The Superconscious as Part of Reality

I prefer the term “superconsciousness” because it reflects the contrast with the subconscious - it is, by definition, super-conscious. This superconsciousness is a part of every human being, just like the subconscious, and is the realm where measurable transpersonal experiences take place. 

We humans assume that we are what we perceive. This assumption is indeed correct, yet too simplistic in its scope. Our perception is limited by the filter we call our personality.

In modern psychology, the concept of the transpersonal self (TP self) is understood as a level that transcends the “personal” level (ego) and connects with collective, archetypal, or spiritual dimensions (e.g., Kahneman & Tversky, 1996).
The concept of “superconsciousness”—a conscious self that transcends the subconscious—can be viewed as an operationalizable variant of the TP-self, as it requires explicit self-reflection beyond immediate sensory perceptions.

Self-identification

When a person looks in the mirror and sees themselves, they say:

 “That’s me.”

If one asks more clearly: “Who exactly are you?”

The answer is “I” and “my body.” But who is this “I” that seemingly merely possesses the body?

The Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences describes in its article “My Body and I: How Self-Awareness Emerges Through Physical Experiences” how consciousness strives to gain “authorship and control” over itself.

The Mental Self - The Collective Fallacy

This mental “I” arises in the mind and should be viewed as a collective mental fallacy. When we examine this self-concept more closely, the fallacy quickly becomes apparent.

The human being, who thinks and perceives through the brain, imagines itself to be someone who constitutes a separate entity outside of bodily perceptions. This lies at the root of why we have created this concept from an evolutionary biological perspective. With mental development, which far surpasses that of other mammals, came the challenge of explaining oneself and the external world.

In this flawed model of self-perception, humans attempt to control “themselves.” Shaped by evolution, which compels us to exhibit strong territorial behavior - a trait that has been feared since time immemorial - the legacy of our “reptilian brain,” we are driven to want to possess and dominate everything. Without restraint and without regard.  

Thus, the human brain has lost itself; it attempts to create its own permanence as “the observer” and believes that it is this observer. In practice, however, it is merely a thought.

Research on self-concepts shows that the “mental self” is a cognitive construct that extends beyond body-based perception and is often driven by evolutionarily rooted motivations (e.g., territorial protection) (e.g., Matsumoto & Hwang, 2019).
The notion of a separate, autonomous self leads to misinterpretations of one’s own actions and creates a “psychological alienation” that is classified in cognitive psychology as “self-cognitive distortion.”

Returning to the mirror example, it clearly reflects this scenario: The thinker looks at themselves in the mirror and divides their being into different parts: their body, their emotions, their thoughts - and the self.

No matter how hard this “I” tries to be someone, it is simply not possible to exist - as the source of a thought.

The Dilemma of the Death of the Self

The problem we face is that the human being is so identified with this mental self-image, the thought-self, that they are immediately threatened with death as soon as it is called into question.

What helps here is to limit identification to the body: “I am my body,” and ultimately: “The body is what I am.”

A gradual approach to a real concept of self is important, namely that “my body is what I am; my body is the ‘I,’ and not a thought about myself.”

It must be understood that the brain is digested; to this day, it has not learned to apply a different strategy. This attitude, however, is an obstacle to oneself and to the realization of the superconscious - the true self.  

Studies on ego disintegration show that recognizing the illusion of the self leads to a temporary “death metaphor” that is associated with positive neurobiological changes (e.g., increased BDNF) (Liu et al., 2020). Limiting identification to the physical body (“I am my body”) is used in somatic therapy as an approach to stabilize the superconscious and reduce the risk of self-harm.

This is not about enlightenment, as practiced in many spiritual teachings, even though confronting this topic may bring it to mind. It is about the natural self-identification of who one is.  

It must be said up front that it will not be easy to tame this brain stem. Provocation or threats are absolutely not recommended - you would be picking a fight with yourself, and as explained earlier, this part of the brain is feared in evolution. A simple illustrative example is what happens when a person is abruptly forbidden from consuming any sugar - and that is only a mild comparison, but one that nonetheless demonstrates the forces of nature.  

So no ego is to be “killed” here. For there is nothing in thought that could be killed. Nor will the “wild animal” within us die; rather, it merely rediscovers itself. To its amazement, it actually gains more through this.

