for solving it. The range of life experience such a concept can describe is much wider than the dualistic Ego–Spirit model. Thanks to that wider throughput, it allows for much more precise and effective inner work. However, the concept of a polymodal psyche is still just a concept.
Another example is the mental concept of “Us vs Them”. Despite its obvious binarity and oversimplification, it still dominates in most countries of the world and serves as fertile ground for xenophobia, racism, and other forms of discrimination based on the perceived difference between groups.
Complementarity
Does that mean the ego–spirit concept is bad and should be discarded? Not at all. For some, it may be very useful. For example, for someone who has just emerged from an existential crisis and experienced a so-called spiritual awakening (we call this transition the move to the Adolescent level of personality). Such a person has just realised that they are something more than a body, a job title, or a brain. In the life of someone who has never been aware of anything beyond the ego (and who wasn’t even clearly aware of the ego itself), the soul or consciousness suddenly appears.
A qualitative leap in consciousness takes place. For such a person, the ego–spirit concept will be entirely appropriate and very helpful. But as they grow, they will inevitably hit the thick walls of that concept, and its crudity will turn from helper to hindrance. That moment signals the need for a new, more refined concept.
This brings us to a second important property of concepts — complementarity. There is no such thing as a good or bad concept — only concepts that are appropriate or inappropriate for a specific situation.
For example, the binary concept “Us vs Them”, despite its obvious simplicity and crudeness, is entirely relevant in situations of acute confrontation or conflict. You cannot build an effective military unit without using such a binary concept. The same applies not only to actual military action but also to its playful or symbolic representations — in sports, in competitive games, or even in legal battles in court.
As we’ve seen, the same concept can have a positive or negative effect at different stages of a person’s development or in the different life context. Even the most advanced and refined system can do far more harm than a crude and incomplete one — if used in the wrong context. The Buddhists understood this very well. That’s why one of the bodhisattva vows is: never speak of the concept of emptiness to an unprepared mind — it can be too dangerous and destructive. Unfortunately, this idea is not well integrated into the collective consciousness. That’s why we see endless “success advice” that is outright harmful to many people, or endless debates over which concept is supposed to be the “true” one — be it religious, ideological, or aesthetic.
Complementarity brings us to the third parameter, which is much more complex than the previous two — effectiveness.
Effectiveness
As we have already established, any concept is a supporting tool — a crutch — on the way to a certain result. The question is: what result exactly? And here we enter the realm of ethics, values, and ideals (and, simultaneously, the realm of relative truth).
The basic principle is this: the validity of a concept is confirmed in practice. Let’s say someone begins experiencing health issues and falls ill more frequently. Which mental concept should they use to explain what is happening?
– A scientific–nutritional one, which says it’s all about vitamin or micronutrient deficiency?
– The TCM perspective, pointing to spleen Qi deficiency?
– An astrological one, describing a tense transit to the ruler of the 6th House?
– Or a superstitious–magical one, claiming the person has been cursed?
The simple answer is: use what works. If a complex of B-vitamins solves the health problem, then there is no reason not to use that explanatory model. If vitamins don’t work but a visit to a professional shaman does, then the issue is not micronutrients but an energetic disturbance.
But in reality, this is a much subtler matter than it appears. A “working result” is always evaluated from a particular point of view. Moreover, the very same result will be interpreted differently depending on one’s worldview.
For example, victory in the struggle for power is a positive result from the perspective of a political leader. If a particular concept — for instance, astrology — helped him succeed, then it is a good model. But from the perspective of Christian values, where the main task is the salvation of the immortal Soul, this same result is a profound moral downfall — and the concepts that led the person into this sinful abyss will be judged as negative.
Therefore, the effectiveness of a concept must be evaluated based on where it leads us. This requires a developed ethical system that helps us navigate the conceptual landscape. But most importantly, it requires a certain worldview — a vision — which lies at a deeper level of our being than the symbolic systems we operate with. But this is a topic for another conversation.
Conclusion
To conclude: mental concepts are crutches — and by their nature, they are limiting tools. So do not take them too seriously, and certainly do not wage wars over them (no matter how Sacred they may feel to you). A good concept should have sufficiently broad throughput so as not to limit your perception too much; it should be complementary to your life situation and your current level of consciousness; and it should give the practical result you actually need (which, unfortunately, is harder to determine than it seems).
