Showing posts with label Erich Neuman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Erich Neuman. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 9, 2018

Carl Jung’s Foreword to Erich Neumann’s "The Origin and History of Consciousness"





The author has requested me to preface his book with a few words of introduction, and to this I accede all the more readily because I found his work more than usually welcome.

It begins just where I, too, if I were granted a second lease of life, would start to gather up the disfecta mem- bra of my own writings, to sift out all those “beginnings without continuations” and knead them into a whole.

As I read through the manuscript of this book it became clear to me how great are the disadvantages of pio-

neer work: one stumbles through unknown regions; one is lead astray by analogies, forever losing the Ariadne thread; one is overwhelmed by new impressions and new possibilities, and the word disadvantage of all is that the pioneer only knows afterwards what he should have known before.

The second generation has the advantage of a clearer, if still incomplete, picture; certain landmarks that at least lie on the frontiers of the essential have grown familiar, and one now knows what must be known if one is to explore the newly discovered territory.

Thus forewarned and forearmed, a representative of the second generation can spot the most distant connec- tions; he can unravel problems and give a coherent account of the whole field of study, whose full extent the pioneer can only survey at the end of his life’s work.

This difficult an d meritorious task the author has performed with outstanding success.

He has woven his facts into a pattern and created a unified whole, which no pioneer could have done nor could ever have attempted to do.

As though in confirmation of this, the present work opens at the very place where I unwittingly made landfall on the new continent long ago, namely the realm of matriarchal symbolism; and, as a conceptual framework work for his discoveries, the author uses a symbol whose significance first dawned on me in my recent writings on the psychology of alchemy: the uroboros.

Upon this foundation he has succeeded in constructing a unique history of the evolution of consciousness,and at the same time in representing the body of myths as the phenomenology of this same evolution.

In this way he arrives at conclusions and insights which are among the most important ever to be reached in this field.

Naturally to me ,as a psychologist, the most valuable aspect of the work is the fundamental contribution it makes to a psychology of the unconscious.

The author has placed the concepts of analytical psychology-which for many people are so bewildering-on a firm evolutionary basis, and erected upon the temperament and subjective assumptions of the author as well as upon objective data.

This factor is of the greatest importance in psychology, tor the “personal equation” colors the mode of see- ing.

Ultimate truth, if there be such a thing, demands the concert of many voices. I can only congratulate the author on his achievement.
May this brief foreword convey to him my heartfelt thanks. C.G. Jung, March 1, 1949

Wednesday, January 24, 2018

Erich Neumann: We find ourselves in a strongly extraverted phase—how else could Palestine be developed?




[Erich Neumann: I can well imagine that Palestine will get dangerously close to the abyss and I assume that the Jews, in a paradoxical situation, will then come to their senses—as ever.]

Dear Doctor Jung,

I had actually intended not to write to you from here until I had really settled in and had begun to form at least the start of my own perspective.

In the meantime I have realized that this is impossible, for my need to write to you grows rapidly while settling in takes longer.

In the first part of my time here, although there were a lot of practicalities to sort out, I was more in Zurich than I was in Palestine.

That was not such a bad thing, as only in that way could I get to grips with the not insubstantial surprises.

I did not, by any means, come here with any illusions, but what I have found extraordinary was that I haven’t found a “people” here with whom I fundamentally feel I belong.

I might have known that before, of course, but it was not the case, and the fact that the Jews here as a people, as a not-yet-people, seemed so extremely needy was a shock at first.

On the other hand, though, the landscape gripped me in such a compelling way that I couldn’t ever have thought possible.

Precisely from the place I hadn’t expected it, a vantage point emerged.

I haven’t fully made sense of this.

Anyhow, as you prophesied, the anima has gone to ground.

She made an appearance all nice and brown, strikingly African, even more impenetrable in me, domineering—with a sisterly relationship to many animals—a boa constrictor, a panther, an elephant, a wild horse and a rhinoceros—thus speaks an image.

That this gives me strength, however, I feel strongly.

Even dreams are confirming it.

The situation here is exceedingly serious, as I see it.

The original spiritual, idealistic forces who established the country, the core of the working class and of the land settlements are being repressed by a growing wave of undifferentiated, egotistic, shortsighted, entrepreneurial Jews, flooding here because of the economic opportunities.

Thanks to this, everything is escalating more and more, and a growing politicization of the best is obstructing all horizons.

But this politicization is inevitable as the situation of the country is devoid of all state authority and gives power to the negative individual like nowhere else does.

So everything points to fascism regardless of where it might originate.

As a people, the Jews are infinitely more stupid than I expected, while only a concerted effort could overcome the difficult situation of being sandwiched between the Arabs and the English.

Please don’t misunderstand me—I am not reproaching the Jew.

How could it be any different?

We come, as individuals, from who knows where and are then supposed to be one people.

That all takes time, but I must state it as it is.

So, I believe, the situation is rather muddled—but I’m not qualified politically and I haven’t been here long—and herein lies my hope.

I can well imagine that Palestine will get dangerously close to the abyss and I assume that the Jews, in a paradoxical situation, will then come to their senses—as ever.

Everywhere the economy is booming, it’s all hard work and speculation.

There is little interest in intellectual things except among the workers and almost none in things Jewish.

A newly prospering petit bourgeois middle class is evident everywhere, not only in Tel Aviv.

All of this is quite natural.

We find ourselves in a strongly extraverted phase—how else could Palestine be developed?

The Jews are coming to a—terrible—civilization.

It cannot be changed.

The traditionlessness of this struggle that has no core gives everything a rather ghostly demeanor. It is a people of infinite opposites.

What orthodoxy does exist here is so immeasurably foreign to me that I’m shaken by it.

Alongside this are the unprincipled speculators and then the hordes of people who, by the investment of their substance, have constructed the prettiest villages and landscapes out of deserts and swamps.

Overall, there are many individuals who are not yet visible, but who are there and whose time will eventually come, individuals for whom it will be worth it.

It is strange to recognize that my generation will only be an interim generation here —our children will be the first ones to form the basis of a nation.

We are Germans, Russians, Poles, Americans etc.

What an opportunity it will be when all the cultural wealth that we bring with us is really assimilated into Judaism.

I don’t share your opinion at all that there will be no Alexandrianism here, but rather, either nothing at all or something completely new, if, as I believe, despite everything, the Jews have retained their incredible ability to assimilate.

The way forward, as I see it, is certainly as hard as it is dangerous.

I actually fear that all our repressed instincts, all our desires for power and revenge, all our mindlessness and hidden brutality will be realized here.

Indeed, the ongoing development of the Jews failed precisely because, on the one hand, they were united in a collective-religious bond and, on the other, they were under pressure from other nations as individuals.

After the emancipation they caught up unnaturally quickly and powerfully with the Western trend toward the individual (secularization, rationalization, extraversion, the break with the continuity of the past), and thereby the shadow was finally “liberated,” and here in Palestine
it can reveal itself for the first time as, here, there is no external pressure.

