>> From the Library of Congress in Washington, DC.
[ Silence ]   >> Thank you.

Thank you.
Well, we have a very full afternoon after a really spectacular morning.
Let me introduce myself first, I'm Joe Cambray.
I am the President-Elect of the International Association
for Analytical Psychology.
That's the professional group of Jungian Analyst around the world.
There about 3,000 of us and we we're one
of the contributors probably not--
probably one of the smaller contributors to this.
But we're absolutely delighted and pleased by the meaning
and significance of this event.
It's a real honor to be here, to be addressing you
for the Jungian community to be in this time in this place.
And so my thanks to the Library of Congress, all of their staff
that have been so enormously helpful and supportive to us,
to the presenters who are taking their time and making arrangement
to be here, and to all of you for making your way to DC
and to be a part of this.
This afternoon we're going to change keys a little bit now.
We're going to just talk about the--
in this panel here about the Freud-Jung history.
Not so much in terms of just the rehash or what's known.
But I think you'll find we're going to be looking
at intellectual history in a new way.
And as a part of that I wanted to just give you a few brief remarks.
I think it's still a part of the question of locating the Red Book
in the field of history and culture.
What is this object that we all now have a copy of
and that we're modeling our way?
You heard a lot of different opinions this morning
about its meaning and significance and I--
I'm not going to pretend that I know any deeper
than anyone else, in fact, probably less.
However, in terms of thinking of this panel, the first thing
that occurred to me was that psychoanalysis
when it first begun was an extremely radical movement.
It was just a small number of people and it was a very bold
and brave step in culture.
It really rethought the way the human mind is and perceives itself.
And we can trace that largely to Freud's dream book in 1900.
You know, in many ways, it spoke to the spirit of the times
at the beginning of the last century and probably spoke
for a significant part of the first half of the 20th century.
I would suggest the Red Book might be furthering that project not
in a Freudian way but in the Jung's own language in the spirit
of the depths that this is about depth psychology.
Not just simply Freudian or Jungian.
It's about how one encounters the depths of the psyche
and what is the spirit of the depth that Jung was talking about?
Again, the paper about that mentioned the interface of order
and chaos for me was telling me that we're at a moment of complexity.
It's a time of what the Greeks would have called "Kairos."
That is it's a moment in which something very special is happening.
And if that moment has ceased, the transformation can occur.
And I would suggest there's something about the Kairos
of this moment and that it's this book at this moment that's caught
on that we're all absolutely amazed by.
I mean all the explanations I've heard I believe each one
of them have a piece of something.
I don't think we have seen the whole of it yet.
For me the text is also an embryological text
in the sense-- and at multiple levels.
There's a lot of, a, imagery in the text,
there's a lot of incubation that the text refers to.
And I think there's a whole relationship to embryology, biology,
and the place of the mind, and that we're just in other fields,
other disciplines, think of in biology thing
like epigenetics and so forth.
We are going to a transformation in the way in which we see the mind.
We're much less reductive than we were even 10 years ago.
We don't think of molecular biology as the sole paradigm now
for explaining biological systems.   We have a sense of their complexity.

And if ever there were complex book, this is it.
So I'm suggesting that is a background to what we're going
to hear this afternoon not--
we're not going to go so much into these particular texts,
but we are going to, I think, talk about the radicalization,
the re-radicalization that's occurring
in any encounter with depth.
And it's in a way the shock of the new.
And for me the second thing I wanted to mention to you is the serendipity
about that being placed in Jefferson's Library.
You know, I asked about that.
And it was the space that was available
but Jefferson was really an extremely radical thinker
to say the least and there's--
and I'm not a Jefferson scholar by any means.
But there was a book on Jefferson
that I can recommend that would link here.
It's called the "Inner Jefferson."   It's by Andrew Burstein.

And it-- one of the chapters, for example, is the world of dreams
and I think we're talking about the dream of the world
that might go along with that.
So the very fact that it's located in the Jefferson building,
in Jefferson's library, it's in the core of it anyway.
It's sort of hidden into the heart of it.
And if you read Burstein's book, he suggest that Jefferson did something
like active imagination even perhaps around writing of the constitution.
I mean, it's at least for me a wonderful fantasy.

[Laughter] It's a proto-Jungian.
So now what I'd like to do is I'd like to turn to our--
what we're going our speakers.
They are both-- We are really fortunate.
They're both eminent historians of the field of depth of analysis.
They know the analytic history of our analytic ancestors
and are extraordinarily capable of articulating that history,
but even more placing it in a broader context
of intellectual history more generally.
So our first speaker today is going to be Ernst Falzeder
who I have the pleasure of getting to know a number of years ago
when I just at the point I was becoming the US editor
of the Journal of Analytical Psychology.
We had some conferences and one of them was called "Family Matters."
And Ernst was one of our speakers there.
And he put out the first network I've ever seen
in the analytic community.
He had a map of the first 500 analysts and all
of their relationships and he color coded it
so you could see who'd slept with who, who'd supervised who.
[Laughter] It was-- It's marvelous if you think
about network theory now that's become part of the information age.
Ernst took us back and showed us how the networks were in place
from the-- our early history.
And then in San Francisco, a wonderfully hosted, Tom Kirsch
and I worked together on hosting a set of history conferences
and Ernst was-- and [inaudible] were both presenters
at some of those conferences.
And that was again, at this cross-fertilization
between the communities was occurring there
in an extraordinary way.
Now Ernst is a senior editor of Philemon.
He's also a lecturer at the University of Innsbruck in Austria.
He's a psychotherapist, he's a translator, a skiing instructor,
[laughter] and he's a former research scholar
at the Fondation Louis Jeantet for the history
of medicine in Geneva Switzerland.
He was a Woodrow Wilson fellow here in DC a few years back
and then he came up to Harvard and got to hear him fortunately
in the Cambridge area, he was available to us.
He's got over 200 publications on theory technique
in the history of psychoanalysis.
He was the main editor of the Freud- Ferenczi correspondence,
all three volumes, the complete Freud-Abraham Correspondence.
And more recently he's turned his interest to Jung
and what a good fortune for our community quite frankly.
He's, of course, to those of you who have been interested
in Jungian psychology know
that he has translated Jung's Children's Dreams seminars, volume 1
and volume 2, which is to come out I gather in the fall.
And presently, I found out he's--
they've just finished the Freud's letters to his children
for publication so that correspondence will be revealed.
So we have a very rich and complex historian
to give our first presentation.   Thanks.

[ Applause ]   >> Thank you very much.

Good afternoon.
I have to confess it's a great pleasure for me to be back
in Washington because I spent nine months across the street
in the Adams Building in the Manuscript Reading room going
through all the Freud stuff they have there
and it's like coming back home.
I'll be a bit more prosaic than my esteemed colleagues
who spoke in the morning.
So I'm afraid there'll be a slight lowering of the intellectual
and philosophical level or as Jung probably would have said
[foreign language].
[Laughter] I'm neither Freudian nor a Jungian but I'm interested
in the history of science particularly
in the history of ideas.   And in this perspective, both Freud

and Jung are extremely interesting topics.
I mean after all theirs are the two names that most people first think
of in connection with psychology
and I think this curios fact alone would merit closer investigation.

We know that for a couple of years they collaborated.
And the publication of the corespondents in 1974
by William McGuire further kindled the interest of people
in their relationships and spawned plethora of articles
and books even on their relationship.
But as Sonu Shamdasani in the morning works
on the Freud-Jung relationship with very few exceptions,
have uniformly suffered from a Freud acentric frame
in which they have viewed the genesis of complex psychology
that is that they viewed Jung's theory primarily as an offshoot
from psychoanalysis, thus mislocating Jung
and complex psychology
in the intellectual history of the 28th century.
However, I still find it incontestable
that this was a crucial encounter for both of them.
Thus, while keeping Sonu's warning in mind,
I'd like to take a fresh look on that relationship
and in particular investigate how stimulating it was
for Freud and for Jung.
How each of them took over ideas or suggestions from the other
and then have look at some of the consequences that had.
Freud and Jung have become larger than life.
Their names have become something like stimulus words
in a global association experiment, [laughter] quickly drawing a host
of reactions and associations, while the theories have all
but vanished expect as historical references
from most modern curricula in academic medicines,
psychiatry and psychology.
Interestingly, the last academic fields in which they still seemed
to hold some ground are literary criticism and theology.
On the other hand their ideas have become diffused
into papular culture to this very day.
And I think perhaps the fact that their influence
in the natural science is obviously under wane,
while on the other hand their influence
in general culture is still very high is one reason
for the ongoing controversies, because while science wants to show
that Freud and Jung outdated essentially unscientific or history.
People continue to be stubbornly interested in
and fascinated by there views.
The terms and concepts have become a part of everyday language
and even entries in dictionaries is often garbled or misunderstood full.
Everybody talks about the unconscious
or subconscious even the collective unconscious about Freudian slips,
about archetypes, about repression, the oedipus complex, narcissism,
libido, introverts and extroverts about frustrating mothers,
anal retentive people, the importance of patty training,
about the midlife crisis, identification, projection, id, ego,
superego, the father-imago, the death instinct, inferiority complex,
regression, and so on and on.
The very term psychoanalysis has enjoyed [inaudible] success.
And for many the name psychoanalyst or analyst has become a synonym
for psychiatrist, psychotherapist or as we say
or you say shrink in general.   And the figure of the analyst

and the couch has become a cartoon stereotype just think
of the New York Cartoons.
Every body seems to know that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar
and many men actually still wonder what those women want.
[Laughter] It has become common place to say
that Freud has added enormous influence on western culture
and society of the 28th century.
I'll just quote of few voices, Wollheim wrote, "It would be hard
to find in the history of ideas, even in the history of religion,
someone whose influence was so immediate, so broad, and so deep.
Ernest Gellner, "There has been nothing like this since the spread
of the potato and the maize, and the diffusion
of psychoanalysis was even faster and may have deeper implications."

Wystan Auden said that Freud had become a whole climate of opinion.
And Harold Bloom called him the central imagination of our age.
Practically no field in western culture has not felt his impact,
let me just name a few of the fields that did feel his impact,
psychotherapy, psychiatry, medicine, literature, biography,
autobiography, literary criticism, film painting, advertisement,
public relations, education, pedagogues, sociology, anthropology,
ethnology, politics, religion, theology, jurisdiction,
the penal system for patients service and so
on and on, also journalism.
After I wrote down what I just read to you, I took a cigaret break
and leave through my daily newspaper which reprinted a story
that had been first printed, first appeared in the New York Times.
And the story was about an exhibit that the museum of sex
and the history of condoms.
And it ended with the line, "The condom is a declaration of sacrifice
in the midst of indulgence.   [ Laughter ]

Here's the punch line.
"It is evidence of civilization and its discontents."
[ Laughter ]
And I'm quoting that not only because it's funny
but because the author, Edward Rothstein not even feel that need
to mention the name of Freud because he could be sure
that his widows would understand the illusion to him.
There's probably only one cultural feeling
which Freud's impact is not visible
or I better say audible that is music.
That is instrumental music because, you know, librettos or lyrics
of songs obviously have also been influenced.
Much of what I say about Freud is also true for Jung.
To quote Sonu Shamdasani, "His views on the continued relevance of myth
where the seed bed for the mythic revival.
His interest in Eastern thought was the harbinger
of the post colonial Easternization of the West.
There is a massive counterculture that tails him as a founding figure
and the impact of his work
on mainstream 28th century Western culture has been far wider
than has yet been recognized."
Add to this that many of his concepts from the archetype
to the collective unconscious from the midlife crisis to his theory
of complexes and of course his typology of introvert and extrovert,
have become household names.
And the process of being absorb into everyday language, however,
some of these terms and concepts has been garbled or distorted.
Jung's etymologically correct expression,
extraversion for instance, has turned into extroversion
which makes every body with a minimal knowledge of Latin shudder.
[Laughter] What would you think of a term
like extraordinary, for instance?   [ Laughter ]

Or extramarital?   [ Laughter ]

That was an extracurricular remark.
Few people realized when they use the papular expression
of the inferiority complex that this is not a Freudian term
but a garbled concoction of Adler's concept of inferiority feeling
and Jung's theory of emotional complexes.
Another thing Freud and Jung have in common is that they were
and continued to be the targets of heavy attacks.
Freud is declared dead in regular intervals,
but you-- [laughter] that's right.
But usually with such vitamins and venom
that this makes one doubt the accuracy of the death certificate
as if the coroners of dead bodies in the closets of science were afraid
that he might rise from the dead again.

