Part 1 of Lecture 3

The Relation of Jung's Psychology
to Meister Eckhart and Jakob Boehme

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 back to Lecture 2
Go back to Lecture 1

I. Introduction

This is the third and final lecture in this series on Jung and Western Mysticism.

In Lecture 1, we discussed how Jung’s idea of individuation needs to be interpreted in relation to his idea of totality, the center beyond time that is both the source and the goal of all our temporal functions. Individuation is not to be understood as individualism, but rather as a relation of our relating our temporal ego to our supratemporal, supra-individual and central selfhood.

In Lecture 2, we saw how this idea of totality is related to the philosophy of the German Christian theosophist Franz von Baader. We briefly looked at many similarities between Franz von Baader and Jung. We also examined Jung’s relation to Gnosticism and to Kabbalah.

Baader, a Catholic Christian theosophist, was important in reviving interest in Meister Eckhart and Jakob Boehme. He introduced the ideas of Boehme to the philosopher Schelling, and he introduced the ideas of Eckhart to the philosopher Hegel. But Baader disagreed with the use made by Schelling and Hegel of these ideas. In this Lecture 3, we will look at Boehme and Eckhart in more detail.

This lecture therefore continues the themes of the two previous lectures. It explores the relation of Jung’s ideas to the mysticism of Boehme and Eckhart. This will give a historical context to Jung’s analytical psychology that has frequently not been sufficiently appreciated. It will also show how Jung has misinterpreted Boehme and Eckhart.

II. Jung and Meister Eckhart

A. Who was Meister Eckhart? (1260-1328)

Meister Eckhart is one of the most important mystics in the West. He was born at Hochheim, near Gotha around 1260. He became a monk, a member of the Dominican order in Erfurt. Around 1300, Eckhart became a lecturer at Paris. In 1302, he obtained the title of Master of Sacred Theology; that is why he is called Meister Eckhart. He later taught at Cologne. He preached in vernacular low German.

The archbishop Hermann von Virneburg accused Meister Eckhart of heresy. But Eckhart was exonerated by Nicholas of Strasburg, to whom the pope had given the temporary charge of the Dominican monasteries in Germany. But although Eckhart had been exonerated, the archbishop continued these charges of heresy against Eckhart in his own court. Meister Eckhart denied that the archbishop had proper jurisdiction, and he appealed to the pope. On Feb. 13, 1327, Eckhart stated that he had always detested everything wrong, and should anything of the kind be found in his writings, he retracted it. This document is known as Eckhart’s “Justification,” and a copy of it is available online [1]. There is no further information in Eckhart’s case, except that Pope John XXII. issued a papal bull on March 27, 1329 (In agro dominico), in which he characterized some statements Eckhart as heretical; another statement is shown as suspected of heresy. [2]

Five centuries later, Franz von Baader, whom we discussed in Lecture 2, transmitted Meister Eckhart’s ideas to the philosophers of his time. In particular, he introduced these ideas to the philosopher Hegel [3], although he disagreed with the way that Hegel used Eckhart’s ideas to support the view that God needs man in order to become conscious. As we shall see, that same incorrect idea found its way to Jung, who made the same mistake in interpreting Eckhart.

Meister Eckhart emphasized the importance of God being born in us, and the idea of the Eternal Now. And he referred to the idea of “Gelassenheit” or letting go. This should not be understood as mere passivity. Rather, there is first a moment of identity between the ego and its source. After this moment of identity, the ego then has a revitalized engagement with the world. This idea of engagement with the world is something that is often overlooked, on the incorrect assumption that Eckhart’s mysticism is world-denying. But Eckhart’s mysticism, unlike Gnosticism, does not turn its back on the world. In fact, a book has been written on Eckhart’s social philosophy: Ilse Roloff, ed.: Meister Eckeharts Schriften zur Gesellschaftsphilosophie (Jena: Gustav Fisher, 1934). This was part of the Herdflamme collection of books, edited by Othmar Spann. The Herdflamme series also included a separate volume on Franz von Baader; this volume was part of the renaissance of interest in Baader that occurred in the 1920’s.

