Showing posts with label Jewish. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jewish. Show all posts

Sunday, August 12, 2018

"Then He will open the ears of men" James Kirsch, Tel Aviv, spring 1934




"Then He will open the ears of men" James Kirsch, Tel Aviv, spring 1934

It is widely understood in medicine at this time that neuroses are functional in nature, meaning that certain pathological symptoms cannot be traced back to anatomically identifiable organs or organ systems.

There are no localized seats of disease in neuroses; instead there is "a certain something" which is ill or suffering and cannot be readily named.

The first investigations by Charcot and Bernheim showed very clearly that it was possible to plant symptoms by means of hypnosis - i.e. through mental
influence - just as one could make them disappear again.

Thus the facts seemed to indicate that certain mental phenomena - thoughts, words, feelings, affects, or experiences - evoke neurotic symptoms, i.e. changes, which also have an impact on physical well-being.

As important as these discoveries undoubtedly were, therapeutically they were totally unsatisfactory. For it was soon recognized that the individual symptom did indeed disappear, but another took its place.

It is to Freud's indisputable credit that he found an alternative way.

With his wonderful intuition, as if by chance, he discovered that when one causes a patient to speak in detail about himself, the symptoms also disappear; especially if a patient relates pertinent experiences with appropriate affect, the experiences will be, as it is called in medical terms,
abreacted.

On such occasions, patients often also related dreams. Here again, the imp "Chance" led a highly gifted individual to a crucial discovery.

Freud soon recognized that dreams elicited vitally important material from the deeper layers of the psyche.

Long-forgotten experiences which may have adversely affected a person's health came up from the depth of the unconscious.

With the discovery of dreams, Freud found a new instrument for treatment which in contrast to the coarse and violent method of hypnosis -
originated in the patient's own psyche.

The first dream analyses deeply impressed Freud and moved him to call the dream the via regia to the unconscious.

On the basis of these surprising new impressions, Freud very quickly felt the need to establish a theory about dreams - the famous wish theory - and with it began Freud's unending tragedy.

Unexpectedly, by way of dreams, Freud had encountered the creative depth of the human psyche.

In the final analysis, every psychological theory originates out of the experience of whoever creates it.

It always depends on the subject and is capable, at best, of explaining the psychology of its creator or human beings similar to him.

It is either a fine- or a wide-meshed net, which indeed can pull much from the deep seas of the soul and bring it to light.

One cannot claim, however, that all organisms living in the seas of the soul have been caught with this net.

It is far more likely that huge numbers of living things of great diversity exist in regions where the net will never reach.

The distressing but inevitable fact is that the creator of a psychological theory catches himself in his own net and loses sight of the vastness of the soul.

An excellent example of the way Freud deals with the unconscious is his analysis of a dream which he published in his work Miirchenstoffe in Triiumen:
She [Freud's patient] is in an entirely brown room.

A small door opens to a steep staircase where a strange, little man ascends and enters the room. He is small, has white hair, a bald spot, and a red nose.

He dances in front of her around the room and acts comically.

Then he withdraws and descends the stairs.

He is dressed in a gray, tight-fitting garment. (Correction: He wears a long, black coat and gray pants.)

Here I cannot enter into all the details of Freud's proposed interpretation and his odd use of associations but would like to emphasize one point which has methodological importance.

He writes: "The personal description of the little man fits her father-in-law without alteration."

However, his annotation already indicates that the description of the person does not entirely fit the father-in-law.

Also, it is not clear why the dream did not mention the father-in-law if it referred to him.

The patient doubtless brings up the father-in-law as an idea that suddenly occurs to her.

The question is whether the little man explains the father-in-law or, conversely, the sudden idea of the "father-in-law" explains the little man.

What should be considered as real? To whom does the dream actually refer?

The simple question, how the associative material is to be used, shows clearly that the interpreter can bring his own attitude into a dream. In general, Freud tends to relate and reduce all dream figures to real persons.

Also, in this case, Freud says:

This is the father-in-law; then, without further justification, the father; finally also the penis.

The second association is to the German fairy tale "Rumpelstiltskin." Freud comments, "'Rumpelstiltskin' also facilitates the access to deeper, infantile layers of dream-thoughts.

The droll little fellow (Rumpelstiltskin, father-in-law, or penis?) whose name is unknown, whose secret one would like to discover, who performs such extraordinary feats (in the fairy tale he turns straw into gold) the rage one feels toward him, etc. - these are elements whose relationship to the
fundamentals of the neurosis can only be touched upon here."

I ask for the reader's indulgence for my dwelling on these details.

However, it is really necessary to ascertain, for once, on precisely what facts Freud bases his theories and to what extent he does violence to the dream with his "interpretation."

Actually, he does not interpret the dream but only provides a number of "symbol" translations, so that nobody has truly understood the dream, but only receives, at best, some references to Freud's well-known theories about infantile sexuality, the castration-complex, etc.