Although, Freud's critics have tried repeatedly in Crews' word
to relegate psychoanalysis to history's ashcan,
their heartfelt wish that Freud might have never been born
or failing to achieve that end.
That all his works and influence be made as nothing,
that wish has still not been fulfilled.
It is indeed interesting that to this day, Freud's name
and theories can provoke heated controversies and there's more
than 70 years after his death.
And I think that rather than being assigned that he and what he stood
for is finally history such an anachronistic phenomenon is
if nothing else attribute to his on going influence.
Jung on the other hand has been called many names.
Another quote from Shamdasani, "Occultist, Scientist, Prophet,
Charlatan, Philosopher, Racist, Guru, Anti-Semite,
Liberator of Women, Misogynist, Freudian Apostate, Gnostic,
Post-Modernist, Polygamist, Healer, Poet, Con-Artist, Psychiatrist
and Anti-Psychiatrist," mentioning to someone and you are likely
to receive one of those images.
For Jung is someone that people informed or not have opinions about.

So we're dealing with two highly controversial.
We've often misunderstood intellectual giants
of the 20th century will still exert an enormous influence


Myths also surround the few years of intense collaboration, friendship,
love even, which ended in a brutal falling out.
After the break, Freud no longer had one good word to say about,
as he wrote about them, the brutal sanctimonious Jung who's crooked
character did not compensate me for his lopsided theories.
[ Laughter ]   The former friend, crowned prince,

and heir apparent had become an enemy.
As to Jung, he continued to pay lip service to the importance of Freud.
But Jung's dismissal of practically all central tenets of Freud's theory
in practice makes one wonder what he still found so important about him.
Perhaps most important was Jung's rejection of Freud's method
of investigating psychical phenomena namely, free association.
And consequently, he's abandoning of analyzing them.
For Jung, the method of free association leads
to a reductive explanation.   That is to say in his view,

free association will indeed uncover a person's complexes
but it will not uncover the specific meaning
of a particular psychical phenomenon such as a dream.
In fact according to Jung, you can free associate to just anything,
you know, to a pen, to a microphone or glass of water.
And you will arrive at those complexes which dominate you
but that will tell you nothing about that pen
or about a particular dream.
The underlining and crucial difference between Freud's
and Jung's views is that for Freud, the presenting dream
for example is not a direct expression
of an unconscious tendency, not a natural expression, so to speak,
but already a distortion.
Or I'd better say a compromised formation
between conflicting tendencies within the psyche,
hiding a latent meaning behind the manifest facade.
The very term of psychoanalysis was introduced by Freud in analogy
to chemical analysis to describe his method of breaking
down complex phenomena into their basic psychic component parts.
Like chemical analysis was able to show
that organic matter was composed of elements such as carbon,
hydrogen, oxygen, et cetera.   Psychoanalysis would be able

to make an analogous analysis of psychical phenomena.
For Jung on the other hand, dreams are direct and distorted emanations
from the unconscious that need not and should not be analyzed.
According to Jung, "dreams are," and that is a quote,
"spontaneous product of the unconscious soul.
They are pure nature and therefore an unadulterated natural truth."
They represent," still a quote, "a communication or a message
of the unconscious of the all one soul of humankind."
The reason why they are not directly intelligible is that they speak
to us in a peculiar language.   They speak in images, in symbols.

Thus our task is not to analyze a dream by breaking it
down into its component parts
and finding an alleged latent meaning behind the manifest content.
The manifest content is already the meaning and the message.
Although couched in an archaic language which we have to learn
in order to understand what the unconscious wants to tell us.
Part from using dreams, his method of soliciting emanations
and manifestations of the unconscious was
that of active imagination.
A method that produces a kind of waking visions or fantasies,
which he then subjected to what he called amplification
which essentially consist in finding parallels to those images
in collective imaginations such as myths, religious systems
and practices, visions, alchemy, yoga, et cetera.

In short, as Freud and Edward Glover put it,
"Jung did not analyze dreams, he read them."
And to make it perhaps to some provocative point, one could argue
that the term Jungian analyst for a psychotherapist working
in Jung's tradition is actually a misnomer, a contradiction in terms.
With hindsight, it was probably inevitable
that Jung took his distance from Freud.
The difference is already clearly visible from the very beginning,
but tolerated for sometime, proved too great.
There is no doubt, however,
that as long as they did collaborate their encounter
and also their controversies were stimulating to them.
What I find interesting and actually quite surprising, however,
is that it seems that Freud took over much more from Jung
and let himself be more influenced by the latter than vice versa.
Freud's foray into psychiatry, his analysis of the Schreber case,
his occupation with ethnopsychology the psychology of the
so called primitives in totem and taboo, his introduction
of the anal phase in the psychosexual development,
his further development of the libido theory, the introduction
of the concept of narcissism, the concept of counter transference,
his technical recommendations in general such as the models
of the mirror and the surgeon, the rule of abstinence.
All these and I cannot prove this in detail
but I've written extensively about that.
All these were at least partly answers to Jung.
His fascination with parapsychology, however ambivalent,
was certainly also stimulated by his encounter with Jung.
Moreover, it's probably no coincidence that in 1910,
at the height of their friendship, Freud gave a particular name to one
of his most influential concepts, he's calling it the oedipus complex,
thus honoring a term made popular by Jung, complex.
Quite a few of Jung's other notions have also entered
psychoanalytic mainstream.
Imago for instance is a term first introduced by him in 1911.
Freud and with him, the whole psychoanalytic community
to this day took up this term.
In 1912, Freud even named a newly founded journal "Imago."
And by the way, this still exists to the journal called "American Imago."
Freud also took over the concept of what Jung called the introversion
of the libido, which term Freud called felicitous.
And in some of his formulations, Freud came also near
to Jung's notion of a collective unconscious.


Jung, and of course also Eugen Bleuler, the other collaborators
at the Burgholzli, were also the first to investigate psychosis
from a psychoanalytic or psychologically dynamic viewpoint.
Psychotic cases were practically absent in the private practice
of Freud and his followers in Vienna, who mainly word of it
so called nervous diseases, that is neurosis
and psychosomatic or functional disorders.
Jung's book "The Psychology of Dementia Praecox," 1907,
established his worldwide reputation.
Later, psychoanalysts working with psychotic patients owe much
to the pioneering work of Bleuler and Jung,
often without acknowledging it or even
without being aware of the fact.
Other concept controversial at that time,
have also entered analytic theory and practice to a certain extent.
For example, Jung's method of dream interpretation
on the subjective plane or level, his view of the [inaudible] function
of the unconscious, his extension of developmental psychology
to cover the whole lifespan, or he stressed on the importance
of present conflicts and not only of repressed childhood memories
in the psychoanalytic process.
Surprisingly, Jung seems-- also seems to have been the first
to see infantile neurosis as the result
of what the parents unconsciously project unto their children
and not mainly as the result of a child's internal conflicts,
a view so widespread today,
that this is worth remembering how revolutionary it was at that time.
And finally, Jung in the Zurich school were also the first to call
for the necessity of a training analysis of the future analyst
as explicitly acknowledged by Freud, a training requisite taking
over by practically old dynamically oriented psychotherapeutic schools.
In the light of all this,
it is beyond me how Edward Glover could arrive at his judgment,
"I have been unable to find
that Jung has injected anything into Freud's ideas."
This could rather be said about what Freud injected into Jung's ideas
with the exception of a short period of intense collaboration during
which Jung also sometimes half-heartedly
or not towed the line.
From the beginning, Jung had his own agenda,
his agreement with Freud remained
on a rather unspecific general level while from the first contact onward.
He voiced his reservations against specific but central tenets
of Freud's theory above all against the sexual theory.

Through Jung-- I think was fascinated by Freud as a person
by how seriously Freud took psychical phenomena
such as fantasies, dreams, sleeps, by how closely he listened
to his patient and looked at details nothing was too unimportant absurd
or seemingly meaningless not to be studied and analyzed.
From the beginning, however, Jung had great reservations
against the theoretical conclusions Freud proved from his observations.
Jung himself explicitly stated "I do not come from Freud,
but from Eugen Bleuler and Pierre Janet who were my direct teachers.
When I publicly took a stand for Freud,
I already enjoyed a generally known scientific reputation
through my research and associations conducted independently of Freud
and the theory of complexes based on it.
I collaborated with Freud with the principal reservation
against the sexual theory and only up until the moment
when Freud identified this theory with the method


For sometime these differences were ignored
or downplayed by both protagonists.
With hindsight we may rather ask ourselves why they had become
so close at all in the first place for relatively long period
or why they hadn't split much sooner.
Freud was certainly blinded by his sympathy, by the invaluable support
of Bleuler and Jung to world famous none Jewish psychiatrist
and academics, by his hopes that Freud quote,
"To conquer all psychiatry and the approval
of the civilized world with the help of Jung."
And to rescue-- that's another Freud quote, "To rescue psychoanalysis
from the danger of becoming a Jewish national affair and also
by the great plans he had for Jung as his successor.
For a long time, he made light of all--
of the all too clear signals of descent that Jung kept sending him
down deviate too far from me, wrote Freud to Jung, when you are really
so close to me, for if you do,
we might one day be played off against one another."

Conclusion.   [ Noise ]

[ Laughter ]
I'm afraid in the short time, it has been impossible for me
to give you a more than a few glimpses coming to the field
of Jung studies as a Freud scholar.
In studying Jung, I have been increasingly impressed
by how crucial it different his theory is from that of Freud.
I think that many people who see the Freudian
and Jungian systems is just too variance,
basically that same orientation and who've seen analytical psychology
of further development of psychoanalysis, be it in the right
or wrong direction, whatever.
But those people have been disregarding the fact
that Jung had a radical or different concept of the unconscious.
Because at first glance, this seems
to be their common ground both imminent psychologists
of the so-called unconscious.
So it seems perfectly sensible to see Jung, the younger of the two,
as following in Freud's footsteps,
especially if one adopts the wrong idea that Freud was


Yet the most devastating criticisms voiced against Jung
from the Freudians from the beginning was probably not
that he did not accept the theory of the sexual etiology of the neurosis;
but that he, as Ferenczi wrote to Freud already in 1912,
doesn't know the unconscious, that seems to be precisely the question,
did Jung mistakenly explain certain psychical phenomena
as manifestations not of personal unconscious conflicts,
but of an impersonal collective entity
or did Freud mistakenly overlooked or downplay the fact
that certain experiences often deeply disturbing
and dangerous cannot be explained by the psychology of the individual
but must be seen as messages from something infinitely greater
than the psychology of the individual
and his personal development.
Was Jung a deeply disturbed person who escaped the psychosis only
by hairs-breadth but turning his personal psychopathology
into a pseudoscientific psychological system?
Or was he seer, a prophet even, who finally understood
that his profoundly disturbing visions, dreams,
and experiences were not the signs of the psychotic disposition,
but messages from a trans-individual collective sphere
that predicted world events.
I confess, I've seen a way of reconciling these two views,
so it would be only naturally to ask.
So then what?   Who was right?

Freud or Jung?
Actually, I have been told that the Americans like to go
for simple alternatives that they like [laughter]--
that they to be all for or all against things.
I don't know if that is true.
But if that's really the case, I'm afraid I will now close
by disappointing you, by not answering the question
for the intellectual historian as I see myself, the task is not
to recommend a choice between two alternatives
but to study the history of these two related adjoining
but still fundamentally different concepts that this institutes
of their respective developments, their collaborations, falling out,
Raproshma, distancing, the mutual misunderstandings
but also the cross fertilization that took place.
No definitive answers then, but still a fascinating chapter
in the history of the never ending study of the human minds.
Thank you.   [ Applause ]

>> Thank you Ernst.   That was a fascinating study.

