Lecture 2, Part 1

Theosophy and Gnosticism: Jung and Franz von Baader

by
Dr. J. Glenn Friesen
© 2008

Revised notes from lectures given at the C.G. Jung Institute, Küsnacht (June 21-22, 2005)

Download this lecture in .pdf format

Go to Part 2 of Lecture 2

Go back to Lecture 1

I. Introduction

In Lecture 1 of this series, we saw that Jung’s idea of individuation needs to be understood in relation to his idea of totality. Totality is the center beyond time that is both the source and the goal of all temporal functions. And individuation, which is the purpose and goal of Jungian analysis, is not to be understood in terms of individualism, but in terms of our relating our temporal ego to our supratemporal, supra-individual and central selfhood.

In this second lecture I will look at how this idea of totality is related to the philosophy of the German Christian theosophist Franz von Baader (1765-1841), and how this Christian theosophy differs from Gnosticism.

The Philosophy of Totality is related to a renaissance in interest in Baader’s philosophy. In the 1920’s, many of Baader’s works were republished, and Jung read Baader at that time. As we shall see, many of Jung’s ideas are related to Baader. This does not just apply to the idea of totality and individuation, but also to Jung’s ideas of alchemy and quaternity. We will also examine Jung’s relation to Gnosticism and to Kabbalah, and how those ideas compare with Christian theosophy.

II. Who was Baader?

Franz von Baader is known for his Christian philosophy, or more accurately, for his Christian theosophy. It has been said that he was ‘the only Christian philosopher in the grand style that Germany ever had.’ [1] Baader was a Roman Catholic, but he believed that the Russian Orthodox Church represented the best Christian path. He considered Protestantism to be too literal and rationalistic, and he found Catholicism too rigid and ‘petrified.’

We can see in Baader the ideas that became so prominent in the philosophy of totality, and that we discussed in Lecture 1: the rejection of mechanistic atomism, the idea of an organic whole, the emphasis on center and periphery and the idea of heart as the center.

Baader opposed the Enlightenment’s mechanistic and atomistic idea of nature [2]. He is therefore sometimes referred to as a philosopher of Romanticism, which also opposed an over-use of science and emphasized our ability to have direct, unmediated knowledge by our intuitive experience. But Baader’s Romanticism must not be understood as irrationalism or emotionalism. Unlike an irrationalist Romanticism, Baader emphasizes the importance of theory when it is seen in its proper relation to our experience.

Baader was strongly opposed to the rationalism of the Enlightenment, but he was also opposed to any pietistic flight away from rationality. Pietism, especially within Protestantism, sometimes took on a very irrational and subjectivistic nature.

Baader kept alive within the western philosophical tradition the mystical philosophy of Jakob Boehme and Meister Eckhart. He introduced the philosopher Schelling to the ideas of Boehme. And he introduced Hegel to the ideas of Meister Eckhart. But Baader disagreed with the use made by Schelling and Hegel of these ideas. In Lecture 3 of this series, we will look at Boehme and Eckhart in more detail.

Baader’s most important influences were Jakob Boehme, Meister Eckhart and St. Martin [3]. He also studied Tauler, Suso, Ruysbroeck, Paracelsus, Kepler, Aquinas, Anselm, Eriugena, Augustine, the Church Fathers, Angelus Silesius, Oetinger and Swedenborg.

Jung read and refers to many of these same writers. It is not generally known that Jung read all the works of Swedenborg, who had a vision of the Stockholm fire when he was not in Stockholm and could not have otherwise known about it. And not generally known that Jung’s appreciation of the philosopher of Kant is probably more due to Kant’s book on Swedenborg, Dreams of a Spirit-Seer than to Kant’s major philosophical works.

Baader derived his ideas not only from Christian sources, but also from hermetic and alchemical thought, and from the Jewish Kabbalah [4].

Baader’s writings are extremely difficult to read, even for German readers. He uses theosophical language, he frequently uses untranslated words from other languages such as French, and he sometimes invents new words. He often uses symbols and analogies. His writings are not systematic, but merely aphoristic. Baader said he did not mind if his work was regarded as unsystematic; he saw his own work in more organic terms, as ‘ferment,’ or ‘seeds.’ [5]

There is very little available in English regarding Baader, although his Collected Works are 16 large volumes–about the same as Jung’s work. Ramon J. Betanzos has written one of the few books in English on Baader: Franz von Baader’s Philosophy of Love. [6]

See also my translations of three of Baader’s works:

III. Baader’s Influence
Baader had an important influence on his contemporaries Schelling, Hegel, Goethe, Jacobi, Novalis, Friedrich Schlegel, Jean Paul, Wilhelm von Humboldt and Clemens Brentano [10]. He visited Friedrich Schleiermacher several times. [11]

However, Baader became isolated towards the end of his life, and after his death was for a time nearly forgotten. His obscurity is partly due to his dispute with Schelling late in life. After Baader’s death, Schelling even tried to prevent publication of Baader’s Collected Works. Nevertheless, Baader’s writings continued to exert an influence on later writers such as Max Scheler [12], A.W. Schlegel, Kierkegaard and Berdyaev. [13]

Baader had an important influence on his contemporaries like Schelling, Hegel and Goethe. After his death he influenced others like Kierkegaard and the Russian Berdyaev. There was a tremendous renaissance of interest in Baader in the years following the World War I [14]. And that is of course the time that Jung was developing his psychology. And we know that Jung read Baader.

IV. Jung’s Knowledge of Baader

Deirdre Bair’s biography of Jung confirms that Jung read Franz von Baader. She reports that after 1920, Jung turned to Baader. Jung concluded that Baader had “damned little to say.” He later read J.J. von Görres, whom he said was “exactly the same.” [15] Bair expresses the opinion that none of these writers touched upon “the dark substance, the dark side” to which Jung had always been attracted. Bair links Jung’s disappointment to his childhood dream of God shitting on the church. Bair gives the following detail of this dream, which is not included in Jung’s autobiography Memories, Dreams, Reflections:

Jung had another dream where he was about to enter into ecstasy, opened a door and saw a pile of manure. So Jung’s disappointment with Baader may relate to his idea of evil. If Jung were looking for confirmation that evil exists in God, he would not find that idea in Baader! We will examine the problem of evil as it is discussed in Christian theosophy and in Gnosticism, and how Jung and Baader differ in their idea of evil.

Jung does refer to Baader, but only a couple of times.

(1) Jung refers to Baader in relation to alchemy and hypnotism:

(2) Jung refers to the influence of Boehme on Baader in relation to androgyny: the original unity of feminine and masculine. Adam lost this androgyny (CW 14, 58n). . Adam was supposed to bring forth without Eve just as Mary later was a virgin. The creation of Eve was as counter-institution to help prevent a deeper descent of man.

Those two quotations are important in themselves in showing Baader’s influence. But there are many other similarities between Baader and Jung. We must therefore question Jung’s statement that he found little of relevance in Baader.

It is possible that Baader directly influenced Jung, even where Jung does not specifically mention him in the text. Jung’s books did not go through a peer review process, and he may not have been scrupulous in acknowledging his sources.