Rumpelstiltskin also does not merit further consideration after being recognized
as the "penis."

Is that what he really is?

Or is there again a confusion between the Phallus and the penis, the creative principle and the visible expression on the human body? Inasmuch as this physical part is also comprised in the Phallus, Freud's theories may be accurate.

However, they cover only one aspect, and Freud does not recognize the larger and more essential one, which- with his oft-repeated phrase, "this is nothing but" is at first unconsciously and later, in Future of an Illusion, fiercely rejected.

Anyone who appreciates the fairy tale atmosphere of "Rumpelstiltskin" may prefer to perceive the little fellow who lives in the woods and spins gold from straw at night as the soul, or perhaps the nightly creative activity of the soul, manifested in dreams.

Is it not the soul which confers value on everything we are, think, feel, and believe, and which transforms an event into an experience, turning straw into gold?

Since I do not know the lady who had the dream and have no additional associations from her, I can only presume this interpretation, basing it on my knowledge of the fairy tale.

But isn't it at least just as possible as Freud's view, based on the associations he mentions, as his conception of the little man as father-in-law, father, penis?

Would my conception provide a new understanding of the dream?

For example, the soul as the creative principle comes to her (by means of analysis) at night, in a dream, dressed in gray theory, and leaves her again when it is not understood.

As I said before, I cannot give an exact proof of this interpretation, but the allusion to Rumpelstiltskin, who after all is able to tum straw into gold, is certainly more than the male sexual organ.

Thus the tragedy of the Galut Jew has been realized once again in Freud's psyche.

Fate led him into the creative depth of life, but at that moment he closed it off with a theory conditioned by his uprooting and his childhood experiences of the Galut.

"He roused the unconscious so that it gushed forth powerfully, but not in order to honor it as his superhuman, eternal part, but instead to obtain information and to give his children contemptuous names."

Therefore, it is no surprise that strong oppositions arose against Freud and his theory.

Freud overlooked the fact that this resistance emanated not only from individuals who did not want to become conscious of their infantile shadow side, and so, for instance, did not wish to admit their perverse sexual fantasies.

There were also people who espoused an entirely different psychology and who lived, as it were, on a different island in the ocean of the soul.

The great Zurich psychologist C. G. Jung- upon whom, in his personal relations, Freud had made a great impression - grasped this great aspect of the unconscious and with it the huge importance that exploration of the unconscious could have for human intellectual development

On the basis of his experiences he could not concede that the psychology of all people could be explained with a view from only one comer.

He therefore avoided establishing one theory that should be viewed as the one and only solution.

When he casts his net into the sea of the soul, he remains cognizant of the fact that there is an infinite diversity of additional life in that ocean.

Consequently he avoids theories as such, preferring to leave the images of the unconscious in their natural state, pregnant with possibility.

For this reason, he has to live with reproaches of being "mystical," unclear, and difficult to understand, which really bears witness to the fact that he recognizes the difficulty, complexity, and liveliness of psychic material.

These things can easily be destroyed with words, concepts, and intellectual haste.

With this attitude, Jung left behind the atmosphere of the sick-room.

He is no longer treating the neurosis but instead the suffering human being.

A neurosis is not a localized illness but rather a sickness affecting the whole human being - often without symptoms.

The person, the entire person, is suffering, perhaps because he has not found meaning in life, or the meaning of his life.

Everyone has dreams, and the unconscious has much to say to everyone.

The dream itself is never a neurotic symptom, but it has something to add to the consciousness of the patient, something he does not know, or something he is not sufficiently aware of.

Thus, Jung perceives the unconscious not only as the center of repressions, a rubbish heap of perverse fantasies, but instead as the creative life within us.

The unconscious is not neurotic. Our attitude to the unconscious determines whether we are neurotic or not.

Therefore, Jung strives to lead human beings to the experience of the unconscious; whether or not they succeed is a question of fate.

Jung often experienced that a patient's contact with the unconscious affected the individual in a way which can only be characterized as "transformation."

The unconscious is a part of nature, and like all of nature it is true; it is not hypocritical, it does not lie. Consequently, the dream does not have a facade.

It represents the text of the unconscious, and it is a text which wants to be read, and read according to what the writer wished to convey.

It can be compared to a letter somebody writes to us, which we should understand as much as possible as the writer intended it.

Perhaps the most distinctive characteristic of the dream and of all messages from the unconscious is its strangeness from the point of view of
consciousness.

It is as if we had nothing to do with the creation of the dream, but it was sent to us. So in German we often say, "Es traumte mir. "

In ancient times, the dream's strangeness in relation to consciousness was clearly perceived, and so it was said that a god or goddess had sent the dream.

This coincides with one of Jung's fundamental conceptions.

He recognizes a higher force, greatly surpassing the human ego, an all-knowing force beyond time and space.