I'm sorry.
We didn't have a chance to unpack it further.
There's so much there.
Not only your wonderful witty way of framing of some of these things.
But I think some of the questions you're raising like,
where did Jung idea's come from?
What was his-- What was his training as a psychiatrist
and as a psychotherapist like?
What are the kinds of things that led him ultimately to something
like the Red Book experiments?   I think that's-- that's a chapter

that will be very interesting for us to hear more of.
But at-- we need, for time purposes, now to turn to our second speaker,
Professor George Makari who has recently
in 2008 written a really excellent book.
He's done much writing in the course of his career.
But I particularly want to bring this book to their attention,
it's called, "Revolution in Mind"
and "The Creation of Psychoanalysis."
And it-- not only as an intellectual history of psychoanalysis with all
of the usual players, but it has a-- both a narrative coherence
and a depth of integration into what else was happening in culture
so that you can get a feeling for what the movement meant.
And when he comes to Jung, it's one
of the most fair-minded treatments I've ever seen
in the psychoanalytic world.   I was very impressed when I read it.

I felt like the Jung that I was reading there was recognizable
to me as a Jungian.
So that was really a rather extraordinary experience
because that, you know, from the Glover quotes,
you can see that's obviously not always been the case.
Let me just tell you a few things about Professor Makari.
He's a historian, obviously,
a professor of psychiatry, a psychoanalyst.
He is the Director of the DeWitt Wallace Institute for the History
of Psychiatry and the Oscar Diethelm Library
at the Weill Cornell Medical College,
where he's also a full professor.
And actually we have passed that intersect
because he did his undergraduate where I lived
in Rhode Island at Brown University.
And he went to Weill Cornell Medical College.
So with that brief introduction,
let me turn the microphone over to Dr. Makari.
[ Applause ]
>> I'm going to-- I'm going to stand up.
It's the least I can do.
I kept thinking, can't I do something better like come
up with some major world historical diary that had I discovered
or even a good joke about sex and condoms.
[Laughter] But-- So at a very least, I'll stand up.
My papers entitled, "Freud, Jung, and the Paradoxes of Enlightenment."
The relationship of Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung remains one
of the most monumental encounters of the 20th century.
Theirs is a dramatic story of a friendship
and partnership that failed.
It's a parable of fathers and sons, as well as the study
in clashing ambitions, leaders of followers,
and the desperate cultures
of Protestants Zurich and Jewish Vienna.
The recent publication of the Red Book affords us a new opportunity
to reassess this tandem, Freud and Jung,
and see what new light can be cast on their joint work, their rupture,
and their divergent communities they would come to represent.
For decades, the most common interpretation of the collaboration
and divorced of these two men focused on personal matters.
And the Red Book provides new material for those who would hone
in on biography and think about the relationship of Jung and Freud
for it documents a great deal about Jung around the time
that his relationship with Freud exploded.
However, the Red Book also offers something to scholars
who would pull back their lands and consider these men
through a broader inquiry of the social, political,
and cultural forces that shaped them, and that they in turn shaped.
From this vantage point, the debates between the father of psychoanalysis
and the founder of analytical psychology take
on a different shape.
The rupture between these two does not merely represent political
in-fighting, matters of domination or rebellion,
or even specific narrow theoretical disputes.
But rather, I believe, it represents an important clash and a come--
continuing struggle over the nature of modernity and the meaning
of the heavily freighted word, enlightenment.

Numerous myths regarding Freud and Jung have stemmed
from an overly biographical reliance--
overly biographical method.
From this vantage point, it seemed plausible to assert
that Freud invented psychoanalysis by himself,
an idea that it's been chipped away out for years,
and which my history revolution in mind was indented to lay to rest.
With regard to Jung, numerous fables abounded as well,
including two central interconnected ones.
The first reduce Jung to being a mere disciple of Dr. Freud,
and that then made possible a second in which analytical psychology,
in so far as a different from the Freudian model, originated solely
from Jung and his genius.
Both of these myths have been discredited due to the work
of Shamdasani and others.
In this more open narrative space, I would like to briefly sketch
out the outlines of another narrative.
One that relies less one the other originality and individual genius
of these men, and more on a study of the larger intellectual communities
that I will suggest impart, united,
and then separated Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung.

Around 1900, it would have been hard to mistake Zurich for Vienna.
Vienna was the center of a failing empire.
A swarming, free thinking,
multi-ethnic metropolis barely held together by Catholic
and Monarchist authority.
Zurich on the other hand was the stable Protestant capital of one
of 22 Swiss cantons, each of which enjoyed a good deal
of autonomy and democracy.
Both places of course were German speaking, but Switzerland was unique
and that it unified ethnically French,
Italian, and German citizens.
This would become important after 1870,
when bitter nationalism forced the French and Germans apart,
the intellectuals from these places ceased their dialogue in France,
Germany, and Austria-Hungary, but not in Switzerland,
were they remained an open market place of ideas.
Aided by these advantages, the Swiss would play an inordinately large
role and attempts to synthesize French and German ideas of the mind.
In Zurich, for example, through the leadership of Dr. Auguste Forel,
the Burgholzli Hospital incorporated german lab science
with french clinical innovations, and moved to the cutting edge
of both brain research and mental therapies
by the last decades of the 19th century.
In 1898, Forel turned the directorship over to one
of his former students, Paul Eugen Bleuler.
Bleuler was almost exactly Sigmund Freud's contemporary,
born one year after the Viennese physician.
And as we shall see, both of these doctors shared a number
of views common to their generation.
Bleuler and Freud were political liberals
who rejected romantic medicines speculative excesses
and dedicated themselves to the power of reason and science.
After graduating from the University of Zurich Medical School in 1881,
Bleuler took a scientific grand tour, where he, like Freud,
traveled to Paris to study with Charcot and was deeply expressed
by the power of hypnotism and unconscious mentally processes.
For 6 months, the young graduate, again like his Viennese counterpart,
dedicated himself to the study of brain anatomy, first in Munich
and then with Forel in Zurich.
Finally in the late 1880s as Josef Breuer and Freud were mauling
over the case of Anna O in Vienna,
Forel and Eugen Bleuler hypnotized each other in Zurich
and published papers on this strange phenomenon.
Soon, both Bleuler and Freud were convinced
that complex unconscious psychic processes could rationally explain
mysteries, including dissociated action, fugue states,
hysterical symptoms, and cases of multiple personality.
No surprised then, that when these two men discovered each other,
they quickly made an alliance.
However, the connections between Bleuler and Freud,
and Bleuler's young assistant,
Dr. Carl Gustav Jungm, were more tenuous.
For nearly two decades later, Jung came from a generation
that oriented itself in part
against the perceived idealogical excesses of their teachers.
Sigmund Freud had come of age in a period
where liberalization encouraged young Jews
in the Austria-Hungarian Empire to hope that the enlightenment
of secularism and science could defeat the intrenched power
of church and court, and then the various forces
and anti-Semitism and superstition.
Two decades later, Carl Jung came of age
in a quite different time during the [inaudible],
a time when a resurgent neo-romanticism
to cry the shortcomings of a strict commitment to the rules
of positivist science in which it seemed, according to Ernst Mach
and many others, there was no human self and the inner world was lost.
Jung's interest in romanticism run deep, he was the proud grandson
of the Basel physician Carl Gustav Jung the elder
who would distinguished himself as an Arden democrat
and a romantic physician fascinated by psychological models of illness.
Carl's father, Paul, was a protestant clergymen who new the end
of his life had a crisis of faith and turned to studies of hypnotism.
And Jung's mother was from a prominent Basel family
that firmly believed in supernatural happenings.
In 1895, Jung began medical school in Basel
where the university was a liberal Bastian in a city
that hosted apocalyptic brands of Protestantism.
On the weekends, Carl studied Kant, Schopenhauer and that philosopher
of the unconscious, Eduard Von Hartmann.
He absorbed the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche,
who made a "tremendous" impression.
This was the standard diet of his generation and Jung soaked it up.
While at the university Jung was a buoyant and active member
of the university's Zofingia's Student Association.
There he gave lectures that revealed the desire to limit science
and cording of a domain for mystery and human subjectivity.
These youthful speeches dramatize the divide between Jung
and medical students of Bleuler and Freud's vintage.
While the older men have been driven
to roll back mystifying religious dogma
in a rational social conventions,
Jung and many of his colleagues recoiled
from the soul-killing results of there elders' program.
Jung mocked those who would parrot the hero of German science
who he dismissed as Papa Du Bois-Reymond, that's a reference
to Emil Du Bois-Reymond the most famous leader of Berlin Science.
School by-- this is in Jung's voices "Our great master" Kant as well
as Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, Jung urged his fellow students
to open a space for the irrational and subjective
in otherwise mechanized world.
In accordance with these views, Carl began to conduct some research
on his own, picking up a line of inquiry from his family.
Carl's mothers family was immersed in spiritism a movement that emerged
from the great American awakening of the 1840s
and became popular in Europe soon after.
This fashionable craze that included receiving messages from the dead,
mysterious turning tables
and mediums was not restricted to lay people.
It also attracted scientist like WHR, Myers [phonetic],
and William James who sought to examine these incredible phenomena.
For Jung, such things were very possibly believable,
after all as a child similar phenomenon had aminated
from his mother's bedroom at night were he saw luminous happenings
including the repetitive hallucination or vision
of a figure whose head was detach from its body.
In his first year of medical school,
Jung began to attend the family's seances.
His aunts and cousins sat around an old oak table and waited
for rumbles, knocks, and other signs from the beyond.
Soon signs came in abundance
from Jung's cousin, the 15 year old Helly.
Helly it seemed could speak for the dead,
after his beloved father's death, Carl was often
in attendance at the seances.
But after 4 years, his interest fell off especially
after Helly was caught cheating.
By then Carl had decided to study psychiatry,
when he set out to write his medical thesis,
he chose to explore his cousin's strange voyages into the beyond.
Confident that no one at the university would re--
be receptive to such a study, Jung set it aside.
Then on December 11th of 1900, that Jung medical graduate was hired
as an assistant doctor at the Burgholzli.
In Professor Bleuler, Jung found a teacher who shared his fascination
in bizarre mental phenomena.   Bleuler encouraged his staff

to study the most recent literature on the subjects.
And so just 6 weeks after his arrival in Zurich,
Jung presented his colleagues with the synapses of the latest work
on dreams by Sigmund Freud.
In this setting, Jung went back to his dissertation
but his approach had change from any wide-eyed [inaudible]
from his medical school days.
His 1902 on psychology and pathology of the so called
"occult phenomena" makes no allowance
for mysterious other worldly happenings.
Instead it was solidly part of robust genre
in which scientific authors demystified the strange,
the miraculous, and the other worldly.
Jung explained his cousin's visions and voices via references
to Charcot's [foreign language]
and Janet's [foreign language], excuse me.
The authority Jung turned to most
as Shamdasani has shown was a fellow Swiss Theodore Flournoy.
Jung followed Flournoy by positing
that his cousin had an unconscious second personality
that had split off from the conscious eye
and could therefore perform complex tasks on its own.
In the end, his view of the source of her disorder was conventional,
Helly had a pathological constitution.
The Jung romantic had gone over to the other side, or so it seemed,
and the contrast between the university student
and the young doctor was about to grow even more extreme.
After finishing his dissertation, Carl Jung took a leave of absence
from the Burgholzli and went to Paris where as Sonu shows us,
he hound his considerable painting skills and sat
in on lectures by Pierre Janet.
He then returns to Zurich in 1903 to resume work on a research project
that would alter his life, the word association test.
Initiated by Eugen Bleuler, these lab experiments would come
to be closely linked to Jung and they would make him famous.
Given his youthful concerns
about science murdering off the subjective realm of men,
the irony was stark, for these labs studies imposed a strict mechanistic
model onto mental life.   And yet the conclusions drawn

from these studies were anything but narrow.
By studying, timing, and tracking associations, Bleuler declared
in 1906, we grasp "all the psychical processes which we have to decipher
in order to understand the complete man."

