The rational mammal mistakenly called man, really does not possess defined individuality. Unquestionably, this lack of psychological unity in the humanoid is the cause of so many difficulties and bitterness.
The physical body is a complete unit and works as an organic whole, unless it is sick.
However, the inner life of the humanoid is in no way a psychological unity.
The most serious thing about all this, despite what the various schools of pseudo-esoteric and pseudo-occultist types say, is the absence of psychological organization in the intimate depth of each person.
Certainly, in such conditions there is no harmonious work as a whole in the inner life of people.
The humanoid, with respect to his inner state, is a psychological multiplicity, a sum of “I’s”.
The learned ignoramuses of these tenebrous times worship the “I”, deify it, put it on the altars, call it “Alter ego”, “Superior I”, “Divine I”, etc., etc., etc.
The know-it-alls of this black age in which we live do not want to realize that “superior I” or “inferior I” are two sections of the same pluralized Ego…
The humanoid does not have, certainly, a “permanent I”, but a multitude of different infra-human and absurd “I’s”.
The poor intellectual animal mistakenly called man is similar to a house in disorder, where instead of a master, there are many servants who always want to be in command and do what they want…
The greatest error of cheap pseudo-esotericism and pseudo-occultism is to suppose that others possess, or that they have, a “permanent and immutable I”, without beginning and without end…
If those who think so would awaken their Consciousness even for an instant, they could clearly see for themselves that the rational humanoid is never the same for a long time…
The intellectual mammal, from a psychological point of view, is continually changing…
Thinking that if a person is called Louis is always Louis, is something like a very bad joke…
That person called Louis has inside himself other “I’s”, other Egos, that express themselves through his personality at different times, and although Louis does not like greed, another “I” inside him –let’s call him Pete– likes greed, and so on…
No person is the same continuously; really, one does not need to be very wise to fully realize the innumerable changes and contradictions of each person…
Supposing that someone possesses a “permanent and immutable I” is equivalent to, of course, an abuse towards one’s fellow man and towards oneself…
Within each person live many persons, many “I’s”; this can be verified in a direct way by any awakened, conscious person…
Revolutionary Psychology, Chapter X, “The Different “I’s””
Samael Aun Weor
