The President’s End of Year Letter 2015

 

Dear Philemon Foundation Supporter,

The holiday season is upon us, and we at the Philemon Foundation want to thank you once again for your generous support in recent years.

We have had an active and creative year, with publications, conferences and public programs. It is our mission and our intention to bring out Jung’s unpublished works as a major contribution to the history of psychology and of psychotherapies. This is made possible only with your support.

This year has seen the appearance of two new volumes in the Philemon Series from Princeton University Press: Analytical Psychology in Exile: The Correspondence of C.G. Jung & Erich Neumann, edited by Martin Liebscher and translated by Heather McCartney, and On Psychological and Visionary Art: Notes from C.G. Jung’s Lecture on Gérard de Nerval’s “Aurelia”, edited by Craig Stephenson, translated by Gottwalt Pankow and Richard Sieburth. As previews, see the excerpts below from Martin Liebscher’s introduction to the former, and Craig Stephenson’s introduction to his volume.

With the Jungian Psychoanalytic Association in New York, we co-sponsored Psychological Types Then and Now: The Relevance and Application of Jung’s Theory, with additional support from the IAAP, featuring presentations by Philemon Foundation editors, John Beebe, Ernst Falzeder and Craig Stephenson. These proceedings are available for you to view, via: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pejxJSLeub4

Philemon Foundation editors have completed the editorial work on the several projects that are now either under review or submission:

The History of Psychology: Lectures delivered at the ETH Zürich by C. G. Jung, Volume 1: October 1933 – February 1934, edited by Ernst Falzeder, foreword by Ulrich Hoerni, translated by Mark Kyburz, John Peck and Ernst Falzeder.

The Practice of Active Imagination: Notes of The German Seminar of 1931 Given by C. G. Jung edited by Ernst Falzeder, translated by Ernst Falzeder (with the collaboration of Tony Woolfson).

Dream Symbols of the Individuation Process: Notes of the Seminar Given by C.G.Jung In Bailey Island, 1936, and New York, 1937, edited by Suzanne Gieser.
On Dream Interpretion, Yoga and Psychology. Notes of the Seminar Given by Dr. C. G. Jung in Berlin between 26 June and 1 July 1933, with a presentation by Heinrich Zimmer, Edited by Giovanni Sorge, Translated by Mark Kyburz and John Peck.

In addition, the English translation of the Jung-Keller correspondence, which appeared in German last year, has been completed: C. G. Jung and Adolf Keller: On Theology and Psychology: A Correspondence, edited by Marianne Jehle, translated by Heather McCartney and John Peck.

Meanwhile, work continues on the editing of Jung and the Indologists: Jung’s Correspondences with Wilhelm Hauer, Heinrich Zimmer and Mircea Eliade (edited by Giovanni Sorge), and the editing and translating of The Black Books: 1913-1932 (edited by Sonu Shamdasani, translated by Martin Liebscher, John Peck and Sonu Shamdasani), and further volumes of the ETH lectures (edited by Ernst Falzeder and Martin Liebscher).

The Philemon Foundation receives no royalties from the sale of the works by C. G. Jung that we nurture all the way to publication. To complete these important and meaningful projects currently underway, we depend on donations from you, our friends and colleagues. Volumes in the Philemon Series are now used throughout the world for teaching and training the next generation of Jungian analysts. They have contributed to the historical understanding of Jung’s work, the development of Jung history as an academic discipline, and the wider dissemination of Jung’s work into the culture at large, which is helping to bring a new generation to the reading of Jung.

We are a registered US non-profit organization, and all US taxpayers are eligible for a tax exemption under the rules of the 501(3)c.

Another simple way to contribute is to make your Amazon purchases of any item using the following link that can be copied into your browser and bookmarked:
www.amazon.com/?tag=www.philemonfo=20

Please continue to visit our website (http://www.philemonfoundation.org/) for more news about our projects and upcoming events in 2016. And please bookmark us and add our news to your websites. For those attending the forthcoming IAAP congress in Kyoto, several Philemon Foundation board members and editors will be participating in a panel on Jung in Transition: Cultural, Historical, Clinical and Professional Implications of the Philemon Series.

The Philemon Foundation wishes you a meaningful and restful holiday season and a good entrance into the New Year. We hope you enjoy the excerpts included here below.

With our best wishes,
Judith Harris, President, Philemon Foundation

Beverley Zabriskie, Vice President
Craig Stephenson, Secretary
Michael Marsman, Treasurer
Caterina Vezzoli, Director

Sonu Shamdasani, General Editor

 

Excerpt from Martin Liebscher’s introduction to Analytical Psychology in Exile: The Correspondence of C.G. Jung & Erich Neumann, pp. xi-lxi.