Human beings Bleuler seemed to say were simply the sum
of their associations and complexes, a claim that while seemingly weak
on its face value, very nicely conformed
to the strictest evidentiary demands of science
and therefore made a tremendous splash in that community.
As Jung was thrust into the limelight via this experimental
work, in Vienna, Freud, the man whose secret hope in 1895 was
to create a fully deterministic and quantifiable Newtonian account
of the mind and brain, that same Freud was riding his own way
of recognition.
After 1905, impart encouraged by young Viennese radicals
of Jung's generation, Freud begun to publicly assert
that conventional sexual ethics including monogamy were pathological
and unsustainable.
This belief drew shock from pillars of Viennese society and admiration
from the growing number of 20 something modernists like Otto Rank,
Karl Kraus, Rosa Mayreder, Fritz Wittels, and Otto Rose [phonetic].
Freud embraced these [inaudible] Nietzsche's spewing newcomers
that we often found himself opposing their views as naive and extreme.
And so, just as Carl Jung was being pulled by Professor Bleuler
into the center of the scientific community,
Sigmund Freud was being push out into the smoky world of cafe culture
by his rebellious admirers
and it was precisely during this disorienting time
that these two men commenced their intense relationship.
In Freud, Jung hoped to find a mentor
who unlike Bleuler was less afraid to push hard at the limits
of conventional science in the service
of better grasping inner life and sexuality.
In Jung, Freud believed he had discovered a most judicious
scientifically minded pupil.
And for a while, these expectations held.
In 1908, when Freudians first gathered in Salzburg,
the ones blustery Carl Jung stood as a paragon of scientific restraint,
refusing to give in to the extreme trauma theories
of dementia praecox put forward by Karl Abraham, insisting with Bleuler
and others that there was clearly a toxin at work.
Simultaneously, the older Freud who once worshiped the positivism
of Ernst Brucke, reigned over a band
that included the anarchist-libertine Otto Gross
who toasted Freud as a moral revolutionary
to which the professor dryly replied, "We are doctors
and doctors is our intention to remain."
I should have done it with an accent.
[ Laughter ]
Jung and Freud had both risen to a kind of fame,
neither we can be fairly sure what scripted their sense quite this way.
Nonetheless, in 1910, Freud and Jung's alliance was so strong
that along with Sandor Ferenczi,
they tried to permanently cement their bonds.
They jointly created the International Psychoanalytical
Association with the demand that all members fully adapt Freudian
psychosexuality as their theory and accept Carl Jung
as their president for life.
[Laughter] Much to their dismay, how could have they've known,
this turned out to be a disaster.
They're attempt at consolidation led to immediate revolt and schism.
The notion of a strict Freudian theoretical line was intolerable
to some like Bleuler and for others especially the Viennese,
the idea of deferring to Carl Jung as long
as he walk this earth was impossible.

In the front period that now followed, seen the departure
of Bleuler, Adler, and then Stekel,
Carl Jung's possible theoretical divergences
from Freud became a topic of grave concern for Freud
and his dwindling true believers.
They grew panic that their president and the editor
of their most important journal may not be faithful to the cause.
Over the next month, Sigmund Freud
and Carl Jung would increasingly challenge and disappoint each other.
Freud was not more open-minded but increasingly tyrannical.
And Jung was not the reserved scientist but rather prone
to flights of mystical wandering, or so,
each men could legitimately think.
The two psychoanalysts would press each other to explain the nature
of legitimate authority, the bounds of science, and the distortions
of the psyche not excluding each of their own.
Tension grew after Jung's Fordham lectures in 1912 and then increased
in 1913 when Jung along with Mieder proposed that the deepest meaning
of a dream lay not in wish fulfillment but rather a kind
of adapted mental processing of the future.

This last change was deeply disturbed into the Freudians.
Freud believed he had rescued dreams from charlatans and clairvoyance
and given it a firm scientific basis.
The idea that it might be turned back into something
like clairvoyance was unthinkable.
Just two months after Jung sent a letter
to Freud defending his critical theoretical turn on dreams.
On October 1, 1913, he suffered what we've already heard
about a terrifying two hour hallucination of the earth running
with blood in which he was told this was a premonition of things to come.
Frightened he was
"doing schizophrenia" an illness we should remember Jung believed was
due to an untreatable toxin.
This bizarre experience left him searching for a different answer,
an answer to be found perhaps by descending
into the mysterious realms he had first explored as a young man.
Jung's inner turmoil likely explains these once mighty power brokers
precipitous next actions.
On October 27th, 1913, to the shock and delight of Freud's stalwarts,
the Zuricher who had spoken of the psychoanalytic movement as his own,
did his enemies work for them and resigned as editor of the journal.
This made no sense Ernest Jones and others who were sure it must be part
of a complex Machiavellian plot.   It was not.

As the Red Book makes clear, the world Carl Jung had fashioned
for himself after he entered the Burgholzli in 1900 had cracked.
In 1914, Carl Jung also resigned as president of the IPA
and soon the Great War broke out which the Zuricher took
as confirmation of his prophetic vision of blood in the streets.
He turned inward, a turn that he would later say,
return them to his own soul and would mark the beginnings


By focusing on the broader contexts that animated Sigmund Freud
and Carl Jung's relationship, we can see the outlines of a larger story.
The looming question that brought these two men together
and would separate them was one of the great questions of modernity.
It is a question as pressing for us today as it was in 1784
when the German periodical received Immanuel Kant's short,
famed essay simply entitled, "What is Enlightenment?"
What indeed?
17th and 18th century [inaudible] touted the power of the mind
to emancipate men and women and lead them from darkness into light.
Reason, analysis, and skepticism were the tools
that would free humanity from the chains of delusion.
"Dare to know," that was their credo.
However, there was a great paradox at the heart
of this spreading beliefs, the most prestigious and powerful form
of knowledge that they acknowledged natural science tended
to happily dismiss the mind as an impotent fiction as well
as a sneaky way of trying
to maintain a supernatural immaterial soul.
Famously, some philosophers and physicians try to find a third way
between scientific materialism and the soul such as John Locke's notion
of God and doubt thinking matter, numerous vitalists
from the Montpellier tradition and elsewhere
and some post-Kantian idealists.
But the fact is by the middle of the 18th-- of the 19th century,
the once radical notion that inner life in the mind where mere products
of the brain machine had won the day.
One now witness the spectacle of highly intellectual experts coming
up with very creative arguments that seemed
to prove the mind could never be creative.
By the end of the 19th century, many recognized the absurdity
of disposition and vie to create a tenable science of psychic life.
For these 19th century doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists,
and philosophers, the paradoxes
of the enlightenment needed to somehow be unknotted.
They were forced to address foundational questions such as,
on the one hand, what kind of science was required
to not reduce the psyche into nothingness?
And on the other, what kind of wider bore psychology could actually
establish valid and verifiable truths?

Now, Freud maintained a strong identification
with the atheistic radical enlightenment of Spinoza.
This was the man, Freud that is, who dared to know even
when that daring meant declaring children
to be polymorphously perverse.
But these same very radicals he identified
with were precisely the thinkers unlike the more [inaudible]
enlightenment reformers.
It was precisely these radical enlightenment thinkers
who were the ones who dismissed mental life.
In many ways, Sigmund Freud's efforts can be seen as trying
to salvage the idealogy of Pierre Bell [phonetic], Diderot,
we could say Jefferson since we're here, and the encyclopedists
by both creating the model of the mind that was scientifically tenable
in an otherwise wholly, deterministic, mechanistic world
and by expanding their dry notions of reason
to include the subject matter of romanticism that is subjectivity
and the powers of irrational mental forces.
Now, what of Jung?
During his personal crisis as the Red Book demonstrates,
he imaginatively returned to a lost pre-modern world,
a place where meaning was not statistical
or chemical, it loomed everywhere.
It was a world of omens, epiphanies, and revelations, a place of angels
and devils where the very notion of enlightenment was no longer
that of the [inaudible] but rather spiritual enlightenment.
Jung's illuminated manuscript can be read as an attempt
to heal his own inner world by reconnecting with the pre-modern,
pre-enlightenment Europe.
This text of a soul in torment is confessional and prophetic in tone.
It shows the Zurich doctor once famed
for nearly quantifying the inner world now thrown deep
into a gnostic search.
Reason and natural law have been blinders, he throws them off
and returns to a time where body and soul where one, a word of ancestors
in which the dark knight of the soul somehow led to daybreak.
In this work, Jung joins as speakers Sonu and others have spoken
about today, Dante of course, but also Blake, Novales [phonetic],
Coleridge, Schelling, Nietzsche, who he was reading at that time.
And in this return, Jung like these others can be accused
of being perilously nostalgic.
After all, that world of hellfire and prophecy was also one
of witch trials, [inaudible] step before the plague
and divinely mandated brute authority.
If Carl Jung had simply published the Red Book and continued
in this vein, that critique it seems to me would be plausible.
Surely then, he would be considered among those who turned their back
on the Western enlightenment and embraced forms
of spiritual enlightenment from both the Judaic Christian
and Eastern traditions.   However, I would suggest,

Carl Jung's legacy does not conform to this formulation.
He did not want to become a guru.
As he himself made clear, the Red Book set Jung out on a mission
to find a place for his personal epiphanies
in the language and logic of science.
In the end, this task was so difficult that it required Jung
to propose a new kind of causality in his work
on synchronicity with Wolfgang Pauli.
Unlike Blake and Coleridge, Carl Jung spend decades trying
to incorporate his visions and imaginings his critique
of rationality into something rational,
something that did not simply demand blind faith
but could bear up against doubt.
And so, in the end, Jung was not an anti-enlightenment rejectionist
but rather what Isaiah Berlin has called "A thinker
from the counter-enlightenment tradition,"
one of those nearly forgotten hybrids, a romantic scientist
in the mold of the Great Gustav Fechner,
another who experienced mystical wonder and then sought
to use the methods of science to validate and convey these insights.

The break between Sigmund Freud
and Carl Jung remains fascinating to us for many reasons.
But I would argue that impart it remains fascinating
because it re-stages a great conflict
that still roils western culture.   Freud and Jung met in a deep ravine,

ripped in the landscape of modernity.
It was divide that segregated the enlightenment world
of natural science from the great enlightenment ideals of reason,
freedom of thought, human nobility, and individuality.
The missing bridge between these two new worlds was a scientifically
tenable model of inner life.
Both Freud and Jung tried to build such a bridge though today,
neither 20th century giant can rest easily for their solutions have been
at best only marginally successful.
Still, they have not quite disappeared
because there is no present excepted science of subjectivity
and even worse it seems to me little serious discussion of the paradoxes
and difficulties of this subject.
Specialization has left scientist and humanist far apart
and the prestige of the former
in our biological psych guys makes any debates seem unnecessary.
And so, we are left each of us to sort out problems incurred by trying
to marry reason and passion, mind and body, ourselves as machines,
and as creative spiritual beings.
However, a century ago, Sigmund Freud
and Carl Jung vigorously debated these same issues.
Their relationship provides us with much more than a contrast
in personalities, it forces us to reflect
on the complex inheritance modernity has bequeath us.
Thank you very much.   [ Applause ]

>> Oh, thank you George, that was--
especially the last part of that I think is just so important for us
in terms of where we're at now, looking towards the future,
the models that we may begin to look back to.
There is a tradition of course in German romantic scientist
and science that connects to [inaudible] philosophy,
and so forth that's getting recurrence in terms of wholism
that comes from complexity theory.   But that's a whole another thing.

What I'd like to do is open the floor briefly for questions.
We're a little bit over but since we started 10 minutes late I would
like to give you a chance to ask these two speakers
of anything you would like to bring up right now, okay?
[ Noise ]   >> Hi. I was just--

[ Inaudible Remark ]   >> Is it okay?

>> Can you here me?   Is that better?

>> It's just a little bright up here, that's all.
>> Yeah. We can hear you.   >> We can hear you fine.

>> Yeah. I was thinking and discussing just now that,
I don't think that we can really understand Freud and Jung as you
so eloquently presented outside of the context of history
and also philosophical thought at that time.
But it seemed to be, you know, yes, scientist
but I guess they're more accepted as philosophers of the mind.
So, I was wandering about how the most current studies on the brain
and the mind, what they've discovered in terms of biology,
would you be able to relate that in terms of how can that be integrated
into the, I guess, the insights or the wisdom, or the philosophies
of the psychology in the mind of Freud and Jung?
[ Inaudible Remark ]
Are they two-- Are they very, very far apart
or they-- or do they have--
>> No, thank you for that question, it's a great question.
And it's-- I think one that needs to be asked.
Look, certainly there are efforts.
I think, however, is there anyone here from the NIMH right now?
[Laughter] I didn't think so.   [ Laughter ]

>> Good, yeah, exactly.   >> So there it is really.

