Comments on Appendix 3 of “Atom and Archetype” by Markus Fierz.

Wolfgang Pauli's dream of 23 January 1938 from "Atom and Archetype"

Max Knoll’s Letter to Wolfgang Pauli on UFOs.

M. Knoll to Pauli

Dear Mr. Pauli,

Technische Hochschule Miinchen Institute for Technological Electronics [Munich] . u. 57

[Typewritten carbon copy]

Please excuse our delay in replying, which was due to the start of the new semester and the fact that Ursula had a severe bout of Ru.

Despite that, we were able to have long discussions about the really interesting-albeit far from simple-problems in your letter.

Your first question about the nature of the radar system is easy to answer.

A ground-based radar system for observing aeroplanes consists, for example, of a beamed, rapidly pulsed wave, shaped like a fan which, within one minute of time, scans the whole horizon (360°) in polar coordinates, with the fan beam rising up to 45° above the horizon.

The beaming of this fan and its scanning movement occur through a rotating mirror.

The electromagnetic wave impulses reflected by aeroplanes are detected by a nearby receiver and amplified, their arrival time being dependent on the distance of the reflecting aeroplane.

They then control the grid of a cathode-ray tube, with the ray moving synchronously in polar coordinates; the sky zone being scanned will be projected concentrically onto the screen of the cathode-ray tubes so that the reflecting aeroplanes will appear as light objects against a black background and the observation point corresponds to the center of the screen.

The circuit is so arranged that the objects appearing on the periphery of the screen correspond to the desired maximum distance of observation.

Objects closer to the center of the screen correspond to shorter transit times of the wave impulses and correspondingly shorter distances from the observation point.

Similar radar systems are used for observation from an aeroplane, and they usually just scan one quadrant of the sky or less .

You later ask who persuaded Jung to believe in UFOs.

I do not know, either; you are probably correct when you assume that his American patients are responsible.

Incidentally, in the U.S. Air Force there are not only several pilots but also quite a few senior officers who believe in UFOs.

In fact, 3 years ago one of them gave a lecture on the subject in Princeton (which I did not attend).

It is crucial to bear in mind that the observation of radar images in general is no greater guarantee for the objectivity of the “sighting” of UFO than direct visual sighting; in fact, it is less so, since radar images almost always show a series of “virtual” objects as well as the ones being scanned-e.g., unwanted reflections and the level of the electronic noise of the equipment, with the result that it is very easy to project something onto the screen pattern.

This means that the interpretation of radar images, in the case of objects lying at the limit of measurability, is often very uncertain and more like a Rorschach test, where the structure of the screen pattern is also a “random” one.

Radar images would only be convincing if they were photographed or filmed, so that a number of experts could form an objective opinion as to what are real objects and what are subjective interpretations.

But so far this has not happened.

When we visited Jung at the beginning of this year, he also told us about the so-called confirmation by radar of the existence of UFOs.

I then proceeded to raise the objections cited above.

He listened attentively but then seems to have forgotten what I said.

In the course of our visit on 15 June of this year, he brought up the subject of UFOs again, but this time in relation to their psychological significance for the individuation process, and here (like your) I agree with him.

He then went on to relate that he had seen UFOs on a Nuremberg engraving from the 16th century: ‘ A cylindrical mother ship is releasing disk-shaped daughter ships from a glass tube, like pills from a pillbox.”

In summary, I would like to say that once again Jung must be made to understand that the UFOs seen on radar screens are no more “real” than those sighted directly, and that no definite conclusions can be drawn bout their actual existence except by rear photographs or radar films (examined by experts), and no such material has been published.

Based on the observations that have been made so far, Jung would actually be in a position “to give a convincing denial of the objective existence of UFOs.”

In addition to that, there is no ruling out the possibility-as Ursula points out-that they are American or Russian secret rocket-propelled aircraft.

But even this would not detract from the Jungian concept, since they are clearly defined synchronistic causal chains, probably with psychological processes, perhaps the most remarkable fact being that the disk shape constellated by the unconscious is actually the mot favorable one from the aerodynamic point of view.

I have read reports in illustrated magazines about test models with such disk-shaped, rocket-propelled aircraft (in Canada and France, I believe).

Of course, they are not UFOs.

On the whole, Jung’s basic idea that individuation symbolism is te reason why the UFO myth is so widespread strikes me as quite plausible, although in my opinion, the problem of their “reality without as causal chain” does not exist since there are no reliable sightings.

For the same reason For the same reason. lung's comparison of a "reality without a causal chain" with the physical system of symmetry (page 2 of his letter [Letter 77, par. 4]) does not seem to fit, whereas the analogy between the individuation process and the physical problem of symmetry (page 3 [ibid.])

I find good, also because of the way in which the characteristic of “orderedness" emerges more clearly in the "wholeness symbols."

The conclusions you drew from your impressions of the international Physics Congress were very convincing for us; it is a pity that we were not able to talk in November, but we had to postpone our visit to Zurich because of Ursula's long and difficult illness (she sends best wishes to you both).

We hope we shall soon be able to come in the new year.

With kind regards, also to Franka,

Yours, MAX KNOLL ~Max Knoll to Wolfgang Pauli, Atom and Archetype, Pages 200-202

The Meaning of Parity (Mirror Symmetry) by Wolfgang Pauli

THE MEANING OF PARITY (MIRROR SYMMETRY) by Wolfgang Pauli

The parity law of physics states that for any atomic or nuclear system no new physical consequence or law should result from the construction of a new system, differing from the original by being a mirror twin.

Consider Particle" spinning about a direction M'.

Now construct or find Particle 2, which is chosen to be identical to the mirror image of 1.

The parity law says that there should be no observable difference between the two particles, 1, and 2, which may be detected by measurements made along direction M'.

This law permits one to make predictions: suppose 1 is radioactive, disintegrating into electrons.

The parity law predicts that equal numbers will be emitted towards A, and A’.

Why? Consider the alternative.

If 1 emits more electrons towards A, 2 must emit more towards A’ since 1 becomes identical to 2 simply by turning it upside down.

But now 2 is no longer the same as the mirror image of 1.

The physicist observing would make one decision about the relation between the direction of favored electron emission and the spin sense; the physicist in the mirror world would obtain a different answer.

Parity law would have been violated.

For the past thirty years, the special conditions predicted by the philosophically pleasing idea of mirror symmetry have borne fruit, consistently making successful predictions about atomic and nuclear processes.

However a general theory of the structure of matter eluded us.

Then, in the new subject of "strange particles," the K-mesons studied at Brookhaven and Berkeley, the first parity puzzle appeared.

This led to the Lee Yang proposal.

The preferential emission of electrons towards one direction of its spin is the observation that disproved the parity law. ~Wolfgang Pauli, Atom and Archetype, Pages 225-226

Wolfgang Pauli: OBSERVATIONS ON "COSMIC RAYS" AS DREAM SYMBOL.

Pauli's Observations on Cosmic Rays [Handwritten note from Pauli, undated]

OBSERVATIONS ON "COSMIC RAYS" AS DREAM SYMBOL.

I have long been familiar (U-15 years) with dreams in which other physicists (usually experts in the field of cosmic rays) conduct experiments with these rays (reflection, dispersion of rays, and similar things) .

Frequently, the rays are described as "dangerous; in that they can all cause "bum wounds" (like radioactive rays) .

As a protection against this, the physicists in the dreams indicate "asbestos sheets" (to insulate the body) or a "spin factor" (spin meaning "rotating on its own axis"; "spin factor" here being similar in meaning to "circumambulatio").

The "cosmic rays" in the dreams are not the real cosmic rays of physics.

They are actually supra-personal (archetypal) contents but not yet made
more specific.

The dreams under consideration seem to correspond to a relatively early stage of the confrontation of consciousness with other-as yet unknown-contents of this kind.

Let me give one example.

It contains a very favorable indication namely, the "fine structure" of the second line.

What this does is to indicate the beginning of an assimilation of an unconscious content into consciousness.

