Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Psychology

Expand Messages
  • Ted Wrinch
    One of the Steiner topics Der Staudi likes to discuss from time to time is Steiner s relationship to psychology. One might hope from an Ivy League educated
    Message 1 of 9 , Mar 1, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      One of the Steiner topics Der Staudi likes to discuss from time to time is Steiner's relationship to psychology. One might hope from an Ivy League educated professor of German history to find an informed, balanced and judicious account of what should be a significant subject in an important phase of its history. A fairly typical example of the approach Der Staudi actually takes can be seen in his long post to WC entitled 'Steiner on psychology' on 20 Aug 2008 (#5668).

      He begins his assessment with:

      "Steiner sometimes pointed toward the possibility of creating a new spiritual
      psychology, without providing details on what this might look like, while at
      other times he rejected psychology as such in sweeping terms. In The Wisdom of
      Man (1910) he proposed abandoning the term ‘psychology’ altogether and replacing
      it with “psychosophy”, and in the same lecture said that *all* psychology has
      been “poisoned” by “faulty scientific thinking”."

      The rest of his long passage is full of the same kind of invective and lack of factual content. 

      He adds to it similar vitriol in another post a few years later:

      "Steiner was very critical of Jung, though less hostile toward him than toward
      Freud. Steiner's various attacks on psychoanalysis as a whole were quite bitter."

      WC message 22812

      But is the opening statement in the first passage even correct? Well no, actually, and I'll say why in a minute. What this piece consists of is standard Staudenmairian analysis: he spends his time assessing which groups Steiner was in: for or against 'psychology'; for or against 'scientific thinking';for or against William James (in a later paragraph) and etc. This is almost as far as the typical  Staudenmairian analysis reaches in trying to understand a topic. This reason for this can perhaps be traced back to Der Staudi's politicised, neo-Marxist epistemology, that doesn't believe in the independent existence of truth. This neo-Marxism is what makes him consistently oppose Steiner, since as an atheist and neo-Marxist he can't stand his spirituality and moreover doesn't like the competition between Steiner's social vision of three-folding and his own social ecology one. The WC aren't interested in his politics, of course: what matters to them is that they make him consistently hostile to the whole body of Steiner's thought.  

      What Staudi misses out in the first passage, of course, is that 'psychology' at this period was divided in Central Europe into the new and rapidly developing field of psycho-analysis and the slightly older and also rapidly evolving academic psychology of the universities, that had been sucked into the influence of the enormously influential Wundt's ideas on trying to link the inner life to physiology (his most famous textbook was  Principles of Physiological Psychology; according to Wiki, Wundt 'proclaimed that a human's soul – if indeed they had one – was irrelevant, as humans could only be understood in terms of physically observable phenomena' ). This latter, for fairly obvious reasons, was not something Steiner regarded as likely to lead to a deep insight into the psyche or soul. 

      But Steiner had a lot of interesting things to say on psycho-analysis and very much had a definite idea for 'creating a new spiritual psychology', which he elaborated in several places in his work. Rather than the vague and content free criticisms Staudi attributed to him, Steiner presented a detailed criticism of pycho-anaylsis in terms of the various theories of its leading proponents and illustrated his discussion with analyses of the same famous cases that they used (he covers the uber-famous case of Anna O - Berta Pappenheim - that kick-started Freud's career). There are two good lectures that have just become available on the e-lib that well show Steiner's approach to this subject:  Psychoanalysis in the Light of Anthroposophy, lectures 1 and 2, 1917.
       
      In the first lecture, Steiner described Anna O's case and its investigation by the real founder of psycho-analysis and Freud's mentor, Dr Josef Breuer, of who he says:

      "Dr. Breuer, with whom I was acquainted, was a man of extraordinarily delicate spirituality besides what he was as a physician. He was interested to a high degree in all sorts of aesthetic, and general human problems. With his intimate manner of handling disease, it was natural that one case, which came under his observation in the eighties, was particularly interesting to him."