Look, the-- I think that there are certainly attempts and I think
that any attempt is worthwhile, I certainly don't want to,
you know, be overly critical.
There are people who are trying to somehow bridge mind and brain.
I think the critical question is to be aware
of how difficult that problem is.
I would say we haven't gotten anywhere with it.
But the-- I-- I think the effort is, it has to be sustained.
I think many have given up and simply think of it as a nonissue.
So the people of the NIMH keep finding, you know,
a new gene for some extraordinarily complex human behavior or experience
and the times keeps using the wonderful conditional tense
when they report it as they do again and again and again,
genes found that might explain poetry.
[Laughter] So, this is I think a failure of the discussion about--
a serious discussion about what's at stake.
>> This is going from a very large panel to a dot on the map
as it were, but in the exhibit upstairs, the original corespondent
as much as made of the Kreuzlingen gesture, and Jung's, a very feeling,
a great slight that Freud did not travel the 40 miles,
odd miles to visit him, might you expand on that
and did Freud really knowingly avoid Jung,
was it really a slight he intended?
>> That's a specific question which is easily answered.
Freud did write to Jung
that he would visit Binswanger in Kreuzlingen.
But Jung was not in town when Freud's letter arrived.
He was in the sailing trip.
And he thought that Freud had not informed him
because he got the letter too late, but because of his own fault,
because he didn't checked the date when it was written.

>> Check your e-mail.   [ Laughter ]

>> Yeah, just a question about what you're--
both presentations were great.
What's the-- I mean, how would you contrast Freud's purpose
in giving therapy to an individual versus Jung's, what were their aims,
what were they-- how do they view the aim of therapy
and especially maybe a little bit of the idea of teleology.
There seems to be a teleology in Jung that we do not see in Freud
and probably having to do with that Viennese culture you're talking
about, but the different aims if you can talk about it.
>> Is that for me or yours?   You want to take them?

>> Yeah, I have to say that I don't feel like I'm an expert on,
you know, the last-- the really the post-1920 Carl Jung,
so I don't feel confident answering that question.
You know I think that whenever you talk about someone as complicated
and as intellectually rich as either Freud or Jung, they're usually
as more than one answer to that kind of question.
So that people trying to answer those questions and they say,
Freud was X, and you can pretty much find something
in the standard edition that justifies X, except there's also Y
and Z. And so, in a way, the close study of how these people change
and why they feel a need to change, his goals about therapy change,
by the end of Freud's life, he was interested
in the scientific exploration of the unconscious
and very little interested in therapeutics and cure to the,
you know dismay of many around him, Ferenczi and others.
In the early part of his life,
I think he was actually a therapeutic zealot,
something he'd later has his beautiful quote that says,
"You should never be, you get wrapped up in a transference
and countertransference enactment."   So, you know, that I think that--

you know, I tried to outline in my book a number of different kind
of moments about precisely that have a logic
because of what was happening.
I'm sorry that that's not a clear answer.

>> Just one comment for myself about that having ran that number
of conferences where Jungians and Freudians were together.
Well, our theories were radically different,
we actually found clinically, we weren't so far apart in terms
of what we actually said and did in the course of ours.
However, I do think there were questions of the ultimate goal
of where the treatments were going.
And that still, one of the things that we do not have
yet is the journal of comparative analysis,
and if you could question goes to the heart of that,
it would really be interesting to do a long term studies
of where do we actually go,
and not just in anecdotal case or two, but as a field.
The question is an excellent one, thanks.
I think time-wise we're going to need to-- one last question?
Alright. One last question here and then we'll take a break.
Can we have a microphone up front here?
Oh, I'm sorry, was there a question there--
[ Simultaneous Talking ]   Okay I'm sorry.

I didn't realize-- can't see anything.
>> The question that I have has to do with the field
that we call the soul, the deep feeling for the soul.
The psyche, we used that term,
the deep emotional self, the poetic term.
I'm not hearing the word occur very much in the conversation,
but hear the mind, I hear the brain.
But in the discussion, one of the things that the Jungians are very,
very concerned about is this thing called the soul,
and that poets called the deep emotional self,
or that we sometimes maybe refer
to as the religious functions and psyche.
And I haven't-- I don't know where that whole, you know,
collection of ideas and thoughts and feelings occur in this conversation,
could you please help me?   >> Yeah. No.

Thank you for that.
It occurs in my talk a very much in the context of Romanticism,
that Romanticism, German Romanticism was centrally interested
in the soul, and precisely concerned with the lost of the soul,
that the reaction of the Romantics to the perception
of late 18th century, enlightenment thinking,
was to in someway preserve, protect, and honor,
and think about the possibility of soul,
not just for individuals but world soul.
So that whole tradition is something that flows
into Jung as far as I [inaudible].
>> Alright, so then what we're going to do is we're going to step
down from the podium, and let the next group of speakers come up.
[ Background Applause ]   >> Thank you.


[ Silence ]   >> We have two distinguished authors

and Jungian analyst talking to us this afternoon.
My name is Betty Sue Flowers.
I was formally the director of the LBJ Library.
My connection here though is not through president John
and although that's probably pre-mythological in itself.
But I was the Series Consultant for Joseph Campbell and the Power
of Myth, and there are a lot of interesting stories there.
Just let me say that I was amazed,
we didn't think anybody would be interested in this.
I guess it's like the publisher Norton,
putting out a small addition first of the Red Book.
There is enormous hunger AND interest in this material.
Of course, as you know, the Campbell series was interesting to people not
so much because of mythology, but because of the Jungian,
the Jungian aspect of Campbell's approach to mythology
and it captured the imagination of many people across the country.
I was surprised that this material also, to some extent,
was radioactive in two places.
One was academia where I was a professor.
And I would be-- I would say, attacked, what was I doing
with this mystical obscurantist anti-Semite.
And the other was in churches where I was often asked to speak
and inevitably someone would stand up and say, "You were on the side
of the heretics, and the best thing we can do is get rid
of all these Campbell myth, Jung business."
So I think there is a conversation in culture that is yet to be had,
which was raised in the last panel.
And I think it's something that if we have time,
we could discuss further here
but we do have two very interesting speakers.
I'm eager to hear what they have to say.
I am going to keep us to time in relation
to the building which is a real object.
The door is shut.
So our first speaker is John Beebe who's talking about Jung's pursuit
of character in Liber Novus.
Beebe's training includes University of Chicago Medical School,
Stanford University Medical Schools, Department of Psychiatry,
and then the Jungian Institute in San Francisco.
He is the founder of the San Francisco Jung Institute Library
Journal, which is now known as the Jung Journal Culture and Psyche.
And I think it's true that if you go online John,
you can find all the articles that you edited.
So I recommend that.
So he served for 7 years as the first American coeditor
of the London Base Journal of Analytical Psychology,
and he's the past president of the Jungian Institute of San Francisco
and a distinguished liked fellow
with the American Psychiatric Association.
He's edited a number of collections including Jung's
"Aspects of the Masculine."
He's the author of-- or coauthor of numerous articles and books,
including "Psychiatric Treatment, Crisis, Clinic, and Consultation,"
"Integrity and Depth," and "The Presence of the Feminine in Film."
He's lectured around the world on topics related
to analytical psychology especially psychological types,
the analysis of film, the psychology
of moral character, and now the Red Book.
Thank you, John.   [ Applause ]

>> It's interesting that an introduction is always
about your capacities, your capability
that has earned you a spot on a program like this.
And it's kind of reassuring after the breakfast
of champions we had this morning, to be able to remind you
as we approach tea that Jung really begins Liber Novus
with the most fascinating rift on the value of incapacity.
This from a man who had read everything, met everyone,
conquered the earth for depth psychology,
delivered the psychiatric establishment to Freud
which ironically he could never get back again, and knew everything
that was to know about being capable and high achieving.
And in the most amazing way, on the eve of World War I where nations are
about to vie for power and influence and that we know the story
of the three cousins, as so beautifully told,
I think by [inaudible] one of the Miranda's, Miranda Seymour maybe.
The cousins-- not the cousins wore a different title
but the three cousins are having this desire, the Kaiser,
and the King of England are all vying for which
of Victoria's grandchildren is going to conquer the markets in the earth,
and we have this in my opinion highly unnecessary war
of World War I as the result.
Here, we have this very successful man, starting the Red Book
with the sacrifice of the hero,
the sacrifice of the German hero, Siegfried.
The-- Actually he ends up assassinating Siegfried
who in the myth as described in the book published in 1912 wore a shield
with a crown on it, and was the crowned prince of the Sigmund.
And Jung gives up the crowned prince role in the psychoanalytic movement,
the dream he has of killing Siegfried which is recorded
in Liber Novus happens to have been dreamt on the night
that he sent the letter that you can see upstairs that provoke Freud
to break off one year anniversary to the day that letter was sent,
and he kills off that role.
But just as much he discovers in the course of finding out now
that he's not going to be a Freudian analyst what kind
of analyst he's going to be, what is the unconscious.
He has this amazing synchronistic event that the very thing he dreams,
the killing of a crowned prince, happens and starts the war
and explains that vision of blood.   He wasn't doing a schizophrenia.

His psyche was picking up on a collective trend
and that little drama between him and Freud around scientific power
and influence was part of a much larger drama
in which someone was going to have to try to kill the crowned prince
and kill off the notion of the hero for western enlightenment culture.
The time of the solar hero was over.
And Jung got the message that his psyche had somehow wanted
to underline on that end of history what he had chosen to do with Freud
and what was still ahead for him his resignation as the president
of the International Psychoanalytic Movement.
It was time to get passed that and then he does something
that I think is absolutely astonishing.
He decides-- as-- that the meaning of the dream is that he's been--
he's killed off his ideal of efficiency.
So what should he been doing instead and he says it is time
to embrace incapacity, incapacity, rather than find a new way
of going up, a new alterative psychoanalytic theory
that triumphs over all.   He is going to go on a journey

to see how far he can get by going down.
He makes the downward movement.
Now in the killing of Siegfried, he kills off a kind of role
that really had taken him away from himself as you just heard
in the beautiful presentation of Dr. Makari, where we really get the--
and we get the feeling for how much Jung moved away
from the young man he'd been around the time he started--
he stopped writing in that brown book in 1902 and then picks it
up again something like 13, 14 years-- 13 years later.
11 years later he picks it up to start to the work
that will eventually become transcribed into the Red Book
and realizes he's gone very far way from his soul in the process
of becoming among other things the general
for the psychoanalytic movement
and generally a person of great capability.
He realizes he-- that he's got to go looking for his soul
and he makes the decision to go down and down he goes
as Sonu Shamdasani has told us all the way to hell.
Now, what I find interesting is that he recognizes this
in his Swiss protestant way as a kind of duty
that he is somehow complicit in the evil of the time
which is this patriarchal solar hero achievement and responsibility trip
of as much efficiency, as much success as possible.
What would happen if instead of his capacity he embraced his incapacity
and it's amazing how far he goes?
So it seems to me in Jung's pursuit of character, the first moment
in it is some kind of knowing that is informing him
and that is reenforced by all of the experiences that he gets
with the inner figures that he meets.
That integrity is something that is not achieved
by writing the super ego and getting on top.
It's not an ubermensch in that sense.
It's not an overdrive of kind of super expansion of consciousness
but rather it's by bringing what reason can know and control and do
in a very real connection to what it can't do,
what it can't know-- what-- its incapacity.
Later, as he gets to psychological types,
he's going to call this the inferior function and he's going
to make clear in a variety of places that it is not
through the superior functions of the ego that the soul is found,
but through the inferior function.
There is a tradition in Jungian psychology for those of you,
who like myself, study type a lot, psychological types
that in a man's psyche specifically the anima carries the
inferior function.
And certainly the anima figure that Jung meets.
Salome is in every since to his conscious attitude an
inferior woman.
She is-- She was already notorious in [inaudible] world particularly
through to play of Oscar Wilde for not only asking on the [inaudible]
of her mother Herodias that Herod for whom she had danced
and was interested and whatever Salome wanted
for whatever he wanted to-- and so in that sort of Louis B. Mayer,
Jean Harlow's situation, Salome asks for the head of John the Baptist
who had refused to kiss her.
And Wilde has her actually taking the head off the platter
and saying I have kissed you lips John.
Now I'm sorry I can't read this typologically as Jung did
as feeling even inferior, extrovert feeling.
I think the head, the kiss, the hands on,
the dance surely this is extroverted sensation.
[ Laughter ]
And just as surly and with putting myths on the table,
we're hoping to discard a lot of legends.
One of the legends I'd like to discard is
that Jung sacrificed his hero and that Jung stopped being heroic
at the time of the Siegfried dream.
He sacrificed being a hero in accord with the spirit of the times
and in accord with the certain kind of project
for young professional men, one I know all to well,
and he sacrificed obviously a role of being a certain kind
of general for Sigmund Freud.
But Jung didn't stopped being a hero.
What he about to-- what--
and he didn't give up the hero's the journey.
He began to pursue it in earnest and in his own way
and with his true self not his false self.
So I must interpret the Red Book.
As Jung returning to an irrationality he had forsaken for
and that's his term irrationality for that axis that is achieved
when you unite introverted intuition and extroverted sensation
and you just go for it because you know it and because its there
and you just simply experience it.
This irrational axis which has absolutely nothing to do
with rational planning is never a good career move [laughter] was
exactly what Jung got into and he made a heroic journey
down and that journey down.
So the two things we need to say is it is a hero's journey
but in a very different direction
from the way the heroes journey had been conceived particularly
in enlightenment times which was up and in this sense of high achieving
in mastery which we get today and the sad spectacle of people
in the Olympics pumping themselves up with drugs
to keep up their performance.   This is something else entirely.

