Jung and Steiner are friends

[Güney27]

I found this video while researching connections between Steiner and Jung.
This is particularly interesting because the speaker talks about the importance of Jung's thoughts and teachings for an understanding of Steiner.
He also seems to combine a shamanic alchemical perspective with Western esotericism.
He sees Jung's individuation as work on the astral body.
I would be very happy if you shared your opinion on the content.

ps: Does anyone have experience with Jungian-style meditation?

[Federica]

Güney,

Jung and Steiner were not friends. Jung wrote in 1935, that there was nothing of the slightest use for him in Steiner's work, see this post. Steiner called Jung's (early) psycho analytical works "dilettantism squared", see the lecture quoted here.
I don't agree with the statement in the video that one can only understand Steiner if one first understands Jung. The subsequent statements are also not accurate. I listened to the first 10 minutes, and these sound like a wishy-washy account of the soul-spiritual world according to RS and CGJ. In French and Italian one would say: a rosewater account.

[Güney27]

Güney,

Jung and Steiner were not friends. Jung wrote in 1935, that there was nothing of the slightest use for him in Steiner's work, see this post. Steiner called Jung's (early) psycho analytical works "dilettantism squared", see the lecture quoted here.
I don't agree with the statement in the video that one can only understand Steiner if one first understands Jung. The subsequent statements are also not accurate. I listened to the first 10 minutes, and these sound like a wishy-washy account of the soul-spiritual world according to RS and CGJ. In French and Italian one would say: a rosewater account.

Federica,

The title is not to be taken literally.
Steiner never really knew Jung's mystical side because it only came to light later. Steiner could not have known a large part of Jung's work.
In my opinion, the meaning of his somewhat polemical statement is that Steiner was far ahead of his time and that we can better absorb many of his messages if we have taken the step of individuation.
Jung is therefore suitable as an introduction to the inner dimension of man and makes one more open to further, deeper esoteric topics.
However, we can better understand Jung and his methods through Steiner's work.
He talks about imaginations, which you can better classify and understand if you know Steiner.
Jung gives us a way to realize our higher self through the process of individuation, isn't that the goal that must be pursued?

Would you agree that there are different paths and levels of initiation?

There are many other videos on this channel that are interesting.

[Federica]

Güney,

Jung and Steiner were not friends. Jung wrote in 1935, that there was nothing of the slightest use for him in Steiner's work, see this post. Steiner called Jung's (early) psycho analytical works "dilettantism squared", see the lecture quoted here.
I don't agree with the statement in the video that one can only understand Steiner if one first understands Jung. The subsequent statements are also not accurate. I listened to the first 10 minutes, and these sound like a wishy-washy account of the soul-spiritual world according to RS and CGJ. In French and Italian one would say: a rosewater account.

Federica,

The title is not to be taken literally.
Steiner never really knew Jung's mystical side because it only came to light later. Steiner could not have known a large part of Jung's work.
In my opinion, the meaning of his somewhat polemical statement is that Steiner was far ahead of his time and that we can better absorb many of his messages if we have taken the step of individuation.
Jung is therefore suitable as an introduction to the inner dimension of man and makes one more open to further, deeper esoteric topics.
However, we can better understand Jung and his methods through Steiner's work.
He talks about imaginations, which you can better classify and understand if you know Steiner.
Jung gives us a way to realize our higher self through the process of individuation, isn't that the goal that must be pursued?

Would you agree that there are different paths and levels of initiation?

There are many other videos on this channel that are interesting.

Güney,

I get that the title means that, to progress on the path, we can constructively build on both RS's and CGJ's work, since they complement each other well. But I don't really agree with that.

Had you mentioned Barfield I would have agreed, but I don't think one can find guidance on a path of initiation by reading Jung in any way similar to the guidance one receives when reading Steiner. One could get lost in Jung's "introduction to the inner dimension of man" for one's whole life...
When it comes to taking the step of individuation, maybe it's possible, after years of psycho-analytical sessions, I don't know, however I really doubt one can take the step of individuation by reading Jung's books. Based on my incomplete knowledge, they report experiences, theories, and methodologies, but they don't directly stimulate the birth of the self within the reader, they don't help him awake to his first person thinking perspective of reality. One can sit down and ponder the views and considerations with one's mind tweezers forever, and entirely miss the necessity of a willed soul-spiritual transformation.

I do think that Jungian psycho-analysis can help one become more aware of one's soul constitution, but in a mediated, rationalized way, that doesn't replace the real, direct encounter with the impulses that animate our soul life, like one can have as a student of Anthroposophy. Moreover I don't think that "Jung gives us a way to realize our higher self through the process of individuation". What do you mean by that exactly? One thing is the soul, another thing is the higher self.