      On the Anna O case, Steiner quotes from Jung's notes:

      “On one occasion she was watching at night in great anxiety and tension, for the sick man [her father] had a high fever, and a surgeon was expected from Vienna to perform an operation. Her mother had left her for a time, and Anna (the patient) sat by the sickbed, her right arm across the back of the chair. She fell into a kind of waking dream, and saw, as if issuing from the wall, a black snake approaching, to bite her father. …”"

      He says of Breuer and the case:

      "It must be noted that from the beginning Breuer conceived the whole affair as a soul illness, as a matter of the inner life. He was convinced from the beginning that no anatomical or physiological changes could have been shown, no causes, for example, such as changes in the nerves leading from the arm to the brain. He was convinced from the start that he was dealing with a fact within the soul.

      …With Freud's further development of the subject Dr. Breuer was never fully in accord….I will remark in parenthesis that Dr. Breuer was a very busy practicing physician, thoroughly grounded in science, an excellent pupil of Nothnagel [Hermann Nothnagel, M.D. (1841-1905).] and because of external circumstances alone never became a professor. We may well believe that if Breuer, instead of remaining one of the busiest physicians in Vienna, with little time for scientific research, had obtained a professorship and so been able to follow up this problem, it might have assumed a very different form!"

      Steiner continues to describe another significant case used by Freud, where a women runs in front of a horse because she had made the decision,  subconsciously, that she wanted to return to the house she'd left to have an affair with the her best friend's husband. He says of Freud:

      "Dr. Freud went after similar cases, and his researches convinced him that the hysterical symptoms, which had been attributed to a psychic “trauma” or wound, were due instead to love, conscious or unconscious. His examination of life experiences showed that circumstances might greatly differ, indeed in the most characteristic cases, that these love stories might never have risen into the consciousness of the patient at any time.

      So Freud completed what he called his neurosis theory or sexual theory. He considered that sexuality entered into all such cases. But such things are extraordinarily deceptive. To begin with, there is everywhere at the present time an inclination to call sex to your aid, for the solution of any human problem. Therefore we need not wonder that a doctor who found it to be a factor in a certain number of cases of hysteria set up such a theory."

      Steiner continues discussing this problem of over generality, noting that Adler interpreted the causality differently:

      "But on the other hand, since analytical psychology is carrying on a research with inadequate tools, this is the point at which the greatest danger begins. The matter is dangerous first, because this longing for knowledge is so extremely tempting, tempting because of present circumstances, and because it may always be proved that the sex connection is more or less present. Yet the psychoanalyst Jung, who wrote Die Psychologie der unbewussten Prozesse (see the above quotations that are translations of passages from C. G. Jung's Die Psychologie der unbewussten Prozesse. Ein Ueberblick über die moderne Theorie und Methode der analytischen Psychologie, Zürich, 1917.), Professor Jung of Zürich does not share the opinion that Freud's sexual “neurosis theory” covers these cases. He has instead another theory.

      Jung noted that Freud has his opponents. Among them is a certain Adler. This Adler takes a quite different viewpoint. Just as Freud tested large numbers of cases, and settled upon sex as the original cause (you can read it all in Jung's book), so Adler approached the problem from another side, and decided that this side is more important than the one that Freud has placed in the foreground.

      Adler — I will only generalize — found that there was another urge that played quite as important a role in the human being as the sexual impulse emphasized by Freud. This was the desire for power, power over one's environment, the desire for power in general. The “will to power” is even regarded by Nietzsche as a philosophical principle, and as many cases may be found to support the power-impulse theory as Freud found for his sexual theory." 

      He moves on to Jung and gets a little sarcastic in the process:

      "That is quite reasonable; it is sometimes one way and sometimes another. But Jung built upon this a special theory. This theory is not uninteresting if you do not take it abstractly, simply as a theory, but see in it instead the action of our present-day impulses, especially the feebleness of our present knowledge and its inadequacy. Jung says: there are two types of people. In one type feeling is more developed, in the other thinking.