But it is also possible that there were indirect influences and sources that were common to both Baader and Jung. Baader was so important in reviving interest in Meister Eckhart and Jakob Boehme. As we shall see in Lecture 3, Jung frequently refers to Eckhart and Boehme, and so these western mystics are an important common source for Baader and Jung. Baader was also important in providing some of the formative ideas of Romanticism and its quest for wholeness. Many people have shown similarities between Jung and Romanticism.

Other common sources include Angelus Silesius, Lazarus Zetzner’s Theatrum Chemicum (a compendium of alchemical works), and Justinus Kerner, the Seer of Prevorst.

V. Similarities between Jung and Baader

When I first started reading Baader, I noticed some similarities to Jung. I have since found one other article making comparisons between Baader and Jung. It is by Hans Grassl [17]. Grassl concentrates on similarities with the idea of quaternity. But there are many more similarities. Here are some of the similarities, which we will examine in detail:

• Supratemporal selfhood
• Totality, Center and organism
• God-image
• Shadow
• Unconscious
• Introversion and Extraversion
• Reconciliation of opposites
• Androgyny
• Alchemy
• Archetypes
• Quaternity

Let us look at these similarities in more detail.

A. Supratemporal Selfhood

In Lecture 1, we discussed how Jung regards the Selfhood as supratemporal. The supratemporality of the Self is also a central theme for Baader. Baader distinguishes this supratemporality from both the temporality of the world and from the eternity of God. The supratemporal is therefore in between the temporal and the eternal. Baader has another category, the infernal, which is below even the temporal. I am not aware of Jung’s use of that category.

B. Totality, Center and Organism

In Lecture 1, we saw how Jung’s psychology is related to the Philosophy of Totality. The Philosophy of Totality, as it developed in the 1920’s, and the same ideas that we saw in Jung can be found in Baader:

(1) Totality is more than a sum of its parts
(2) Opposition to mechanical, atomistic view.
(3) The idea of an organic whole
(4) Innerness and meaningfulness
(5) Totality is a center related to a periphery

Baader says that our outer perception is just mechanical addition and subtraction. But inner perception is dynamic through multiplication, exponential increase, division, and extraction of roots. The explanations of physics with its dead arithmetic, are a mechanical “next to and to and from each other.” But the dynamic is “in and out of each other.” The mechanical is just the shadow of the dynamic. You cannot remain with the construction of the outer. What is worse is to drag the mechanical over to the inner sense.

With respect to the idea of Center and periphery, Baader says that the Center is not identical with the sum of its Radii ("Anal d. Erk," Werke 1, 42). Baader refers to the same quotation that Jung often uses:

The resting in the Center is what determines the free movement in the periphery [18]. Baader emphasizes that the Center is the source of its temporal members, which all exist in potential in the Center [19]. Baader also speaks of the Center in terms of the Pleroma, or fulfillment. ("Anthropoph.," Werke 4, 227). And as we have seen, Pleroma is also an idea emphasized by Jung. The relation between Center and periphery is that also of Idea and Nature, Ideal and Real, the one who eats and his food, fire and water, man and wife [Esser und Speise, Feuer und Wasser, Mann und Weib]. ("Sold Verb," Werke 4, 300).

C. The Self as God-image

As we have seen in Lecture 1, Jung refers to the Self as the God-Image. The idea of the God-image is enormously important in Baader’s philosophy.

(1) The image of God is the deepest mystery in us ("Tageb," Werke 11, 61), the soul of our soul (Werke 12, 283).

(2) The image of God is Idea, Sophia, the Virgin ("Spec Dog.," Werke 8, 291). The Logos is the male power (interior) and distinguished from the Word of life, which is female power (exterior).

(3) Jung acknowledges the Upanishads as the source for his idea of the Self. Baader links Brahmanism with Boehme. He says that the oldest Brahmanic religion has much in common with Boehme ("Fermenta" Werke 2, 301). According to Baader, this original Brahmanic religion was not pantheistic, but an acknowledgement that something human expressed itself in all phenomena of nature ("J.B. Theol," Werke 3, 361 ff). Elsewhere, Baader says that self-consciousness is knowing myself in something and knowing something is in me (these are the same thing) ("Fermenta," Werke 2, 76).

(4) We are not yet the image of God, but the seed is created in us ("Espr," Werke 12, 347).

(5) Our sinking in God is the giving up of our false selfhood (Werke 12, 346).

(6) Baader sees this God-image in dynamic terms. Just as there is a development in God, so there is a development in the Self. But these two dynamics must be distinguished. We will discuss this important distinction in Lecture 3.

D. Shadow

The Shadow is of course one of Jung’s main ideas. But references to the shadow are also found in Baader. He says that light cannot exist except by the shadow. We do not serve the flame well if we remove the black carbon, nor do we serve the plant well if we take out its subterranean roots (Werke 1, 66).

Baader refers to phenomena that come and go, without our knowledge or will. They can lift us up to heaven or throw us into hell: The Spirit as well as the body throws its shadows (Werke 4, 98 ff).

E. Unconscious

Jung was not the discoverer of the unconscious. Baader makes many references to it.

(1) Self-consciousness is not the root (Wurzel) itself, but the first growth (Erstgezeugte, Erste Gewüchste) (“Über der Urternar,” Werke 7, 35-6).

(2) Spirit [Geist] is conscious; Nature is unconscious. Nature feeds us (“Begründung,” Werke 5, 18).

(3) True genius is unconscious, instinctive (Fermenta IV, 12; Werke 2, 294). ). When we are detached from idea, the law appears external to us, as something without liberty opposed to my artistic liberty, which is free of all law. True genius is unconscious, instinctive; this is an independent activity.

(4) Supernaturalism wrongly wants to separate the will from its unconscious drives The supernaturalists see the coherence between Nature and Spirit (Geist) as contingent. They want to separate the will from its unconscious drives, whereby the creature outside of all nature becomes pure Intelligence, as Will and a Reason without desires or senses. Morals are divorced from God and nature, because these are built on the concept of a pure autonomy (“Begründung,” Werke 5, 18).

F. Introversion and Extraversion

Jung’s first use of these terms is in his 1921 book Psychological Types:

(1) Baader uses the same terms extraversion and introversion, with the same spelling (he writes this in French):

Baader here contrasts inferior materialization with clarification or superior materialization. The first is when the principle of light is introverted and the second is when the principle of light is extraverted. To understand this, we need to see how he uses these termsin relation to center and periphery.

(2) Baader uses the terms ‘introversion’ and ‘extraversion’ in relation to the ideas of center and periphery. Extraversion is being the center for something; introversion is the acceptance of the light of the center. In introversion we accept the light of the center. But the central light that we accept is an extraverted light. And the acceptance of the center can only take place by what Baader calls the sacrifice of the natural principle. This is done when we just let ourselves be attracted by attractive force, we are passive, allow ourselves to be seized by it. Such a proper balance clarifies the creature. As I understand this, introversion is human acceptance of a light that is given for us as our center; extraversion is our acting as the center for other creatures and the world around us. When we act as this center for the world, we are imaging God from Whom we receive our light, and we can only be truly extravertive when we have been truly introvertive.