Example: Dream 7 October 1949

"The physicist H. is present and says that his father is conducting experiments with cosmic rays. They will be made visible by having objects put in their way as obstacles. My wife and I are looking on. Lines appear on a photographic plate, more or less like this: My wife says that she finds it very interesting."

Comment (made at the time):

It is as if "contents" had been sent to me but ricochet off me (scattering), possibly to reappear elsewhere. ~Wolfgang Pauli, Atom and Archetype, Page 210

N.Y. Times Book Review of Dr. Jung's "Psychology and Religion"

April 20, 1958

What Makes a Man the Way He Is?

By JOOST A. M. MEERLOO

The last surviving giant of modern psychology, Carl Gustav Jung, will be 83 years old this July. It is amazing how fervently for or hostilely against Jung modern psychologists and psychoanalysts still show themselves to be when they discuss him and his work. I remember vividly a psychiatric meeting at which Jung was the principal speaker. At the beginning nearly everyone, in a skeptical spirit, traded jokes and little fibs about him. Yet when he started to speak, all were fascinated by his words and personality. There was something about his metaphysical impact on people that we scientists sought to escape but could not when we were face to face with him.
Perhaps it is this characteristic of Jung that has created the most animosity among his contemporaries. Even Edward Glover, the Freudian theoretician, in his diatribe against Jung ("Freud or Jung?"), calls him an enigma.

I must confess that I started to read these two volumes by Jung--one a newly published volume in his collected works dealing with oriental thought, the other with the contemporary crisis of man-- with the same smug reservation many scientists feel when confronted with the ideas of another school of thought. I must acknowledge that, like many people, I tend to distrust what I cannot understand and verify with fact and theory. We suppose that everything must have a known cause. It is a fearful thing to live in the world of the unknown, beyond the edges of theoretical clarification. And this is, of course, the area into which Jung's theories and inquiries have taken him. In attacking rational knowledge, in speaking in the tongue of a prophet, he forgets that science has to be built on verifiable facts and concepts.

The danger in learning about psychology and psychoanalysis through one particular set of concepts is that the neophyte will become so involved and entangled in it that it will be well-nigh impossible for him to shake loose his allegiance to his master, along with that master's very human prejudices and blindness to the theories of rivals. But more and more the differing schools are acknowledging that the study of man's souls must be approached from various angles. Increasingly it is realized that the time is about here for final integration and clarification of concepts.

Another cause of confusion and disagreement in the fields of psychology and psychoanalysis is language. As Freud developed the new depth psychology, several of his students and collaborators, showing all the convulsive signs of maturation and rebellion against the patriarch, attempted to fly out of his nest. In their attempt to appear original and in their struggle for individuation--to use a Jungian term--they gave new, involved names to concepts that were similar, thus producing more confusion than clarity.

Usually their criticisms and reproaches of one another were actually misrepresentations of one another. Yet however detestable, unreadable, and unquotable these schools found one another, they subtly influenced each other--and will continue to influence each other until the crisis in the evolution of psychological thought is passed.

Jung is one of these rebellious collaborators, of course, but with a difference. He and Freud employed different idioms, but both showed a poetic and creative touch in their choice of words.

The difference in the concepts of Freud and Jung is best illustrated in the way they considered man. Freud emphasized him in the present, Jung looked at him in a timeless, creative sense. Where Freud described a nearly unfathomable personal unconscious, Jung postulated a far wider unconscious for man in the collective sense, a subterranean storeroom for symbols, myths and fairy tales that represented inherited patterns of thought. Freud emphasizes the psychology of "here and now"; Jung is concerned with man taking shape under the burden of history, myth and eternity. For Freud the creative molders of man are the tensions of Eros; for Jung man's spiritual core is determined by religious experience, by transcendental experience and by an unsophisticated self-composure.

Psychoanalysis, as created by Freud, ushered in a new understanding of man. It taught us to see that in our daily life we are aware of only a small, superficial portion of him; most of his psychic life remains hidden beneath the surface. He brought man down from his pedestal as the godlike molder of life. He revealed the hidden bias in every man and the intricate interdependence of body and mind.

Though Freud, the empiricist, shattered the picture of man as a mere rational being, he himself lived too much in the age of causal Darwinian thinking to inquire into comparable oriental concepts of man. Jung's merit is that he was not bound by the assumptions of "the rational thinker." Occupying himself more and more with myths and legends, he built up an audacious system of concepts often incapable of being verified empirically.

Jung demonstrates his vast knowledge of mythical lore and offers his conclusions about oriental thought in the seventh volume of this collected works, a volume intended especially for student and scholar, "Psychology and Religion: West and East."

Nowhere else than in this study of the interplay of East and West is the point so forcefully made that man's cultural past somehow molds his feelings and thinking as well as his highly contrasting attitudes toward reality. Occidental culture makes an ideal of the rational, thinking, individual being who lives in a vacuum separate from his fellow men. The Orient sees man more as a part of a family or group, continually participating, living in mystic interpretation with each other.

The volume contains Jung's famous treatises on Western and Eastern religion and his "Answer to Job," in which the struggle between good and evil in man is illustrated through the epic story of Job, who expected God to help him against God. Yet, the Biblical poem is the expression of total acceptance of life. "Naked came I forth out of my mother's womb, And naked shall I return thither: The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; Blessed be the name of the Lord."

The best example of the combination of Jung's intuitive grasp and psychological intuition is his foreword to Suzuki's "Introduction to Zen Buddhism," which in itself is one of the finest treatises about Zen that I have read.

In "The Undiscovered Self," a rather small monograph published last summer in Switzerland under the title "Gegenwart und Zukunft," Jung, the archaeologist of the psyche, puts aside for the moment the final edition of his collected works to take a look at the distress of the Western world and the agonies of the entire planet. At the age of 82 he has the right to offer a capsule view of such a large subject. R. F. C. Hull's translation is excellent and reads even more smoothly than the German original.

Jung inquires what the psychic forces are that today divide our world into two armed camps, ready to jump at each other at any moment. Why, in the midst of towering organizations, institutions and machines, is the individual lost and forgotten?

Jung's response is a passionate plea for individual integrity and for freedom against intrusion upon it by mechanical forces and political majorities. He asks for an awareness of the uniqueness of the individual that can be understood neither by generalizations nor by statistics.

Thus Jung turns from scrutiny of the collective self to the far more important question of the meaning of the individual self. No wonder that he repeatedly quotes his former friend and teacher Freud. He has traveled a long way from that time in his life when he was infected by the collective mysticism of the Nazi ideology, when he postulated a creative Aryan collective unconscious opposed to a destructive Semitic unconscious. Now he recognizes that only through a study of the crisis within the individual and the widening gulf between his conscious and unconscious aspects can we improve our understanding of the crisis in society.

Jung does not write about the individual and the mass as contrasts. Both elements are represented in every living person. It is the lack of awareness of man's duality and inner contrasts that may lead to uncontrolled outbursts, as in the time of the Nazis. The hope of increasing the control of the destructive forces within man lies in increasing man's image of self, of his individuality and his feelings of inner freedom and inner confidence. It is here that the ego psychology of Freud and the thought of Jung again parallel each other.

Jung closes his treatise with a moving message: "I am neither spurred on by excessive optimism nor in love with high ideals, but am merely concerned with the fate of the individual human being--that infinitesimal human unit on whom a world depends, and in whom, if we read the meaning of the Christian message aright, even God seeks his goal.
The Problem

It is not that present-day man is capable of greater evil than the man of antiquity or the primitive. He merely has incomparably more effective means with which to realize his proclivity to evil. As his consciousness has broadened and differentiated, so his moral nature has lagged behind. That is the great problem before us today.--The Undiscovered Self." ~Joost A. M. Meerloo, New York Times, April 20, 1958.

The Red Book Publication Deliberations

Publication Deliberations

From 1922 onward, in addition to discussions with Emma Jung and Toni Wolff, Jung had extensive discussions with Cary Baynes and Wolfgang Stockmayer concerning what to do with Liber Novus, and around its potential publication.

Because these discussions took place when he was still working on it, they are critically important.

Cary Fink was born in 1883.