      Thus an “epoch-making” discovery was made by a great scholar. It was something that any reasonable man could make for himself within his own immediate environment, for the fact that men are divided into thinking men and feeling men is sufficiently obvious. But scholarship has a different task: it must not regard anything as a layman would, and simply say: in our environment there are two types of people, feeling people and intellectuals — it must add something to that. Scholarship says in such a case: the one who feels his way into things sends out his own force into objectivity; the other draws back from an object, or halts before it and considers. The first is called the extroverted type, the other the introverted. The first would be the feeling man, the second the intellectual one. This is a learned division, is it not? ingenious, brilliant, really descriptive up to a point — that is not to be denied!

      Then Jung goes on to say; In the case of the extraverted type (that of the man who lives preferably in his feelings), there exist very frequently in the subconscious mind intellectual concepts, and he finds himself in a collision between what is in his consciousness and the intellectual concepts that float about subconsciously within him. And from this collision all sorts of conditions may arise, conditions mainly characteristic of the feeling type.

      In the case of those who occupy themselves more with the mind, the men of reason, the feelings remain down below, swarm in the subconscious, and come into collision with the conscious life. The conscious life cannot understand what is surging up. It is the force of the subconscious feelings, and because man is never complete, but belongs to one of these two types, circumstances may arise that cause the subconscious mind to revolt against the conscious, and may frequently lead to hysterical conditions."

      Wiki says on Jung, in the entry on his 1921 book Psychological Types:

      "Jung proposed four main functions of consciousness:

      The functions are modified by two main attitude typesextraversion and introversion. Jung theorized that the dominant function characterizes consciousness, while its opposite is repressed and characterizes unconscious behavior."


      Wiki quotes from Jung's 1921 Psychological Types:

      "The characteristic animosity between the adherents of the two standpoints arises from the fact that either standpoint necessarily involves a devaluation and disparagement of the other. So long as the radical difference between [Adler's] ego-psychology and [Freud's] psychology of instinct is not recognized, either side must naturally hold its respective theory to be universally valid (Jung, [1921] 1971: par. 88)."
      The scientific tendency in both is to reduce everything to their own principle, from which their deductions in turn proceed. In the case of fantasies this operation is particularly easy to accomplish because ... they ... express purely instinctive as well as pure ego-tendencies. Anyone who adopts the standpoint of instinct will have no difficulty in discovering in them the "wish-fulfillment," the "infantile wish," the "repressed sexuality." And the man who adopts the standpoint of the ego can just as easily discover those elementary aims concerned with the security and differentiation of the ego, since fantasies are mediating products between the ego and the instincts. Accordingly they contain elements of both sides. Interpretation from either side is always somewhat forced and arbitrary, because one side is always suppressed (Jung, [1921] 1971: par. 89)."

      Steiner continues with much more in these lectures and, inter alia, outlines Jung's theory of the collective unconscious and the archetypes and the general psycho-analytic theory of transference. But he criticise all the theories for being inadequate to their material. And this is where his own, alternative 'spiritual psychology' comes in. This is outlined in the second chapter and hinges on the diagram below:


       19171111p01_01.gif



      The three colours represent the forces of the soul - thinking, feeling and willing  -and the section to the left of that of the ego is the subconscious and that to the right the super-conscious. The three forces act as a differentiated unity, in the way our hands are part of our body, in a soul that has a normally constituted ego. If the ego weakens - in the case of Anna O through sitting up anxiously for long hours, watching by her father's bed-side - then the forces can begin to merge, and if thinking slips over into feeling it will be overwhelmed because feeling is a far stronger force and is always in contact with the spiritual world. As we know, thinking has no necessary reality in our age - which makes us free- and may know very little of the spiritual world. Furthermore, feeling always encompasses our life before birth and willing our life after. For this reason, if the ego weakens and these other soul forces overwhelm thinking spiritual forces beyond those of the single, individual life can enter and only the 'universally human' is appropriate in treatment. Working purely at the personal level may to create an adverse karmic link between patient and therapist. Well that's a partial and brief summary of Steiner's spiritual psychology and principled criticism of the flaws with the psycho-analysis of his day. All of which is very different from Staudi's analysis. How does he still have a job?

      T.