That will not be pleasant—perhaps we will all be killed, but it’s no use—it simply must be out in the open at last and worked through. (I wonder often if I am projecting all of this, but it does seem to me to be more than mere projection.)

In the face of this apparently historic necessity, the chaos here becomes not only bearable to me but I also feel myself to be infinitely closely bound up with it; I emerge out of this to my own “people.”

I must, though, confess that I am quite often afraid at the same time.

I feel myself here to be quite accountable and I still know that my place is here, quite independently from whether the Jews will grant me this place one day or not.

Of course, I have very little to do, although there is still something, but I am not worried as I had reckoned with an extended lead-in time.

I am preparing a great deal, am absolutely not unproductive, and now—and this is new—and for this, along with infinitely more, I thank the work with you—it is no longer work “for me”; on the contrary it wants to exist in reality.

This includes a response to an article by Dr. Kirsch in the Jüdische Rundschau of
which you will be aware.

As it appeared in a very abridged version, the strongly critical Zionist aspect was deleted, so I’m sending you a copy.

I have now made contact with Dr. Kirsch whom I only knew fleetingly.

He gave me your reminder about writing to you—I hope though, dear Dr. Jung, that you will understand that I needed a short break to settle in here.

Now I’m ready.

Dr. Kirsch is of the opinion that you shared his perception of the 2000-year-old collective neurosis of Judaism.

I explore this as well as the essay by Rosenthal—which is equally as interesting and important—in a longer elaboration that I do not wish to send you in my barely legible handwriting.

In the course of next week I will send you a typed version.

Many questions are raised in it and only the typed piece will be the letter of “substance.”

I’d like to add something else too.

I’ve set myself the big challenge of getting you to write something fundamental about
Judaism.

I believe I can only do this by simply speaking to you about what is very
important to me.

After all, my efforts around the Rosenthal essay have taken me much further as I can show you here—but these are just notes for you, perhaps they’ll develop into more.

By the way—something else.

Mrs. Kirsch informed me at the end of a detailed conversation about my response, which confirmed my impressions of Dr. Kirsch’s essay, that I had gone against the comment of the Jungian analysts by responding in public.

I replied that I considered my response to be objectively necessary and important, and that I am not willing to retract factual material out of affiliations unknown to me.

It had been unpleasantly gossiped about, apparently, and I hope it is now over with, but I’d like to ask you to tell me if I have behaved incorrectly.

I do believe I can communicate with Dr. Kirsch within certain limits, but for me he is anything but authoritative, although, as Mrs. Kirsch informed me, in your opinion, he articulated the best thinking on the Jewish problem years ago, and has been authorized to educate
Jungian analysts, and his opinion coincides with yours, for example, on the Yahweh complex, the Christ complex, and on collective neurosis.

I very much strive for objectivity; I see much in these issues very differently from Dr. Kirsch,
and would like to and out for myself whether your opinion deviates so much from mine.

Until now I had formed a very different impression about this.

It would not have occurred to me to write to you about this were it not for Mrs. Kirsch’s intervention.

I have considered myself (and still do) to be very attached to you and your work—does this oblige me to a public conformity with your students?

I would be very concerned if that were the case, but I am convinced that it is not so.

To the best of my knowledge my response to Kirsch is free of personal issues.

I hope you will be able to make sense of my handwriting; if not, let me know and I will write my letters on a typewriter.

Dear Dr. Jung, it still seems too crass simply to thank you for what I have received
from you; I am ambitious enough to say that I hope to be able to give something to you
in return too.

I don’t think it is that I cannot say thank you—that is just not enough.

This is connected to the fact that I did not know what to do when you gave me the gift
of The Sermons.

Forever yours,

E. Neumann ~Jung-Neuman Letters, Pages 68-70

[Note: written between 15 June 1934—the publication date of Neumann’s rejoinder to Kirsch—and 19 July
1934.]

Carl Jung across the web:

Blog: http: http://carljungdepthpsychology.blogspot.com/

Google+: https://plus.google.com/102529939687199578205/posts

Facebook: Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/56536297291/

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/grp/home?gid=4861719&sort=recent&trk=my_groups-tile-flipgrp

Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/Carl-Jung-326016020781946/

Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/purrington104/

Red Book: https://www.facebook.com/groups/792124710867966/

Scoop.It: http://www.scoop.it/u/maxwell-purrington

Twitter: https://twitter.com/MaxwellPurringt

WordPress: https://carljungdepthpsychology.wordpress.com/

Great Sites to visit:

1. Jenna Lilla's Path of the Soul http://jennalilla.org/

2. Steve Jung-Hearted Parker's Jung Currents http://jungcurrents.com/

3. Frith Luton's Jungian Dream Analysis and Psychotherapy: http://frithluton.com/articles/

4. Lance S. Owens The Gnosis Archives http://gnosis.org/welcome.html


Tuesday, July 4, 2017

ERICH NEUMANN. AMOR AND PSYCHE (1956)



ERICH NEUMANN. AMOR AND PSYCHE (1956)


The overall presupposition of Neumann’s interpretation is that this story represents a mythical expression of the psychic development of the feminine. This perspective is similar to the Freudian focus on the feminine which shows how the myth symbolizes a woman’s sexual anxieties . . .

Neumann’s interpretation of the Eros [sic] and Psyche myth is influenced by his view of the development of human consciousness which he describes in his major work, The Origins and History of Consciousness. There he traces the stages of human consciousness beginning with the self-contained uroboros (the symbol of the primal dragon that bites its own tail), where there is not yet individual consciousness differentiated from the environment or from the original unconscious matrix. Neumann sees the uroboric state expressed in creation myths, especially the myth of the Great Mother. Aphrodite (Venus) is one of the primary mythical figures representing the Great Mother and she is also at the starting point of the “Eros and Psyche” tale. Neumann sees Aphrodite as a symbol of the seductive inertia of nature and the collective unconscious. She is the original, conservative, maternal source of life and her beauty serves the purpose of fertility.

Neumann contrasts Aphrodite with Psyche who, from the very beginning of the tale, is in conflict with the Great Mother. Aphrodite is jealous of Psyche’s human beauty and the fact that human beings worship her as a goddess, and even Aphrodite’s divine son, Eros, desires her. In one respect Neumann sees Eros as an extension of the Great Mother archetype, since Psyche’s entire story involves a conscious separation not only from the Mother but also from Eros as the Great Mother’s son. For Neumann the whole process of Psyche’s development represents 1) a differentiation of consciousness out of an original unconscious unity and 2) a monumental step in human history where women become responsible for their own decision-making so that their experiences are no longer merely a function of the arbitrary will of the gods or the work of transpersonal forces.