She studied at Vassar College, where she was taught by Kristine Mann, who became one of Jung's earliest followers in the United States.

In 1910, she married Jaime de Angulo, and completed her medical training at Johns Hopkins in 19II. In 1921, she left him, and went to Zurich with Kristine Mann.

She entered analysis with Jung.

She never practiced analysis, and Jung highly respected her critical intelligence. In 1927, she married Peter Baynes.

They were subsequently divorced in 1931.

Jung asked her to make a fresh transcription of Liber Novus, because he had added a lot of material since the previous transcription.

She undertook this in 1924 and 1925, when Jung was in Africa.

Her typewriter was heavy, so she first copied it by hand and then typed it out.

These notes recount her discussions with Jung and are written in the form of letters to him, but were not sent.

OCTOBER 2,1922

In another book of Meyrink's the "White Dominican," you said he made use of exactly the same symbolism that had come to you in the first vision that revealed to your unconscious. Furthermore you said, he had spoken of a "Red Book" which contained certain mysteries and the book that you are writing about the unconscious, you have called the "Red Book". Then you said you were in doubt as to what to do about that book. Meyrink you said could throw his into novel form and it was all right, but you could only command the scientific and philosophical method and that stuff you couldn't cast into that mold. I said you could use the Zarathustra form and you said that was true, but you were sick of that. I am too. Then you said you had thought of making an autobiography out of it. That would seem to me by far the best, because then you would tend to write as you spoke which was in a very colorful way. But apart from any difficulty with the form, you said you dreaded making it public because it was like selling your house. But I jumped upon you with both feet there and said it wasn't a bit like that because you and the book stood for a constellation of the Universe, and that to take the book as being purely personal was to identify yourself with it which was something you would not think of permitting to your patients ... Then we laughed over my having caught you red-handed as it were. Goethe had been caught in the same difficulty in the 2nd part of Faust in which he had gotten into the unconscious and found it so difficult to get the right form that he had finally died leaving the Mss. as such in his drawer. So much of what you had experienced you said, would be counted as sheer lunacy that if it were published you would lose out altogether not only as a scientist, but as a human being, but not I said if you went at it from the Dichtung und Wahrheit [Poetry and Truth] angle, then people could make their own selection as to which was which. You objected to presenting any of it as Dichtung when it was all Wahrheit, but it does not seem to me falseness to make use of that much of a mask in order to protect yourself from Philistia-and after all, as I said Philistia has its rights, confronted with the choice of you as a lunatic, and themselves as inexperienced fools they have to choose the former alternative, but if they can place you as a poet, their faces are saved. Much of your material you said has come to you as runes & the explanation of those runes sounds like the veriest nonsense, but that does not matter if the end product is sense. In your case I said, apparently you have become conscious of more of the steps of creation than ever anyone before. In most cases the mind evidently drops out of the irrelevant stuff automatically and delivers the end product, whereas you bring along the whole business, matrix process and product. Naturally it is frightfully more difficult to handle. Then my hour was up.

JANUARY 1923

What you told me some time ago set me thinking, and suddenly the other day while I was reading the "Vorspiel auf dem Theater" [prelude in the theater]'182 it came to me that you too ought to make use of that principle which Goethe has handled so beautifully all through Faust, namely; the placing in opposition of the creative and eternal with the negative and transient. You may not see right away what
this has to do with the Red Book but I will explain. As I understand it in this book you are going to challenge men to a new way of looking at their souls, at any rate there is going to be in it a good deal that will be out of the grasp of the ordinary man, just as at one period of your own life you would scarcely have understood it. In a way it is a "jewel" you are giving to the world is it not? My idea is that it needs a sort of protection in order not to be thrown into the gutter and finally made away with by a strangely clad Jew. The best protection you could devise, it seems to me, would be to put in incorporate the book itself an exposition of the forces that will attempt to destroy it. It is one of your great gifts strength of seeing the black as well as the white of every given situation, so you will know better
than most of the people who attack the book what it is that they want to destroy Could you not take the wind out of their sails by writing their criticism for them? Perhaps that is the very thing you have done in the introduction. Perhaps you would rather assume towards the public the attitude of "Talce or leave it, and be blessed or be damned whichever you prefer." That would be all right, whatever
there is of truth in it is going to survive in any case. But I would like to see you do the other thing if it did not call for too much effort.

JANUARY 26,1924

You had the night before had a dream in which I appeared in a disguise and was to do work on the Red Book and you had been thinking about it all that day and during Dr. Wharton's hour preceding mine especially (pleasant for her I must say) ... As you had said you had made up your mind to turn over to me all of your unconscious material represented by the Red Book etc. to see what I as a stranger and impartial observer would say about it. You thought I had a good critique and an impartial one. Toni you said was deeply interwoven with it and besides did not take any interest in the thing in itself nor in getting it into usable form. She is lost in "bird fluttering" you said. For yourself you said you had always known what to do with your ideas, but here you were baffled. When you approached them you became enmeshed as it were and could no longer be sure of anything. You were certain some of them had great importance, but you could not find the appropriate form-as they were now you
said they might come out of a madhouse. So then you said I was to copy down the contents of the Red Book-once before you had had it copied, but you had since then added a great deal of material, so you wanted it done again and you would explain things to me as I went along, for you understood nearly everything in it you said. In this way we could come to discuss many things which never came up
in my analysis and I could understand your ideas from the foundation. You told me then something more of your own attitude toward the "Red Book" You said some of it hurt your sense of the fitness of things terribly; and that you had shrunk from putting it down as it came to you, but that you had started on the principle of "voluntariness" that is of making no corrections and so you had stuck to that. Some of the pictures were absolutely infantile, but were intended so to be. There were various figures speaking, Elias, Father Philemon, etc. but all appeared to be phases of what you thought ought to be called "the master." You were sure that this latter was the same who inspired Buddha, Mani, Christ, Mahomet-all those who may be said to have communed with God.183 But the others had identified with him. You absolutely refused to. It could not be for you, you said, you had to remain the psychologist-the person who understood the process. I said then that the thing to be done was to enable the
world to understand the process also without their getting the notion that they had the Master caged as it were at their beck & call. They had to think of him as a pillar of fire perpetually moving on and forever out of human grasp. Yes, you said it was something like that. Perhaps it cannot yet be done. As you talked I grew more and more aware of the immeasurability of the ideas which are filling you. You said they had the shadow of eternity upon them and I could feel the truth of it.

On January 30, she noted that Jung said of a dream which she had told him:

That it was a preparation for the Red Book because the Red Book told of the battle between the world of reality and the world of the spirit. You said in that battle you had been very nearly torn asunder but that you had managed to keep your feet on the earth & make an effect on reality That you said for you was the test of any idea, and that you had no respect for any ideas however winged that had to exist off in space and were unable to make an impression on reality

There is an undated fragment of a letter draft to an unidentified person in which Cary Baynes expresses her view of the significance of Liber Novus, and the necessity of its publication:

I am absolutely thunderstruck for example, as I read the Red Book, and see all that is told there for the Right Way for us of today; to find how Toni has kept it out of her system. She wouldn't have an unconscious spot in her psyche had she digested even as much of the Red Book as I have read & that I should think was not a third or a fourth. And another difficult thing to understand is why she has no interest in seeing him publish it. There are people in my country who would read it from cover to cover without stopping to breathe scarcely; so does it re-envisage and clarify the things that are today; staggering everyone who is trying to find the clue to life ... he has put into it all the vigor and color of his speech, all the directness and simplicity that come when as at Cornwall the fire burns in him.186
Of course it may be that as he says, if he published it as it is, he would forever be hors du combat in the world of rational science, but then there must be some way around that, some way of protecting himself against stupidity; in order that the people who would want the book need not go without for the time it will take the majority to get ready for it. I always knew he must be able to write the
fire that he can speak-and here it is. His published books are doctored up for the world at large, or rather they are written out of his head & this out of his heart.

These discussions vividly portray the depth of Jung's deliberations concerning the publication of Liber Novus, his sense of its centrality in comprehending the genesis of .his work and his fear that the work would be misunderstood.