      Ted Wrinch







    • Frank Thomas Smith
      ... Jung: 1875 - 1961. Steiner did in 1925, whereas Jung s most important work was accomplished after that. When RS criticized him, he was still a Freudian
      Message 2 of 9 , Mar 1, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Ted Wrinch <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        > He (Staundenmaier= adds to it similar vitriol in another post a few years later:
        >
        > "Steiner was very critical of Jung, though less hostile toward him than toward
        > Freud. Steiner's various attacks on psychoanalysis as a whole were quite bitter."

        Jung: 1875 - 1961. Steiner did in 1925, whereas Jung's most important work was accomplished after that. When RS criticized him, he was still a Freudian whippersnapper.
        Frank
      • ted.wrinch
        I think that s right, Frank. I was thinking while I was putting this together that Steiner would have been more appreciate of Jung s later work (though still
        Message 3 of 9 , Mar 2, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          I think that's right, Frank. I was thinking while I was putting this together that Steiner would have been more appreciate of Jung's later work (though still critical too, you can be sure!).

          T.

          Ted Wrinch

          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith" <fts.trasla@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Ted Wrinch <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > He (Staundenmaier= adds to it similar vitriol in another post a few years later:
          > >
          > > "Steiner was very critical of Jung, though less hostile toward him than toward
          > > Freud. Steiner's various attacks on psychoanalysis as a whole were quite bitter."
          >
          > Jung: 1875 - 1961. Steiner did in 1925, whereas Jung's most important work was accomplished after that. When RS criticized him, he was still a Freudian whippersnapper.
          > Frank
          >
        • elfuncle
          I ve mentioned this before, so the following is a cut-paste-and-edit from the AT archives (an excellent resource if you manage to search through the mess):
          Message 4 of 9 , Mar 3, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            I've mentioned this before, so the following is a cut-paste-and-edit from the AT archives (an excellent resource if you manage to search through the mess):

            Peter Normann Waage told me many years ago -- in 1994 or 1996 -- I think, that Jung learned about Steiner's teachings through a patient of his, who was attending Steiner's lectures. So Jung turned everything he heard that way into symbolism. Fascinating stuff.

            Waage, a personal acquaintance of mine, is a Norwegian Master of Arts with the subjects Russian, Idea History, Art History, and Philosophy, has published a lot of books and lectured extensively. I did some translating into English for him when he was debating Ted's nemesis, namely P.S. -- in 2001, I think. I have no idea to what extent this exchange has contributed to PS' incessant and nonsensical insistence that "anthroposophical academic" is an oxymoron, that esotericists have no interest in or understanding of learning or scholarship or history and so on, to the detriment of whatever remnant was left of his perceived credibility in a few circles outside Sugarland.

            Anyway, what brought up the topic of Rudolf Steiner and Carl Jung was Andrei Belyj - the Russian poet with that moving description of Rudolf Steiner which was also, I think, published at Frank's SCR.

            Anyway, Waage commands fluent Russian and has spent many years there, made his name as reporter in Norway because he's an expert on Russia and Russian literature, and then he's also an anthroposophist, so he flipped when I mentioned Belyj, whom he found very exciting, so he told me a lot of stuff - such as the guy (Belyj) wrote eight autobiographies, including his book about Steiner and Blok, and one of those had been published in 1992: "Geheime Aufzeichnungen. Erinnerungen an das Leben im Umkreis Rudolf Steiners".

            This book is a strange rendition of some sort of psychotic breakdown that happened to Belyj while he was in Dornach - and Waage says this book was written ten years later with a somewhat eerie absolute faith in the reality of something that must have been hallucinations and distorted perceptions (about anthroposophical spies climbing the trees outside his window, for instance.) Waage was waiting for the publication of a three volume cultural history that Belyj wrote, and that were lying in the archives in Moscow. "One gets kind of full of his autobiographies after a while," he said.

