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

Re: Psychology

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.