(3) Baader refers to proper and improper uses of extraversion and introversion (balance and imbalance). Improper extraversion is where we make the center temporal, instead of opening ourselves to the supratemporal center. This is an extraversion of nature, instead of the needed introversion of nature. In other words, nature should seek its center in man as supratemporal. Not to do so is to seek the periphery at the expense of the center. Recall what we discussed in Lecture 1 about what Jung says about idols.

(4) Improper introversion is a flight from the periphery, seeking the center at the expense of the periphery [pietism]. It seems to me that this spiritualistic pietism, the fleeing of the world at the expense of the periphery, was the world of Jung’s father, who was a pastor.

(5) It is beyond the scope of these lectures, but I believe that Baader’s use of these terms in this way greatly clarifies the meaning that Jung gives to these terms. Could we say that in extraversion, we act as the center of the world that we perceive? And that introversion is our acceptance of the light from our supratemporal center? And that both need to be in the right balance? Introversion and extraversion are then not just temporal functions as in a Myers-Briggs test. They are not just a matter of temporal types, of preferences of behaviour. e.g. a desire of being alone. But they refer to how we relate to our center. They are attitudes with respect to center and periphery. We will see this again when we discuss the idea of quaternity.

G. The reconciliation of opposites

Jung believed that mental energy is created through the conflict of opposites. He said, "there is no energy unless there is a tension of opposites" (Jung, “Two Essays on Analytical Psychology,” CW 7, para. 63). He called this energy libido.

Jung's last great work Mysterium Coniunctionis was devoted to the alchemical symbol of the conjunction. The conjunction was a point at which two opposites were joined, were dissolved, to in turn create a third, a new level of understanding. Jung saw in the conjunction a symbol of the process of individuation. But this idea of reconciliation of opposites is also in Baader:

(1) There is a polarity in all of existence ("Polaritât alles Daseienden." "Spec Dogm," Werke 9, 231f). Each polarity has three moments: involution, opposition, subordination ("Ferm," Werke 2, 255). There are three principles in man just as in other creatures: the heavenly or Light Principle, the dark or fiery Nature Principle and the temporal-earthly principle ("Spec Dog,," Werke 8,100).

At the acme of the opposites there is a depotentiation and a transformation [Depotenzirung and Umwandelung] ("Blitz," Werke 2, 39ff).

(2) The existence of the creature brings with it an inner contradiction and duality. For Baader, this is due to our fall into temporality. (“Blitz,” Werke 2, 33: "mit der Enstehung (dem Setzen) der Kreatur is ihr innerer Widerspruch (Zweiheit oder Entzweiung) schon gegeben"). The opposition between one and many, light and darkness, joy and fear, organic and anorganic is the limitation [Bedingung] of all Life ("Starr. u. Fliess. 3," Werke 275).

(3) There is a conjunction of the Eternal and the temporal ("Segen u fl," Werke 7, 142).

(5) The Pleroma is fulfillment. The soul is fulfillment of the spirit, and the body is the fulfillment of soul. (Pleroma=Erfüllung. Die Seele ist pleroma dem Geist, der Leib der Seele. Antrhopoph., Werke 4, 227).

(6) The symbolism of the cross. For both Jung and Baader, the cross is related to our experience of quaternity. Jung refers to the cross as a symbol of the reconciliation of opposites:

Baader also refers to the cross as the symbol of union of opposites. There is an androgyny of the spirit. The feminine element in the soul is vitality. The masculine element gives soul or “plénitude intérieure,” and the cross shows the union of the two (Fermenta V, 1; Werke 3, 325). Baader also relates the cross to Pythagoras and the idea of quaternity:

We will discuss the idea of quaternity in more detail below.

H. Androgyny

As already mentioned, Jung specifically refers to Baader in relation to the idea of androgyny.

(1) Baader says that Man was originally an androgynous being. The division into the different sexes was occasioned by the fall (“Genesis,” Werke 7, 238).

(2) Christ is the restorer of our androgynous nature (“Genesis,” Werke 7, 238).

(3) Our mind has an originally androgynous nature: i.e., every mind, as such, contains its nature (Terre) within itself, not outside itself (Werke 4, 194; Betanzos 272).

(4) Androgyny of the spirit. The feminine element in the soul is vitality. The masculine element gives soul or interior plenitude. And the cross shows the union of the two (Fermenta V, 1; Werke 3, 325).

(5) Love and eros as the relation of two people to something higher that they have in common:

Baader refers to the wonderful alchemy of love ("Relig. Phil," Werke 1, 229). Baader wrote “Propositions from the erotic philosophy” (Sätze aus der erotischen Philosophie”). [20] Here are two of those propositions:

In the extasis of love, we achieve a view of unity [Silberblick] through the heavenly Virgin. The Silberblick, an experience of unity [21], is achieved by our intuition (Anschauen). Ecstasy is also an anticipation of this integrity (Concerning the Concept of Time, 58, fn 14).

(6) The influence of the idea of androgyny in romanticism:

Baumgardt refers to other sources of this idea of androgyny: androgyny in Philo, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus Confessor, Eriugena, Kabbalah, Novalis (Baumgardt 295).

(7) The idea of androgyny in alchemy:

The Hermaphrodite as symbol of wholeness plays a great role in alchemy [22]. Jung says:

He continues:

I. Alchemy

1. Jung’s views on alchemy

Alchemy is the attempt to transmute base metals, such as lead, into silver or gold. Alchemists tried to discover a substance called the philosopher's stone, which would enable such a transformation.

Sanford L. Drob gives an interesting explanation of how Jung viewed alchemy [24]. He cites Jung, that what the alchemist sees in matter, and understands in his formulas for the transmutation of metals and the derivation of the prima materia, “is chiefly the data of his own unconscious which he is projecting into it.” The alchemist’s efforts to bring about a union of opposites in the laboratory and to perform what is spoken of in alchemy as a “chymical wedding” are understood by Jung as attempts to forge a unity, e.g., between masculine and feminine, or good and evil aspects of the psyche. Jung says, “The alchemical opus deals in the main not just with chemical experiments as such, but with something resembling psychic processes expressed in pseudochemical language.”

Jolande Jacobi also gives a good description of Jung’s use of alchemical symbols [25]. The alchemical work (or opus) starts with prima materia; using the principle of dissolve and coagulate, one separates and combines the material of the conscious and unconscious. The confrontation with shadow represented by the state of blackness or negredo, after division of prima materia into four parts. The typological dominant function is differentiated; shadow integrated: corresponds to the crystallization of the ego. This is followed by a second negredo stage: descent of the ego into the underworld. After this death, the reascent begins: anima and animus qualities are made conscious. Distillation or purification follows; what was originally one is again divided and reunited. Coagulatio can take place; this is analogous to confrontation with the archetypal figures, the mana-personalities. The opus ends with transmutation of lead into gold; the birth of philosopher’s stone, the lapis.