It's not an embrace of performance at all.
It's a brace of incapacity and a discovery as only a decent
to an extroverted sensation reality could possibly have enabled him
to do an embrace of the reality of the psyche.
The psyche as a just so story was actually there not what you think is
there, not a set of concepts, not a set of ideas
but what's actually there, persons who are there.
So in this process, he's establishing what in my work much
which is all are kind of footnote to Jung, what I call the spine
of personality, The basic integrity of being who you are
and embracing the higher of yourself and the low of yourself,
the superior and the inferior function and bringing them together.
And the change in his attitude towards Salome, his willingness
to take the blind Salome on and do something with her and helping
and actually discovering that she can see
and then finally is behind the entire project of the Red Book,
which is Sonu Shamdasani in another context recently this weekend had
said to many of us is in so many ways a book
that brings back the sensation values of books themselves
with the pictures and the text and the calligraphy
so that the whole things radiates a sense of reality
and this lovely connection of a spiritual intuition
with a very embodied sensation.
The book itself has immense integrity and that willingness
to get there is precisely why we trust the account so much.
Now in another sense, Jung's pursuit of character is a set
of characters that he meets.
And he discovers as nature did that the soul is multiple,
that in fact is composed of many characters.
He meets so many characters.   And I must say the Red Book would--

is really as written a marvelous screenplay.
I love film.
[Laughter] I think the Red Book has some of the most entertaining lines.
And one of the best scenes is when at the beginning of the second book,
Liber Secundus of Liber Novus, Jung finds himself standing
on the highest tower of a castle and he meets, and he's wondering
over the country side wearing a green garment and he looks
in the distance and sees a red point out there and it comes closer
and closer and sure enough it's probably the devil.
It's the red one and the red one meets and says, "I greet you man
on the high tower, I saw you from afar looking and waiting.
Your waiting has called me."   And Jung says, "Who are you?"

And the red one says, "Who am I?   You think I'm the devil?

Do not pass judgment, perhaps you could also talk
to me out knowing who I am?
What sort of superstitious fellow are you
that immediately you think of the devil?"
And so they have a bit of a dialog.   And at a certain point the red one--

Jung and the red one start to quarrel.
The red one says "You're truly a good diviner of riddles.
You're doing better than many others who have totally mistaken me."
And Jung says, "You sound cool and sneering.
Have you never broken your heart over the holiest mysteries
of the Christian religion?"
And the red one says, "You're unbelievably ponderous
and serious person are you always so urgent?"
[Laughter] And it goes on to quite a lot of interesting material
which I was had time to read you.   But I advise you all to read it.

It's a very funny dialog between a rather priggish, rather pious,
introverted feeling Christian Jung.
The red one actually questions Jung, he said,
"You sound a bit anti-Semitic."
And he said, "Oh no, I'm not exactly anti-Semitic which anyone can see
that something is missing in the Jews.
They haven't had a certain."
You could tell where it all is with Jung that he imagines
as a Christian pastor's son who understands the mystery
of the sacrifice that possibly of the crucifixion
that possibly the Jewish people have missed that spiritual mystery
and therefore don't get something about how hard life is.
[Laughter] This is a guy who had a lot to learn
and the inner figures were working with him on it.
Hard that kind of down your nose kind of boyish [inaudible] kind
of introverted feeling needed an extroverted feeling,
red one, to kind of take it on.
I see what Jung's work on feeling as taking place
around what Doctor Hillman got us to recognize as the problem
of the poorer, turn us the problem of the lofty above it all young men,
a kind of idealism that actually can be a super--
a kind of unearned superiority.
And I that it's wonderfully help by this encounter
with the trickster, the devil.
There's another corresponding encounter with a figure called the
"Anchorite," who is identified with a certain Ammonius [phonetic]--
or Ammonius is the name given in the book.
But actually he seems much like Saint Anthony in the dessert.
In fact that, that association is even brought up.
And there, the anchorite is very hard who lives alone
and thinks every aspect of Christian doctrine over and over again
and has worked hard on his ideas, is trying to tell Jung something
that Jung really needs to know about what it means to know something
and not just take a little snippet of that.
The anchorite says-- Jung says to the anchorite
after he says something, "That make sense to me,
but I confess that this view is surprising to me.
It's especially astonishing to me that you,
a Christian anchorite have come to such views.
I would not have expected this of you."
And Jung says-- and the anchorite says to Jung,
''As I've already noticed, you have a completely false idea
of me in my essence.
Let me give you a small example of my preoccupation.
I've spent many years alone with the process of unlearning.
Have you ever unlearned anything?
[Laughter] Well, then you should know how long it takes."
And I was a successful teacher.   As you know, for such people

to unlearn is difficult or even impossible.
But I see that the sun has gone down.
Well I think that's a funny moment and very good in the screen play.
That would be the end
of the enlightenment happens right there in the Red Book.
"Soon it will be completely dark.   Night is the time of silence.

I want to show you your place for the night.
I need the morning for my work,
but after midday you can come to me again if you like.
Then we will continue our conversation."
And again, I can only give you snippets
of what's absolutely fascinating in all of that.

Now, what we have on the one hand with the red one is irony.

And on the other hand with the anchorite with Ammonius
as I preferred to think of him, Saint Anthony, critical thinking,
the kind of thinking that goes inside and examines the ideas.
That's willing to unlearn what it thinks it knows.
So just as I can see an extroverted feeling in the red one,
I can see an introverted thinking in the anchorite
which I think leads Jung to see that it is necessary
to overcome the arrogance of explanation


How disappointing it would have been
if as often thought all Jung did was provide an alternative knowing
psychoanalytic theory to Freud's knowing psychoanalytic theory.
If that's all Jung did, it's really not worth the trouble
to learn yet another one.
The precise thing Jung did was to unlearn, to unthink,
to stop using that enlightenment extroverted thinking
that always seems to know everything, where they still looking
for a theory of everything.
And that's the one that Jung is getting passed.
When he see how hard it is even for a Christian Saint all alone
on a desert to feel that he knows anything about his ideas,
that leads toward what I think is the place
that character really become conscience in the red book
and he really can deliver on what his integrity is leading him toward
and that is a sense of limitation.
The thing that was missing in the ambitious project is the idea
that there really are intense limits to what can be achieved.
And these limits are not just the limits of what can be thought
and known, but it's also the limits of what empathy
and feeling can do just as much because I see just as much
of an inflation, perhaps even more and the therapeutic movement today
as to what empathy
and intersubjectivity and acceptance can do.
Now, for Jung this was all tied up with his Christian attitude
of acceptance and accepting everything.
So when you see as you get farther into the book of Liber Secundus
in the chapter called the three prophesies.
In the dialogue with Salome, you begin to see how much the soul
of C.G. Jung has integrated.
First, the irony of the of the tricksters and then sense
of limitation of the old man, the senex,
Latin for old man figure who's in touch with these limits just as much
as they are the limits of life itself.
How much this is now part of the soul.

So here, he is having a talk, she plunged into darkness like a shot
and from the depths she called out will you accept what I bring?
Jung, "I will accept what you give.
I do not have the right to judge or to reject."
"So listen," says the soul, "There's old armor and the rusty gear
of our fathers down here, murderous leather trappings hanging from them,
worm-eaten lance shafts, twisted spearheads, broken arrows,
rotten shields, skulls, the bones of man and horse, old cannons,
catapults, crumbling firebrands, smashed assault gear,
stone spearheads, stone clubs, sharp bones, chipped arrowhead teeth,
everything the battles of yore have littered the earth with.
Will you accept all this?"
"I accept it.   You know better, my soul."


"I find painted stones," says the soul,
"Carved bones with magical signs, talismanic sayings on hanks
of leather and small plates of lead, dirty pouches filled with teeth,
human hair and fingernails, timbers lashed together, black orbs,
moldy animal skins,
all the superstitions hatched by dark prehistory.
Will you accept all this?"
Jung, "I accept it all, how should I dismiss anything?"
This is moving toward [inaudible] psychotherapeuticus that I see
in some of my colleagues where just anything it said,
anything that's done [inaudible].   Nothing is wrong, just tell me.

I will accept.   Nothing human is alien to me.

And then worst, what happens meant of people fairly far along
in spirituality, sometimes an enormous spiritual inflation
and ambition, a tremendous ambition.
Now that I found the inner world, I'm going to accept all of it.
I'm going to ingrate the entire collective unconscious.
[Laughter] So on he goes, "I accept it all,
how should I dismiss anything?"
And she says, "But I find worse, fratricide, cowardly mortal blows,
torture, child sacrifice, the annihilation of whole peoples,
arson, betrayal, war, rebellion.   Will you also accept this?"

"'So this, if it must be," says Jung, "How can I judge?"

The soul says, "I find epidemics, natural catastrophes, sunken ships,
razed cities, frightful feral savagery; famines, human meanness,
and fear, whole mountains of fear."
If you need to sound like our lives today when we read the paper.
And Jung, "So shall it be, since you give it."
See, this is the problem, the soul is supposed
to deliver the collective unconscious, the animus,
the mediator to the unconscious.
Jung has this idea that now that he's found the soul,
the soul is going to give him everything
and all he has to do is accept it.
So the power problem of the hero is not really passed at all.
The spiritual inflation of the poor is not passed at all.
But he's got a soul who's been paying attention to the very drama,
the text elsewhere tells us that she orchestrated to educate jung.
Eventually, it becomes clear that she's behind the whole book.
It's very much like a postmodern novel where sooner or later,
the characters argue about who wrote the novel.

Now, she says-- and this is the most interesting moment
in the Red Book for me.
The most interesting moment of all in there are many wonderful moments
but this is for me the most wonderful.
She says, "I find the treasures of all past cultures,
magnificent images of Gods, spacious temples, paintings, papyrus rolls,
sheets of parchment with the characters of bygone languages,
books full of lost wisdom, hymns and chants of ancient priests,
stories told down the ages through thousands of generations."
And Jung says, "That is an entire world, whose extent I cannot grasp.


And that's the moment when I know that Jung is not psychotic.
That's the moment I know Jung is just another pretty face
or [inaudible].
That is the moment of man who's taken the limit in,
the limit of what he can take of aboard.
That's the moment for me when Jung becomes someone I would still want
to follow the example of.
She says, "But you wanted to accept everything?
You do not know your limits.   Can you not limit yourself?"

And Jung says, "I must limit myself.   Who could ever grasp such wealth?"

And she says, "Be content and cultivate your garden with modesty."

Now what other book comes to mind that has a--
an Anabaptist and a garden and a man who wants
to explain and accept everything.   Yes, indeed.

And did Jung, Jung the great man who discovered the irrational access
of psyche and put it at equal level for consciousness
with the rational access?   On his own intuition, on his sense

of the reality psyche, neglect that background?
Not at all.
He kept a bust of Voltaire in his waiting room and never forget it.
Thank.   [ Applause ]

>> Thank you so much John.
I think it's fitting that we end our session today
with a man whose father was one of the people
that Jung gave his Red Book to, to read during his lifetime.
Tom Kirsch graduated from Yale Medical School.
He was the son of two Jungians, Jungian therapist.
He was resident in psychiatry at Stanford Medical School
and he was a consultant with the National Institute of Mental Health.
So didn't you raised your hand he was asked who was here from NIMH?
[ Laughter ]   >> 40 years ago.