The impression that the style of the work would mal(e on an unsuspecting public strongly concerned Jung.

He . later recalled to Aniela Jaffe that the work still needed a suitable form in which it could be brought into the world because it sounded like prophecy, which was not to his taste.

There appears to have been some discussion concerning these issues in Jung's circle.

On May 29, 1924, Cary Baynes noted a discussion with Peter Baynes in which he argued that Liber Novus could be understood only by someone who had known Jung.

By contrast, she thought that the book:

was the record of the passage of the universe through the soul of a man, and just as a person stands by the sea and listens to that very strange and awful music and cannot explain why his heart aches, or why a cry of exaltation wants to leap from his throat, so I thought it would be with the Red Book, and that a man would be perforce lifted out of himself by the majesty of it, and swung to heights he had never been before.

There are further signs that Jung circulated copies of Liber Novus to confidantes, and that the material was discussed together with the possibilities of its publication.

One· such colleague was Wolfgang Stockmayer.

Jung met Stockmayer in 1907- In his unpublished obituary; Jung nominated him as the first German to be interested in his work.

He recalled that Stockmayer was a true friend. They traveled together in Italy and Switzerland, and there was seldom a year in which they did not meet.

Jung commented:

He distinguished himself through his great interest and equally great understanding for pathological psychic processes. I also found with him a sympathetic reception for my broader viewpoint, which became of importance for my later comparative psychological works.


Stockmayer accompanied Jung in "the valuable penetration of our psychology" into classical Chinese philosophy; the mystical speculations of India and Tantric yoga.

On December 22,1924, Stockmayer wrote to Jung:

I often long for the Red Book, and I would like to have a transcript of what is available; I failed to do so when I had it, as things go. I recently fantasized about a kind of journal of "Documents" in a loose form for materials from the "forge of the unconscious," with words and colors.

It appears· that Jung sent some material to him.

On April 30, 1925, Stockmayer wrote to Jung:

In the meantime we have gone through "Scrutinies," and it is the same impression as with the great wandering. A selected collective milieu for such from the Red Book is certainly worth trying out, although your commentary would be quite desired. Since a certain adjacent center of yours lies here, ample access to sources is of great significance, consciously and unconsciously. And I obviously fantasize about "facsimiles," which you will understand: you need not fear extraversion magic from me. Painting also has great appeal.

Jung's tTIanuscript "Commentaries" (see Appendix B) was possibly connected with these discussions.

Thus figures in Jung's circle held differing views concerning the significance of Liber Novus and whether it should be published, which may have had bearings on Jung's eventual decisions.

Cary Baynes did not complete the transcription, getting as far as the first twenty-seven pages of Scrutinies.

For the next few years, her time was taken up with the translation of Jung's essays into English, followed by the translation of the I Ching.

At some stage, which I estimate to be in the mid-twenties, Jung went back to the Draft and edited it again, deleting and adding material on approximately 250 pages.

His revisions served to modernize the language and terminology.

He also revised some of the material that he had already transcribed into the calligraphic volume of Liber Novus, as well as some material that was left out.

It is hard to see why he undertook this unless he was seriously considering publishing it.

In 1925, Jung presented his seminars on analytical psychology to the Psychological Club.

Here, he discussed some of the important fantasies in Liber Novus.

He described how they unfolded and indicated how they formed the basis of the ideas in psychological Types and the key to understanding its genesis.

The seminar was transcribed and edited by Cary Baynes.

That same year, Peter Baynes prepared an English translation of the Septem Sermones ad Mortuos, which was privately published.

Jung gave copies to some of his English-speaking students.

In a letter that is presumably a reply to one from Henry Murray thanking him for a copy, Jung wrote:

I am deeply convinced, that those ideas that came to me, are really quite wonderful things. I can easily say that (without blushing), because I know, how resistant and how foolishly obstinate I was, when they first visited me and what a trouble it was, until I could read this symbolic language, so much superior to my dull conscious mind.

It is possible that Jung may have considered the publication of the Sermones as a trial for the publication of Liber Novus.

Barbara Hannah claims that he regretted publishing it and that "he felt strongly that it should only have been written in the Red Book"

At some point, Jung wrote a manuscript entitled "Commentaries," which provided a commentary on chapters 9, 10, and II of Liber Primus (see Appendix B).

He had discussed some of these fantasies in his 1925 seminar, and he goes into more detail here.

From the style and conceptions, I would estimate that this text was written in the mid-twenties.

He may have written-or intended to write-further "commentaries" for other chapters, but these have not come to light.

This manuscript indicates the amount of work he put into understanding each and every detail of his fantasies.

Jung gave a number of people copies of Liber Novus: Cary Baynes, Peter Baynes, Aniela Jaffe, Wolfgang Stockmayer, and Toni Wolff. Copies may also have been given to others.

In 1937, a fire destroyed Peter Baynes's house, and damaged his copy of Liber Novus.

A few years later, he wrote to Jung asking if by chance he had another copy, and offered to translate it.

Jung replied: "I will try whether I can procure another copy of the Red Book. Please don't worry about translations. I am sure there are 2 or 3 translations already. But I don't know of what and by whom."

This supposition was presumably based on the number of copies of the work in circulation.

Jung let the following individuals read and/or look at Liber Novus: Richard Hull, Tina Keller, James Kirsch, Ximena Roelli de Angulo (as a child), and Kurt Wolff Aniela Jaffe read the Black Books, and Tina Keller was also allowed to read sections of the Black Books.

Jung most likely showed the book to other close associates, such as Emil Medtner, Franz Riklin Sr., Erika Schlegel, Hans Trub, and Marie-Louise von Franz.

It appears that he allowed those people to read Liber Novus whom he fully trusted and whom he felt had a full grasp of his ideas.

Quite a number of his students did not fit into this category. ~The Red Book, Introduction, Pages 212-215

Carl Jung: I was in analysis with a ghost and a woman.

At first it was the negative aspect of the anima that most impressed me. I felt a little awed by her.

It was like the feeling of an invisible presence in the room one enters.

Then a new idea came to me: In putting down all this material for analysis, I was in effect writing letters to my anima, that is to a part of myself with a different viewpoint from my own.

I got remarks of a new character—I was in analysis with a ghost and a woman.

Every evening I wrote very conscientiously for I thought if I did not write it, there would be no way for the anima to get at it.

There is a tremendous difference in the assumption of telling something and the actual telling of it, a fact which I was once able to test out experimentally.

I told a man whom I was testing to think of something disagreeable, but to let it be something I did not know about.

I took his electric resistance in the so-called psycho-galvanic experiment, and there was very little change.

In some way I knew that he was thinking about something very disagreeable that had happened that morning, but something which I had found out only by accident, and of which he was confident I knew nothing.

I said to him, “Now I will tell you what that disagreeable thing was,” and as soon as I told him I got a tremendous reaction in the current. ~Carl Jung, 1925 Seminar, Pages 59-51

Jane Wheelwright on the role of the Feminine in the forthcoming Age

Jung seemed to say that the new era can come through only by means of the feminine principle (through Eros) and that is not only in the man’s experience of his anima.

It obviously has to come primarily through women.

No man’s anima can compare to a real flesh-and-blood woman.

It can, however, give the man some respect and belief and liking and trusting women that can help forward the movement.

On this note I would like to end, because it refers to Jung’s farsightedness and to his specific contribution to the future.

Without it I feel there would be far more delay in the understanding of women.

It also is another example of how Jung’s broad vision did in the long run constellate for me specifically my need to strive towards being a free modern woman with my roots planted deeply in the soil of archaic woman.

The more Jung’s concepts of the animus and anima are understood and the more Jung’s insistence on the conscious realization of these concepts, the sooner the woman’s movement will bring about the necessary changes in our society. At least I think so.

I wish therefore to honor Jung as having made an enormous contribution to this next step in our social evolution. ~Jane Wheelwright, J.E.T., Pages 96-97.