Within the unconscious he distinguishes two layers:

(1) a personal layer containing memories, experiences, feelings, affects, etc. which originate in the personal life of the individual; and

(2) the layer of the collective unconscious storing all experiences, images, possibilities, instincts, etc. acquired and developed by human beings in the course of millions of years.

They are embedded in a layer of guessed-at possibilities in the depths, ready to well up in an individual whenever his life encounters a dead end, or when his suffering cannot be alleviated by the limited means and experiences of the human mind.

For that reason, primitive people made a clear distinction between "small" and "big" dreams.

The small dream is of importance only to an individual, while the big dream is significant for the tribe or the general public.

On the basis of such big dreams, the fate of entire peoples has been decided.

For Europeans who are reasonably well informed about the life of primitive peoples, it is astonishingly impressive to experience how far-reaching the influence of a dream, a vision, an inner voice, and all manifestations of the unconscious can be on the lives of primitives.

However, we do not even have to go that far.

We merely have to tum our attention to our own early history, as it is recorded in the Bible, in order to be aware of the decisive importance of the dream, and the unconscious in general, for the life of our people.

For instance, I would like to cite a passage in The First Book ofMoses9 20:3-6:

"At night, God appeared in a dream to Abimelech and said to him ... " It is self-evident that God comes to human beings in their dreams.

The voice which speaks in a dream is not the voice of the ego.

It has information to convey which is not known to the ego and which the ego cannot know on its own.

Naively, and without the slightest doubt, Abimelech is guided exactly by what the dream proclaims.

This brief example shows that the ancient people, unlike us moderns - "Triiume sind Schi:iume " is the ridiculous opinion of enlightened people - attributed great significance to their dreams and regarded them as the source of God's revelations. (Similarly in The First Book of Moses 31 :24.)

The same is true in Jacob's dream in The First Book of Moses 28: 10-22.

A big dream, without doubt! It shows in a splendid way how Jacob's soul initiates a relationship to the Highest and how an intimate exchange with the Eternal takes place. "God's messengers ascend and descend."

The experience touches Jacob in the depth of his soul.

He experiences the sublimity of the place and is deeply frightened:

"He was afraid and said: how awesome is this place! It is none other than the house of God and the gate of heaven."

In this dream, we find three characteristic elements: (1) the imagery of the dream; (2) the direct language; and (3) the emotional affect of the dream
experience.

It is generally known that dreams occur in images.

How these images are to be interpreted, however, is a problem that has been on people's minds since prehistoric times.

Freud was not the first who thought these images speak a language.

The question is, of course, what language they speak.

Such a classic dream shows clearly the absurdity of a merely sexual interpretation.

In Jacob's dream, an interpretation is initiated within the dream itself, through the prophecy of a blessing.

As a consequence, Jacob is quite certain that he did not invent the dream but that it originated in exalted spheres, where one also has to search
for its meaning.

As he awakes, he is overcome by an overwhelming emotional impression that the Absolute, the Irrational, has spoken to him.

He knows that he has had a big dream, and he vows that the place where he had the dream is a holy place.

We sense the effect of the dream on Jacob and how he has been transformed by it.

For the future, this dream will have the greatest significance for the entire people of Israel and its history.

Joseph's dreams have a different character.

Of course, they are also immediately recognized for their importance, and it is interesting to note that they were understood the same way by his brothers (The First Book of Moses 31 :5-8).

Here again, God's messenger is speaking, and so the dreams confer importance and distinction to Joseph.

He feels like a special person, and his legitimacy is confirmed by these dreams.

The voice of the unconscious was not always heard.

An excellent example is the passage in Samuel:

"And God's word was precious in those days" (I Samuel 3:1). It is wonderful to note the reverential attitude with which Eli and Samuel accept this voice.

More often than dreams, we find "visions" in the Bible, a vision in connection with a voice, and also apparitions where it is not at all clear whether
they originated in a dream or a vision.

As varied as their content is, it is all the more essential to be clear about their structure and psychological construction.

In the vast majority of cases, not only the vision is communicated, but also the
individual's reaction to it.

A human being responds to the inner apparition, and often there is a continuing conversation between the ego and the absolute "Other," e.g. The First Book of Moses 15:1 and Isaiah 6.

The vision oflsaiah's call contains the primal experience.

It is recounted with
the lively power of the great visionary.

It begins with a simple description of
the magnificent experience (Isaiah 6:1-2):

"I saw God sitting on a huge, raised
throne, and his robes filled the temple. Seraphim stood above him, and each had six wings. With two wings the Seraphim covered his face, with two wings they covered his feet, and with two they flew."

In the third verse, a voice is heard:

"Holy, holy, holy," and with that the interpretation and comprehension of the marvelous happening has begun.