When discussing the ego, the concept of complete enlightenment often comes up, a term also used in esotericism and many spiritual movements. This must be carefully and objectively distinguished, as much of what is taught in these movements lacks a clear path. Anything can be disseminated under the guise of “spirituality,” and esotericism goes even further here, even transcending the boundaries of the universe. Without an objective source, seekers are often drawn into topics that burden them both psychologically and politically. These include dangerous ideologies, conspiracy theories about governments, or notions of invisible, attacking beings. All of these are topics that have absolutely no relevance to recognizing the reality of the superconscious.

It is also important to understand that extensive practical experience or knowledge of this subject does not constitute the omniscient enlightenment described in many teachings. Such totalitarian enlightenment (omniscience) is not feasible in practice, since the brain lacks the capacity to fully process the superconscious. Furthermore, the honor belongs solely to the collective superconscious, and thus to no single individual.  

The thinker who believes himself to be someone is constantly striving to present himself in a better light. Yet it is not possible to use the values or abilities of the superconscious as a resource for oneself without being in harmony with it. The evolutionary brain has also understood this, which is why it has turned away from the superconscious. The eternal adversary, who thinks only of himself and defies the superconscious, saying to it: “Why should I turn to you when I can have so much more without you?” - Yet the tragedy of this decision lies in the fact that this greed claims its victims. A body that devours its own arm because it cannot get enough.

The only means that leads to insight is compassion. Compassion is the only tool that reminds us of the superconscious. It brings us closer to the reality that, even if we cannot feel another living being or think from its perspective, we could still be one.

In neuropsychological studies, the cultivation of compassion has been linked to increased activity in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) and improved interoceptive awareness, which enables a more stable, integrative self (Weng et al., 2013).
Through targeted mindfulness and compassion exercises, the superconscious can be activated and the risk of “egocentric” self-harm reduced.

Theological Context and the Role of Humility

In a religious context, traditions provide a structural framework for encountering God. For people seeking a spiritual path outside of denominational ties, the superconscious can be understood as the Higher Self. In this regard, a nuanced understanding of humility is important: The assumption of an absolute identity between the individual self and the Divine can only be true to the extent that the thinker excludes himself, since he is only a tiny part of the infinite Superconsciousness.

The Superconsciousness can be described as unlimited, yet a person’s identification with this level only makes sense if the Transpersonal Self is understood as a representative of the Divine. From this perspective, the human being is not God himself, but participates in the divine presence within. This corresponds to central religious teachings, such as the biblical saying: “For behold, the kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17:21).

The Transpersonal Self is not a substitute for the Creator. Rather, it describes the space and field of consciousness in which an encounter with the divine presence becomes possible. Self-transcendence serves as a bridge to transcend the boundaries of the small, narrative self.

Transpersonal psychology, co-founded by researchers such as Stanislav Grof, investigates states of consciousness beyond the individual ego that establish a connection to the “Whole.” Modern neurotheology explores how the brain processes spiritual experiences of unity, demonstrating the biological basis of the feeling of an “inner divine presence.”

At the same time, it is left to individual freedom to determine how the Creator is defined within the respective religious or philosophical framework. The model of superconsciousness offers a neutral space of self-transcendence in which scientific curiosity and the personal encounter with the sacred can complement one another without violating the integrity of the respective tradition.

The distinction from political instrumentalization

A common misunderstanding in various spiritual traditions is the assumption that attaining higher levels of consciousness must inevitably lead to a political perspective. While values such as freedom, truthfulness, and spiritual responsibility are fundamentally positive, it would be a mistake to attribute a political function to the superconscious.

The superconscious is not an entity capable of assuming global responsibility in the sense of administrative or political leadership. It does not replace the necessary structures that ensure order and responsibility in the physical and social world. It is understandable that individuals or social institutions might feel challenged by the depth and immediacy of transpersonal insights - especially when the Transpersonal Self is mistakenly perceived as an external authority.

The realization of self-transcendence does not lead to the overthrow of worldly hierarchies. Responsibility for shaping the world remains in the hands of people and their elected governments. This principle remains in place even if the superconscious becomes an integral part of the human self-understanding. The nature of this field of consciousness lies not in pressure or coercion, but in an inner expansion that leaves the external structure of responsibility untouched.