I do agree that there are different paths and levels of development and initiation, of course.

[Güney27]

Güney,

Jung and Steiner were not friends. Jung wrote in 1935, that there was nothing of the slightest use for him in Steiner's work, see this post. Steiner called Jung's (early) psycho analytical works "dilettantism squared", see the lecture quoted here.
I don't agree with the statement in the video that one can only understand Steiner if one first understands Jung. The subsequent statements are also not accurate. I listened to the first 10 minutes, and these sound like a wishy-washy account of the soul-spiritual world according to RS and CGJ. In French and Italian one would say: a rosewater account.

Federica,

The title is not to be taken literally.
Steiner never really knew Jung's mystical side because it only came to light later. Steiner could not have known a large part of Jung's work.
In my opinion, the meaning of his somewhat polemical statement is that Steiner was far ahead of his time and that we can better absorb many of his messages if we have taken the step of individuation.
Jung is therefore suitable as an introduction to the inner dimension of man and makes one more open to further, deeper esoteric topics.
However, we can better understand Jung and his methods through Steiner's work.
He talks about imaginations, which you can better classify and understand if you know Steiner.
Jung gives us a way to realize our higher self through the process of individuation, isn't that the goal that must be pursued?

Would you agree that there are different paths and levels of initiation?

There are many other videos on this channel that are interesting.

Güney,

I get that the title means that, to progress on the path, we can constructively build on both RS's and CGJ's work, since they complement each other well. But I don't really agree with that.

Had you mentioned Barfield I would have agreed, but I don't think one can find guidance on a path of initiation by reading Jung in any way similar to the guidance one receives when reading Steiner. One could get lost in Jung's "introduction to the inner dimension of man" for one's whole life...
When it comes to taking the step of individuation, maybe it's possible, after years of psycho-analytical sessions, I don't know, however I really doubt one can take the step of individuation by reading Jung's books. Based on my incomplete knowledge, they report experiences, theories, and methodologies, but they don't directly stimulate the birth of the self within the reader, they don't help him awake to his first person thinking perspective of reality. One can sit down and ponder the views and considerations with one's mind tweezers forever, and entirely miss the necessity of a willed soul-spiritual transformation.

I do think that Jungian psycho-analysis can help one become more aware of one's soul constitution, but in a mediated, rationalized way, that doesn't replace the real, direct encounter with the impulses that animate our soul life, like one can have as a student of Anthroposophy. Moreover I don't think that "Jung gives us a way to realize our higher self through the process of individuation". What do you mean by that exactly? One thing is the soul, another thing is the higher self.

I do agree that there are different paths and levels of development and initiation, of course.

Federica,


I think that Jung's methodology like active imagination and dream analysis paves a way
to work on lower aspects of ourselves and to purify them.
Jungs active imagination is important here, but it is often not used when people deal with young people.

I don't want to say that Jung has replaced or is on an equal footing with him.
However, I would say that jung can help you to better absorb Steiner's work and can contribute practically to your development.

Isn't it the case that when we work on our sheaths, our higher self can incarnate through them?

Personally, I find it somehow important to establish a connection between these two important thinkers.

[Federica]

Federica,


I think that Jung's methodology like active imagination and dream analysis paves a way
to work on lower aspects of ourselves and to purify them.
Jungs active imagination is important here, but it is often not used when people deal with young people.

I don't want to say that Jung has replaced or is on an equal footing with him.
However, I would say that jung can help you to better absorb Steiner's work and can contribute practically to your development.

Isn't it the case that when we work on our sheaths, our higher self can incarnate through them?

Personally, I find it somehow important to establish a connection between these two important thinkers.

Güney,

I don't know how Jung's writing sounds in German. However, based on translations, I surely agree that, if one gets used to reading Jung, following him into the level of intricacy and cultural depth often required, then for sure, one gets a wonderful strength training of the attention spans! We can greatly develop our familiarity with a bygone writing style that demands focus, patience and imagination and these are definitely useful skills we can put into effect when reading Steiner

More seriously, I agree with and support your idea that Jung can help absorb Steiner's work.
In practice, that you find important to establish a connection between these two important thinkers, primarily means one thing: you are that connection. You literally connect them by drawing that coincident frontier between their two bodies of work in your thinking. This is genuine, novel, willed spiritual activity that has a real impact on reality - no matter how much you will maintain or reorient your focus going forward - so please keep thinking in this direction and, if you can, share some of your findings with us.

Regarding the work with our sheaths and the higher self, I believe our higher self is already incarnated into them. It's only our conscious soul who will expand in awareness through the connectedness of these sheaths, and beyond, as we keep working through them.

[AshvinP]

Thanks for sharing the talk, Guney.