Meister Eckhart: Sermon I [magnificently beautiful and profound]

SERMON ONE (Pf 1, Q 1 0 1 , QT 57)

DUM MEDIUM SI LENTIUM TENERENT OMNIA ET NOX IN SUO CURSU MEDIUM ITER HABERET, ETC. (Wisdom 18:14 )

Here, in time, we are celebrating the eternal birth which God the Father bore and bears unceasingly in eternity, because this same birth is now born in time, in human nature.

St. Augustine says, 'What does it avail me that this birth is always happening, if it does not happen in me?

That it should happen in me is what matters.'

We shall therefore speak of this birth, of how it may take place in us and be consummated in the virtuous soul, whenever God the Father speaks His eternal Word in the perfect soul.

For what I say here is to be understood of the good and perfected man who has walked and is still walking in the ways of God; not of the natural, undisciplined man, for he is entirely remote from, and totally ignorant of this birth.

There is a saying of the wise man, "When all things lay in the midst of silence, then there descended down into me from on high, from the royal throne, a secret word."

This sermon is a bout that Word.

Three things5 are to be noted here.

The first is, where in the soul God the Father speaks His Word, where this birth takes place and where she6 is receptive of this act, for that can only be in the very purest, loftiest, subtlest part that the soul is capable of.

In very truth, if God the Father in His omnipotence could endow the soul with anything more noble, and if the soul could have received from Him anything nobler, then the Father would have had to delay the birth for the coming of this greater excellence.

Therefore the soul in which this birth is to take place must keep absolutely pure and must live in noble fashion, quite collected and turned entirely inward, not running out through the five senses into the multiplicity of creatures, but all

in turned and collected and in the purest part -there is His place; He disdains anything less.

The second part of this sermon has to do with man's conduct in relation to this act, to God's speaking of this Word within, to this birth: whether it is more profitable for man to co-operate with it, so that
it may come to pass in him through his own exertion and merit by a man's creating in himself a mental image in his thoughts and disciplining himself that way by reflecting that God is wise, omnipotent,
eternal, or whatever else he can imagine about God – whether this is more profitable and conducive to this birth from the Father; or whether one should shun and free oneself from all thoughts, words,
and deeds and from all images created by the understanding, maintaining a wholly God-receptive attitude, such that one's own self is idle, letting God work within one.

Which conduct conduces best to this birth ?

The third point is the profit, and how great it is, which accrues from this birth.

Note in the first place that in what I am about to say I shall make use of natural proofs, so that you yourselves can grasp that it is so, for though I put more faith in the scriptures than in myself, yet it is
easier and better for you to learn by means of arguments that can be verified.

First we will take the words, 'In the midst of silence there was spoken within me a secret word.' - 'But sir where is the silence, and where is the place where the word is spoken?' - As I said just now, it
is in the purest thing that the soul is capable of, in the noblest part, the ground8 - indeed, in the very essence of the soul which is the soul's most secret part.

There is the silent 'middle,' for no creature ever entered there and no image, nor has the soul there either activity or understanding; therefore she is not aware there of any image, whether of herself or of any other creature.

Whatever the soul effects, she effects with her powers.

What she understands, she understands with the intellect.

What she remembers, she does with memory; if she would love, she does that with the will, and thus she works with her powers and not with her essence.

Every external act is linked with some means.

The power of sight works only through the eyes; otherwise it can neither employ nor bestow vision, and so it is with all the other senses.

The soul's every external act is effected by some means.

But in the soul's essence there is no activity, for the powers she works with emanate from the ground of being.

Yet in that ground is the silent 'middle': here nothing but rest and celebration for this birth, this act, that God the Father may speak His word there, for this part is by nature receptive to nothing
save only the divine essence, without mediation.

Here God enters the soul with His all, not merely with a part. God enters here the ground of the soul.

None can touch the ground of the soul but God alone.

No creature can enter the soul's ground, but must stop outside, in the 'powers.' Within, the soul sees clearly the image whereby the creature has been drawn in and taken lodging.

For whenever the powers of the soul make contact with a creature, they set to work and make an image and likeness of the creature, which they absorb.

That is how they know the creature.

No creature can come closer to the soul than this, and the soul never approaches a creature without having first voluntarily taken an image of it into herself.

Through this presented image, the soul approaches creatures - an image being something that the soul makes of (external) objects with her own powers.

Whether it is a stone, a horse, a man, or anything else that she wants to know, she gets out the image of it that she has already taken in, and is thus enabled to unite herself with it.

But for a man to receive an image in this way, it must of necessity enter from without through the senses.

In consequence, there is nothing so unknown to the soul as herself.

Accordingly, one master says that the soul can neither create nor obtain an image of herself.

Therefore she has no way of knowing herself, for images all enter through the senses, and hence she can have no image of herself.

And so she knows all other things, but not herself.

Of nothing does she know so little as of herself, for want of mediation.

And you must know too that inwardly the soul is free and void of all means and all images - which is why God can freely unite with her without form or likeness.

Whatever power you ascribe to any master, you cannot but ascribe that power to God without limit.

The more skilled and powerful the master, the more immediately is his work effected, and the simpler it is.

Man requires many means for his external works; much preparation of the material is needed before he can produce them as he has imagined them.

But the sun in its sovereign mastery performs its task (which is to give light) very swiftly: the instant its radiance is poured forth, the ends of the earth are full of light. More exalted is the angel, who needs still less means for his work and has fewer images.

The highest Seraph has but a single image: he seizes as a unity all that his inferiors regard as manifold.

But God needs no image and has no image: without any means, likeness, or image God operates in the soul - right in the ground where no image ever got in, but only

He Himself with His own being.

This nocreature can do.

'How does God the Father give birth to His Son in the soul – like creatures, in images and likenesses ?'

No, by my faith, but just as He gives birth to him in eternity – no more, no less.

'Well, but how does He give birth to him then?'

Now see: God the Father has a perfect insight into Himself, profound and thorough knowledge of Himself by Himself, and not through any image.

And thus God the Father gives birth to His Son in the true unity of the divine nature.

See, it is like this and in no other way that God the Father gives birth to the Son in the ground and essence of the soul, and thus unites Himself with her.

For if any image were present there would be no real union, and in that real union lies the soul's whole beatitude.

Now, you might say, there is by nature nothing in the soul but images. Not at all!

If that were so, the soul could never become blessed, for God cannot make any creature from which you can receive perfect blessedness - otherwise God would not be the highest blessing and the final goal, whereas it is His nature to be this, and it is His will to be the alpha and omega of all things.

No creature can constitute your blessedness, nor can it be your perfection here on earth, for the perfection of this life - which is the sum of all the virtues - is followed by the perfection of the life to come.

Therefore you have to be and dwell in the essence and in the ground, and there God will touch you with His simple essence without the intervention of any image.

No image represents and signifies itself: it always aims and points to that of which it is the image.

And, since you have no image but of what is outside yourself (which is drawn in through the senses and continually points to that of which it is the image), therefore it is impossible for you to be beatified by any image whatsoever.

And therefore there must be a silence and a stillness, and the Father must speak in that, and give birth to His Son, and perform His works free from all images.

The second point is, what must a man contribute by his own actions, in order to procure and deserve the occurrence and the consummation of this birth in himself?

Is it better to do something toward this, to imagine and think about God ? - or should he keep still and silent in peace and quiet and let God speak and work in him, merely waiting for God to act?

Now I say, as I said before, that these words and this act are only for the good and perfected people, who have so absorbed and assimilated the essence of all virtues that these virtues emanate from them naturally, without their seeking; and above all there must dwell in them the worthy life and lofty teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ.

They must know that the very best and noblest attainment in this life is to be silent and let God work and speak within.

When the powers have been completely withdrawn from all their works and images, then the Word is spoken.

Therefore he said, 'In the midst of the silence the secret word was spoken unto me.'

And so, the more completely you are able to draw in your powers to a unity and forget all those things and their images which you have absorbed, and the further you can get from creatures and their
images, the nearer you are to this and the readier to receive it.