Late Recognition:

During his lifetime Neumann saw the translation of his works into several languages.  Along with Hull’s English translation, The Origins and History of Consciousness was rendered into Italian and Dutch, a Spanish translation appeared in 1956.  Translations of Depth Psychology and a New Ethic, the three volumes of Die Umkreisung der Mitte, Eros and Psyche, the three volumes and the Great Mother followed suit.

At the forefront of interest in things to do with Neumann were the Dutch.  This special relationship becomes apparent not only through the number of translations, but also through Neumann’s regular lectures in the Netherlands.  In 1952 he was invited to the Internationale School voor Wijsbegeerte in Amersfoort for the first time, which was followed by several other visits in the years to come.  Presentations in Amsterdam, Arnheim, Leiden and The Hague followed.

Neumann’s international recognition reached a new height in 1958 when he participated in the First Conference of the IAAP (AGAP) in Zürich and in the Fourth International Congress of Psychotherapy in Barcelona, both marking milestones in the history of modern psychology.  A year later he took part in a conference in Germany, something, which he had rejected until then.  In 1960 he returned to Germany one more time to lecture in Münich on the topic of ‘Consciousness, the Ritual, and Depth Psychology.’

At home he began to institutionalize the small group of Analytical Psychologists and to secure its future by founding the Israel Association of Analytical Psychology (1959).  His reputation was steadily growing.  He was even asked to become the head of the Psychological Institute of the University of Tel Aviv, an offer he gratefully declined.

Amongst all signs of international and national recognition, signs Neumann had waited for desperately over all those years, fell the sudden and unexpected medical diagnosis of his fatal cancer.  The last Eranos conference in the summer of 1960 was followed by a visit to London to see his brother and to seek specialist medical advice.  But his condition deteriorated rapidly and after the return to Tel Aviv Erich Neumann died on 3 November.

VII The legacy of Erich Neumann
Two monographs by Erich Neumann were published posthumously:  Crisis and Renewal (1961) and The Child (1963).  The latter was regarded as one of the first major studies on child psychology by an eminent Jungian scholar.  Neumann’s interest in the subject went back to the 1930’s as an (unpublished) essay from April 1939 entitled ‘Remarks on the Psychology of the Child and on Pedagogy’ proves.  In the 1950’s he held seminars for child psychologists at his home in Tel Aviv on a regular basis.  As mentioned before, Neumann also held a course on the subject at the institute in Zürich in 1959, which provoked a conflict with Jolanda Jacobi.  In the aftermath he expressed his disappointment about the lack of support from the Zürich school, warning, of the sceptical attitude towards the possible practical application of Analytical Psychology by the ‘regressive English school of Fordham’ which would endanger the entire project.  In his 1954 seminar he noticed a rapprochement between the Kleinian and Jungian school in England:

What is being reported from England is that the therapy of Klein and the Jungians is almost     one and the same.  Because Melanie Klein keeps on mythologising.  I wonder whether the child understands her interpretations – which are strongly mythologically based – from what she refers to as myth; that this is the basis of the child’s understanding and interpretation of symbols.  The question is whether the intellectual interpretation which she attributes to this is an essential component or not.

Fordham’s use of the Oedipal complex in The Life of Childhood is also criticized by Neumann in his letter to Jung of 1 October 1945.  There Neumann also emphasized the importance of child psychology, which Jung had neglected because of his interest in the individuation process of the second half of life.

The antagonism between Neumann and Fordham came to the surface when Neumann wanted to publish an article in Fordham’s Journal of Analytical Psychology.  Fordham rejected the article in the first instance on grounds of theoretical differences, to which Neumann responded, ‘I did not know you have a critical attitude towards my work and should be thankful to get known with your criticism.  Never did it occur to me that you might reject essays from me for such reasons.  This would mean that you do not feel as editor of a Journal for Analytical Psychology, but as a censor who has to judge about what Analytical Psychology has to be.  Subsequently Fordham sent Neumann his latest book and the two men agreed to have a further discussion.  Due to Neumann’s premature death there was no further debate to bridge those differences.  However, in 1981, Fordham published an article on ‘Neumann and Childhood’ in which he heavily criticised Neumann’s theory of childhood psychology: ‘I can enjoy the experience of his “poetry”, especially when he interprets myth and legend; that, however, no longer justifies using vague, contradictory metaphor with which to capture states of consciousness in infancy and childhood.  It was a device which used to pass muster, but today research has made that approach inappropriate.  Both Jungians and psychoanalysts have constructed theories of childhood.  Fordham’s article was a hatchet job in every sense of the word: besides accusing Neumann of being dogmatic and non-Jungian his main critique was targeted at Neumann’s lack of empirical data and use of out-of-date scientific theories such as the relation between phylogenesis and ontogenesis or Portmann’s extra-uterine first year.  Fordham’s conclusion, that after detailed scrutiny almost nothing of originality remained from Neumann’s child psychology, was a dire verdict.  In defence of Neumann it has to be said, that his theory of childhood was informed by years of weekly exchanges with child psychologists and that the project of the Neve Ze’elim Children’s Home, a long-term treatment centre in Israel, was based on the findings of his child psychology.