The enormous psychic upheaval of seeing God himself, even veiled by the wings of the Seraphim, is indicated by the shaking of the foundations of the threshold.

But he remains differentiated from what is happening within him. He says, "Woe is me, I am undone! I am a man of unclean lips" (Isaiah 6:5a).

The fact that he is not devoured by this vision shows the strength of his conscious personality.

In the subsequent verses the contact with the vision is fully resumed. The Seraph touches him with the burning coal.

He is cleansed. With this he is called, but also transformed.

When we submit such dreams and visions to a psychological analysis, there is no mention of the divine content itself.

Such an approach to things we are familiar with does not offend religious feelings.

On the contrary, it gives us as human beings a new understanding of the Immensity and its effects on the soul.

Certainly, Freud saw in the "unconscious" only repression and rejected contents of all sorts; but the consensus omnium, and also that of our Bible, knows it as the Highest speaking to human beings through the soul.

The Bible has various views of the expressions of the unconscious.

Originally dreams were considered to have originated self-evidently from God; this is especially clear in The Fourth Book of Moses17 12:6:

"And he said, Hear my words, when a prophet of God appears to you, I will make myself known by visions, I will speak to him through dreams."

In contrast to this, Moses was deemed worthy of direct and sustained revelation:

"I speak to him from mouth to mouth and show my face, and he will not see the image of God through riddles."

He appears to other prophets mostly in dreams.

And as we know, dreams speak a language which is difficult to understand; they pose riddles.

How to understand these riddles, and who is a ''poter, "have been questions throughout time. How could a prophet prove his identity?

Certainly, not every dream was sent by God.

Two personal prerequisites were necessary: spiritual purity and the absence of self-interest.

"Otherwise you will have night without vision, darkness without prophecy" (Micah 3:6-8): "Indeed, it will be night for you; you will no longer have visions. It will be dark, and you will be unable to do divination. The sun sets for the prophets, the day is dark for them. "

The third prerequisite consists of an entirely irrational moment, a choice which occurred before the human being comes into existence. Jeremiah 1:5:

"Before I formed you in the body, I chose you, and before you emerged from your mother's womb, I ordained you and appointed you as the prophet for all peoples."

But also, the content of the prophecy is the Shibboleth, to show whether they were sent by God, whether they are authentic or not.

This is the sign, whether or not what they prophesy is a vision of their hearts.

Inauthentic prophecies have an entirely personal character and reflect the human ego with its desires and impulses.

The experience is missing that something objective, something other than "I," has spoken.

This experience of the non-ego, the certainty that "It" is happening within me, and that the ego assumes a relationship with "It," this is the
characteristic of a true prophet.

If anyone has an authentic primal experience, like Jeremiah, that individual has a :fine power of discernment between the genuine and the false.
Referring to the fact that a dream has spoken is not sufficient.

There is something special about genuine inspiration, unlike the claims of other prophets.

Jeremiah 23:25: "I hear the words of the prophets who prophesy lies in my name. I have dreamed, I have dreamed!"

Only images can convey this unspeakable truth. Jeremiah 23:29: "My word is fire, says the Lord, a hammer which blasts boulders."

This power of discernment for true dreams, in comparison to lying dreams (chalomot sheker) was lost soon after the appearance of the great prophets.

Since it was no longer possible to tell who had the real inspiration, dreams and prophets were rejected.

Amos, the most powerful of the early prophets, had said (Amos 3 :8): "The lion has roared; who should not be afraid?

God has spoken; who should not prophesy?"

But Zechariah judges the prophets with contempt, resulting in a tremendous social decline, from adviser to the king and leader of the people ( even
if not always welcome as such), down to the lowest level of society.

Prophets and a spirit of uncleanness were now viewed as one and the same. Zechariah 13:2-6:

"I will also remove the prophets and the unclean spirits from the land. If anyone should still make prophecies, his father and his mother, his own parents will tell him: You shall not live, because you have told falsehoods in the name of God. And his own parents, his father and his mother, shall pierce him through as soon as he prophesies. On that day, the prophets will be ashamed of their prophetic vision whenever they prophesy. They will no longer put on a hairy mantle to tell lies. Each one will say: I am not a prophet, I am a farmer; or, from childhood I was raised to be a cattle-breeder."

The same as 2,000 years ago, we again stand at an important turning-point in our history.

The entire world finds itself in an era of enormous upheaval.

The old values and forms of religious and social ideology have little meaning for the psyche.

At best, religion is a "private matter."

It is stored in a more or less hidden corner of our life.

In any case, religion is not the whole of life.

Life yearns for a new experience, for an attitude which embraces the entire life.

At this critical stage, many sufferers turn to physicians who are supposed to heal such conditions. Were the physicians equal to that task?

Did the physicians understand the suffering of the soul, which was manifested in the strangest forms of neurosis?

Did they know that the problems of the time and the eternal human question expressed themselves in the individual as depression?