Psyche’s act ends the mythical age in the archetypal world, the age in which the relation between the sexes depended only on the superior power of the gods, who held [sic] men at their mercy. Now begins the age of human love, in which the human psyche consciously takes the fateful decision on itself. And this brings us to the background of our myth, namely the conflict between Psyche, the “new Aphrodite” and Aphrodite as the Great Mother. (Amor and Psyche: The Psychic Development of the Feminine. New York: 1956: p. 146)

Psyche’s act refers to her rebellious act of disobeying Eros’ command that she remain with him in the paradisiacal embrace of darkness and not know his identity. Neumann interprets Eros’ command as an extension of Psyche’s original unconscious state of unity with the Great Mother archetype. With Psyche’s heroic act, suffering, guilt and loneliness enter the world of female consciousness.

According to Neumann, Psyche’s act resembles the heroic male who so frequently in my myth overcome the dragon monster in his quest for conscious development. Neumann sees her existence in the dark paradise of Eros, pleasurable as this is, as a variant of the mythical male hero’s engulfment by the whale, dragon or monster. (Ibid, p. 70) In the traditional night sea journey, the male solar hero kindles a fire in the belly of the whale and cuts himself out of the darkness. Neumann notes that Psyche too uses a light and a knife to perform her parallel tasks.

She does not kill the monster, though she is prepared to do exactly that for the sake of greater knowledge. Psyche drives Eros and herself from their paradise of uroboric unconsciousness, but the knowledge she acquires is for the sake of establishing a conscious relationship with him. For Neumann, the fundamental difference between Psyche as a female heroine and the male solar hero is that her deed turns into an act of love. In fact the rest of the story of her development is to overcome through suffering and struggle the separation caused by her deed. This crucial difference prompts Neumann to interpret the Psyche story as a mythical portrait of a woman’s development.

Neumann interprets the “marriage of death” which Aphrodite has arranged for Psyche as a mythical vestige of matriarchal psychology in which marriage is seen from the woman’s perspective as rape of the virgin. He points out that this was a central aspect of feminine mysteries wherein the maiden was ritually sacrificed to a monster or dragon. According to Neumann this viewpoint grows out of the primordial relationship of identity between mother and daughter, and consequently, the approach of the male in marriage is considered to be a painful separation from the mother.

The jealous sisters represent, for Neumann, a man-hating matriarchal stratum in Psyche’s soul. Here there is no hint of the sisters as symbols of sibling rivalry, a theme so prominent in [Fritz] Hoevels’ analysis. Neumann, rather, speaks of them as aspects of Psyche’s shadow (Jung defines the shadow as “the negative side of the personality, the sum of all those unpleasant qualities we like to hide together with the insufficiently developed functions and the contents of the personal unconscious”—CW 7, p. 66) which manifest the beginning of a higher form of female consciousness (Amor and Psyche, p. 73). The sisters appear very negative in the story, but from Neumann’s perspective, they contribute to Psyche’s overall development by pushing her to confront Eros. While the sisters do not yet represent a higher consciousness, they are its precursor. Although for the wrong reasons, the sisters raise important objections to the matriarchal situation of Psyche’s blind servitude, which Neumann considers appropriately described as being devoured by a monster. The sisters not only represent aspects of the matriarchy, they push Psyche beyond this state of development.

In order to understand the positive meaning and function of the sisters, Neumann advises the reader to disregard the way they are presented in Apuleius’ story as Jealously plotting against Psyche. The sisters represent an underlying largely unconscious strength that appears to contradict Psyche’s softness and conscious willingness to remain in the dark paradise of sensuality. . . .

, , , In traditional Jungian thought the total psyche of both men and women is conceived of as a relationship between the conscious and unconscious mind. Jung has posited that the unconscious of each man and woman is personified by symbols or figures of the opposite sex, so a man’s unconscious is personified by female figures, while a woman’s unconscious is personified by male figures. The classical statement of Neumann’s unusual view is found in The Origins and History of Consciousness:

But one thing, paradoxical though it may seem, can be established at once as a basic law: even in woman, consciousness has a masculine character [italics added by Gollnick]. The correlation “consciousness—light—day” and “unconsciousness—dark—night” holds true regardless of sex and is not altered by the fact that the spirit-instinct polarity is organized on a different basis in men and women. Consciousness, as such, is masculine and even in women, just as the unconscious is feminine in men. (The Origins, p. 42)

From this perspective Neumann interprets Psyche’s development as a growth toward the masculine, by which he means consciousness. . . .

EROS [CUPID]

… Eros is difficult to understand in relation to the psychological dynamics described in Jungian thought. On the one hand he is an aspect of or an extension of Aphrodite. This connection is underscored when he is portrayed as the son who is still under his mother’s domain and who returns to her when he is wounded by the oil of Psyche’s lamp. The sensuous kiss Aphrodite gives Eros also highlights this incestuous bond between them and shows their close alliance in psychological roles. When Neumann speaks of Eros as a god, the son of Aphrodite, he represents him as a person apart from Psyche. At other times Neumann speaks of Eros as relatedness—a quality Jung used to characterize female consciousness. Neumann writes: “It is characteristic of the ‘labors of Psyche’ that the component of relatedness, that is, the Eros-component, is increasingly accompanied by a masculine spiritual element, which is at first unconscious but gradually develops into a conscious attitude” (Amor and Psyche, p. 108).

In this case Eros is considered as part of Psyche, . . .. as a content of Psyche’s unconscious. But he then makes reference to the Psyche-Eros constellation” as the archetype of the relation between man and woman” . . .. In the latter description Neumann returns to the idea of both Eros and Psyche as elements in the collective unconscious and their relationship therein as a personification of the state of the unconscious where polar opposites are not yet differentiated, the condition also symbolized by the Great Mother and the Aphrodite-Eros constellation. From the Jungian perspective all of these symbols might be mixed in a “contamination of unconscious contents” where various symbols of the unconscious merge and it is no longer possible to distinguish clearly between the various contents (Jung defines the contamination of unconscious contents in this way. “The displacement and overlapping of images are as great in alchemy as in mythology and folklore.

As these archetypal images are produced directly by the unconscious, it is not surprising that they exhibit its contamination of content to a very high degree. The best instances of this interconnection of everything with everything else can be found in dreams, which are very much nearer to the unconscious even than myths” (CW 14, p. 293). Neumann sees Psyche as originally bound to Eros in a paradise of uroboric unconsciousness, and when she sees Eros in the light, this original unconscious tie is dissolved. For Neumann this change represents a shift from the principle of fascinating attraction and the fertility of the species to a genuine love principle of personal development and encounter. For Neumann the link between individuation and love as encounter is one of the central psychological insights of the myth: “With Psyche, then, there appears a new love principle, in which the encounter between feminine and masculine is revealed as the basis of individuation” (Amor and Psyche, p. 90).