Mark Dotson describes the alchemical process this way:

2. The development of Jung’s ideas of alchemy:

Jung describes the development of these ideas:

In 1929, Jung wrote a commentary on the Secret of the Golden Flower, which he said was “not only a Taoist text concerned with Chinese Yoga, but is also an alchemical treatise.”[28] As a result, he began to collect alchemical writings. Some years later, Jung began to see parallels between the writings of the alchemists and his own psychological theories. He says, “I had stumbled upon the historical counterpart of my psychology of the unconscious.” [29] He said that the alchemists were not writing in a literal fashion, but in symbols. According to Jung, these symbols assisted him in understanding process of psychological development:

But it should be noted that Jung read these texts many years after he had read Baader. And Baader makes the same use of alchemical symbols.

Centuries before Jung, and even before Baader, Angelus Silesius (1624-1677) was already reading alchemy psychologically. Silesius says in Cherubinischer Wandersmann:

Baader cites this same work ("Br.," Werke 15, 236, 238), but also makes many other references to alchemy. Jung was not the first to link alchemy to the development of our psyche.

3. Baader’s ideas of alchemy:

As already noted, Jung specifically refers to Baader in relation to alchemy. But did he give Baader enough credit for these ideas? First, it should be noted how alchemy is linked to the idea of totality. Jung himself makes this link:

But apart from this general link to the Philosophy of Totality, consider the many specific references by Baader to alchemy:

(1) Baader refers to alchemy as the “divine art;” it is determined by the idea that redemption of the God-image (man) must also lead to the redemption of nature ("Euch.," Werke 7, 25; "Spec. Dogm.," Werke 8, 47n). The possibility of acting as mediators is given in time. Time gives us the possibility of conferring a substance on that which does not possess it. (Fermenta I, 3; Werke 2, 153; Susini II 351). It is a freeing from its binding within time. Baader refers this process to the older teaching of the alchemists. In this way, we can free these beings from the bounds of their temporal individuality.

(2) Transmutation is the key of Christendom and of the higher physics (alchemy) ("Br.," Werke 15, 598, 654, 657). The purpose of physics is to make earthly material more divine (Gottförmig) so that the prima materia, the Light substance could live in it purely and unmixed. [33]

(3) Baader cites Paracelcus, that there are three chemical attributes or chemical bases that are found in each of the four elements: Sulfur, mercury, and salt. ("Spec. Dogm.," Werke 8, 252, 9, 127).

(4) Baader finds the basic idea of alchemy in Boehme’s Signatura rerum ("Br.," Werke 15, 659). Alchemy is the art of transforming Gold (the divine substance or the active and higher nature) from the earthly substances.

(5) The philosopher’s stone, sought by the alchemists, is the one element dwelling within the four elements. ("Gnadenw.," Werke 13, 266)

(6) In his theory of sacrifice, Baader speaks of tinctures or essences in the world, which help man and ensoul him. Baader distinguishes between tincture and fire. The tincture is light, that makes essence as against fire, which takes away essence ("Studienb.," Werke 13, 342, 345).

The white and the red tinctures (the life giving water of the moon and the life-giving blood of the Son), unite inseparably ("S. Tinctur. Opf.," Werke 7, 400 fn). He refers to the red fiery lion and the white lamb ("Br.," Werke 15, 646). After maturation of the Tincture, God as Alchymicus or Spagyricus does not throw away the earthenware, but glorifies (verherrlicht) it. ("Br.," Werke 15, 312 ff).

(7) Verjüngung or Rejuvenation: the reintegration of a being in its principle

Cosmic time is a “suspension of the eternal.” Everything temporal has a beginning and end, and is fully seen in the nontemporal. Each particular now and here is only seen in the always and everywhere. Everything proceeds out of eternity, has its time, and must make its way through time in order to return to eternity. The return to eternity is the reintegration of a being in its principle:

He refers to this reintegration by the alchemical expression ‘Verjüngung.’ (rejuvenation). There is either progress or regress in time: one cannot just stand still (Elementarbegriffe, 537, 538).

(8) Baader refers to Hermeticism as the foundation of alchemical wisdom (Tabl, Werke 12, 177).

K. Archetypes

(1) In Elementarbegriffe, Baader refers to the mundum archetypum [archetypal world] as an emanation (Aziloth). For Baader, the archetypal world is followed by the angelic, sidereal and elemental worlds. He uses Kabbalistic terminology to distinguish emanations from that which is created, formed, and made. Support for these distinctions is found in Isaiah 43:7 (“for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him, yea I have made him”; KJV translation). So in addition to the mundum archetypum, there also exist three lower worlds:

(2) Man, who appears last, is more closely related to the mundum acrchetypus (the Sophia) than are the created angels. The mundus archetypus has here the meaning of “gloria (doxa) dei” [the Glory of God], or His Shekinah. Therefore, Isaiah’s words cover all four worlds, within the meaning of the Kabbalah.

(3) Archetypes are the Wisdom of God, His Sophia, the fourth in the Quaternity, or His Shekinah (Glory of God).

(4) Archetypes are ideals, goals of perfection or ends. As we have seen in Lecture 1, one of the meanings of ‘archetype’ is “goals.” But Jung also uses ‘archetype’ to refer to the past, from where we came, as in ancestral images.

In Lecture 1, I referred to Ken Wilber’s criticism of Jung’s confusion between past archetypes and archetypes as future goals as the pre-trans fallacy. Why are past archetypes not the same as archetypes in the sense of future goals? My answer is that for Baader, the past is a fallen reflection of the archetypes. To merely go back to past forms is a regression.

L. Quaternity

1. Quaternity is a central idea for both Baader and Jung

Grassl observes that the idea of quaternity is central to both the work of Jung and of Baader [34]. There are some similarities in the ways that Baader and Jung use the idea of quaternity. But as we shall see, there are also differences.

The issues are complex, and deserve a more extended treatment. But the following comparisons will give some guidance for the further research that is required on this point.

Grassl says that for Baader, quaternity was a figure of thought taken from neo-Platonic and alchemical traditions. It is a Pythagorean inheritance that is simply there or given. It is not an idea that Baader obtained deductively (Grassl 45). Baader circles aground the idea, giving ever more variations to it.

Baader first developed the idea of quaternity in his Über das pythagoräische Quadrat in der Natur oder die vier Weltgegenden ("Pyth. Quadr.," Werke 3, 247-268). In a letter to F. Schiller of August, 1800, Goethe expressed his pleasure in reading it.[35] As we shall see in Lecture 3, Baader finds the idea of the quadrat or quaternity in Jakob Boehme. And so does Jung, who refers to Boehme’s mandalas.

Jung says, “It makes an enormous practical difference whether your dominant idea of totality is three or four.” (CW 18, par 1610). He attributes the idea of quaternity to Plato and Pythagoras:

The reference to Faust is to Goehe’s use of the idea of quaternity (see also CW 9, para 425), but Jung seems unaware of how Goethe obtained this idea from Baader.