Our hygienic era could not have responded in any other way than to label these phenomena medically as neurosis, illness.

And yet, fundamentally, these are very old experiences and have eternal answers.

The writer of Job, for instance, knew very well that the human soul is the place where supernatural powers, God and Satan, do battle.

He was also aware of their effect on human beings.

Job 3: 11-13: "Why did I not die at birth? When I came out of my mother's womb, I should have died at once.

Why did the lap receive me, why did I suck from the breasts? Then I could lie still and rest, I would sleep and be at peace." Job 33:20-21: "All food disgusts him, even the most desirable delicacy." Is this not neurosis and depression?

How does Job find a way out of this depression?

"In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falls on people, in a light slumber on their bed, at that time he (God) opens the ear of the people and seals it with their teachings."

Also for us, who experience people's suffering and see how individuals express the radically shifting times as neurosis, the dream and all manifestations of the unconscious have proven - not by chance to be a fruitful path toward the patient's healing.

With this we also have rediscovered an old path that leads the individual to the
experience of the ancient fire, the "esh kedoshah. "

And thus we have come to what we know, glancing at the Tanakh, as the essential, to that which made Jacob into Israel, to the primal experience of religion.

For us, of course, in contrast to him, these experiences take entirely different forms and produce different effects; but what we experience is always the One, the Unchangeable, at all times and in all places.

With the return to our own land it is necessary to remember our own essence, the special character of our existence.

Everything will depend on whether our heart will harden, our ears go deaf and our eyes blind, or whether this time our eyes will see, our ears will hear, and our heart will understand (Isaiah 6: 10).

Whether we can give the true name to that which speaks to us through dreams and visions:

"This is a holy place." "Then he will heal us."

The way such things are happening to us now as Jewish people, and what response the unconscious is giving to the Jews' state of distress, may be illustrated by the following dream of a woman who heretofore was totally estranged from anything Jewish until awakened by events of the Hitler era:

Now I was crossing K. Street with Dr. S. and entered a store. There was a large exhibit of books and pictures. I descended further down a flight of stairs to the basement where especially rare and valuable books were stored. It was very dark there, and each book had additional lighting which was only visible as one stood directly in front of it. In the basement there was another room from which I heard voices, and I asked what was going on there. A small, bent-over man appeared, wearing a cap on his head and a heavy coat, with a large bunch of keys. He opened the door and pointed to a table, a large, round table, where ten men with long beards and caps were seated, holding prayer books. In the middle of the table was a silver box, lined with velvet, in which lay a diamond that sparkled so brightly, the table was lighted by it.

To comprehend the essential components of this dream, one only needs to extract what it contains.

The dream tells us that the lady goes into a store where all kinds of spiritual and artistic works are exhibited.

On the floor below especially rare and valuable things are stored, which require special illumination which is only visible when standing directly in front of them.

In addition, something extraordinary is happening, and a peculiar man is leading her to it.

This man we can consider to be the guardian of the threshold, the keeper of the keys, and in keeping with the entire atmosphere of the dream - a meliz, a religious figure who opens a spiritual room which is different from everything purely intellectual and artistic, as valuable as these may be. It is the religious community of Jews, and it is united and illuminated by the rays of a great gem.

So this dreamer, to whom until now Palestine and Judaism had consciously meant very little, found a very old truth.

She did not read or learn about it, but by experiencing the unconscious, she discovered the old Jewish idea that community can only be established with the help of the radiant force of a great symbol; the idea that the meaning and value of being a Jew and a human being are bestowed by this diamond, which is separate from all and yet unites all.

For this woman, and for psychotherapy, the same thing has happened through dreams as happened for Saul. He went out to search for female donkeys and instead found a kingdom.

She was looking for medication to treat a neurosis and instead found the royal diamond which heals the soul.

So I believe that dreams, visions, and other emanations of the unconscious can lead us Jews back to creativity, to humanness, and thus to Judaism and its lively further development.

We only have to learn, with the help of modem and exact science, to let the unconscious speak to us in its own language and to understand it. Intellect, art, and technology cannot save us, only the path that can revive the primal experience.

Then Israel - God's warrior - could once again raise its full voice in the chorus of the great religions of the East. ~James Kirsch, Jung-Kirsch Letters, Pages 279-289



Saturday, August 11, 2018

James Kirsch: Open Letter to the Palestinian Public




For the Palestinian Public 8 June 1934

When one presents to the Jewish public a topic fraught with as many sensitive aspects as the Jewish question in psychotherapy, one has to reckon with a multitude of complex reactions.

So it is no wonder that Jung - and I, too – have had the experience that our writing is not read correctly.

Thus I must attempt the following corrections.

L

I have never said a single word against Jung's assertion that the Jew has a particular tendency and ability to perceive the negative, the shadow.