If only you could suddenly be unaware of all things, then you could pass into an oblivion of your own body as St. Paul did, when he said, "Whether in the body I cannot tell, or out of the body I cannot tell;
God knows it" (2 Cor. 1 2 :2).

In this case the spirit had so entirely absorbed the powers that it had forgotten the body: memory no longer functioned, nor understanding, nor the senses, nor the powers that should function so as to govern and grace the body; vital warmth and body-heat were suspended, so that the body did not waste during the three days when he neither ate nor drank.

Thus too Moses fared, when he fasted for forty days on the mountain and was none the worse for it, for on the last day he was as strong as on the first.

In this way a man should flee his senses, turn his powers inward and sink into an oblivion of all things and himself.

Concerning this a master addressed the soul thus: 'Withdraw from the unrest of external activities, then flee away and hide from the turmoil of inward thoughts, for they but create discord.' And so, if God is to speak His Word in the soul, she must be at rest and at peace, and then He will speak His Word, and Himself, in the soul - no image, but Himself!

Dionysius says, 'God has no image or likeness of Himself, for He is intrinsically all goodness, truth and being.' God performs all His works, whether within Himself or outside of Himself, in a flash.

Do not imagine that God, when He made heaven and earth and all things, made one thing one day and another the next. Moses describes it like that, but he really knew better: he did so for the sake of people who could not conceive or grasp it any other way.

All God did was this: He willed, He spoke, and they were!

God works without means and without images, and the freer you are from images, the more receptive you are for His inward working, and the more introverted and self-forgetful, the nearer you are to this.

Dionysius exhorted his pupil Timothy in this sense saying, 'Dear son Timothy, do you with untroubled mind soar above yourself and all your powers, above ratiocination and reasoning, above works,
above all modes and existence, into the secret still darkness, that you may come to the knowledge of the unknown super-divine God.'

There must be a withdrawal from all things.

God scorns to work through images.

Now you might say, 'What does God do without images in the ground and essence ?'

That I cannot know, because my soul-powers receive only in images; they have to know and lay hold of each thing in its appropriate image.

They cannot recognize a horse when presented with the image of a man; and since all things enter from without, that knowledge is hidden from my soul - which is to her great advantage.

This not-knowing makes her wonder and leads her to eager pursuit, for she perceives clearly that it is, but does not know how or what it is.

Whenever a man knows the causes of things, then he at once tires of them and seeks to know something different.

Always clamoring to know things, is forever inconstant.

And so this unknown-knowing keeps the soul constant and yet spurs her on to pursuit.

About this, the wise man said, "In the middle of the night when all things were in a quiet silence, there was spoken to me a hidden word.

It came like a thief by stealth" (Wisd. 18:14-15).

Why does he call it a word, when it was hidden ?

The nature of a word is to reveal what is hidden. It revealed itself to me and shone forth before me, declaring something to me and making God known to me, and therefore it is called a Word.

Yet what it was, remained hidden from me.

That was its stealthy coming in a whispering stillness to reveal itself.

See, just because it is hidden one must and should always pursue it.

It shone forth and yet was hidden: we are meant to yearn and sigh for it.

St. Paul exhorts us to pursue this until we espy it, and not to stop until we grasp it.

After he had been caught up into the third heaven where God was made known to him and he beheld all things, when he returned he had forgotten nothing, but it was so deep down in his ground that his intellect could not reach it; it was veiled from him.

He therefore had to pursue it and search for it in himself and not outside.

It is all within, not outside, but wholly within.

And knowing this full well, he said, 'For I am persuaded that neither death nor any affliction can separate me from what I find within me" (Rom. 8:38-39 ) .

There i s a fine saying o f one pagan master to another about this.

He said, 'I am aware of something in me which shines in my understanding; I can clearly perceive that it is something, but what it may be I cannot grasp.

Yet I think if I could only seize it I should know all truth.'

To which the other master replied, 'Follow it boldly! For if you could seize it you would possess the sum total of all good and have eternal life ! '

St. Augustine1 5 spoke in the same sense: 'I am aware of something within me that gleams and flashes before my soul; were this perfected and fully established in me, that would surely be eternal life ! '

It hides, yet shows itself; it comes, but like a thief with intent to take and steal all things from the soul.

But by emerging and showing itself a little it aims to lure the soul and draw her toward itself, to rob her and deprive her of herself.

About this, the prophet says, 'Lord, take from them their spirit and give them instead thy spirit' (Ps. 103:29-30).

This too was meant by the loving soul when she said, "

My soul dissolved and melted away when Love spoke his word" (Song 5:6) .

When he entered, I had to fall away. And Christ meant this by his words, "Whoever abandons anything for my sake shall be repaid a hundredfold, and whoever would possess me must deny himself and all things, and whoever will serve me must follow me and not go any more after his own " (Mark 10:29, etc . ) .

But now you might say, 'But, good sir, you want to change the natural course of the soul and go against her nature!

It is her nature to take things in through the senses in images.

Would you upset this ordering?

No!

But how do you know what nobility God has bestowed on human nature, not yet fully described, and still unrevealed ?

For those who have written of the soul's nobility have gone no further than their natural intelligence could carry them; they had never entered her ground, so that much remained obscure and unknown to them.

So the prophet said, "I will sit in silence and hearken to what God speaks within me" (Ps. 84 : 9) .

Because it is so secret, this Word came in the night and in darkness. St. John says, "The light shone in the darkness, it came into its own, and as many as received it became in authority sons of God; to them was given power to become God's sons" (John 1:5, 11-12).

Now observe the use and the fruit of this secret Word and this darkness.

The Son of the heavenly Father is not born alone in this darkness, which is his own: you too can be born a child of the same heavenly Father and of none other, and to you too He will give power.

Now observe how great the use is! For all the truth learned by all the masters by their own intellect and understanding, or ever to be learned till Doomsday, they never had the slightest inkling of this
knowledge and this ground.

Though it may be called a nescience, an unknowing, yet there is in it more than in all knowing and understanding without it, for this unknowing lures and attracts you from all understood things, and from yourself as well.

This is what Christ meant when he said, "Whoever will not deny himself and will not leave his father and mother, and is not estranged from all these, is not worthy of me" (Matt. 10:37), as though he were to say, he who does not abandon creaturely externals can be neither conceived nor born in this divine birth. But divesting yourself of yourself and of everything external does truly give it to you.

And in very truth I believe, nay, I am sure, that the man who is established in this cannot in any way ever be separated from God. I say he can in no way lapse into mortal sin.

He would rather suffer the most shameful death, as the saints have done before him, than commit the least of mortal sins.

I say such people cannot willingly commit or consent to even a venial sin in themselves or in others if they can stop it.

So strongly are they lured and drawn and accustomed to that, that they can never turn to any other way; to this way are directed all their senses, all their powers.

May the God who has been born again as man assist us to this birth, eternally helping us, weak men, to be born in him again as God. Amen. ~Meister Eckhart; The Complete Mystical Works; Pages 29-37

Dear Mrs. Jaffe: As you are so interested in the story of Baeck and Jung,

Dear Mrs. Jaffe: Jerusalem 7 May 1963

As you are so interested in the story of Baeck and Jung, I will write it down for your benefit and have no objection to being cited by you in this matter.

In the summer of 1947 Leo Baeck was in Jerusalem. I had then just received for the first time an invitation to the Eranos meeting in Ascona, evidently at Jung's suggestion, and I asked Baeck whether I should accept it, as I had heard and read many protests about Jung's behavior in the Nazi period.

Baeck said: "You must go, absolutely!" and in the course of our conversation told me the following story.

He too had been put off by Jung's reputation resulting from those well-known articles in the years 1933-34, precisely because he knew Jung very well from the Darmstadt meetings of the School of Wisdom and would never have credited him with any Nazi and anti-Semitic sentiments.

When, after his release from Theresienstadt, he returned to Switzerland for the first time (I think it was 1946), he therefore did not call on Jung in Zurich.

But it came to Jung's ears that he was in the city and Jung sent a message begging him to visit him, which he, Baeck, declined because of those happenings.