He makes a great point about Jung exploring the astral (soul) world while Steiner also explores that world but goes beyond to the spirit worlds, i.e. the higher-order moral intentions structuring our destiny. It is true that we need to work on purifying the soul body before we can cross the threshold to the higher spirit worlds. In a certain sense, that purification work cannot help but strengthen the first-person thinking orientation, i.e. the orientation where we always understand our conscious thinking experience to be embedded within the rhythmic flow of evolution. Through the soul work, we learn to pay attention to how our thoughts, feelings, and desires manifest in our daily decisions and experiences.  We start to recognize how much of our environment and what happens 'to us' is also informed by how we flow our spiritual activity against the resistance of the soul and body, against the spheres of culture and nature. It is only through such consistent experience that the first-person perspective can become a living reality that we feel responsible for. That is why Steiner also lays so much emphasis on the 'subsidiary' exercises and the perfecting of our character as we pursue deeper knowledge.

I tend to agree that Steiner would have had much more positive things to say about Jung if he had been around for the latter's mature work, which really set him apart from the reductionism of Freud and the 'psychoanalytic' school in general. It is clear that he did go through some sort of 'self-initiation' that gave him great insight into the layers of the collective psyche. As always, we can mine very useful insights from other thinkers, especially imaginative thinkers like Jung, as long we approach with the proper orientation. In such cases, I think it's best to go to the imaginative source material rather than rely on other commentators who tend to build these things into an abstract theoretical system, which I suppose Jung himself did to some extent. Instead, we can simply take the concepts as symbols and metaphors for the ongoing process of individuation that brings us into communion with the higher Self. The deeper meaning of those symbols comes through spiritual science. I really enjoyed the Red Book which is quite an explicitly spiritual work.

The spirit of this time in me wanted to recognize the greatness and extent of the supreme meaning, but not its littleness. The spirit of the depths, however, conquered this arrogance, and I had to swallow the small as a means of healing the immortal in me. It completely burnt up my innards since it was inglorious and unheroic. It was even ridiculous and revolting. But the pliers of the spirit of the depths held me, and I had to drink the bitterest of all draughts.9 The spirit of this time tempted me with the thought that all this belongs to the shadowiness of the God-image. This would be pernicious deception, since the shadow is nonsense. But the small, narrow, and banal is not nonsense, but one of both of the essences of the Godhead.

I resisted recognizing that the everyday belongs to the image of the Godhead. I fled this thought, I hid myself behind the highest and coldest stars. But the spirit of the depths caught up with me, and forced the bitter drink between my lips.

The spirit of this time whispered to me: “This supreme meaning, this image of God, this melting together of the hot and the cold, that is you and only you.” But the spirit of the depths spoke to me: “11 You are an image of the unending world, all the last mysteries of becoming and passing away live in you. If you did not possess all this, how could you know?”

Jung, C. G.. The Red Book: A Reader's Edition (Philemon) (pp. 120-121). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.

[Federica]

Thanks for sharing the talk, Guney.

He makes a great point about Jung exploring the astral (soul) world while Steiner also explores that world but goes beyond to the spirit worlds, i.e. the higher-order moral intentions structuring our destiny.

I disagree it is a “great point” to the extent that it implicitly suggests that their respective explorations of the soul world are of similar nature, which I don’t think it’s the case. Along similar lines, the completely subjective statement that RS and CGJ “unlock each other” is made into a generality: “none can get Steiner without getting Jung first”, which is evidently incorrect. “They specialized in different realms….” They didn’t, they were both very much ‘generalists’....
It's the perspective from which they explored the supersensible worlds that was different. I believe the difference lies in the understanding of thinking as superordinate principle. As you once said:

Cleric's last post was a metaphorical illustration of exactly where Kant and Schop went wrong in their analytical philosophy. But I'm sure that wasn’t apparent and it's understandable why. These things are very unfamiliar to past philosophical or spiritual traditions, even including 'Gnostic' thinkers like Jung,

Regardless of how enjoyable reading Jung may be (I agree it often is) this foundational difference makes their respective explorations of the soul world two essentially different endeavors, I believe, and this appears to be not grasped, or glossed over, by Camargo.

[Güney27]

Thanks for sharing the talk, Guney.

He makes a great point about Jung exploring the astral (soul) world while Steiner also explores that world but goes beyond to the spirit worlds, i.e. the higher-order moral intentions structuring our destiny.