On the contrary, in my essay I expressly cited and relied on Jung's words regarding the human shadow side:

"In many cases it is exceedingly salutary to confront human beings with their own most unpleasant truths"

! Indeed, in every case in a daily practice, it is urgently necessary to shine light on the shadow side, the negative side of the unconscious.

Obviously, this insight does not only apply to individual Jewish patients but to the entire Jewish situation of our time.

Recognizing and valuing the Jewish shadow in this way, I wrote that among the Jewish people a thorough and bitter analysis has recently broken out ( e.g. Mauschel96 by Theodor Herzl).

No matter how I try, I cannot detect any "sugar-coating" here.

The great contribution of Jung ( and this is clearly expressed in the essay in question) is that he has declared that the unconscious is also the creative foundation of the soul, and that he thus sees both aspects, the negative and the positive.

IL

The terms genotype and phenotype are borrowed from biology.

The genotype describes the hereditary possibility existing in the germ plasma, while the phenotype is the individual manifestation transformed by experience and thus taking visible form.

This clearly defines the contrast between essence and appearance.

Whoever ventures to follow the phenotype of the Jew into his darkest abyss, that person cannot be accused of escaping into a non-existing image of a
Jew.

More likely one could conclude that this person is intent on penetrating into the essence of the Jew by way of individual manifestations.

III.

When Jung expressed his views concerning the current situation of psychotherapy, he had to clarify to what extent Freud's particular Jewish attitude to the unconscious influenced all of modern psychology and psychotherapy.

He does not, however, need to raise the question whether we Jews can acknowledge Freud as the genotype of the Jews.

May we then - as it has already been hinted among Jews – regard Freud as a Jewish prophet?

The prophet is legitimized by God's calling, i.e. on the positive foundation of the unconscious. (See e.g. Isaiah chap. 6).

Freud, however, unequivocally rejects the positive aspect of the unconscious (see The Future of an Illusion).

We are therefore bound to continue working with and appreciating not only the negative but also the positive aspect, if we are to come out of our
current spiritual situation of godlessness and homelessness.

In this we are also justified to consider Freud, without detracting from his courageous discoveries, as a figure determined by the Galut1 (the Galut phenotype), rather than as a timeless manifestation of the Jewish essence.

IV.

It is surely correct that the Jew is better able than the Teuton to endure "living with his shadow side in a friendly spirit of tolerance."

Without doubting Jung's specific statement, I am (in contrast to Jung) of the opinion that it is particularly damaging and dangerous for us to destroy the connection with the unconscious as our creative original foundation.

I emphasize this connection with the original foundation because the timeless type of the Jew has always expressed even the negative on the basis of his connection with the Eternal.

Freud tried to strike a fatal blow against the religious life of the soul in The Future of an Illusion.

To overcome this attitude of godlessness and homelessness, we need Jung's revelations about Freud and about the corresponding distortion of Jewish psychology, and Jung's way - in contrast to Freud's - in order to arrive at the positive aspect of the unconscious through accepting the shadow as fully as possible.

For that reason the final sentence of my essay was as follows: "In Jung's personality as well as in his psychology and psychotherapy, something is contained which speaks to the depth of the ailing Jewish soul and which may lead to its liberation." ~James Kirsch-Jung-Kirsch Letters, Pages 54-56

Monday, July 3, 2017

Carl Jung and James Kirsch on the Jewish Question




Letters between James Kirsch and CG Jung ~By Thomas B. Kirsch, M.D.

I always knew that there were letters from CG Jung to my father among the papers he left behind, although I did not read them completely until recently. Approximately 5 years ago I was told by an English woman sandplay therapist,
Sasha Rosen, who was visiting in Berkeley that the ETH in Zürich also had the letters from my father to Jung, which was a surprise for me. Only within the past two years that have I made a concerted effort to obtain copies of these letters as I was not sure that I wanted to see what was in those letters. They had an analytic relationship and I was uncomfortable delving into it. There are 211 letters from my father to Jung and approximately 41 letters from Jung to my father. Two of the letters to my father were included in the collected letters of Jung, volume 1, and approximately 16 other letters from Jung to my father are published in Psychological Perspectives in volume 3, numbers 1 and 2, 1972. The other letters from Jung have not been published. Mostly they corresponded in German and the letters from my father have been translated privately for me by Ursula Egli. The correspondence begins in 1931 and the last letter is dated 1960. Jung died in 1961 The last letters are very short due to Jung’s failing health, but the bulk of the correspondence contains substantive discussion of material related to Jewish psychology, Christianity, synchronicity, my fatherʹs translation into English of Answer to Job, discussion of my fatherʹs dreams and those of his patients, and many other subjects. Time does not permit me to give you more than a very small slice of the correspondence. I have made selections from two long letters which my father wrote from Tel Aviv, Palestine in 1934 where my father was living at the time. Even here, I will need to heavily edit the letters because of time restraints.