Whereupon Jung came to his hotel and they had an extremely lively talk lasting two hours, during which Baeck reproached him with all the things he had heard. Jung defended himself by an appeal to the special conditions in Germany but at the same time confessed to him: "Well, I slipped up"-probably referring to the Nazis and his expectation that something great might after all emerge.

This remark, "I slipped up," which Baeck repeated to me several times, remains vividly in my memory.

Baeck said that in this talk they cleared up everything that had come between them and that they parted from one another reconciled again.

Because of this explanation of Baeck's I accepted the invitation to Eranos when it came a second time.

Yours sincerely,

G. Scholem ~Jung’s Last Years, Pages 97-98.

Carl Jung: "A Rejoinder to Dr. Bally" [A response to charges of Anti-Semitism]

A REJOINDER TO DR. BALLY

1 wish to discuss no surmises with Dr. Bally, but prefer to report the facts which led me to take over the editorship of the Zentralblatt filr Psychotherapie.

About three years ago I was elected honorary [vice-] president of the General Medical Society for Psychotherapy.

When, owing to the political upheaval, Professor Kretschmer resigned from the presidency, and the Society like so many other scientific organizations in Germany
received a profound shock, some leading members pressed me—I may say, fervently—to take the chair.

This, I would expressly emphasize, was the presidency not of the German but of the International Society, as is stated in the issue from which Dr. Bally quotes.

Thus a moral conflict arose for me as it would for any decent man in this situation.

Should I, as a prudent neutral, withdraw into security this side of the frontier and wash

my hands in innocence, or should I—as I was well aware—risk my skin and expose myself to the inevitable misunderstandings which no one escapes who, from higher necessity, has to make a pact with the existing political powers in Germany?

Should I sacrifice the interests of science, loyalty to colleagues, the friendship which attaches me to some German physicians, and the living link with the humanities afforded by a common language—sacrifice all this to egotistic comfort and my different political sentiments?

I have seen too much of the distress of the German middle class, learned too much about the boundless misery that often marks the life of a German doctor today, know
too much about the general spiritual wretchedness to be able to evade my plain human duty under the shabby cloak of political subterfuge.

Consequently no other course remained for me but to answer for my friends with the weight of my name and independent position.

As conditions then were, a single stroke of the pen in high places would have sufficed to sweep all psychotherapy under the table.

That had to be prevented at all costs for the sake of suffering humanity, doctors, and—last but not least—science and civilization.

1018 Anybody who has the least notion about present-day Germany knows that no newspaper, no society, nothing, absolutely nothing can exist unless it has been gleichgeschaltet (conformed) by the government.

Consequently the organization of a journal or a society is an affair that has two sides.

I can wish, but whether things will turn out as I wish is another question, the decision for which rests neither with me nor with my colleagues.

Anyone who has to deal with Germany today knows how rapidly things can alter, how one unforeseen decree follows another, and how the political scene changes like lightning.

It is quite impossible to keep abreast of events from abroad, when even inside Germany people are unable, with the best will in the world, to get the political authorities to adopt a clear and binding attitude.

Since the German section of the International Society has to be gleichgeschaltet, and since, moreover, the Zentralblatt is published in Germany, there naturally arose so many difficulties
that more than once we doubted the possibility of a reorganization.

One of these concerned the oath of allegiance and the "purity of political sentiment" required of the German Society.

We in Switzerland can hardly understand such a thing, but we are immediately in the picture if we transport ourselves back three or four centuries to a time when the Church had totalitarian presumptions.

Barbed wire had not been invented then, so there were probably no concentration camps; instead, the Church used large quantities of faggots.

The "modernist" oath of today is a pale and feeble offshoot of an earlier, much more robust and palpable Gleichschaltung.

As the authority of the Church fades, the State becomes the Church, since the totalitarian claim is bound to come out somewhere.

First it was Socialism that entered into the Catholic heritage and again is experimenting with the crassest kind of Gleichschaltung—not, indeed, with a view to buttressing up the kingdom of heaven but to producing an equally millenarian state of bliss (or its substitute) on earth.

Russian Communism has therefore, quite logically, become the totalitarian Church, where even the poorest mouse emits the Bolshevist squeak.

No wonder National Socialism makes the same claims!

It is only consistent with the logic of history that after an age of clerical Gleichschaltung the turn should come for one practised by the secular State.

But even in such an age the spirit is at work in science, in art, philosophy, and religious experience, heedless of whether the contemporary situation be favourable or unfavourable, for
there is something in man that is of divine nature and is not condemned to its own treadmill and imprisoned in its own structure.

This spirit wants to live—which is why old Galileo, when they had done torturing him, recanted, and afterwards, so the story goes, said "But it does move"—only very softly, I'll wager.

Martyrdom is a singular calling for which one must have a special gift.

Therefore it seems to me at least as intelligent not to worry the high inquisition for a while with the exciting news that one has discovered the moons of Jupiter without the authorization
of Aristotle.

Galileo had the childlike eyes of the great discoverer and was not at all wise to his gleichgeschaltet age.

Were he alive today he could sun himself on the beach at Los Angeles in company with Einstein and would be a made man, since a liberal age worships God in the form of science.

But the "metamorphosis of the gods" rolls rumbling on and the State becomes lord of this world: more than half Europe is already swallowed up.

Science and every healing art get seven fat years, then come the seven lean.

They must learn to adapt themselves.

To protest is ridiculous—how protest against an avalanche?

It is better to look out.

Science has no interest in calling down avalanches; it must preserve its intellectual heritage even under the changed conditions.

That is how things stand today.

Neither I nor my German colleagues are responsible for them.

If the German section of the Society wants to exist at all the oath of allegiance is inescapable, as any reasonable person will understand.

It was therefore planned that the managing editor of the Zentralblatt, Dr. Cimbal of Hamburg, would bring out a special issue with statements by leading German psychotherapists, together with a signed introductory statement by the president of the German Society, Professor Goring of Elberfeld, for exclusive circulation in Germany.

Such, too, were the instructions which I gave to the managing editor.

To my great surprise and disappointment Professor Goring's political manifesto was suddenly printed in the current issue of the Zentralblatt [VI 13].

I do not doubt that there were inside political reasons for this, but it was one of those lamentable tactical gaffes which were the bane of German foreign policy even in the Wilhelm era.

In this way my name unexpectedly appeared over a National Socialist manifesto, which to me personally was anything but agreeable.

And yet after all what is help or friendship that costs nothing? The incident is naturally so incriminating as to put my editorship seriously in question.

In Germany everything must be "German" at present if it is to survive.

Even the healing art must be "German," and this for political reasons.

From the standpoint of medicine itself, it is unimportant whether it is called "German" or "French," but it is extremely important that it should live, even if under undeniably
difficult conditions, as I know only too well.

It is a cheap jibe to ridicule "Germanic psychotherapy," but a very different thing to have to rescue medicine for humanity's sake from the seething chaos of revolution.

It is easy to stand by and be funny when the main point is to get a young and insecure science into a place of safety during an earthquake, and that was my aim in helping to reorganize the psychotherapeutic movement in Germany.

Medicine has nothing to do with politics—I only wish it had!—and therefore it can and should be practiced for the good of suffering humanity under all governments.

If the doctors of Petersburg [sic] or Moscow had sought my help I would have acceded without hesitation, because I am concerned with human beings and not with Bolsheviks—and if I was then inevitably branded a Bolshevik it would have bothered me just as little.

Man after all still has a soul and is not just an ox fatted for political slaughter.

If I am called into the arena for the sake of the soul I shall follow the call wherever it may be.

This naïve belief of mine in the human soul may, from the Olympian standpoint of a hypertrophied intellect or of partisan blindness, appear laughable, suspect, unpatriotic, and God knows what.

I do not pride myself on being a good Christian, but I do believe in the saying, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."

The doctor who, in wartime, gives his help to the wounded of the other side will surely not be held a traitor to his country.

There is no sense in us doctors facing the National Socialist regime as if we were a party.

As doctors we are first and foremost men who serve our fellows, if necessary under all the aggravations of a given political situation.