B. Jung’s references to Meister Eckhart

(1) Even as a boy, Jung was interested in Eckhart. [4]

(2) Jung says that Eckhart understood God as a psychological value. (CW 6, para. 418)

(3) Jung says Eckhart spoke of the unconscious six centuries before it was investigated in more detail (“Gnostic Symbols of the Self,” CW 9, par. 302). And he says elsewhere,

(4) Eckhart spoke of God as an “inner possession.” (Psychological Types, CW 6, para. 416-417)

(5) He refers to Eckhart as an example of how people seldom do great things without first going astray. (Psychological Types, CW 6, para. 415)

(6) Man is truly God, and God is truly man. Jung cites Meister Eckhart

(7) God is to be born in the soul. We will look at this symbol of birth.

Jung says:

(8) Eckhart distinguishes between God and Godhead. Godhead is prior to God as Trinity. Eckhart distinguishes between Godhead (Gottheit) and its derivative, God as Trinity and creator (Gottes).

Because of his Kantian principles, you would think that Jung would say that Godhead is metaphysical, and that we therefore cannot say anything about Godhead. But Jung does speak about Godhead:

(8) Jung speaks of a breakthrough into a non-ego-like Self ("Zen Buddhism,” CW 11, para. 887; also Psychological Types, CW 6 para. 429). In support of this idea, he cites Eckhart:

(9) Jung says that he found personal inspiration in Meister Eckhart’s sense of resignation and letting be (“The Secret of the Golden Flower,” CW 13, par. 20). He refers to Eckhart’s emphasis on emptying, letting go, emptiness. There is a supersession of the ego by the self (Foreword to “Introduction to Zen Buddhism,” CW 11, para 893). The first stage of mystic experience is “letting oneself go” “emptying oneself of images and ideas”; says it differs from Ignatian exercises which emphasize images. Jung contrasts this to other kinds of Protestant mysticism, which concentrate on images. Eckhart’s mysticism is without images. Eckhart asserts that “God is Nothingness.”

(11) Jung compares Eckhart to the Hindu Upanishads

Jung says that in Eckhart, we find ourselves transported back into the spacious atmosphere of the Upanishads [5]. He says that Eckhart must have experienced a quite extraordinary enhancement of the value of the soul, i.e., of his own inner being, that enabled him to rise to the purely psychological and relativistic conception of God and of his relation to man.

C. Issues in Jung’s Interpretation of Meister Eckhart

Meister Eckhart is important for Jung’s psychology. And so is Jakob Boehme, as we shall see in part 2 of this lecture. But did Jung interpret Eckhart and Boehme correctly? And has Jung in turn been interpreted correctly in what he says about them? These are important issues if we want to understand Jung.

In his article “Revisioning Incarnation: Jung on the Relativity of God,” [6] John P. Dourley argues that Jung used Eckhart in support of these ideas:

Although Jung is sometimes ambiguous, Dourley’s interpretation moves in a contrary direction from what I have argued in these lectures.

(1) Breakthrough and “identity” with God

Jung interprets the occurrence of satori [Zen Enlightenment] as a break-through. Our consciousness, which had been limited to the ego-form, breaks through into the non-ego-like self (Foreword to “Introduction to Zen Buddhism,” CW 11, para 887). Jung says this also accords with Meister Eckhart. Jung refers to these experiences of the non-ego as mystical. [7]

Dourley claims that in Eckhart’s “breakthrough” there is a total identity with God beyond all differentiation.He says that Eckhart speaks of “identity with and return from the furthest realms of divinity” (Dourley, 9). And he says that the breakthrough “describes the furthest ingression into divinity. It is followed by a return to conscious life as a creature once more distinct from its creator” (Dourley, 15).