Let me give you some biographical data to orient you. My father was born in Guatemala in 1901 to a family of German Jewish merchants. The family returned to Berlin when he was six years old and he was educated in Germany, obtaining his medical degree from Heidelberg University in 1922. In Heidelberg he was introduced to psychoanalysis and became life long friends with Erich Fromm. He returned to Berlin to begin a practice of psychiatry. In the late 1920s
he entered a Jungian analysis with Frau Sussman, a lay analyst in Berlin, after two years of Freudian analysis. Subsequently, he traveled to Zurich for analysis with both Jung and Toni Wolff, beginning in 1929. In October 1930 he lectured at the Jung club in Zürich on the “Modern Jew in Germany” and Jung attended. He was part of an informal Jewish group in Berlin which included Gerhard Adler, Erich Neumann, and Ernst Bernhard, each of who played an important role in the formation and dissemination of analytical psychology He became a member of the C.G.Jung Gesellschaft in Berlin which had been founded in 1931. When Hitler came to power, he moved to Palestine. Having been an ardent Zionist in his youth, he immigrated to Palestine.. He soon became disillusioned with Zionism, but at the time of these letters he was still quite taken with the Zionist movement. In 1935 he immigrated to London where he lived and practiced until 1940. When Britain’s fall to Hitler seemed imminent, he and his family moved to Los Angeles where he practiced from 1941 until his death in 1989. Thus, he played a leading role in the formation of analytical psychology in many countries, but in Los Angeles he was a true pioneer. I chose these letters from 1934 because they represent such an important time in history, and because what Jung wrote at that time about Jewish psychology has affected the field of analytical psychology until the present.

Psychoanalysts to this day cite this article of Jungʹs as the reason not to read him. In Europe the president of the German Medical Psychotherapy Society, Ernst Kretschmer, had resigned, and Jung as the honorary vice president was coerced into accepting the presidency. Jung agreed only on the condition that it become international in nature and name, which it did. The organization fell apart during the war, but then was resurrected after the war by another Swiss, Medard Boss, and it still exists today. There Jung made his unfortunate remarks on the differences between Aryan and Jewish psychology, saying that the Aryan culture had a higher potential and at the same time Jewish psychology was dependent upon a host culture. My fatherʹs letter of May 7, 1934 is written shortly after the
publication of Jungʹs article. (The State of Psychotherapy Today in CW 10 pp.157‐173) The letter begins with my father having felt slighted by Jung when they met in Ascona at the Eranos lectures. My father then writes, ʺI was informed of some remarks you made which did not indicate that you are a friend of the Jewish people. For instance, it appears that you said, ʺin analysis Jews are not honest,ʺ . Then Mr. Bally came here, visited with all colleagues, and related that you had openly crossed over to Hitlerʹs side, that you were received by him and thus are an anti‐Semite. His essay in the Zurcher Zeitung titled “German‐bred Psychotherapy” was read by many. The result was that your books which had been exhibited in many bookstores disappeared from the shop windows and your name was placed on the boycott list. Your detailed answer was not read this general disposition against you was of course fabulously exploited by the Freudians in an effort to spread total silence about you at least in this area……. Well, dear Doctor, the rumor about your being anti‐Semitism does not seem to come to an end. From a letter which I received from Germany last week4 I learned that you expressed your gratitude in recognition of Hitlerʹs reforms at
the German universities on the radio via German broadcasting stations. If that is in fact I do not understand you as a Swiss citizen. Please do not interpret my letter as being aggressive. I am merely interested in understanding you in this regard and hope that you will grant me the privilege of reaching such an understanding. On the other hand, I do not feel understood by you in this matter…..

About the Jews you write: ʺProbably, the Jews…. will never create their own form of culture because all their instinctʹs and talents presuppose a more or less civilized society for its development.ʺ I am dumbfounded to hear such anticipation from you however, and even the premises to such a prejudice do not appear to add up. What you are writing certainly is true for the Galuth Jews. It seems to me that you received your picture of the Jews essentially from Freud who, of course is an excellent example of the Galuth psychology. Here in Palestine (and Palestine is already the intellectual/spiritual center} the Jews are living as resident people with a purpose, self‐reliant, and not in the middle of another civilized nation. I wish that you could see some of these new types of Jews……..

Christ is in the repressed complex of Jewish people but just as all things change in individual lives of human beings as soon as a repressed complex enters into consciousness and comes alive, in the same way things can change
collectively‐and also creatively‐with our repressed Christ complex. I have a great number of proofs (dreams and pictures) for my conception that this Christ complex is pivotal for the Jewish people from this viewpoint, the peculiar psychology, the peculiar fate of the Jews‐as well as the anti‐Semitism‐have to be understood.
I believe you will only be able to confirm my interpretations. It is a question of the collective standstill, the repression with all its consequences. Also we are not nomads, but rather restless people who have lost their living
God despite all the warnings of the prophets. We even pronounced the dreadful words about Christ: May his blood flow on our heads and those of our children….