Individuation is accomplished through a conscious encounter with the unconscious, which is symbolized by contrasexual symbols: the male achieves individuation by confronting his unconscious, personified as a feminine anima and the female meets her unconscious personified by male figures. This process is usually understood intrapsychically, but it is generally influenced by encounters with persons of the opposite sex in the external world. In this view, a loving encounter is often the occasion for an intensification of the individuation process. [Italics mine MJ]

From this traditional Jungian perspective Eros can be seen as either Psyche’s inner masculine side or as a figure who transcends (is outside of) her own mind—either as a person in the external world or as a god in a transcendent reality . . .

To some extent, Neumann attempts to explain this ambiguity by what he calls “secondary personalization.” By this term he means that psychological contents which are primarily transpersonal and originally appeared in transpersonal form (as deities) are eventually taken to be personal (The Origins, p. xxiii-xxiv). In other words, psychological contents which were originally projected onto the gods are now experienced as aspects of the human psyche. Neumann considers this a normal process of development and not dangerous so long as the psyche itself is regarded as a “numinous world of transpersonal happenings.” Here Neumann brings the realm of the gods into the human mind but not in such a way as to remove the divine aura from these highly charged contents.

Neumann maintains that secondary personalization sheds light, not only on the formation of myths and fairy tales, but also on the course of personal development. Secondary personalization causes the child to project onto the parents much material which is really transpersonal and has nothing to do with the actual parents, allowing the child to deal with that material in a concrete way” (The Origins, p. 190). It may also be very surprising to parents to find themselves perceived by their child as divine or demonic characters. This constitutes a kind of reduction of archetypal material to personal material.

Neumann sees this process as parallel to the historical development of ego consciousness out of humanity’s originally unconscious state. This is part of the progressive assimilation of unconscious contents that builds up the personality and helps separate the individual from the collective—a process that occurs in the development of both the human race and the individual human being. Neumann sees secondary personalization at work in the development of human history in what he calls the “psychization” of the world (Ibid, p. 338). In this process of “psychization” we are dealing, not only with the reduction of the deep layers of the psyche to personal elements in myths and fairy tales, but also with the potential reduction of transcendent religious phenomena to forces within the psyche. . . .

Gradually the processes which Neumann sees as essentially psychological are increasingly translated into stories where the deep archetypal dynamics become hidden in the stories of myths, fairy tales and the early romances. This is why we are likely to miss the psychological dimension of these stories and why Neumann advises us not to be side-tracked by the secondary personalizations involved in the specific details of the intrigues of Eros, the sisters, Aphrodite and Psyche . . ..

TASKS

When it comes to interpreting the seemingly strange tasks Psyche must perform, Neumann sees the details as crucial to deciphering the meaning of the story. . . . First, Psyche must sort out a seemingly impossible mixture of grains. Neumann says the mound of seeds symbolizes an “uroboric mixture of the masculine,” i.e., masculine promiscuity, and the ants who assist her represent chthonian powers associated with the vegetative nervous system:

Psyche counters Aphrodite’s promiscuity with an instinctual ordering principle. While Aphrodite holds fast to the fertility of the swamp stage (using [J.] Bachofen’s category), which is also represented by Eros in the form of a dragon, a phallic serpent-monster, Psyche possesses within her an unconscious principle which enables her to select, sift, correlate, and evaluate, and so find her way amid the confusion of the masculine. In opposition to the matriarchal position of Aphrodite, for whom the masculine is anonymous . . . Psyche, even in her first labor, has reached the stage of selectivity.

(Amor and Psyche, p. 95-96)

This corresponds to Neumann’s view that Psyche’s story represents a development toward consciousness well beyond the unconscious, matriarchal, state symbolized by Aphrodite as the Great Mother.

In the second task Psyche must gather wool from dangerous sheep. Neumann sees the rams as the destructive power of the masculine, “the negative masculine death principle as experienced by the matriarchate and the reed which aids Psyche as the feminine vegetative wisdom of growth (Ibid, p. 99). For Neumann, the feminine wisdom is to wait, to avoid confronting the rams (the masculine) directly. Just as with the first task, Neumann sees the fulfillment of this second task as the product of a fruitful contact between masculine and feminine. This interpretation is in accord with the Jungian theory that individuation depends on the integration of masculine and feminine in the human psyche.

Neumann sees Psyche’s third task as a quest for the water of life. Psyche has to catch some of this water which defies containment. Neumann understands this task as a summary of Psyche’s overall work: she is the vessel of individuation which is to give specific form to the eternally moving energy of life to encompass this overwhelming power without being shattered by it. Neumann interprets the eagle who comes to Psyche’s aid as a symbol of the masculine spirit which moves Psyche even further toward the masculine-feminine integration characterizing individuation: “The eagle holding the vessel profoundly symbolizes the already male-female spirituality of Psyche, who in one act ‘receives’ like a woman, that is, gathers like a vessel and conceives, but at the same time apprehends and knows like a man” (Ibid, p. 105) Neumann maintains that each of the first three tasks contributes to Psyche’s growth in consciousness by incorporating aspects of the “masculine.”

Neumann reminds us that in myths and fairy tales there are usually three tasks, but in this case there is also a fourth. The number four is frequently a symbol of wholeness, and Neumann sees this as the meaning of the last task, where Psyche must journey to the underworld, a journey which represents a direct struggle with the feminine principle embodies in the deadly alliance of Aphrodite-Persephone. Neumann understands the tower which counsels Psyche on how to carry out this perilous journey as both feminine (as a fortress) and masculine (as a phallic symbol). The tower, a structure erected by human beings, represents the collective human culture, which furnishes wisdom and instruction as a means to survive the underworld journey.

Neumann also believes that the strength Psyche has accumulated by carrying out the first three tasks enables her to face the most difficult task of all—a direct battle with death or the underworld. Neumann’s view is that the first three tasks represent a confrontation with the negative masculine principle manifested as “masculine” promiscuity” (seeds), “the deadly masculine” (rams), and the “uncontainable masculine” (stream of life). In each case Psyche must overcome the negative “masculine” potential. According to Neumann this is a dramatic way of expressing the dangers encountered as the female attempts to incorporate masculine dimensions of the psyche.

Neumann interprets the beauty ointment which Psyche must fetch from the underworld as the eternal youth of death, the “barren frigid beauty of mere maidenhood, without love for a man, as exacted by the matriarchate” ( Ibid, p. 188 ). He sees in this deathlike sleep the pull of narcissism which would regress Psyche from the woman who loved Eros back to the maiden lost in the narcissistic love of herself. (Bettelheim also calls attention to the narcissistic state symbolized by Psyche alone in Eros’ magical palace, see The Uses of Enchantment, p. 292.)