            Waage then talked about Magnus Ljunggren's doctoral thesis, a study about Belyj he recommended, this study is about Belyj and Steiner, but because Ljunggren is a convinced Freudian, he views the entire relationship as a wish by Belyj for a homo-erotic fructification of Steiner(!). The book still has lots of important information. In 1994 another book by Ljunggren had been published about a friend and later polemical opponent of Belyj, namely Emil Medtner: "The Russian Mephisto". Big parts of this book are about Belyj and Steiner, and then there is what Waage calls "the raisin inside the sausage": Namely that while Belyj had found his teacher in Steiner, Medtner had found his teacher in Jung -- so that when Belyj and Medtner were friends, Belyj would fill Medtner with anthroposophy, perhaps by bringing him along to Steiner's lectures.

            And then later, when Medtner became Jung's patient and pupil or whatever and went into psychotherapy with him, he gave him all this anthroposophical content he had picked up from Belyj, or perhaps some of it directly from Steiner when attending his lectures. So there he is, Medtner on Jung's couch with his eyes closed being instructed to talk about his childhood, and he gives him anthroposophy - the cosmology and the full package. And Jung writes all this down, fascinated, and he develops his theory of dreams and symbols and such, indirectly influenced by Steiner through Belyj and Medtner!

            Tarjei


            --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
            >
            > I think that's right, Frank. I was thinking while I was putting this together that Steiner would have been more appreciate of Jung's later work (though still critical too, you can be sure!).
            >
            > T.
            >
            > Ted Wrinch
            >
            > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith" fts.trasla@ wrote:
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Ted Wrinch <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > He (Staundenmaier= adds to it similar vitriol in another post a few years later:
            > > >
            > > > "Steiner was very critical of Jung, though less hostile toward him than toward
            > > > Freud. Steiner's various attacks on psychoanalysis as a whole were quite bitter."
            > >
            > > Jung: 1875 - 1961. Steiner did in 1925, whereas Jung's most important work was accomplished after that. When RS criticized him, he was still a Freudian whippersnapper.
            > > Frank
            > >
            >
          • ted.wrinch
            And Jung writes all this down, fascinated, and he develops his theory of dreams and symbols and such, indirectly influenced by Steiner through Belyj and
            Message 5 of 9 , Mar 3, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              "And Jung writes all this down, fascinated, and he develops his theory of dreams and symbols and such, indirectly influenced by Steiner through Belyj and Medtner!"

              It is fascinating to me too! Jung said of himself that all his life's work sprang from a period of dream analysis and almost uncontrolled descent into the unconscious, starting from around 1913 and continuing on to about 1930. The start of this period is before the date of the work Steiner is referring to in those lectures, but it took time for the ideas to reach into his public work and so Steiner was still critiquing his early, Freud influenced period. The descent was what he wrote down and illustrated, with beautiful paintings worthy of William Blake's, in his secret 'Red Book'. As people may know, this was kept back by the family for generations after his death and only finally published a couple of years ago, when it became clear that it was going to become public anyway. Jung says of this period:

              "The years … when I pursued the inner images were the most important time of my life. Everything else is to be derived from this. It began at that time, and the later details hardly matter anymore. My entire life consisted in elaborating what had burst forth from the unconscious and flooded me like an enigmatic stream and threatened to break me. That was the stuff and material for more than only one life.... Everything later was merely the outer classification, the scientific elaboration, and the integration into life. But the numinous beginning, which contained everything, was then."

              http://www.gnosis.org/redbook/index.html

              The question for us, in the light of your revelation, is to what extent this process of visionary uncovering of the unconscious by Jung can be shown to be initiated or inspired or influenced (I don't really know which is the right word) by the encounter with Medtner you mention. On Medtner and Jung, a cursory investigation throws us right into the heart of the ongoing Jung scholarly controversy concerning Noll and his description of Jung as a messianic, white supremacist (Aryan) cult leader:

              "Sound evaluation can only proceed by way of adequate reconstruction. To date, this has been most sorely lacking, and has enabled all manner of fantastic reinventions of Jung to gain currency. A distinctive character of Jung's work is its breadth. The cardinal failings of many readings of Jung is their reductive and monotonous mono causality - the nomination of one area as the key defining context for his work, to the exclusion of all others. Such readings proceed by simply ignoring or slighting large sections of it. This is a sure sign of their limitations."