But Eckhart denies that Man is identical to God: See Eckhart’s “Justification”:

So Eckhart is emphasizing the immanence of God in creation, and not our identity with God. God is not pantheistically identical with creation, but transcendent. But such transcendence does not prevent God from revealing Himself and being immanent in creation. Later writers speak of a pan-en-theism, where creation is in God, but God is always more than His creation.

Now we can debate whether Eckhart’s “Justification” was merely written in desperation to save himself in the heresy trial, and whether it truly reflects what he says in such writings as Sermon LXXVII [“I pray God to rid me of God,”] or his Sermon “Blessed are the Poor.” I believe that they can be read in a way that is consistent with his denial of identity with God.

But it is clear that Jung did not regard man as being identical with God, either.

First, Jung notes a distinction in Eckhart between Godhead and God (Psychological Types, CW 6, para. 429). Dourley also acknowledges that Eckhart’s idea of the divine quaternity distinguishes between Godhead as the center, and God as a member of the Trinity of which Godhead is the Center (Dourley 14). But the distinction between this divine quaternity and the human quaternity, with selfhood at the center of man (just like Godhead is the center of the Trinity), does not seem to have been acknowledged by either Jung or Dourley. We shall see this again in our discussion of God and evil (below). The two quaternities are more fully worked out in Boehme and later in Baader, but even in Eckhart, we see how our imaging God also involves an imaging of central relationship. It is because we image the relation of Godhead to Trinity that Eckhart can say “it is I who bring all creatures out of their own into my mind and make them one in me” (cited by Jung CW 6, para 428). Our selfhood, as image of God, unifies the temporal world in the same way that Godhead is the unity of the Trinity. And just as Godhead expresses Himself in the Trinity, so our selfhood expresses itself in its temporal ego. Contrary to what Dourley seems to think (Dourley 5), Jung’s idea that the selfhood creates the ego (CW 11, par 400) does not mean that we create ourselves, but that in our relation of self to ego, of supratemporal center to temporal periphery, we are imaging God.

Second, to the extent that Godhead and God are transcendent, Jung’s Kantian principles prevent him from saying anything about God as He is in Himself. When he speaks of ‘God,’ he is referring to the God-image (man’s transcendent psyche), since that is all that Jung believes is available to be investigated by psychology if it is to remain empirical (Whether Jung can consistently be empirical is doubtful, but that is the basis for what he states here).

Now all of this would have been much easier to understand if Jung had been clearer in his terminology. If he had consistently used the term ‘God-image,’ this would have prevented much misunderstanding. For that matter, his psychology would also have been much clearer if he had not used the word ‘psyche’ to mean “selfhood.” Even if he had used the term ‘soul’ instead of ‘psyche,’ it would have been more understandable. I suggest that he did not do this because he was trying to appear empirical, and he thought that the term ‘soul’ carried too many metaphysical connotations. I believe he was wrong in doing this, for metaphysics cannot be avoided (see discussion below). Another reason that Jung avoided the term ‘soul’ is that it is often used to refer to only some of our functions. But Jung’s analytical psychology “opposes the view that the soul does not coincide with the totality of the psychic functions” (Psychological Types, CW 6, para. 419). But Jung does use the term ‘soul’ in a way that fits with the idea of totality, and with the idea of our selfhood as God-image, in a way that avoids identifying soul or selfhood with God. Rather, the soul is an image, reflecting the forces of God.

In paragraph 418, Jung cites Eckhart that the soul is “of like nature with the Godhead.” But that quotation goes on to say “The soul is all things because she is an image of God.” As God-image, the soul (or psyche or selfhood) is distinct from that which it reflects. And that does not mean that God is not also present or immanent in the soul.

In any event, Jung is clear in his later writings that he does not accept the identity of the selfhood with God Himself:

Jung’s opposition of identification of selfhood and God is clear in his Lectures on Kundalini Yoga [9]. He says that practitioners of Kundalini can experience the divine because they are so deeply conscious of the utter difference of god and man.(Kundalini, 30). Jung refers to the idea that the self is not different from the object, God, and that there is not even an object, no God, nothing but Brahman. He says, “This is an entirely philosophical concept, a mere logical conclusion from the premises before. It is without practical value for us” (Kundalini, 57). To identify the personal with the divine results in our undergoing a tremendous inflation. This is the mistake of theosophy, which confuses the individual light-spark with the divine light (Kundalini, 68).