Apart from Pythagoras and Goethe, another common source for the idea of quaternity in Baader and Jung is Justinus Kerner, the Seer of Prevorst. Kerner is important for the view that images of quaternity are laden with numinosity or psychical energy. Grassl refers to Jung’s 1961 Symbole und Traumdeutung. This book shows that Jung studied Kerner’s “Blätter aus Prevorst.” Kerner used blots of ink on folded paper in order to recognize live figures of “ghosts,” and then he wrote poems about these figures. [37]

Jung regarded Kerner as a forerunner of clinical psychology. Alchemists were similar to clinical psychology in their emphasis on the living life experience of the quaternity. Baader was also interested in Kerner’s “Blätter aus Prevorst” (Grassl, 24, 47).

Another common influence is Lazarus Zetzner’s 17th century work, Theatrum chemicum. It is a compendium of alchemical and hermetical writings. Jung refers to it in his 1944 work “Dream Symbols of the Individuation Process.” [38] One of the references is in the way that one leads to the four. “Eins und es ist zwei, und zwei und es sind drei, und drei und es sind vier und vier und es sin drei, und drei und es sind zwei und zwei und es ist eins.” Jung comments that this is the Vierteilung (Tetramerie), or division of the One, and the synthesis of the four into One.

Baader also refers frequently to this same work Theatrum chemicum and to the same statement. (See Grassl 46).

2. Quaternity and Trinity

a) Jung’s early questions

The relation between quaternity and trinity has not been sufficiently explored in Jung’s writings. Jung was interested in the doctrine of the Trinity from a very early age. He asked his father, a pastor, about the doctrine:

One wonders what would have happened if Jung’s father had attempted to answer the question that for Jung was so important.

Later in life, Jung gave a psychological explanation of the Christian dogma of the Trinity. It represents a symbol for the collective psyche: the Father symbolizes a primitive phase; the Son an intermediate and reflective phase; and the Spirit a third phase in which one returns to the original phase, though enriching it through the intermediate reflections.[39] But Jung also argued that Trinity is incomplete, and must be completed as a quaternity? What does he mean? That there is a center to the Trinity, as in Baader’s view? Or that there is a fourth personality to be added? What is the relation between three and four, between Trinity and quaternity? Let us look at this in more detail, first examining Baader’s views and then Jung’s.

b) Baader’s idea that the Tetras (four) is prior to the Trias (three)

Baader says that the Tetras (the Quadrat or Quaternity) is earlier than the Trias (triangle) (“Br.,” Werke 15, 109). A trinity or triad is also referred to as a ‘Ternar.’ Examples of Ternars are Fire, Air and Sun (Light) (“Rel Phil,” Werke, 1, 299). In the first volume of his Speculativen Dogmatik, Baader gives examples of 23 such Ternars. A Ternar or trinity has a center, and that center is the fourth. Thus, a quaternity is not a series of four, but rather three with a center.[40] Baader’s symbol for quaternity is a triangle with a dot in the center (“Pyth. Quadr.” Werke 3, 266).

Baader uses the idea of quaternity to give a different explanation of nature and the four elements. There are three forces within bodies, penetrated by a fourth power. The fourth power is what gives it life. Without it, nature would remain at rest. The inner powers are fire, water and earth, the outer power is air. In alchemical terms, the first three are sulfur, mercury and salt (Werke 8, 252). The outer force works from within. There is a reciprocity of forces. The third element unifies the first two (contraries). It separates in order to unite. But this third is not the fourth (“Pyth Quadr.” Werke 3, 263, 267).

Similarly, Baader uses quaternity to contrast a mechanical view of man with an organic view. He says that we have three inborn powers (thinking, willing, and acting), and three attributes or organs (spirit, soul and body), which are permeated throughout by a fourth power (“Spec Dogmatik,” Werke 8, 252). The unity of our powers comes only through organ-ization (Gliederung), and such organization is only possible out of One Principle. There is a systematic division of labour of its functions; the central One Principle uses the outer three as its organs. Such organ-ization cannot be done in the outer sense of juxtaposition, but only in the inner sense, in the unity of time by Intus susceptionem (Werke 215-16). Just as air penetrates the three other elements, so what Paul refers to as our spiritual body [Geistleib] penetrates the other three forces and attributes of our nature. Elsewhere, Baader refers to this spiritual body, our central inner being, as our “heart” (Werke 7, 232). Creatures with a self (man and angels) have such a center (animals do not have such a center). It is the purpose of creatures with a selfhood to raise up this center to its ground, and to fix it there, thus fulfilling it. Baader refers here to Tauler and Eckhart (“Spec Dog.” Werke 8, 131) and to Boehme (Werke 8,134).

Thus, for Baader, quaternity involves both immanent and emanent powers or principles (Grassl 33). The triangle represents the immanent play [Wechselspeil] of the principles. It flows back into itself. But the fourth element, the spiritual body, gives the inner point of the surrounding spheres, and is emanent. This central inner point is not to be confused with any duality of powers in the circumference. This central point is spontaneity.

Baader’s idea of quaternity helps to distinguish his philosophy from that of Schelling and Hegel. He says that Schelling’s natural philosophy has correctly understood the dualism of nature (its inner polarity or Zwiespalt). Schelling’s first principle is that of polarity and dualism; he speaks of an original dualism [“ürprunglichen Duplicität”] which arises from an absolute identity (or One). Schelling’s idea of the “world Soul” [Weltseele] remains caught in this viewpoint. But Baader objects that dualism or polarity only count to two. Baader wants to count to four (Grassl 34; “Pyth. Quadr.” Werke 3, 249). Instead of two, there is an interaction of three in a Ternar. Trinity overcomes duality (Werke 1,205; 2,105; 7,159; 12,505; 15,447). And the Ternar is permeated by a transcendent fourth. Let us look at this in more detail.

For Baader, the idea of trinity is not contradictory. Multiplicity and unity are not polar opposites, but can only be thought as deriving from a common third. This is a circular kind of thought, instead of Schelling’s linear idea of two polar opposites. The members of a trinity have three oppositions against each other; there is a dynamic relation among the three. But with an inner fourth point, three further possible oppositions appear (between that fourth point and each member of the trinity). Quaternity can be thought of as divided in an active Ternar and in a Recipiens (“Spec Dogm” Werke 8, 68).

The third is that without which neither of the other two can be thought. The third is thus a kind of middle [Mitte] of the other two. But middle is not the same as the transcendent center or Ground, which is the fourth that permeates the entire Ternar. Nor is this opposition of the fourth to the other three the same as a dualism in the sense of Schelling’s polarity of only two (“Pyth. Quadr.," Werke 3, 267).

Quaternity is also important for Baader’s ideas of subject and object. Here he uses a diamond shape. At the top point, both subject and object are sublated; on the corners of both sides, the object is in the subject and the subject is in the object; on the bottom point of the diamond, subject and object are not sublated. He points out four possibilities: opposed reciprocity, in rest, and in the action forcing outwards. But the four can be understood in 3: (1) where both moments (innerness and outerness) are sublated in each other (at rest) 2) where both are separated and sublated (active) and 3) where both at the same time unsublated (active). (“Spec Dogm” Werke 8, 66).

c) Jung’s idea of quaternity as 3 + 1

For Jung, as for Baader, quaternity involves a relation between three and four. There is an “opposition” between three and four; threeness or Trinity is incomplete, but fourness is wholeness. Threeness or trinity denotes polarity, and one triad always presupposes another triad. (“The Phenomenology of the Spirit in Fairytales, ” CW 9, paras 425-6). The vacillation between three and four is a vacillation between the spiritual and the physical (CW 12, para. 31).