              Cult fictions: C.G. Jung and the founding of analytical psychology, Sonu Shamdasani, 1998, p 80

              This description of the limitations of Jung scholarship could be translated verbatim to the scholarship of Staudi on Steiner.

              Shamdasani confirms the the Jung Medtner link:

              "Medtner was an important figure in the Russian Symbolist movement. He arrived in Zurich in 1914 and contacted Bleuler and asked him to recommend an analyst. Bleuler gave him Jung's name. He was analysed by Jung, who also refered him for analysis to Moltzer." p77

              Shamdasani later became the editor of the Red book and so is perhaps well placed to take an enlightened perspective on the controversy; but he has little to say directly on our interest. On Steiner the book merely paraphrases Jung from 1918:

              "'development of reactivated contents of the unconscious' at the end of the last century represented by mesmerism and spiritualism led to Anthroposophy and Theosophy on the one hand…", p 83

              But on a more recent website, that has re-published the Red Book, Shamdasani has contributed, with two other authors, to a preface, in which they quote Steiner's 'The Occult Significance of Blood', apparently in connection with Jung's theory of the collective unconsciousness: http://www.american-buddha.com/redbookjung.tran.htm.

              On the Steiner Medtner link, I found this from 'Wagner and Russia (Cambridge Studies in Russian Literature)', Rosamund Bartlett, 1995, p187:

              "Bely, Anthroposphy and the search for the Holy Grail

              No doubt one of Medtner's worst nightmares became reality when Bely too converted to Anthropsophy. After preparing the first issue of Trudy i dni, which had appeared in March 1912, Bely had left Russia for Brussels with Asya Turgeneva, and by May, he had met Steiner and been won over to the Anthroposophist cause…There was nothing for it but to go immediately to Cologne to seek a meeting with Steiner…Since Bely's defection from the editorial board of Trudy i dni in the middle of 1912 due to the conflict over the journal's bias towards Steiner, his relations with Medtner had been strained. "

              So we can confirm the Steiner->Medtner->Jung links, and so the account by Waage can be seen to be at least plausible. As Jung scholarship is advancing apace, after the publication of the Red Book, it maybe that more will emerge…

              Staudenmaier maybe my nemesis but, reciprocally, I'm hoping to be his.

              T.