In his article Fordham refers, as unlikely as it may sound, to non other than Wolfgang Giegerich, who wrote a fundamental critique of Erich Neumann’s Analytical Psychology in 1975.  Both agree that Neumann was not Jungian at all, because he confused – in spite of Jung’s warning – the archetypal with the empirical child.  Whereas for Fordham The Child is weak precisely because of lack of empirical data, Giegerich, in contrast, criticizes Neumann’s research for the attempt to base his findings on empirical facts, thereby fudging amateurishly in the realm of biology.  Psychological truth should not be concerned with the empirical but with the imaginal.

As far as The Origins and History of Consciousness is concerned, Giegerich finds the opposite aspect worthy of critique.  Quoting a passage from the introduction to Neumann’s book, he concludes that ‘[s]uch utterances, although limited to the castration complex and other such ‘symbols’ may by implication suggest that in the last analysis, Neumann wants everything he says to be understood as “symbolic facts” which then could not be located in empirical (“personalistic”) history.  This is important as Giegerich can only build his verdict about the book as myth in itself, an archetypal fantasy, on this lack of empirical concreteness.  What Giegerich did not know is that this passage in Neumann about the symbolic character of the castration complex was only included because of Jung’s intervention, who had concerns about Neumann’s usage of the term.  This shows – and the correspondence between Neumann and Jung confirms this – that Neumann’s writing and thinking was often much more in tune and accordance with Jung than critics like Fordham or Giegerich would have liked it to be, in so far as their critique of Neumann would implicitly become one of Jung also.
© Martin Liebscher.

 

Excerpt from Craig Stephenson’s introduction to On Psychological and Visionary Art: Notes from C.G. Jung’s Lecture on Gérard de Nerval’s “Aurelia”.

The French Romantic poet Gérard de Nerval explored the irrational with lucidity and exquisite craft, and Carl Gustav Jung regarded those explorations as a work of “extraordinary magnitude.”  Like the German poet-philosophers Novalis and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Nerval rejected the rationalist universalism of the Enlightenment and privileged instead the individual subjective imagination as way of fathoming the divine to reconnect with what the romantics called the “life principle.” During the years of his greatest creativity, Nerval suffered from madness, for which he was institutionalized eight times, occasionally for extended periods.  Eventually, at the request of his physician, Dr. Émile Blanche, he wrote his visionary memoir Aurélia in an ambivalent attempt to emerge from these episodes of insanity.  In Aurélia, Nerval acknowledges the value of his medical treatment, and at the same time asserts that his doctor’s psychiatric strategies and scientific vocabulary relegate his visionary convictions to a mental illness from which he may be released only through atonement.  They published the first part of Aurélia in La Revue de Paris in January 1855.  The second part and then the entire book were printed posthumously in that same year.

Almost a century later, in 1942 Jung lectured on Aurélia for the Swiss Society for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy.  Afterward, he reread and revised his interpretation with extensive handwritten notes, and in the summer of 1945, at seventy years of age and after a long illness, he presented an expanded version of his lecture to the more intimate circle of the Psychological Club in Zürich.  World War II had only just ended.  In his lecture, Jung introduced listeners to the importance of Nerval’s text.  Contrasting an orthodox psychoanalytic interpretation with his own synthetic approach to the unconscious, Jung explained why Nerval was not able to make use of his visionary experiences in his own life.  At the same time, Jung emphasized the validity of Nerval’s visions, differentiating the psychology of a work of art from the psychology of the artist.  The lecture suggests how Jung’s own experiments with active imagination and the writings of The Red Book influenced his reading of Nerval’s Aurélia as a parallel text to his own Liber Novus.  Here, then, is a key to understanding Jung’s argument about the significance of symbolism in modern thought.

The editors of the Collected Works published only Jung’s one-paragraph abstract of the lecture in volume 18.  The documents presented in this Philemon Series book offer a unique window into the stages of Jung’s creative process as he responds to an essential romantic text.  They are arranged backwards: from the final, extensively revised 1945 lecture, through the schematic 1942 lecture, to five pages of handwritten notes and Jung’s marginalia in his copies of his copies of Aurélia — that is to say, back to Jung, with pen in hand, reading Nerval.
© Craig Stephenson.