This idea that Trinity is related to polarity reminds us of what Baader says about two being related to duality, and needing a Ternar in order to find a middle that both relate to. The fourth brings wholeness.
So three needs to be completed by four. The fourth brings wholeness, but the fourth is different from the other three. Jung says that the oldest representation of this problem is

In “The Symbolic Life,” he speaks of the “empirical quaternary structure” in terms of a 3+1 structure (CW 18, paragraphs 1603-4). And he specifically refers to a “quaternity with a 3 +1 structure,” “the One differentiated from the Three” (CW 10: 750-51). Jung also refers to an alchemical diagram showing “the Three and the One,” the “Alchemical Quaternity” (CW 12, para. 29, fig. 235).

We can therefore refer to quaternity as having a “3 + 1 structure.” There are three and a fourth that is different. This is reminiscent of Baader’s idea of a triangle with a dot in the centre.

(d) Jung’s theory of types

The 3 + 1 structure of quaternity is important for understanding Jung’s Ideas of Personality Types. But first we must distinguish his Theory of Types from the Myers-Briggs view of personality. Myers-Briggs uses 16 different categories, using 8 different contrasts: introvertive/extravertive, intuitive/sensing, thinking/feeling, and judging/perceiving. The final contrast judging/perceiving is not in Jung, but was added by Myers-Briggs. The first contrast introvertive/extravertive is important for Jung, and we have already discussed it. But it is not what Jung uses in his idea of quaternity for personality. For that, Jung uses only the two contrasts intuitive/sensing and thinking/feeling.

Of those four categories, one function is dominant in a personality, two are auxiliary to that function and only partially differentiated, and the fourth is “inferior” and not differentiated at all, but unconscious. Jung illustrates in a diagram how, if the thinking function is dominant, the function of feeling is wholly unconscious, and the other two functions are partly conscious (CW 12, para. 137, fig. 49).

Although three functions are differentiated, only one is successfully differentiated—the superior or main function has associated with it twopartially differentiated auxiliary functions (CW 9 par. 426). The inferior function is “contaminated” with the unconscious, and thus has the ability to help us bridge the conscious and the unconscious (CW 9 par. 582).

Sometimes Jung refers to the three differentiated functions in contrast to the one undifferentiated one. At other times, he refers to the dominant function, which is the only one that is successfully differentiated, in contrast to the three partially or wholly unconscious functions. In “Flying saucers,” Jung refers to these two ways of looking at a “quaternity with a 3 + 1 structure.”

In any event, in Jung’s theory of types, the fourth element is not on the same level as the other three. This is something that is not often understood by those who refer to Jung’s theory of personality types. One analyst who did understand that distinction was Marie Louise von Franz. [41]

Jung’s quaternity of types therefore has a 3 + 1 structure. But is this similar to Baader’s view of quaternity as a Ternar with a center, a triangle with a dot in the center? There is an important difference in that for Baader, the Center is unique, and never a part of the periphery. In Jung’s case, at least in his theory of personality types, the inferior function can be any one of the four functions. Thus, a function that is dominant for one person may be inferior for another. Perhaps this can be reconciled if we regard the fourth not as a supratemporal center, like the Selfhood, but as a center in the temporal personality. Jung indeed seems to say that that is the case. The four personality types in the quaternity appear only in the temporal differentiation from the ego, and do not represent the undifferentiated ego itself. This is evident from the following:

The unconscious wholeness or Totality is not the same as the inferior fourth. The fourth is a part of that original wholeness. But the problem of the fourth and the two triads arises only in the temporal manifestation of the unconscious wholeness.

The totality appears in quaternary form only when it is not just an unconscious fact but a conscious and differentiated totality (CW 14, par. 261).

We could therefore argue that a personal type is not a primary quaternity, like Baader’s supratemporal/temporal quaternity, but rather a secondary quaternity that only arises when the original ego is manifested in temporal consciousness. For Jung does not identify the inferior function with the selfhood per se. The selfhood, as we saw in Lecture 1, is a totality of everything, including inferior and dominant functions.Certainly the inferior function is not the same as the ego.

(e) Quaternity and Mandalas

But what about mandalas?How do they fit in with this theory of a quaternity as 3 + 1? For do not mandalas have four sides? Jung says that the sacred quaternity symbolised by the square may actually be none other than a pair of triangles:

If one imagines the quaternity as a square divided into two halves by a diagonal, one gets two triangles whose apices point in opposite directions. One could therefore say metaphorically that the wholeness symbolised by the quaternity is divided into equal halves, it produces two opposing triads. ["The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious," CW, vol 9, par. 426.]

A quaternity is then made up of two opposing triads, each pointing in opposite directions. Elsewhere, Jung relates this idea of two triangles to the Star of David symbol (CW 10, para 771). But here he relates the double triad to the alchemists:

And elsewhere he refers to this as a result of an original “pleromatic split”:

In relation to such double triads, he mentions that there can be an upper triad with evil in the unconscious, and a lower triad with good in the unconscious. So again we have a triangle with something unconscious making up a quaternity (“The Symbolic Life,” CW 18, para. 1604).

The implication seems to be that each of these triads has a fourth that completes it. This is confirmed elsewhere where he refers to two triads, each completed by a fourth. The first is a triad of good, completed by a fourth of evil, and the second is a “lower triad” where 1 is good and the three are evil (“The Symbolic Life,” CW 18, para. 1604).

Jung uses symbols of both trinity and quaternity. Michael J. Brabazon refers to the figure of Mercurius, who is referred to more frequently as a trinity than a quaternity:

Edinger discovered the same reference to trinities in Jung’s descriptions of quaternities:

Edinger gives the example of the Tibetan world wheel, a mandala with three animals (cock snake and pig) in the center, with 6 spokes of the wheel and twelve outer divisions. He cites what Jung says about this mandala:

And yet if we regard the center of the mandala as the fourth, then we have a 3 + 1 structure, even in the triadic center. This is evident from Jung’s discussion of another mandala in rotation around a center. He refers to a mandala in a Gothic window in the cathedral at Paderborn, showing three hares rotating around a center (CW 9 par. 694, fig. 39).

Thus a mandala can have a Trinity with a center. But again we are faced with the same problem that we saw in discussing the quaternity in relation to personality types. Does Jung regard this fourth as the totality from which the other three arise? Or is it merely something that completes the other three in an additive way? If so, the fourth here is not the same as the Selfhood as totality that we discussed in Lecture 1, and so the parallel with Baader would not be exact. The idea of an additive completion is not the same as Baader’s view of Totality as the center of a Ternar.

(f) Did Jung change his view of the 3 + 1 structure of quaternities?