>> 40 years ago.   I think it counts.

His Jungian training begun Zurich and was completed in San Francisco.
His past president of the Jungian Institute of San Francisco
and past vice president and two-term president
of the International Association for Analytical Psychology.
And in that capacity, he lectured all over the world
and helped you promote analytical psychology
in developing areas including Russia, South Africa,
Mexico, Australia and China.
His publications include "The Jungians," a social history
of the Jungian movement and a co-editorship of "Initiation:
Reality of an Archetype."
He's currently serving as the consulting editor
for the correspondents between Jung and his father
and he's working on a memoir.
His major areas of interest are the analysis of dreams,
the history of analytical psychology, the life and work
of Jung, and the analytical relationship.
And I have asked him as a kind of prescript or postscript to talk
about his own encounters with Jung.   So help us welcome Tom Kirsch.

[ Applause ]   >> Thank you, Betty Sue.

As the last speaker today, I have the opportunity to make a couple
of comments that have-- from some
of the past either questions or speaker.
First of all, I would like add a little bit to what John said
that Jung-- when the anchorite or the devil asked Jung about joy is
that if you look at pictures of Jung before the Red Book
and after the Red Book, there's a sense--
either as a sense of joy that it has--
that you see in Jung's face which much sterner look prior
to going through that experience.
The second thing is there was a question about the phases of--
the purposes of Jungian analysis.
And I still-- I feel that that's an important enough question
that there are two places that Jung writes about that,
that I'm very familiar with.
One in modern man in search for a soul and he divides the process
of therapy into four stages.
The first one is catharsis, where you tell your problem.
The second is analysis of the infantile psyche
in which he would acquaint with the psychoanalytic phase.
The third phase he calls education which is the--
which he would roughly [inaudible]-- be equivalent to Adler is the sense
of orientation, power, adaptation.
And at the fourth phase is then of transformation,
individuation which would be his own unique addition
to the role of psychotherapy.
And I can't-- I don't have time to go into that in detail
but it is a very-- all those fields, all those--
the four phases can be intermingled in one session
so it's not something consecutive.
Secondly, there is in the introduction to psychology
and alchemy, he has a series of 9 and possible endings for analysis.
The first is, he says, a piece of good advice
or the some small interpretation which then the patient feels better.
Then he talks about-- again
about the psychoanalytic phase, the infantile psyche.
And then he talks about having some successful thing happen
such as a marriage, divorce, finishing college or something
like that, that that-- these are particular ending points
that he puts for different phases of therapy or the relief of symptoms
and he makes of particular point
that symptoms can often stay a long time as well as in therapy
with the idea of kind of causing a stir to keep people kind
of going on in the process.   And then he gets-- he talks

about a religious conversion and also transformation.
And I like this particular evaluation or typical ending points
because when I have a client, it helps me to see, when--
at what phase, you know, the-- not everyone goes all the way.
In fact at this point, I find that most
of the people don't go that far a long.
But it's still-- it gets me a sense of where they are
when we're talking about termination.
So anyway, I wanted to add those two little vignettes.
I must say it's a great honor to be here and I think this is of--
as others have said, this is a very important event for Jung
and analytical psychology.
To have this event here at the Library of Congress is a validation
on the collective level that there has been a real sea-change
in the collective-- in the psyche of the collective.
And I am thinking back of the first, now all the sea's first generating
of Jungians in the United States who have--
who pioneered analytical psychology at a time when Freud
and psychoanalysis where in their halcyon days.
And I just like to mention the founders in the different cities,
in San Francisco, Elizabeth Whitney, Johann--
Joseph Henderson, and Joe Wheelwright.
In New York, Esther Harding, Eleanor Bertine,
Kristine Mann and Frances Wickes.
And I would also, down here, like to mention Philips Obrisky [phonetic]
because I think he was-- played such an important role
in having this event happen, And then also, my parents,
James and Hilda Kirsch and Max Zeller in Los Angeles.
They all toiled in relative anonymity at times
when there was a tremendous hostility.
It was like between the Hatfield and the McCoys.
I mean you couldn't be in the same room.
Now, this came also-- this is an addition that I came yesterday,
is I went looking through the exhibit and I saw that cover
of Time Magazine in 1955, in February 1955, Jung was on the cover
of Time Magazine with a long article.
And at the time I was a sophomore in college and I--
it was the first time that I really had a sense
that what my parents were doing had some validation
in the world at large.
And it's actually quite a good article.
I still have the whole copy of that magazine.
And little did I know, I'm just going to mention it in passing is
that summer, I was in Europe and developed appendicitis
and my mother was in Zurich and she-- I was in England.
She flew me to Zurich and I have my appendix whisked
out under and ether.
But while I was recovering, I had the opportunity.
She snuck me into the receiving line of Jung's 80th--
at Jung's 80th birthday at the grand hotel Dolder.
And Jung actually liked that quite a bit.
[Laughter] And something that Hunts Herne [phonetic]
who is not here today mentioned last night a memory of his--
when he was a 10-year-old was the warm handshake of his grandfather.
And that is the thing I took away from that meeting with him
and it stuck with-- and it's the first time I've heard anyone else
talk about that particular--
it was the warmest handshake I've ever received in my life.
And I think it's lasted me a lifetime.
So-- And I did have two other opportunities to visit Jung.
Next year, my father and I went out for a tea just
after Emma [phonetic]-- several months after Emma had died and we--
and we were sitting out in the garden.
And it's interesting, I had just been reading two essays
on analytical psychology and Jung is talking
about all knowledge being relative.
And I very impertinently said, "Well, that's an absolute statement
which he then-- [laughter] He had a good time with it.
He made-- you know, he kind of patted me on the head
so to speak, symbolically.
And anyway, that was the-- that's what I took away from that meeting.
[Laughter] Then the third meeting I had was in 1958, my father and I--
by that time, I've already gotten into the soup and I knew I needed--
and I started my analysis in Zurich.
And I was actually living in an apartment with my father
who is teaching at the institute and [inaudible] called him and said,
"Well, Professor Jung can see you on this Friday morning."
And he said, "Well, I have to teach at the institute.
I can't get out of that."
And he said, "Could my son come and take my place instead?
So she called-- you know, she called back and said, "Oh,
Professor Jung would be very glad to see your son again.
That's fine."   So I went out.

I got prepped what I was supposed to say.
[Laughter] My analyst told me what dreams to bring because--

[laughter] he said-- he said, "Jung, right now, is interested.
He's writing his chap-- you know, this paper on--
or monograph on the-- on flying saucers.
And you have this dream with these two intersecting circles
and I think Jung would be very interested in seeing that.
So I'm more nervous than I am today, believe me.
I went out there and I walked in the door.
And the first thing that Jung said to me was,
"So you want to see the old man before he dies, hmm?"
[ Laughter ]   And I guess I said yes.

[Laughter] So honestly, I can't--
I've told this story to a group of psycho biography group I'm part off
and they cannot believe that I can't remember anything else
from that second.   But I can't.

That's just a fact.
So anyway, those are my introductory remarks.
I went on longer than I thought.
You know, this program, this session started
when Betty Sue said this should be called "self analysis," right?
And so that's what we were supposed to do initially.
And with the idea being that in Freud's Interpretation
of Dreams was a partial self analysis of himself,
and that the Red Book is self analysis for Jung.
Now, we decided we would change the title and you can see
that John's paper is different.
And so what I decided to do was to call this my part kind
of the Jung's encounter with the unconscious.
And it's going to be a simple paper.
I'm not going to do some intricate interpretation.
I'm just going to start with a dream that most of you know which is
from Jung's Memories, Dreams, Reflections where the dream he was
when he's 4 years old and he says, "I'm going--
" the dreams where he's in a meadow
where he discovers a dark rectangular stone line hole
in the ground.
He descends to the bottom, enters a rectangular chamber,
where he sees a platform with a golden throne.
And in this throne was a pillar like tree trunk, 12 to 15 feet high,
and made of skin and flesh,
and at the very top was a single eye gazing motionlessly upward.
Then his mother's voice calls out, "Yes, just look at him.
That is the man-eater."
Now, only decades later that he realized
that this was a ritual phallus.
He could never decide where the emphasis should be
in his mother's voice if it was on that.
It meant that the ritual phallus would devour the Lord Jesus
and everything else.
If the emphasis was on the man-eater,
then it meant that the ritual phallus, Lord Jesus,
and the Jesuit whom Jung had feared earlier were the same.
This dream represents or demonstrates, I mean Jung only began
to talk about this dream in his 60s.   I mean this kept this quiet.

That for Jung, his inner life was important from a very,
very early age and his concerns were
of profoundly spiritual nature even at that time.
And according to Jung, the phallus of the dream seemed
to be a subterranean God not to be named.
And such had remained throughout his youth.

Through this early dream,
Jung experienced the secrets of the earth.
He described it as, "An initiation into the realm of darkness.
My intellectual life had its unconscious beginnings
at that time."
It is important that we understand the link Jung makes
between intellect, a powerful conscious function,
with an unconscious source.
Now, we've heard something about Jung's biography and I'm not going
to say much-- go over that just to say that we're talking about 1913
when Jung-- as John Beebe so eloquently said,
it had become a world famous psychiatrist and Jung says
that about himself that they had everything in his life.
Everything was going well.
And he, you know, the breakup with Freud had occurred.
Now, in the fall of 1913, Jung took a train ride to Schaffhausen.
This is the home of his-- of his in-laws, also our daughter happened
to spend a year in Schaffhausen so we know that train ride.
And on this short journey, he began to have these spontaneous visions
which he wrote down in this-- in the black books.
And these visions continued until April 1914
at which time they seem to spontaneously stop.
Then we've heard about the repeated dreams of flood--
of blood flooding all of Northern Europe, stopping just at the Alps.
He thought he was losing his mind but when World War I broke out in--
on August 1st and somehow he was relieved.
Now, I must say if I had a patient who came in and told me
about a dream like this I would-- I would say, "Well,
maybe this is kind of crazy, you know.
I mean, am I really going
to be predicting the future, you know, be prophetic?"
But anyway, during these turbulent times both personally
and collectively, I think this is--
it hasn't been emphasized here today but most of us know it.
That Jung-- There was no break in Jung's family life and, you know,
he continued to see patients, he was quite there for his family,
he did his Swiss Army duty.
And during the war-- war years he-- you know, every Swiss,
I can't remember, under 55 or something, I mean you--
or has to spend two or three weeks a year in the service, in the army
and Jung was no exception.
And he fulfilled his obligation as a commandant, not of a prisoner
of war camp but of British internees,
these were British officers who had escaped the conflict in France
or Belgium and then found their way into Switzerland.
And they have actually pretty good time at this camp.
And Jung did many drawings, money--
many of the Mandalas that are in the Red Book,
you know, are there, he did there.
Plus, he saw many-- some of his patients,
some of his favorite patients are--
came to see him at-- in Chteau d'Oex.

Now we have this wonderful introduction
that Sonu Shamdasani made which really contextualizes
and orients us towards the Red Book.
And he tells us that these original fantasies that were done
in that very short period have undergone a number of corrections
and additions over many years afterwards.
And that-- that he spend a considerable time, you know, doing--
doing the calligraphy which is what we have
in this addition of the Red Book.
And just to mention that the drawing and painting
of the Mandalas was a way of centering himself
and furthering the development
of a new attitude towards the unconscious.
And I think that's a very important thing.
And I must say that when I first entered analysis,
the idea of drawing and of drawing Mandalas was a very--
that was a value and a virtue
that is a Jungian patient you ought to be doing.
And I must say that that didn't come naturally to me.
And I think it didn't come naturally to a lot of other people as well.
And we have thankfully moved beyond that.
But I think what-- what is important is that-- and this is--
I don't want to mention it here, is that what we--
what I find in the Red Book is that it gives--
this is Jung's journey and I also see it as a--
it frees me to have my own journey
which can be very different from Jung's journey.
And I don't think that's been mentioned here today
and I think that's a very important thing so that we don't all feel
like we have to go out of here and start drawing Mandalas and think
that we're all-- you know,
that that's going to be our individuation.
And I'm not trying to put that down but that's just not all of our way.