I cannot imagine that what you wrote in your essay ʺThe Current State of Psychotherapyʺ is everything that you have to say about the Jews. Would it not be possible for you to publish here a detailed essay about Jews? I could arrange
for a good translation into Hebrew to appear in an excellent publication Please excuse this somewhat confusing letter, but I assure you that I am writing from the heart. Would you please respond in detail?

With my most heartfelt greetings

Yours very truly

Jungʹs response comes on May 26, 1934. will be summarized as it is already published. Basically Jung explains that he took on the presidency of the international society for psychotherapy. He could not leave German psychotherapists in the lurch. About the rumors, he denies all of them and says that anyone who would believe these rumors must think of him as extraordinarily stupid. He has had nothing to do with Hitler or done anything on the radio nor has he made any political statements. He does elaborate on his opinion of Jews about their inability to create a cultural form of their own. He then cites the specific reasons for that. He is quite open to the fact that conditions in Palestine at that time may have him change his mind about needing a host culture. He agrees with my father about the Jewish Christ‐complex. He mentions also that he plans to write something more about the Jewish question in correspondence with Erich Neumann. That sadly never took place. My father responds on June 8, 1934 with a very long letter which I will have to greatly condense.

First, my father thanks Jung for his detailed response and his willingness to enter into a discussion about the Jewish problem. He goes on to say ʺI have to admit that without it I might have believed some of the accusations which would
have darkened somewhat the image I have of you, particularly in view of the fact as Miss Wolff told me once that if you had been German you would have voted for the Nazis. I realize that I was mistaken or rather that I misunderstood you. I fell into the trap of accepting a collective prejudice in a case where you intended a personal criticism addressed to me.ʺ…..

However, I felt it necessary to inform you of these rumors, and since they produced a reaction from you, such as your clear and unequivocal letter, a great burden has been lifted from my heart.

My father elaborates the four points which Jung makes in his letter about Jewish psychology.

1) The fact that the Jews do not have their own culture. My father goes on to explain to Jung that before Christ the Jews had a very rich culture of their own. My father then mentions a lecture that he has given in Palestine which he sends on to Jung under separate cover.

2) Next follows a discussion of the Jews rejection of Christ, and Jews will never admit to this, but that my father feels this defines the fate of the Jewish people. According to him, the Jews and Christians are shadows for each other.

3) The nomadic nature of the Jewish people. My father feels that this is a consequence of a repressed complex; namely the Christ complex.

4) Greek antiquity had a great influence on Jewish psychology. My father goes into great detail, over a thousand words, to elaborate these four points.

He concludes the letter with the following ʺZionism is a great experiment in that its foundation and its meaning is based on the fact that the Jewish people believed in their creative strength. Whether such creativity exists and will give the Jewish people a new imprint will be revealed in the future. I strongly believein that and feel unconditionally connected with this experiment. To be an upholder and promoter of a culture would not give the slightest meaning to my existence. I would prefer to find the tiniest truth as long is it grows on my pile of
manure, rather than disseminate the largest truth of a foreign culture. Jung does not answer until September 29, 1934. They had met at the Eranos meetings in August of that year, but presumably did not have time for one‐on‐one conversation. Jung further discusses the relationship between psychoanalysis (Freud and Adler) with Jewish psychology, noting that it is Jews themselves who feel more comfortable with the reductive approach of Freud and Adler.

The last paragraph of Jungʹs letter to my father is a most prophetic one. I would like to quote it now.
With regard to your patient, it is quite correct that her dreams are occasioned by you. The feminine mind is the earth waiting for the seed. That is the meaning of the transference. Always the more unconscious person gets
spiritually fecundated by the more conscious one. Hence the guru in India. This is an age old truth. As soon as certain patients come to me for treatment, the type of dream changes. In the deepest sense we all dream not out of ourselves but out of what lies between us and the other.

This statement of Jung is the essence of present‐day psychoanalytic inter-ubjective theory and practice. It could not be said more aptly today. As I said in my introduction, the correspondence covers many subjects over many years. I have chosen these letters because of the times in which they were written and the subject which they discuss. Jung gives very complex answers to the Jewish question, and he attempts a critical appraisal of Jewish psychology at a most inopportune time. What Jung does say is that he has been writing and thinking about this subject for many years, and that is why in spite of warnings from both my father and Neumann, Jung feels justified to continue
writing about this issue. Jung talks about many of his theories in a clear and direct manner with him. There are many riches to mine in the letters, and I am hoping that someone with a knowledge of Jung, German, and archival research will want to work on them. For me, to have read the correspondence and to see the nature of the correspondence has been of great value for me both in my relationship to my father and also to Jung and my professional work.