It must be pointed out that, although Jung speaks of a quaternity in terms of a 3 + 1 structure, he inconsistently also seems to speak of a quaternity as four things or aspects alongside each other:

In an interesting, although incomplete article, Remo F. Roth refers to this inconsistency in Jung. He argues that Jung moved from a 3 + 1 structure of quaternity to a view of four without a center:

In support of this accusation of ambivalence in Jung, Roth refers to several letters from Wolfgang Pauli, in which Pauli criticizes Jung’s idea of quaternity and argues for a “psychophysical monism.” Roth argues that the fourfold quaternity represents a neo-Platonic devaluation of matter (as does the Catholic dogma of the Assumption of Mary). In place of this, Roth argues for the Hermetic view of quaternity, which is a double triad, the Star of David. The triangle can seek its unity in the One, which is a union or chemical wedding.

Another argument for the double triad as the better interpretation is given in the article by Brabazon to which I have already referred. But Brabazon does not deal with the 3 + 1 view of Trinity and Quaternity.

Both Roth and Brabazon raise issues that I believe are worth pursuing, but are beyond the scope of this lecture. It does seem to me that the 3 + 1 structure of quaternity is more fruitful than a fourfold symmetry where all members have equal rights. If a quaternity means nothing more than four members in a group, we get the strange (and in my opinion, superficial) interpretations of quaternity such as the view that Prince Charles, Princess Diana, and their two sons are a quaternity [45] or that the four cartoon characters the Teletubbies represent a quaternity. [46]

In my view, the 3 + 1 structure gives a deeper sense of quaternity, showing the relation between supratemporal and temporal, and between consciousness and the unconscious. It can also be interpreted more along the lines of Baader’s quaternity, the triangle with a dot in the center. But I would disagree with Roth (and Pauli) that such a center is to be regarded in a monistic way. [47]

(g) Completion of the Trinity by God’s Sophia, Wisdom, Virgin

Both Jung and Baader emphasize the role of Sophia [God’s Wisdom] within the quaternity (Grassl 48-49).

In Answer to Job (CW 11), Jung speaks of the role of Sophia or Wisdom in God’s self-reflection. Sophia was with God before time and at the end of time will again be bound with God in the holy wedding. Sophia completes the Trinity. Jung sometimes refers to this as the Virgin, and for this reason he believed that it was such an important event when the Catholic Church recognized the Assumption of Mary. At other times, it seems as if it is the feminine that is the fourth that is being added to the Trinity, and Jung seems to ignore the idea of Sophia, which is so crucial in Baader’s Christian theosophy. For example, he says that woman, as anima, represents the fourth inferior function, feminine because associated with the unconscious (CW 12, para. 29).

But again we have the problem of whether Sophia as the fourth is a separate being. Jung acknowledges that it was a heresy for the church to say that there were four persons in the Godhead, but it is unclear what his own view is.
Baader also refers to the Virgin as completing the Trinity, but says this Virgin or Wisdom is not a separate personality in God, but the mirror of God:

I suppose that Jung’s response is that he would not want to speculate about God or the Trinity, but only about the God-image, which is psychologically and empirically investigated. If by God-image, Jung means humanity, then it can make sense to say that there are aspects like the feminine that need to be integrated. But in relating this to dogmas of the Church, like the Assumption of Mary, Jung seems to be going well beyond a merely psychological interpretation. This is even more the case when he refers to the fourth as evil within God.

(h) Quaternity and Evil

A further important distinction from Baader is that Baader distinguishes a quaternity within God (Godhead as the center of Trinity) and a quaternity within humanity (Heart as center of our body, spirit and soul). Baader says that if we identify the two quaternities, this will lead to pantheism, and to finding evil within God. We shall discuss both the issue of pantheism and the issue of evil in more detail in Lecture 3, where we will also look at Jung’s discussion of mandalas in the work of Jakob Boehme. It is interesting to point out that Jung was aware of the alchemical idea of a double quaternity (CW 8, par. 539), but he does not seem to have followed the idea, at least not in the way that Baader did.

For now, it is sufficient to point out that Jung is inconsistent with respect to the nature of the fourth term of the Trinity. As we have seen, Jung refers to Sophia or the Virgin as completing the Trinity. And yet he sometimes says that it is evil that completes the Trinity. This confusion is evident in the following quotation:

Jung is clearly speaking not only of the God-image, but of God Himself, the Deity, containing evil. And so Jung is breaking his own Kantian principles, and engaging in metaphysical speculation. We will look at the issue of evil in more detail in Lecture 3. But first we will look at evil in relation to Gnosticism, and how Jung’s psychology relates to that.

Go to Part 2 of Lecture 2

Endnotes

[1] Hugo Ball, cited by Poppe: Afterword to Franz von Baader: Über die Begründung der Ethik durch die Physik (Stuttgart: Verlag Freies Geistesleben, 1969), 108. [‘Begründung’]. References in my article will be to this edition, although it is also found in Vol 5 of Baader’s Collected Works, which will be referred to as ‘Werke.’

[2] Werke 3, 317 fn4: Baader opposed what was atomistic, mechanical; Werke 3, 329: integration is wholeness = holiness [Baader writes in English, using this spelling].

[3] Louis Claude de St. Martin (1743-1803) wrote under the name of ‘the Unknown Philosopher’ (‘le philosophe inconnu’). He was the author of Des erreurs et de la vérité and Le Tableau Naturel. Le Tableau Naturel showed the relations between God, Man and the universe. St. Martin is not to be confused with the Jewish mystic Martines Pasqualis, who also influenced Baader.

[4] Baader regarded the Sefer Yetsirah [‘The Book of Creation’] as an original revelation to the Jews. But Baader had only a superficial knowledge of Kabbalah. See David Baumgardt: Franz von Baader und die Philosophische Romantik (Halle: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1927), 35 [‘Baumgaradt’]

[5] Franz von Baader: Sämtliche Werke, ed. Franz Hoffmann (Leipzig, 1851-1860) [‘Werke’], 1, 153f. The title of Baader’s 1822 work, Fermenta Cognitionis, reflects this view. This work has been translated into French: Franz von Baader: Fermenta Cognitionis, tr. Eugène Susini (Paris: Albin Michel, 1985). The original is found in volume 2 of Werke.

[6] Ramon J. Betanzos: Franz von Baader’s Philosophy of Love (Vienna: Passagen Verlag, 1998).

[7] Translation online at [http://www.members.shaw.ca/baader/Zwiespalt.html].

[8] Translation online at [http://www.members.shaw.ca/baader/Zeit.html].

[9] Translation online at [http://www.members.shaw.ca/baader/Elementar.html].

[10] Baumgardt, 5-7. Baader introduced Hegel to the thought of Meister Eckhart (Werke 15, 159; Baumgardt, 34), and he introduced Schelling to the thought of Boehme, thereby changing Schelling’s orientation from pantheism to theism (Baumgardt, 41). But influence does not necessarily mean agreement; Baader disagreed with Hegel, Schelling, as well as others that he influenced.

[11] Werke 15, 105; Betanzos, 72.