According to Neumann, the only saving grace in Psyche’s act is the intention to make herself pleasing to Eros. The key here is that Psyche places her desire for beauty in the service of devotion to her beloved and for no one else. This intent rescues Psyche’s preoccupation with beauty from the anonymous realm of Aphrodite’s fertility and narcissism and connects her to her own feminine centre. Neumann, like Jung, sees the essence of the feminine in personal relatedness, so for him, Psyche’s spiritual development is only fulfilled in her individual love encounter with Eros, not in the successful completion of tasks, which would seem to be the prerogative of a male hero. Thus, paradoxically, it is through her failure to complete her task that she finds success in that she demonstrates her willingness to sacrifice even her life for her beloved.

. . . Not only does Psyche save herself through love but she also redeems Eros by making him human. Neumann’s interpretation appears to derive from his understanding of integrating transpersonal contents of the unconscious, where integration means humanizing such transpersonal contents as Eros and Aphrodite by bringing them into conscious relationship to the ego.

This process alters the unconscious itself: “The tale of Psyche ends with the deification of the human Psyche. Correspondingly, the divine Aphrodite becomes human, and so likewise Eros, who through suffering prepares the way for union with the human Psyche” (Amor and Psyche, p. 92). In terms of Neumann’s schema, this means that the realm of the feminine has been transformed. The female psyche is no longer dominated by an impersonal fertility principle, symbolized by the old Aphrodite-Eros combination, and is now able to direct itself to individual love as personal encounter. From this perspective, Eros (as erotic love) must be saved from the transpersonal sphere of the Great Mother and ushered into the sphere of human love. . . .

Voluptas

For Neumann the birth of Psyche’s daughter at the end of the story has great significance. The daughter, named Voluptas (meaning ‘Pleasure’ or ‘Joy’), represents “birth of the divine child,” which in Jungian terms is the Self, the “divine” fruit of the individuation process. The myth itself is not explicit as to whether the child of Psyche and Eros is divine, since its divinity was dependent upon the condition that Psyche keep the secret of Eros’ identity and in the tale itself it is doubtful whether Psyche does keep the secret. Nevertheless, Neumann interprets her as the divine joy of mystical union and, together with the Eros-Psyche archetype, a perfect expression of the result of individuation.

The archetype of Psyche united with Eros, taken together with the child Joy, strikes us as one of the highest forms that the symbol of the coniunctio has taken in the West. It is a youthful form of Shiva united with his Shakti. The hermaphrodite of alchemy is a later but lesser form of this image, because, as Jung has pointed out, it represents a monstrosity, contrasting sharply with the divine par, Eros and Psyche.

(Ibid, p. 144-145)

The hermaphrodite of alchemy is Hermes, who symbolizes the synthesis of opposites, at once both male and female, young and old. In this regard Neumann places his interpretation of the tale in the context of Jung’s own search for symbol systems which represent historical antecedents to analytical psychology.

Neumann’s interpretation can be seen as a creative commentary on a myth which evokes the main outlines of the individuation process described by Jung and, as such, continues to be valued by many depth psychologists. . . .

Wednesday, May 3, 2017

Psychologist Erich Neumann – designated heir to the great Carl Jung



https://plusone.google.com/u/0/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.haaretz.com%2Fcmlink%2Fjung-at-heart-1.148506%2F&size=medium&count=true&db=1&hl=en-US&jsh=r%3Bgc%2F22821001-a70f00f0#id=I1_1312459703196&parent=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.haaretz.com&rpctoken=598523206&_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe

He received his patients in the dining room, she received hers in the bedroom. His arrived every hour on the hour, hers on the half-hour. The children’s room, which was split in two by a cloth curtain, also served as the waiting room for his patients; his mother’s room was the waiting room for her patients. Everything was conducted with the greatest possible discretion. It was inconceivable that his patients should encounter hers.

Tel Aviv in the 1930s was a small town, and the address, 1 Gordon Street, corner of Hayarkon, was familiar to all the yekkes (Jews of German origin) from Ben Yehuda Strasse. It was a place of pilgrimage. The first Jungian temple in the Holy Land, established by Erich Neumann and his wife, Julia.In addition to being a Jungian analyst herself, she was also a renowned expert in palmistry (also called chirology), proffering advice mainly to people undecided about which profession to enter. Thus the pure science of the mind cohabited with what was then considered luftgesheft, or even witchcraft.

http://uac.advertising.com/wrapper/aceUAC.htm#site=717505&size=300250

Erich Neumann, who was considered one of the greatest psychological theoreticians of the 20th century, was the disciple and scientific heir of Carl Gustav Jung; he was anointed as such by Jung himself. Neumann’s students in Israel and elsewhere view him as Jung’s crown prince, who in certain areas even exceeded the monarch. At that time, though, in Little Tel Aviv, the cordial neighbor from 1 Gordon Street was known only to a handful of yekkes who, like him, had arrived from Berlin immediately after Hitler’s accession to power.

If Neumann were alive, he would have celebrated his 100th birthday last Sunday. But Neumann died from cancer, in 1960, at the age of 55, and his followers and admirers had to make do with a symposium on his work, which was held this past weekend at Kibbutz Givat Haim Ihud. This summer, a conference in his memory will be held in Vienna on behalf of all the German-speaking countries.

“In my view, he is Jung’s most important pupil,” says Dr. Erel Shalit, a Jungian analyst, “certainly among the most important.”

Crossing paths

Erich Neumann was born in Berlin in 1905 to Edward, a flour merchant, and Zelma, a housewife. The youngest of three children, he had a sister, Lotte, and a brother, Franz. The family’s economic situation was good, says Prof. Micha Neumann, Erich’s son, a psychiatrist and lecturer at Tel Aviv University who specialized in Freudian psychoanalysis. The three children had German names, all three studied medicine and the family belonged to the Jewish stream that was liberated of all shackles of religion and tradition: Germans of the Mosaic faith. Erich was the only one who was drawn to Judaism. He was part of an intellectual circle whose members met to debate issues of culture, art and Judaism, too.

Franz fought in World War I and was awarded the Iron Cross. There were no moral compunctions about the justness of the war; the Jews were patriots and loved Germany passionately. Micha Neumann recalls his mother telling him that “in school, during the war, they would all stand up and say, `May God punish England.'”

At the age of 16, Erich met Julia Blumenfeld, then 15 and a half. The meeting took place at a ballroom-dancing lesson. “My mother was active in a `Blue-White,’ a Zionist youth movement,” says Rali Loewenthal-Neumann, a psychologist and chirologist like her mother. “Her parents didn’t like the idea and sent her to learn how to dance so she would become a bit more refined.” Julia and Erich discovered that they liked the same artists and the same museums. They started seeing each other but split up after half a year. “Mother said they broke up because he was mentally more mature. She didn’t elaborate, but maybe he expected more from her than she was capable of giving – after all, this was 1921,” Loewenthal-Neumann says. When they broke up Erich gave her a parting gift: a book by Martin Buber with a dedication, “Our paths will cross again.”