I disagree it is a “great point” to the extent that it implicitly suggests that their respective explorations of the soul world are of similar nature, which I don’t think it’s the case. Along similar lines, the completely subjective statement that RS and CGJ “unlock each other” is made into a generality: “none can get Steiner without getting Jung first”, which is evidently incorrect. “They specialized in different realms….” They didn’t, they were both very much ‘generalists’....
It's the perspective from which they explored the supersensible worlds that was different. I believe the difference lies in the understanding of thinking as superordinate principle. As you once said:

Cleric's last post was a metaphorical illustration of exactly where Kant and Schop went wrong in their analytical philosophy. But I'm sure that wasn’t apparent and it's understandable why. These things are very unfamiliar to past philosophical or spiritual traditions, even including 'Gnostic' thinkers like Jung,

Regardless of how enjoyable reading Jung may be (I agree it often is) this foundational difference makes their respective explorations of the soul world two essentially different endeavors, I believe, and this appears to be not grasped, or glossed over, by Camargo.

In Steiner's work, the emphasis is on the role of thinking, which is guided through various unconscious pathways until it flows into our consciousness in ordinary thoughts.
Through Steiner's form of concentration, thinking becomes a feeler of these unconscious pathways, which then express themselves in images that express spiritual content.

Steiner also tells us about a depth of human beings, about the unconscious, so to speak.

Jung's method is active imagination, in which one first enters a state of inner peace and then opens up and asks the subconscious to flow into the conscious mind. You then communicate with the images and immerse yourself in a world of the soul.

Jung is, so to speak, a researcher of the astral world in which our lower desires... live. His job here is to clean this up, if you can put it that way.
Jung shows us a world in which work has to be done, independent of us and autonomous. We live in a world where we need this, especially when we become aware of how mentally ill most people are.


Steiner goes beyond this and explains much more comprehensively about the spiritual worlds; through Steiner we can understand Jung's work better.


I wonder whether Jung's work is an important impulse for certain souls, which comes from the spiritual world and has a meaning for our time, i.e. it did not just come about by chance.

I think Ashvin can say more about this.

[AshvinP]

Thanks for sharing the talk, Guney.

He makes a great point about Jung exploring the astral (soul) world while Steiner also explores that world but goes beyond to the spirit worlds, i.e. the higher-order moral intentions structuring our destiny.

I disagree it is a “great point” to the extent that it implicitly suggests that their respective explorations of the soul world are of similar nature, which I don’t think it’s the case. Along similar lines, the completely subjective statement that RS and CGJ “unlock each other” is made into a generality: “none can get Steiner without getting Jung first”, which is evidently incorrect. “They specialized in different realms….” They didn’t, they were both very much ‘generalists’....
It's the perspective from which they explored the supersensible worlds that was different. I believe the difference lies in the understanding of thinking as superordinate principle. As you once said:

Cleric's last post was a metaphorical illustration of exactly where Kant and Schop went wrong in their analytical philosophy. But I'm sure that wasn’t apparent and it's understandable why. These things are very unfamiliar to past philosophical or spiritual traditions, even including 'Gnostic' thinkers like Jung,

Regardless of how enjoyable reading Jung may be (I agree it often is) this foundational difference makes their respective explorations of the soul world two essentially different endeavors, I believe, and this appears to be not grasped, or glossed over, by Camargo.

The main question for me is not what Jung thought he was doing or what he could discern through his work, but what we can discern through it when we approach it with living thinking and an intuitive orientation towards the higher structured potential of the Spirit. Camargo correctly points out that these personalities are all instruments for much higher-order intentions (as we all are, but some are given greater karmic streams to influence). In Steiner's case that became much more conscious participation, while for Jung it remained semi-conscious at best. Nevertheless, the streams of intuition, inspiration, and imagination that flowed through Jung into his work act as reservoirs of untapped potential for wisdom and insight that surely no one has exhausted yet. It is similar to how Einstein's equations embedded predictions that he had no idea about and are still bearing fruit for researchers today. And this is how cultural history has always progressed. A few noteworthy individuals receive the lion's share of wisdom, generate a copious amount of traditions, practices, writings, etc., and then these flow into the broader culture for others to work with and realize in their own way. As Whitehead once said, 'all of Western philosophy has been footnotes to Plato'. This is practically the TC spectrum.

Yet truly new insights and capacities are reached from exploring the same reservoirs of Wisdom from different angles, in different circumstances. And now we are gradually growing into times when more of the 'masses' can receive direct streams of higher intuition, not necessarily relying on mediation by the whole hierarchy of culture. That is what Steiner and Anthroposophy really initiated and gifted us with. Yet it is still critical to kindle that intuition by working our spiritual activity through the various reservoirs of culture and nature. There are certain key personalities of the 20th century that received great deposits of imaginative insight once the higher worlds 'opened' towards the end of the 19th century and I would certainly count Jung among them. We can certainly gain insight into the soul world that modulates our normal thinking experience through his work.