[12] Betanzos, 12, 25; Eugène Susini: Franz von Baader et le romantisme mystique (Paris: J. Vrin, 1942), 6 [‘Susini’].

[13] Poppe, Afterword to Begründung, 107-8. In his Concept of Dread, Kierkegaard refers to “the customary power and validity of Baader’s ideas.” (Baumgardt, 7 and 398). Friedrich Heer thought that Berdyaev’s ideas were based completely on Baader (Betanzos, 294). Berdyaev wrote on Baader. See N.A. Berdyaev: “Studies concerning Jacob Boehme” online at [http://www.berdyaev.com/
berdiaev/berd_lib/1930_349.html].

[14] Introduction to Fermenta Cognitionis, tr. Eugène Susini (Paris: Albin, 1985), 9.

[15] Deirdre Bair: Jung: A Biography (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 2003), 397 [‘Bair’].

[16] C.G. Jung: CW 4, 748. He cites Baader’s Werke 7, 229: "He who was born in the Virgin Mary is the same who had to depart Adam on account of his fall."

[17] Hans Grassl: “Baaders Lehre vom Quaternar im Vergleich mit der Polarität Schellings und der Dialektik Hegels; Mit einem Nachtrag: Baader und C.G. Jung.,” in Peter Koslowski, ed.: Die Philosophie, Theologie und Gnosis Franz von Baaders (Vienna: Passagen Verlag, 1993).

[18] “Die Ruhe des Centrums bedingt die freie Bewegung in der Peripherie.” (“Zeitbegr” Werke 2, 53).

[19] …Ausgangspunkt eines Organismus, worin die einzelnen Glieder vorerst noch ungeschieden (in potentia) liegen. (“Geistersch,” Werke 4, 214).

[20] Franz von Baader: Sätze aus der erotischen Philosophie, online at [http://www.anthroposophie.net/bibliothek/religion/mystik/baader/bib_baader_eros.htm].

[21] The Silberblick, or experience of unity, is similar to what Stace called ‘extravertive mysticism’–a feeling of unity with all of nature.

[22] Jolande Jacobi: The Way of Individuation, tr. R.F.C. Hall (New York: Meridian, 1983, originally published 1965), 150. See also Jolande Jacobi: Complex, Archetype, Symbol in the Psychology of C.G. Jung (Princeton, 1959), 96, 144-45.

[23] C.G. Jung: “The Meaning of Individuation,” The Integration of the Personality, tr. Stanley M. Dell (New York: Farrar & Rinehart, 1939), online at [http://www.jungland.ru/Library/EngMeanInd.htm]. This lecture was later revised and enlarged as “A Study in the Process of Individuation,” Mandala Symbolism (Princeton, 1959). See CW, Vol. 11.

[24] Sanford L. Drob: “Jung and the Kabbalah,” History of Psychology. May, 1999 Vol 2(2), pp. 102-118.http://www.newkabbalah.com/Jung2.html [‘Drob’]

[25] Jolande Jacobi: The Way of Individuation, tr. R.F.C. Hall (New York: Meridian, 1983, originally published 1965).

[26] Mark L. Dotson: “Jung and Alchemy,” Spring, 1996, online at [http://members.core.com/~ascensus/docs/jung3.html]

[27] C.G. Jung: The Meaning of Individuation (see endnote 23 above).

[28] C.G. Jung: Commentary on “The Secret of the Golden Flower,” Psychology and the East (Princeton, 1978), Foreword, p. 6, and p. 23; CW 13, para. 29.

[29] C.G. Jung; Memories, Dreams, Reflections, ed. Anniela Jaffé (New York: Vintage Books, 1965), 205.

[30] Ibid.

[31]Cited by Rufus Jones in introduction to Boehme’s Way to Christ (New York: Harper, 1947).

[32]C.G. Jung: Psychology and Alchemy, trans. R. F. C. Hull, 2nd ed. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton, 1970), 115.

[33] Poppe, Afterword to Begründung, 122.

[34] Hans Grassl: “Baaders Lehre vom Quaternar im Vergleich mit der Polarität Schellings und der Dialektik Hegels; Mit einem Nachtrag: Baader und C.G. Jung.,” in Peter Koslowski, ed.: Die Philosophie, Theologie und Gnosis Franz von Baaders (Vienna: Passagen Verlag, 1993).

[35] J.W. v. Goethe: Gedenkausgabe, Vol. 20 (Zurich: Artimis, 1950), 809. Cited by Grassl 31.

[36] C.G. Jung: Mandala Symbolism (Princeton, 1959), p. 4, para 715.

[37] See discussion at [http://members.tripod.com/vismath9/ljkocic/artel2.htm].

[38] C.G. Jung: Traum und Traumdeutung (Munich, 1990), 240.

[39] Italian newspaper L'Europeo 5 December 1948, “The Psychoanalyst Jung Teaches How to Tame the Devil.” Cited by Michael J. Brabazon: “Carl Jung and the Trinitarian Self,” Quodlibet Journal 4 (2002), online at [http://www.quodlibet.net/brabazon-jung.shtml]. [‘Brabazon’]

[40] See Baader’s letter to Jacobi of Feb 8, 1798 (“Br.,” Werke 15, 181f). Baader says that the philosophies of Kant, Fichte and Schelling have only two sides. They must first be three and then find the point in the middle, the relation of the active elements to the three passive ones.

[41] Marie Louise von Franz: Jung’s Typology (Woodstock: Spring Publications, 1986).

[42] Michael J. Brabazon: “Carl Jung and the Trinitarian Self,” Quodlibet Journal 4 (2002), online at [http://www.quodlibet.net/brabazon-jung.shtml].

[43] E. Edinger: Ego and Archetype, (Boston: Shambhala, 1992), 189.

[44] Remo F. Roth: “The Return of the World Soul: Wolfgang Pauli, Carl Jung and the Challenge of the Unified Psychophysical Reality,” [http://www.psychovision.ch/synw/ jungneoplatonismaristotlep1.htm].

[45] Maureen B. Roberts claims that Charles, William, Harry and Diana form a quaternity whose feminine fourth has undoubtedly helped awaken the feminine principle along with its attunement to feeling in the three males. It is surely significant, for instance, that among the Royals at Diana's funeral, these three were the only ones to openly cry (A corresponding negative quaternity was evident in the '3+1' configuration that featured in the car crash that killed Diana and two of her male companions) [http://www.jungcircle.com/diana.html]

[46] Rev. Kenneth M. Kafoed: “Teletubbies: A Psychoanalytic Perspective,” [http://members.cox.net/sovpont/teletub.htm]

[47] See J. Glenn Friesen: “Monism, Dualism, Nondualism: Problems with Vollenhoven’s Problem-Historical Method,” [http://www.members.shaw.ca/hermandooyeweerd/Method.html].

[48] C.G. Jung: Psychology and Religion, (Yale University Press, 1938), 76-77. This was originally given as the Terry Lectures at Yale in 1937. In 1940, Jung revised it, and the revised version is found in CW 11.

Go to Part 2 of Lecture 2

Sept 13/08
May 18/11. Corrected quote regarding introversion, and supplied translation.