Four years later they indeed met again – at Neumann’s initiative. Someone told him that Julia had become engaged and he rushed to her house. Loewenthal-Neumann: “The truth is that there was no talk of an engagement. The person in question was a friend, but Father quickly renewed the relationship. Three years later, in 1928, they were married, both aged 23.”

Neumann, who was very much influenced by Freud and more especially by Jung, studied philosophy and psychology at the University of Erlangen, in Nuremberg, where he received a Ph.D. in philosophy, and went on to study medicine at Friedrich Wilhelm University in Berlin. Julia attended the University of Mannheim, where she studied special therapeutic methods for small children and went on to study special education in Berlin.

“I don’t know what made Father study medicine – I never asked him,” Micha Neumann says. “Maybe it was because both Freud and Jung were physicians, and psychologists didn’t yet have a status of their own. He completed his medical studies, but didn’t do an internship, because of the race laws. He received the degree from the university before his death; they found his papers and granted him the doctorate.”

Micha was born in Berlin in 1932. A year later Erich and Julia decided to leave Germany and immigrate to Palestine. She later told her son how she would hide with the pram in stairwells and alleys to avoid the Nazi thugs who were then starting to run wild in the streets of Berlin. “I thought my father came to this country under my mother’s influence,” Micha notes, “but my sister told me that at the age of 19 he was registered in a Zionist movement.”

The family went to Zurich, where for the first time Neumann, 28, met Jung, who was 30 years his senior. Their relationship began as master and apprentice and developed into tremendous mutual admiration and finally a bond of teacher and chosen heir. “I am certain that it was preceded by correspondence between them and that Father was familiar with Jung’s theory,” Loewenthal-Neumann says. “I know that he stayed on to work intensively with him that year and that this was the beginning of a deep and fruitful relationship between them, including extensive correspondence.”

Julia and Micha Neumann went to Palestine in February 1934. Erich stayed in Zurich, undergoing analysis with Jung – a necessary condition to become an analyst – and joined his family in the summer. Julia underwent analysis with Jung’s wife, Emma, and with Toni Wolff, a student and colleague of Jung. Among Julia’s papers – she was killed in 1985, in a road accident – is a letter from Jung authorizing her to treat patients. “My mother was a Jungian analyst without a university degree,” Loewenthal-Neumann says. “That was accepted in those days, and she was a very good analyst, too.”

Great disappointment

The Neumanns found a place in Tel Aviv, initially on Syrkin Street, a minute from Ben Yehuda, and two years later moved to the Gordon Street apartment. The language spoken in the house was German. “Mother didn’t know Hebrew,” Loewenthal-Neumann recalls. “My father knew Hebrew. He read Haaretz and he had patients with whom he spoke Hebrew. He learned the language abroad. But he wrote only in German and then his works were translated into other languages.”

Micha remembers asking his mother, as a boy, not to speak German outside. “But she didn’t know Hebrew and she always went back to German. I remember that once we were on a bus and we were speaking German, and someone, probably a Holocaust survivor, started shouting at us, `How can you speak German here?'”

But it wasn’t only the language that separated the Neumanns from the reality in Palestine. “Father thought he would come here and find all his good buddies from Berlin,” Micha notes, “but instead he found a great many Poles, very simple people, artisans, builders, merchants, speculators, people of the Fourth Aliyah [wave of Jewish immigration, 1924-1931] – not idealists like those from the Second Aliyah [1904-1914].”

Disappointed at the encounter with Palestine, Neumann led an insular life, fraternizing almost exclusively with Berlin friends who had also immigrated. He concentrated on his psychoanalytical work and immersed himself in research and in ramified correspondence with Jung that lasted many years.

Intellectually, he suffered from painful isolation, which drove him to yearn for Europe, even though he despised it.

“Under no circumstances did I come to Palestine with illusions,” he wrote to Jung in 1934. “The situation here is very serious. The original forces, spiritual and idealistic, that built the country, the Labor movement core and the agricultural settlements, are being pushed back by an invasive wave of undiscerning business Jews, shortsighted egoists who came here because of an economic conjunction of events. Thus everything is growing ever more sharply in the direction of politicization which overshadows all the other horizons – is there here the danger of the development of Jewish fascism? The Jews as a people are boundlessly more stupid than I expected. Do not misunderstand me, I am not complaining about the Jews, I am only saying that this is the situation … I can imagine that the situation here could be dangerous and reach the brink of the abyss.”

Though disappointed with the human landscape, Neumann fell in love with the desert and wrote to Jung about it. The son of a Swiss clergyman and a pious Protestant, who believed powerfully in the bond with the land, Jung was pleased that Neumann’s anima had struck roots in the soil.

“My father believed in the future of this country,” Micha recalls. “He believed that only the second generation would strike roots here. On the other hand, he also wrote that if the Jews, who were always victims, acquired power and independence, there was a great danger that their repressed aggression and violence would be released and that terrible things would happen here, as in the case of the German nation, which was always obedient and disciplined, and look what happened to them.”

What do you suppose he would say if he were alive now?

Neumann: “I wouldn’t want him to be alive today, because he would certainly be very disappointed in what is happening here – the violence, the occupation, the anti-democracy.”

Still, Neumann did not think of leaving. He felt that he was on the margins, somewhat detached from things, but he had no hesitations.

“Jung offered him the directorship of the Jungian Institute in Zurich,” Loewenthal-Neumann explains, “and he was offered other things in Europe, too, but he never considered accepting the offers. It was clear to him that he was staying here. True, in his lifetime he was not well known in Israel, and maybe today, too, he is not as well known here as he is abroad.”

In 1936, at the start of the three-year Arab Revolt, Neumann’s parents came for a visit, to see how their son was getting along in the desert.
Micha: “My mother told me that they said, `The fact that you are crazy Zionists is fine, but at least let us take the boy to a safe place, home to Berlin.’ But Mother, who remembered vividly the Nazis’ torchlight processions and the nationalist songs with Jewish blood on the knife, told them that the idea was out of the question. A few months later I remember going with my parents to Switzerland. Mother and Father stayed there to work with Jung, and my grandparents came and took me to Berlin. I have memories from there, of the house of my parents. Then they brought me back and we returned to Palestine. From then until 1947 Father did not see Jung, they only corresponded.”

A new Jewish culture

Erich Neumann’s father died in 1937, from a brain hemorrhage, brought on by a savage beating from Nazis. His mother managed to flee to London, where her other son, Franz, was living; she immigrated to Israel after the war and lived with Micha and his wife, at 1 Gordon Street. Lotte, Erich’s sister, who was a communist, had fled to France before the war.

In Palestine, Neumann continued to probe a subject that had always interested him – the place of the Jews in world culture – and the attempt, which intrigued him, to establish a new culture in the Land of Israel. “He said that the Jews, like yeast, always fermented other cultures,” Micha notes, “and the time had come for them to enrich their own culture. He had a very dramatic correspondence with Jung on this subject. He asked Jung to interest himself in and study Jewish culture and history, as he had done with Indian culture. But Jung somehow did not study Jewish culture, only writing to my father that it was terribly interesting to see a European Jew like him trying to create a new culture in Palestine. Jung was pro-Zionist, in the sense that he saw the return of the Jews to their roots as very positive.”