So when Dourley says that Jung interprets Eckhart as saying that we are identical with the Godhead, Dourley is making a double mistake. In the breakthrough, we do not become identical with either Godhead or even God in a transcendent sense, but only with the God-image. And this is what Jung means by the “relativity of God.” It is the relation between our temporal ego and our selfhood as God-image. But let us look at this in more detail.

(2) The Relativity of God

The title of Dourley’s article refers to the “relativity of God.” Dourley says that Jung “effectively denies the ontological reality of the transcendent One and Only Gods of the variant monotheisms and the supernatural world from which they arbitrarily invade the human in creative and redemptive enterprise” (Dourley 2). He says that Jung’s view is that “religion has no referent beyond the psyche.” Dourley supports this denial of a transcendent God and compares it to what Don Cupitt says about dissolving the metaphysical God, and the “double meltdown” of God and the soul into each other (Dourley 25-26).

Dourley relies on the following passage from Psychological Types, where Jung comments on Eckhart’s idea of the “relativistic conception of God and of his relation to man”:

It is clear from this very quotation that Jung is referring to God-image and not to God in Himself (“From the empirical standpoint of analytical psychology, the God-image…”). From the following paragraph (413), Jung makes it clear that he wants to confine his psychology “to empirical data within the limits set by cognition.” He says, “From the metaphysical point of view God is, of course, absolute, existing in himself.” From his Kantian perspective, Jung wants to avoid metaphysical statements, and so is concentrating on what is observable, namely our relation with the God-image.

Dourley acknowledges that Jung’s intent here is to show the reciprocity of ego and selfhood (Dourley, 4). I agree. But that in itself does not mean a reciprocity with God, but only with the God-image, our selfhood. Let us look at the movement that Jung describes in the reciprocal relation of self and ego. Jung says that there are three stages in this reciprocal relation:

a) Projection of energy into objects in the world

For the “primitive person,” and “on the lower human levels, ” God is “a power that can be captured by certain procedures and employed for the making of things needful for the life and well-being of man, and also to produce magical or baneful effects. the primitive feels this power as much within him as outside him…” (para. 414). This is the power of mana, or the power of fetish objects. But the power comes from the subject’s own unconscious, which is then projected onto objects in the world. Jung says that this projection is what Eckhart is referring to when he says that for those who do not have God as an inner possession, they must “fetch him from without, in this thing or that, where he is then sought for in vain, in all manner of works, people, or places; verily such a man has him not, and easily something comes to trouble him” (para. 416). For such people, the world has taken the place of God. The world appears as an absolutely determining factor (para. 417). And by that test, most modern people share this primitive view, and live “in the basement” of consciousness. [10]

b) Breakthrough into non-ego

This projection of power into objects sets up a “surplus value” in those objects. We must introvert that surplus value and turn it into an inner possession (para. 417). This would occur naturally except for the fact that our consciousness gets in the way. By over-valuing the object, the primitive is able to produce a retrograde current that would “quite naturally” bring the libido back to the subject “were it not for the obstructing power of consciousness.” So to introvert this power that we have improperly projected, a sacrifice is required (para. 422). The sacrifice means cutting ourselves off from things into which we projected our ego, and a sacrifice of our ego consciousness itself.

We “break through” into the non-ego. The breakthrough is when the separation of our ego from God is abolished by first cutting the ego off from the world. The ego then again becomes identical with the unconscious dynamis. God [i.e. God-image] disappears as an object and dwindles into a subject which is no longer distinguishable from the ego. This is not a blissful state (unlike the next stage). Here, we are overwhelmed by the unconscious.