              Ted Wrinch

              --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@...> wrote:
              >
              > I've mentioned this before, so the following is a cut-paste-and-edit
              > from the AT archives (an excellent resource if you manage to search
              > through the mess):
              >
              > Peter Normann Waage told me many years ago -- in 1994 or 1996 -- I
              > think, that Jung learned about Steiner's teachings through a patient of
              > his, who was attending Steiner's lectures. So Jung turned everything he
              > heard that way into symbolism. Fascinating stuff.
              >
              > Waage, a personal acquaintance of mine, is a Norwegian Master of Arts
              > with the subjects Russian, Idea History, Art History, and Philosophy,
              > has published a lot of books and lectured extensively. I did some
              > translating into English for him when he was debating Ted's nemesis,
              > namely P.S. -- in 2001, I think. I have no idea to what extent this
              > exchange has contributed to PS' incessant and nonsensical insistence
              > that "anthroposophical academic" is an oxymoron, that esotericists have
              > no interest in or understanding of learning or scholarship or history
              > and so on, to the detriment of whatever remnant was left of his
              > perceived credibility in a few circles outside Sugarland.
              >
              > Anyway, what brought up the topic of Rudolf Steiner and Carl Jung was
              > Andrei Belyj - the Russian poet with that moving description of Rudolf
              > Steiner <http://uncletaz.com/belyi.html> which was also, I think,
              > published at Frank's SCR.
              >
              > Anyway, Waage commands fluent Russian and has spent many years there,
              > made his name as reporter in Norway because he's an expert on Russia and
              > Russian literature, and then he's also an anthroposophist, so he flipped
              > when I mentioned Belyj, whom he found very exciting, so he told me a lot
              > of stuff - such as the guy (Belyj) wrote eight autobiographies,
              > including his book about Steiner and Blok, and one of those had been
              > published in 1992: "Geheime Aufzeichnungen. Erinnerungen an das Leben im
              > Umkreis Rudolf Steiners".
              >
              > This book is a strange rendition of some sort of psychotic breakdown
              > that happened to Belyj while he was in Dornach - and Waage says this
              > book was written ten years later with a somewhat eerie absolute faith in
              > the reality of something that must have been hallucinations and
              > distorted perceptions (about anthroposophical spies climbing the trees
              > outside his window, for instance.) Waage was waiting for the publication
              > of a three volume cultural history that Belyj wrote, and that were lying
              > in the archives in Moscow. "One gets kind of full of his autobiographies
              > after a while," he said.
              >
              > Waage then talked about Magnus Ljunggren's doctoral thesis, a study
              > about Belyj he recommended, this study is about Belyj and Steiner, but
              > because Ljunggren is a convinced Freudian, he views the entire
              > relationship as a wish by Belyj for a homo-erotic fructification of
              > Steiner(!). The book still has lots of important information. In 1994
              > another book by Ljunggren had been published about a friend and later
              > polemical opponent of Belyj, namely Emil Medtner: "The Russian
              > Mephisto". Big parts of this book are about Belyj and Steiner, and then
              > there is what Waage calls "the raisin inside the sausage": Namely that
              > while Belyj had found his teacher in Steiner, Medtner had found his
              > teacher in Jung -- so that when Belyj and Medtner were friends, Belyj
              > would fill Medtner with anthroposophy, perhaps by bringing him along to
              > Steiner's lectures.
              >
              > And then later, when Medtner became Jung's patient and pupil or whatever
              > and went into psychotherapy with him, he gave him all this
              > anthroposophical content he had picked up from Belyj, or perhaps some of
              > it directly from Steiner when attending his lectures. So there he is,
              > Medtner on Jung's couch with his eyes closed being instructed to talk
              > about his childhood, and he gives him anthroposophy - the cosmology and
              > the full package. And Jung writes all this down, fascinated, and he
              > develops his theory of dreams and symbols and such, indirectly
              > influenced by Steiner through Belyj and Medtner!
              >
              > Tarjei
              >
              >
              > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch"
              > <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
              > >
              > > I think that's right, Frank. I was thinking while I was putting this
              > together that Steiner would have been more appreciate of Jung's later
              > work (though still critical too, you can be sure!).
              > >
              > > T.
              > >
              > > Ted Wrinch
              > >
              > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith"
              > fts.trasla@ wrote:
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Ted Wrinch
              > <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > He (Staundenmaier= adds to it similar vitriol in another post a
              > few years later:
              > > > >
              > > > > "Steiner was very critical of Jung, though less hostile toward him
              > than toward
              > > > > Freud. Steiner's various attacks on psychoanalysis as a whole were
              > quite bitter."
              > > >
              > > > Jung: 1875 - 1961. Steiner did in 1925, whereas Jung's most
              > important work was accomplished after that. When RS criticized him, he
              > was still a Freudian whippersnapper.
              > > > Frank
              > > >
              > >
              >
            • elfuncle
              ... Ah, you re striving to become his ..... Zen moment? Eye-opener? Spirit counselor? Trying to inspire his Aha-moment? That might have been a possibility, in
              Message 6 of 9 , Mar 3, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:

                > Staudenmaier maybe my nemesis but, reciprocally, I'm hoping to be his.

                Ah, you're striving to become his ..... Zen moment? Eye-opener? Spirit counselor? Trying to inspire his Aha-moment? That might have been a possibility, in my view, if he had been an intellectually honest person, which doesn't seem to be the case at all. It's like he's not real, and that's why Frank says he's a machine. But I think you may benefit from discussing this with Sune, who has been a PS-scholar for many years and is presently contributing with his own links in Sugarland, check it out. The two of you may make an interesting team.