Did he encourage your father to immigrate to Palestine?

Neumann: “No, that is a myth that is heard here, but it’s not true. On the contrary, he thought it was insane to leave Zurich and come to this forlorn place. The solitariness was perhaps why my father forged such a dependent relationship with Jung.”

The severance from Europe during the years of World War II, owing to the lack of postal services, and the intellectual isolation, produced a period of creative efflorescence in which Neumann wrote his two most important works: “Depth Psychology and a New Ethic” and “The Origins and History of Consciousness.”

In “Depth Psychology,” Neumann developed a revolutionary idea in reaction to the Holocaust. He argued that Judeo-Christian morality represses evil, leading to horrific phenomena such as Nazism. Micha Neumann: “He said that every person has to accept the evil within him, not to cast it away and not to repress but to live with it, sometimes even to manifest it, and to pay the price of sorrow and guilt feelings. He send the book to Jung after communication was restored and Jung said it was extremely interesting.

“The second book he worked on at the time, `The Origins and History of Consciousness,’ is large and heavy. He asked Jung to write the introduction, and Jung wrote back, `Neumann starts at the place I left off’ – and thereby appointed him his intellectual heir. Jung encouraged my father, unlike Freud, who did not let Jung develop independently. Nevertheless, my father was bitter about him, saying he did not always protect him. He asked the Jungian Institute in Switzerland to publish his books, but they refused and Jung didn’t put up much of a fight for him. On the other hand, Jung put him in touch with his publisher, who then published my father’s books, too.”

All told, Neumann wrote 11 books, dozens of articles and many essays in which he studied the works of Henry Moore, Kafka, Mozart and Leonardo da Vinci, among others. In the possession of his children are three unpublished manuscripts, interpretations of stories by Kafka and Hasidic tales. Neumann said these works were not fully rounded out and did not want them published. Julia, and afterward the children, honored his request. Today Micha says that if anyone wants to delve into the material and study it thoroughly, the family would not object to the works’ publication.

`The witch’

The correspondence between Neumann and Jung was renewed after the war and they also met at least once a year. Erich and Julia traveled to Switzerland for lengthy stays centering around the Eranos intellectual conferences held since 1933 at Ascona, a Swiss resort. Neumann was first invited to attend in 1948, and afterward went every year until the day of his death, as a guest lecturer who was much in demand. “That accorded him prestige and recognition internationally,” Micha Neumann notes.
Is he really considered Jung’s most important follower?
“I don’t know the name of any other student of Jung who is as famous as my father.”
Julia was equally famous, in her way. More than a Jungian analyst, she was a palm reader. She studied under the German-born Julius Spier, the father of psycho-chirology, the study and classification of palm prints.
Says Micha Neumann: “When I am abroad and tell people I am Neumann’s son I am treated with respect, whereas in Israel people barely know him, only students of the humanities and art history. On the other hand, I get much more respect here when I say that I am Julia’s son. She treated and helped thousands of people in Israel. Myths have already sprung up – people tell me what she said to them and I am certain it’s incorrect, because I know her and I saw how she worked. But the myths about her continue to live. I called her a witch.”

Julia did not take offense at this. She invited him to sit with her and observe what she did. “She first asked people’s permission. I was astounded by what I saw and heard. One day she was visited by Esther Streit Wurzel, before she became famous as a children’s author. She was a teacher in Petah Tikva and wondering what to do with herself. My mother told her, `You should write. Your father surely wrote, too.’ My mother knew nothing about them, she was cut off from what was happening here, and then it turned out that her father was the writer and critic Shlomo Streit. People meet me and say, `She changed my life.'”

The Jungian analyst Dvora Kuchinsky consulted with Julia in 1948. Then 23, she was working nights for a German-language Israeli paper, but wasn’t sure that was where her true interest lay. “[Erich] Neumann received me,” she relates. “I told him I felt bored, that I thought I was in the wrong profession and that I wanted to do something else. I asked him whether he thought I was suited for psychology – everyone wanted to study psychology then – and he said, `Go to my wife.’ She was a Jungian psychoanalyst who did palmistry. Today it is very much accepted, more than graphology. It doesn’t show the future, but it does reveal a person’s character and qualities. Of course I didn’t believe in it, but he told me, `It’s not witchcraft and she is not a Gypsy, it is a very serious test.’

“Julia didn’t know a thing about me,” she continues, “and asked me why I had come to see her. I told her I didn’t know which profession to enter. She asked me which one I wanted. I said I didn’t know, so she wouldn’t just endorse what I was thinking, and then she said, `Go and study psychology.'”
A house abuzz

Loewenthal-Neumann and her brother remember a house that was abuzz with people and parents who were always busy, closeted in their rooms or on long trips. Quiet and good manners were an integral element of their childhood. Loewenthal-Neumann found a letter from her father to Jung in which he complained about the difficulties of making a living. “In 1934 he wrote that he didn’t have enough patients and therefore was compelled to give courses in the house.”

Her brother remembers folding chairs stacked in the shower: “Once a week they would open the door that linked two rooms, and 30 or 40 people would enter. My father would give a talk, in German, about Judaism, about Jungian theory and about the new things he was writing about.”

What was it like to grow up in a house where strangers were always coming and going?

Neumann: “Today it looks quite peculiar. We knew we were not allowed to make noise, and my friends knew they must not run wild. I hated it pretty much. I would close myself in my room [the half-room split into two by a curtain]. My sister was a lot more cultured and talked to everyone.”

Loewenthal-Neumann: “I don’t remember having a problem with that. I opened the door and ushered in the people. Some of them told me stories.”
Did you grow up as yekkes or sabras?

Neumann: “Of course we were yekkes. We spoke German at home, in school more than half the class consisted of children who spoke German, and people spoke German on `Ben Yehuda Strasse.’ I grew up as a full-fledged Israeli, but the spirit was yekke. In all senses, both the good and the not-so-good.”
Even the summer heat waves did not affect the yekke spirit. Punctuality was punctiliously observed. One’s word was one’s bond. Respect to adults and to what is served you. Anyone who took too much and couldn’t finish his food didn’t get dessert. Food was not thrown out. A telephone, too, was a bourgeois luxury.

“To his dying day Father didn’t agree to have a phone in the house,” Loewenthal-Neumann says. “He didn’t want people to call and cancel appointments. This way, he said, people would come personally and maybe would cancel less.”

Forsaking the faith

Micha Neumann says that only as an adolescent did he dare rebel. A little. “I was a wild kid with unconventional opinions. When the two British sergeants were hung [in 1947, by the underground organization Etzel, in retaliation for the execution of three of its members by the British in Acre prison], my father was in shock. He couldn’t understand how Jews could do something like that, and I said they were storm troops. He was stunned. `I come to this country and hear my son talking like a fascist,’ he said.”