Okay. Now, what we've all said is that-- that in the Red Book,


It realizes that the ambition
for his psychiatric career has lost interest for him
that he has connected with the image of Elijah as a figure of wisdom
as well as connecting with Salome, the blind daughter,
and he is also introduced to the magician Philemon
who later becomes a guru for Jung.
He has decisive conversations with Philemon
which changed his orientation from its previous trajectory to one
where the primordial images, the collective unconscious,
archetypes are given the deepest sense of reality and meaning.
And then he gives the name active imagination which Ernst told us
about where the deemed ego makes contact with these inner figures.
And realizing how much this had help Jung
in his own individual development, he recommends this practice
for [inaudible] and it becomes a standard method of--
in Jungian orientated analysis.
Now Jung wrote little scientific work between 1913 and 1918.
Most of what he was writing during this time,
it did not get published during this--
his lifetime except for the first essay of two essays,
which the first essay was originally published in French.
It then comes out that-- the two essays come out as a book in 1928.
But some-- one other paper is the transcendent function written
in 1916 was rediscovered in an early 1950s and finally published in 1957.
And the transcendent function essay is important
because Jung discusses here for the first time
in psychological scientific language, what he had been going
through in his visions and active imagination.
In this essay, he writes about the tension of the opposites
between the conscious and unconscious and how needs
to hold them in advance until a third leading to--
and I'm like Jim Hillman, this is paragraph 189.
"A living birth that leads to a new level of being,
a new situation," this is in volume 8.
"This formulation of an approach to the unconscious was the beginning
of a radically different approach to that of Freud's."
That's we've heard a lot about today too.
"Whereas Freud's unconscious through a free association went back in time
to decipher the childhood pieces that had been repressed
which was basically a left hemisphere rational function.
Jung, through the development of the transcendent function found a level
in the unconscious, which brought new images, the potential for wisdom
and invoked the right hemisphere.
All of Jung's subsequent writings have amplified this other layer
of the unconscious, which Jung alternately has called the
collective unconscious with its archetypal images,
sometimes the objective psyche.
At the same time, Jung always held"--
I'm sorry, but to contradict to be different than Jim Hillman--
"to held that the ego must have an equal voice in the equation
and that one listen not only to one side or the other


The essay on the transcended function was the beginning
of Jung's scientific language for the experiences
which he had undergone in the Red Book."

Now the Red Book and the Seven Sermons
to the Dead are prime examples of material
which were only published after his death.
These are highly personal documents.
They're like a personal diary which Jung was extremely ambivalent
about publishing and I know that Jung's son, Franz Jung was adamant
about not publishing the Red Book.
Emma say "That I am also at times not entirely comfortable reading
certain parts of the Red Book because the material is
so highly personal and I sometimes feel like an intruder
into his personal psyche.
I feel that I have no business there.
On the other hand, I'm fascinated to read much of the material,
although it is-- it's-- you know, you can't stay
with it too long at one time."
On the other hand, the Red Book has been in the background,
seemingly forever as the source of all
of Jung's most important scientific contributions.
What Jung says about the unconscious in the Red Book becomes the basis
for all of his later writings and observations.
He continued to work on the text and draw Mandalas until 1928
when he was given The Secret of the Golden Flower,
a Chinese alchemical Taoist text and asked to comment
on it by Richard Wilhelm.
When he saw the Secret of the Golden Flower,
he realized that his isolate--
that his period of isolation with these Mandalas had ended
and that he had found some comparative material.
He found an alchemy that--
he transferred this from Chinese alchemy into Western alchemy
and he found in alchemy the parallel to many
of the dreams of modern men and women.
Furthermore, I think that if he had stayed with the Red Book,
he might have well ended up in a dead end.
He might have been a [inaudible] old fellow, which he was not.
His individuation needed to find new source material
for his continuing researches into the objective layers of the psyche
and that is what he did with alchemy.
Thank you.   [ Applause ]

>> Before we throw this open to the floor for the remaining 10 minutes
of our time together which I find it to be very precious, do you--
either of you have anything to say to each other?
>> We have a lot to solve.   >> I knew that.

[ Laughter ]
>> First of all, Tom, it was my first Jungian friend and my teacher
when I was a resident in psychiatry and so I'm going to be father
to the father for just one minute, just to correct.
It think that [inaudible] period is less [inaudible] than you--
one might have thought and the more we get from Philemon,
the more we put together the pieces, the richer it appears.
That was the book contributions to analytical psychology
and even the Seven Sermons to the Dead was published privately
as you know by Watkins in about 1917.
So in actual addition that-- what--
there was a very private kind of thing for a long time.
>> It was only given to certain people, right.
>> Right.
>> And it's not-- it wasn't-- not public.
>> But it was around a little more than the Red Book [inaudible].
Even that was given to some, so it's a complicated story
that we're still unpacking what Jung wrote and when.
I just want to say that, you know, we can footnote
that endlessly but I did want it not--
>> True.
>> It was remarkably productive during that period
and given what we've sometimes thought about the breakdown
of Jung even Ellenberger sympathetic creative illness.
Boy, I can-- be for an ill man, he just got a lot.
>> True.
>> So that's makes me think he wasn't an ill man
so I want to just say that.
>> Okay. A chance to say something and we have--
okay, here's one over here.   I don't know how far-- oh.

Here it's-- Let me go here first
because there's a microphone near there and then you're next.
>> Yeah. This is for Dr. Beebe.   >> Oh, yes.

Hi!   >> I-- Hi!

I'm a writer and I have, you know, some background in terms--
you were referring to capacity and I'm interested
if you were referring to negative capacity--
[ Simultaneous Talking ]   >> In capacity with I-N capacity.

>> Incapacity, okay.
>> What you're not good at, what you don't do well.
As Jung once said, my relation
to reality was never particularly brilliant.
He said in an interview.   And that's-- that's--

the extroverted sensation would be his incapacity that he embraces
to produce this remarkable thought.
>> 'Cause I was detecting some similarity with this idea
of negative capability and negative capacity,
keeps talking about negative capability and, you know,
relinquishing rational thinking--   [ Simultaneous Talking ]

>> Well, that's somewhat-- that's a little different.
It's the-- It's empathy we would say nowadays.
It's the amazing ability that are great artist,
but also a great psychotherapist test to put aside,
wherever you've been and Jung believed this is a technique.
He said the way to do therapy is just to let the psyche
of the patient wash over you and put aside all of your preconceptions.
Actually I prefer what Artie Lange [phonetic] once said
about [inaudible] how do you do psychotherapy?
He said it so simply, he said,
"I make myself vulnerable, and see what happens."
But he actually said at the beginning
of the answer, except I don't know.
Then he said, I make myself vulnerable, and I see what happens.
I never heard better said.
And Lange knew about Jung, so he had already embraced what Jung did
in this moment when he-- so that's-- now empathy is a little different
because negative capability is also a fantastic capability to get
into the space of another as a poet needs to--
to take on the subjects they take on, they're able to--
and so I think that-- that's why, I wouldn't want to--
they're cousins but they're different--
they're different cousins.   >> Thank you.

>> An individual.
>> There's a woman over here too, I guess.
We're making our way over there, this side, this side now.
Yeah, go ahead [inaudible].   Oh you have two, okay.

[ Inaudible Remark ]   Go ahead. Yeah, you're next.

>> I just have a quick--
just a short suggestion and then my question.
The suggestion is that I would find it very useful
to have the English portion of the Red Book published separately
as a paperback because the book--
even though I love having a large book, it's so beautiful,
it's very difficult to manage.
So that's just-- you know, the question is what Carl Jung say
to a girl named Alice, who came in with a dream of wonderland?
How would he interpret that?   >> I'm not hearing this.

What did she say?
>> What would Carl Jung say to the girl named Alice who came
in with a dream of wonderland?   [ Laughter ]

[ Noise ]   >> No, I'm not taking that one on.

>> I don't think we have time to go down that hole.
>> Well, he did--   [ Laughter ]

[ Applause ]
>> [Inaudible] John, we can back there,
but there someone here with the--
>> I've never read anything by Jung, about Alice in Wonderland.
>> True.
>> But I can't believe he would have agreed-- if, you know, the author,
Lewis Carroll or Dodgson, the mathematician that come to see him,
I wonder what-- if they have been a consultation.
If-- It's so hard to believe, Jung would have endorsed that moment
when Alice says you're nothing but a pack of cards.

That wasn't Jung's attitude toward the unconscious.
I don't know what one is supposed to do with the English psyche,
but Jung would have found [laughter] a better way than that, I think.
>> Go ahead.
>> [Inaudible] Thank you Dr. Beebe for the connection with Voltaire
with [inaudible] and make [inaudible].
I was also struck by that concept of incapacity.
>> Yes.
>> But I wonder if it puts a different
and completely revolutionary spin on the concept of the midlife crisis,


>> Well, you know, there's a remarkable thing that happens
in midlife which is tide up with Jung,
animas theory which can get awfully criticized correctly when it's used
as a theory of love or its used in a very rigid gender length way
so that women can't have anima, and men can't anima
as if men didn't have animas all the time and women don't anima,
all that stuff about-- But if you remember the typological piece,
it really is interesting how in midlife, the anima and animas come
up and the values there become more important than those
that have been present before.
This is actually-- Someone once said it's in Iroquois culture,
there is an understanding that women have women's dreams,
and men have men's dreams.
But after the age of 40, so said the tradition,
the men start to have the women's dreams, and the women start
to have the men's dreams.
And typologically you really see the inferior function coming
up at midlife.
And Tom's father used to say, he didn't pay much attention
to typology in analysis until the inferior function came up
and then you would pay very close attention.
And it's amazing how much that becomes a project,
such as Jung is building bowling gym, you know, a physical, hands-on,
constructive project was how he went
on from the constructive project of the Red Book.
And that became vital to his individuation at that age and time.
And his son, Franz, who worked on it with him
and actually became an architect said, "You know,
bowling gym was no architectural masterpiece."
I mean Jung was not exactly skilled and precise in the way he built,
but he took it on and he wanted to take it on and he collected people
to work with him and his son was one of them.
And that would be linked, I think, to letting your incapacity come up
and see what can you do about with it.
And what the amazing things some of us find is
that we become terribly capable in a new sense, because the energy
of the unconscious joins it and befriends the effort to develop
that which we hadn't been terrible good at along.
But it still stays inferiority [inaudible] transforms
into super competence.
But it's very wonderful what people do in the second half
of life [inaudible] I say.
>> He also said God and the devil enter by that same door,
that inferior function door.
So that happens in the second half of life [inaudible].
>> Right, when Franz says, the inferior function is the door
through which the figures of the unconscious walk and enter.
So Jung could not have had the transcendent function
without some connection through inferior function.
And that I think is very important to development of people.
>> I think before we lose our capacity be here,


>> Just one word to what Tom Kirsch.
>> I don't where-- okay-- is there a question near a microphone?
Okay, go ahead.   >> Can you her me?

>> Yes.
>> Just one word to what Tom Kirsch said about the period between 1913
and 1918 and that Jung didn't published any important work
in that period.
I like to throw your attention to one of his, I think,
most important works which is the Psychology of Unconscious Processes,
which he wrote in 1916 and published in 1917.
>> Right.
>> And I'd still recommend that booklet to anyone who would
like to become acquaintant-- acquantive with Jung and his ideas,
as one of the books to start with.
>> Wasn't that the one in French that you mentioned?
>> No!   [ Simultaneous Talking ]

-- the one they gave in Aberdeen.   >> I see.

>> In fact, he was in Aberdeen at the time of World War I started
and he had find-- have to went in and they have
to wind their way back-- by train back to Switzerland
and as World War I was already going out.
[ Inaudible Remark ]   >> Yeah, yeah, yeah.

>> I need to cut these off, but who--
Jim Hudson [phonetics] who had a lot [inaudible].
If you want to have last word or shall we just acknowledge you with--
>> No.   >> Yes?

>> Unless people want to spend the weekend
in the library I suggest do it.   [ Applause ]

[ Inaudible Remarks ]
>> This have has been presentation of the Library of Congress.