We are neither obliged nor called upon to make protests from a sudden access of untimely political zeal and thus gravely to endanger our medical activity.

My support of the German doctors has nothing to do with any political attitude.

If it is interpreted politically—which has doubtless happened already or soon will—the interpretations are a reflection on those who make them.

I have never been in a position to stop the formation of myths.

024 Admittedly I was incautious, so incautious as to do the very thing most open to misunderstanding at the present moment: I have tabled the Jewish question.

This I did deliberately.

My esteemed critic appears to have forgotten that the first rule of psychotherapy is to talk in the greatest detail about all the things that are the most ticklish and dangerous, and the most misunderstood.

The Jewish problem is a regular complex, a festering wound, and no responsible doctor could bring himself to apply methods of medical hush-hush in this matter.

As to the difference between Jewish and "Aryan-Germanic-Christian-European" psychology, it can of course hardly be seen in the individual products of science as a whole.

But we are not so much concerned with these as with the fundamental fact that in psychology the object of knowledge is at the same time the organ of knowledge, which is true of no other science.

It has therefore been doubted in all sincerity whether psychology is possible as a science at all.

In keeping with this doubt I suggested years ago that every psychological theory should be criticized in the first instance as a subjective confession.

For, if the organ of knowledge is its own object, we have every reason to examine the nature of that organ very closely indeed, since the subjective premise is at once the object of knowledge which is therefore limited from the start.

This subjective premise is identical with our psychic idiosyncrasy.

The idiosyncrasy is conditioned (1) by the individual, (2) by the family, (3) by the nation, race, climate, locality, and history.

1 have in my time been accused of "Swiss wooden-headedness."

Not that I have anything against possessing the national vices of the Swiss; I am also quite ready to suppose that I am a bigoted Swiss in every respect.

I am perfectly content to let my psychological confession, my so-called "theories," be criticized as a product of Swiss wooden-headedness or queer-headedness, as betraying the sinister influence of my theological and medical forbears, and, in general, of our Christian and German heritage, as exemplified for instance by Schiller and Meister Eckhart.

I am not affronted when people call me "Teutonically confused," "mystical," "moralistic," etc.

I am proud of my subjective premises, I love the Swiss earth in them, I am grateful to my theological forbears for having passed on to me the Christian premise, and I also admit my so-called "father complex": I do not want to knuckle under to any "fathers" and never shall (see "queer-headedness").

1027 May it not therefore be said that there is a Jewish psychology too, which admits the prejudice of its blood and its history?

And may it not be asked wherein lie the peculiar differences between an essentially Jewish and an essentially Christian outlook?

Can it really be maintained that I alone among psychologists have a special organ of knowledge with a subjective bias, whereas the Jew is apparently insulted to the core if one assumes him to be.


Presumably he would not have one assume that his insights are the products of a mere cipher, or that his brain emerged only today from the featureless ocean of non-history.

I must confess my total inability to understand why it should be a crime to speak of "Jewish" psychology.

If 1 were in the position—as Dr. Bally supposes me to be—of not being able to point to a single difference between the two psychologies, it would amount to exactly the same thing as not being able to make plausible the difference between the peculiarities of the English and the Americans, or the French and the Germans.

I have not invented these differences; you can read about them in innumerable books and newspapers; as jokes they are on everybody's tongue, and anyone who fails to see that
there are one or two psychological differences between Frenchmen and Germans must have come from the back of beyond and know nothing about our European madhouse.

Are we really to believe that a tribe which has wandered through history for several thousand years as "God's chosen people" was not put up to such an idea by some quite special psychological peculiarity?

If no differences exist, how do we recognize Jews at all?

1029 Psychological differences obtain between all nations and races, and even between the inhabitants of Zurich, Basel, and Bern. (Where else would all the good jokes come from?)

There are in fact differences between families and between individuals.

That is why I attack every levelling psychology when it raises a claim to universal validity, as for instance the Freudian and the Adlerian.

All levelling produces hatred and venom in the suppressed and misjudged; it prevents any broad human understanding.

All branches of mankind unite in one stem—yes, but what is a stem without separate branches?

Why this ridiculous touchiness when anybody dares to say anything about the psychological difference between Jews and Christians? Every child knows that differences exist.

103° It seems to be generally assumed that in tabling the discussion of ethnological differences my sole purpose was to blurt out my "notorious" anti-Semitism.

Apparently no one believes that I—and others—might also have something good and appreciative to say.

Whatever it be, and however critical it be, I would never have the audacity to maintain that "ten tribes are accursed and two alone holy."

That saying comes from no Christian.

My criticism and appreciation will always keep well outside this glaring contrast, and will contain nothing that cannot be discussed civilly.

I express no value-judgments, nor do I intend any veiled ones.

I have been engaged for many years on the problem of imponderable differences which everybody knows and nobody can really define.

They are among the most difficult problems of psychology and probably for that reason are a taboo area which none may enter on pain of death.

To many people it is an insult if one credits them with a special psychological idiosyncrasy, and in dealing with parties and nations one must be even more careful.

That is why any investigation of these imponderables is so extraordinarily difficult, because, as well as doing his work, the investigator has to perform a grotesque egg-balancing dance
around highly charged sensibilities.

It is high time the practicing psychologist understood more about these psychic imponderabilia, because from them arise a good half of the things that go wrong in the world.

Anyone who could define the nature of these imponderable differences would truly have gazed deep into the mystery of the human soul.

For my part, I do not belong to those savants who concern themselves exclusively with what is known already—an extremely useful activity, no doubt—but prefer to sniff around territories where nothing is yet known.

103 2 Consequently I am amused to find myself cast in the role of the nitwit who is unable to spot a single difference between Jews and Christians.

It is, in spite of Bally, an undoubted fact that the difference exists, just as water existed before the chemist discovered H20; but it cannot be grasped as yet, because all the views that have been put forward so far are unsatisfactory.

These purely cognitive difficulties have, however, nothing to do with the question of whether the imponderables exist.

I intend shortly to publish a few no doubt very inadequate and arguable apergus on this subject.

I am as little capable as anybody else of putting forward anything final, but I shall be content if I succeed in provoking discussion.

I would like to bring the parties together round a conference-table, so that they could at last get to know and acknowledge their differences.

Very often this sort of knowledge is the way to understanding. I wish I could do the same for the brothers in enmity on the left and right of the Rhine.

Naturally nothing like this can be attempted without inviting the kicks of both sides.

Would the cure be successful? The possibility of defeat in a good cause has never alarmed me.

But, my public will object, why raise the Jewish problem today of all days and in Germany of all places?

Pardon me, I raised it long ago, as anybody knows who is acquainted with the literature.

I did not speak about it only since the revolution; I have been officially campaigning for criticism of subjective psychological premises as a necessary reform in psychology ever
since 1913.

This has nothing to do with the form of the German state.

If I am to be exploited for political ends, there's nothing I can do to stop it.

Or can anyone stop anything he pleases in Germany? It is rather late in the day for my critical attitude to attract attention only now, and it is, alas, characteristic that it should be construed in such a way as to suggest that Nazism alone has lent wings to my criticism.

It is, I frankly admit, a highly unfortunate and disconcerting coincidence that my scientific programme should, without any assistance of mine and against my express wish, have been lined up with a political manifesto.

But an event of this kind, although regrettable in itself, often has the consequence of ventilating problems which would otherwise be sedulously avoided. ~Carl Jung, CW 10, Pages 535-544

Wolfgang Pauli: The psychophysical problem (i.e., of synchronistic phenomena) also points in this direction.

Although in physics there is no talk of "self-reproducing archetypes" but of "statistical natural laws with primary probabilities," both formulations meet in the tendency to expand the old, narrower idea of "causality" (determinism) into a more general form of "connections" in nature.

The psychophysical problem (i.e., of synchronistic phenomena) also points in this direction.

This approach permits me to expect that the concepts of the unconscious will not go on developing within the narrow frame of their therapeutic applications, but that their merging with the general current of science in investigating the phenomena of life is of paramount importance for them. ~Wolfgang Pauli, Jung’s Last Years, Page 43.