The two children attended Shalva, a private elementary and high school. Micha Neumann says he wanted to be a psychologist from the age of 16. “I was curious to know what went on in those closed rooms,” he says. He wanted to be a Jungian psychologist, but there was no institute in Israel where he could be trained, and his father encouraged him to move in the Freudian direction. “My father actually urged me to go into Freudian analysis. He said it was appropriate for young people who were establishing themselves. When I came to the Psychoanalytic Institute, they asked me, `How could you, the son of Neumann, Jung’s student, come to us?’ It was as though I had changed religion.”

He went to Switzerland to study medicine with the aim of becoming a psychiatrist. Four years later, in 1956, when his sister also wanted to study in Zurich, he was compelled to return home: There wasn’t enough money to pay for both of them to study abroad. Micha Neumann completed his medical studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem-Hadassah Medical School and started to work as a psychiatrist at Shalvata, a psychiatric hospital in Hod Hasharon. Eventually he became the hospital’s director. Today he has a private practice which is strictly Freudian.

Rali Loewenthal-Neumann studied psychology in Zurich and returned to Israel in 1960, when her father died suddenly. She is also not a Jungian psychologist. Her expertise lies in treating children and parents. She learned chirology from her mother and this is now her main occupation. A widow, she lives in Jerusalem. Of her three children, the eldest son is a psychiatrist, the next son is an electronic engineer, and she also has a daughter who is in education. Micha is married and the father of two – a daughter who is a lawyer and a son who is an electronic engineer.

Erich Neumann died of kidney cancer. In the summer of 1960 he went to Europe to deliver a series of lectures and returned in a wheelchair. “His brother took him to a roentgenologist in England and he saw that the cancer had already spread. He told him to return to Israel quickly. My father understood, and within less than three months he died. The feeling was that he died at his peak. He was then beginning to be recognized around the world, thanks to his books, which were translated into many languages, including Japanese, Chinese and Croatian.”

One of the other two books which, in addition to “Depth Psychology,” have been translated into Hebrew is “Amor and Psyche,” in which Neumann analyzes the legend of the love of the mortal princess Psyche for the son of Aphrodite, Amor (also known as Eros or Cupid), and through this explains the processes of feminine love.

Julia was almost 81 at the time of her death. The accident happened when she left the house one Sunday morning before work, to buy flowers. On the way back she was hit by a taxi and died within hours.

“She was terribly afraid that she would grow old and become a burden on us,” Micha Neumann says today. “She asked me to promise her that if that happened I would help her die. I made the promise, but I’m not sure I would have kept it.”

`A father figure’

The black hole in the relations between Jung and Neumann is anti-Semitism. In his letters to Neumann in the 1930s, Jung did not express shock at the Hitler phenomenon. On the contrary: He viewed National-Socialism as a revolutionary movement that was connected to the deepest roots of the ancient German people, roots partaking powerfully of blood and soil, as in Israel. Jung believed that connecting to these roots would engender a healthy, strong movement, which would enthrall the masses and provide the right balance for German super-intellectualism.

Micha Neumann: “[Jung] said it was impossible to dismiss the movement and Hitler, as they were the psychic embodiment of all the Germans. They had a German society of psychotherapists, which Jung agreed to head, throwing my father into shock. He asked Jung to publish articles against anti-Semitism, to dissociate himself from it, but Jung didn’t do it.”

How did they stay friends after that?

“There is a claim that every anti-Semite has his good Jew. Jung was not anti-Semitic at the personal level. He wrote to my father about all the help he gave to refugees, colleagues from Germany for whom he found work. But ideologically he was, of course, an anti-Semite.”

Didn’t your father feel guilty for remaining in contact with him?

“No, nor did my mother. I told them that I had begun to hear during my analysis that Jung was anti-Semitic, but my mother said it wasn’t so, that all his assistants were Jewish and so were all his students. Both of them denied it and said it was Jung’s `shadow’ [a negative personality element, according to Jungians]. In one of his letters to Jung, Father wrote, `You are the only pure remnant that I still have from murderous Europe.’ He saw Jung as a person of great stature, untainted and moral, to the end. He likened him to one of the 36 just men [in the Hasidic legend]. I didn’t like it, but I understood his need to cling to Jung as a father figure in the intellectual desert. He wrote him, `I have no one here whom I can talk to and learn from. For me, you are the link to the Europe which has so disappointed me.'”
Gold from the depths

There are about 50 Jungian analysts in Israel. Four years ago they split into three different associations. The reason for the split was not ideological but psychological – it stemmed largely from personality clashes within the group. There is no dispute regarding the Neumanns, however: All agree that Jung was recognized in Israel thanks to them. There is also general agreement about Erich Neumann’s importance as the heir and developer of Jung’s theory at the international level.

Dr. Erel Shalit – whose book, “The Hero and his Shadow,” discusses psychopolitical aspects of myth and reality in Israel – says that Neumann’s “Depth Psychology and a New Ethic” is the first and most important book perhaps ever written on psychopolitics. It had a crucial influence on the development of that field.”

Dr. Gadi Maoz, chief psychologist of the Jezreel Valley clinic and a lecturer in behavioral sciences at the Jezreel Valley Academic College, a student of Dvora Kuchinsky, is part of the third generation of the Jung-Neumann dynasty in Israel. Neumann, he says, was ahead of his time and was the precursor of the “New Age” in its deeper sense.

“He felt the malaise of Western society very strongly,” Maoz explains, “and the need to find a balm for it. The sickness is a rational focusing on the conscious world and a denial of the unconscious and the psyche; it is the repression of whatever is not comfortable from consciousness. Neumann said we must dive into the sea of the unconscious and bring to the surface all the gold and treasures, including the collective ones, because they are the driving force of creativity. The emphasis is on not repressing, but on connecting to the forces latent in the unconscious, to hold a dialogue with them. He was talking in the late 1930s about processes that we started to talk about in the late 1990s.”

http://www.haaretz.com/jung-at-heart-1.148506

Saturday, March 11, 2017

A new Book by Erich Neumann: Jacob & Esau: On the Collective Symbolism of the Brother Motif





In 1934, Erich Neumann, considered by many to have been Carl Gustav Jung’s foremost disciple, sent Jung a handwritten note: “I will pursue your suggestion of elaborating on the ‘Symbolic Contributions’ to the Jacob-Esau problem . . . The great difficulty is the rather depressing impossibility of a publication.”

Now, eighty years later, in Jacob and Esau: On the Collective Symbolism of the Brother Motif, his important work is finally published.

In this newly discovered manuscript, Neumann sowed the seeds of his later works.

It provides a window into his original thinking and creative writing regarding the biblical subject of Jacob and Esau and the application of the brother motif to analytical psychology.