                Tarjei
              • ted.wrinch
                Zen moment…nah, as you say, he s fundamentally too dishonest for any kind of enlightenment. I consider my efforts more a simple kind of evidence based
                Message 7 of 9 , Mar 3, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  Zen moment…nah, as you say, he's fundamentally too dishonest for any kind of enlightenment. I consider my efforts more a simple kind of evidence based refutation of his life's work. Being wrong is such an affront to his arrogant sense of intellectual superiority that being bested by a mere amateur in the humanities would be crushingly humiliating for him. This kind of thing can be sufficient to provoke a personal crisis and a revaluation of one's life in some people; but Der Staudi's dishonesty and lack of basic humanity make him immune to this kind of thing too.

                  On Sune: seen it. He makes two important points, IMO:

                  "The weak development of anthroposophy as spiritual research and substance since
                  Steiner's death for different reasons has not very much supported the
                  penetration necessary to sort it out"

                  " 99% of the (really
                  interesting and rewarding!) work still needs to be done."

                  All too true. Where is the 'penetration' in the English speaking world that could match Steiner's own polymath intellect? Steiner threw out voluminous indications during his lectures that he expected and hoped would be followed up on. So why do I, for instance, have to track down Sir Edward Grey's seminal account of the meeting with the German Ambassador in 1914 for myself on an anarchist site as I read Karma of Untruthfullness? I read some Steiner lectures on psycho-analysis a decade or so ago, but they floated in a contextual vacuum and I didn't have the time or resources to confirm their indications, which one always has to do with Steiner to some degree and from time to time (some things can be just left to mature) or one does tend to become part of a Steiner cult. But, actually, the www makes all this kind of thing much easier to do for oneself and so perhaps my gripes matter less, and indeed maybe doing the work for oneself is best.

                  As for joining Sune - I'm not really a joiner; I think very differently from him and I doubt we'd collaborate very well; though that's not to say that I don't think that he's written some worthwhile stuff or that I think there's anything wrong with his anti-Staudenmaier campaign. On the latter, people sometime accuse Sune of being too focused on Der Staudi, to the point of fanaticism; but this criticism is to ignore Der Staudi's own decade and a half period of fanatical opposition to Steiner's thought. Perhaps Sune's approach is a necessary counter-balance to Staudiism.

                  T.

                  Ted Wrinch

                  --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch"
                  > <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
                  >
                  > > Staudenmaier maybe my nemesis but, reciprocally, I'm hoping to be his.
                  >
                  > Ah, you're striving to become his ..... Zen moment? Eye-opener? Spirit
                  > counselor? Trying to inspire his Aha-moment? That might have been a
                  > possibility, in my view, if he had been an intellectually honest person,
                  > which doesn't seem to be the case at all. It's like he's not real, and
                  > that's why Frank says he's a machine. But I think you may benefit from
                  > discussing this with Sune, who has been a PS-scholar for many years and
                  > is presently contributing with his own links in Sugarland, check it out.
                  > The two of you may make an interesting team.
                  >
                  > Tarjei
                  >
                • elfuncle
                  ... point of fanaticism; but this criticism is to ignore Der Staudi s own decade and a half period of fanatical opposition to Steiner s thought. Exactly; you
                  Message 8 of 9 , Mar 3, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:

                    > people sometime accuse Sune of being too focused on Der Staudi, to the point of fanaticism; but this criticism is to ignore Der Staudi's own decade and a half period of fanatical opposition to Steiner's thought.

                    Exactly; you and Sune ganging up on Staudi with unstoppable one-upmanship. I'll be rooting for you both no matter what.

                    Tarjei
                  • ted.wrinch
                    Lol, and cheers! T. Ted Wrinch
                    Message 9 of 9 , Mar 3, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Lol, and cheers!

                      T.

                      Ted Wrinch
                      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch"
                      > <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
                      >
                      > > people sometime accuse Sune of being too focused on Der Staudi, to the
                      > point of fanaticism; but this criticism is to ignore Der Staudi's own
                      > decade and a half period of fanatical opposition to Steiner's thought.
                      >
                      > Exactly; you and Sune ganging up on Staudi with unstoppable
                      > one-upmanship. I'll be rooting for you both no matter what.
                      >
                      > Tarjei
                      >
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.