Eckhart’s symbolism of being born again in God as another way of reduction, re-establishes identity with God, the dynamic all-Oneness, which Jung equates with participation mystique. In my view, this is questionable. Is participation mystique really the same as being born again in God? Does the primitive really ascend from the instinctual use of archetypes? Or is this another instance of Jung failing to distinguish the pre-personal use of archetypes from the trans-personal?

In any event, Jung refers to Eckhart’s idea of being born again “in God” as a “mystic regression”, where the ego, “as a late product of differentiation,” is reunited with the dynamic All-oneness (the participation mystique of primitives). There is an immersion in the “flood and source.” As a result of this retrograde process the original state of identity with God is re-established and a new potential is produced. (paras. 430-431). The potential is for the creative flowing out, of God being born in us, which is the third phase.

c) The flowing out from God (in the sense of God-image)

The second stage, of breakthrough, of being born again in God, is distinct from letting God be born in us. In this third stage, by means of passive Gelassenheit and emptiness, we become open to the working of the God-image. Our experience is as described by Paul “not I, but Christ in me.”

In this state, we have recognized our projections, and we have achieved a “Brahman-like state of ananda [bliss].” There is “a drop in the conscious potential, the unconscious becomes the determining factor, and the ego almost entirely disappears.” We feel “borne along by the current of life, when what was dammed up can flow off without restraint, when there is no need to do this thing or that thing with a conscious effort in order to find a way out or to achieve a result.”

This flowing out is from a source that we recognize as “objective.” And so we again distinguish between subjective and objective, between our ego and God (i.e. our selfhood, God-image). But God is no longer projected outside, but God is inside. That is what it means that “God is born in the soul.” The supreme value “is now found inside and not outside” (para. 421). This is what Eckhart means when he says, “A little while since and I declared, I am the cause that God is God! God is gotten of the soul, his Godhead he has of himself” and “God comes into being and passes away.”

Elsewhere, Jung comments again on Eckhart:

With this inner possession, we return to the world, with our individuated and reborn ego, with new energy and vitality. So although we return, it is not to the same situation as before, for now God is an inner possession. This creativity allows us to see the world differently. “It is not that something different is seen, but one sees differently.” (Foreword to “Introduction to Zen Buddhism,”CW 11, para 891).

And yet Jung is ambiguous on this point, too. For he says that there is a continual process of a differentiated flowing out from God and becoming identical with God.

Despite this back and forth, there is not a progress upwards towards our true selfhood, a spiral movement of ascent? Again, Jung is unclear. For even in his description of the “flowing out,” he compares our state to that of the child or the primitive person, who is also influenced in the highest degree by the unconscious (para. 422). But surely there is a difference in how the primitive is influenced. Perhaps it was only in his later works, like Kundalini, that Jung was able to distinguish between the way of descent and the way of ascent.

D. Symbols

The relation of self and ego, and its three stages, are important in understanding what Jung means by ‘symbol.’ For it is the “intuitive teachings of religion” that portray in symbols this collective of energy that has been projected outwards (Psychological Types, CW, para. 422). Put another way, religion teaches us how to avoid idols and the over-valuation of temporal reality, and to live from out of a higher power within us.

The soul reflects the inacessible depths of the unconscious (para. 425). The soul apprehends the contents of the unconscious, and, as the creative function, gives birth to its dynamis in the form of a symbol. (para. 426). The aim of the great religions is expressed in the injunction “not of this world,” and this implies the inward movement of libido into the unconscious. Its withdrawal and introversion create in the a concentration of libido is symbolized as the “treasure,” as in the parables of the “pearl of great price” and the “treasure in the field” (para. 423).

In my view, Jung does not sufficiently explain the reflective character of the soul. If the soul is a God-image, a reflecting organ, then the relation is not just between our selfhood and ego, but between them and that which transcends them both. Because of his Kantian principles, Jung is afraid to talk of a transcendent God, but only of the God-image. I believe that Baader’s view of the selfhood as God-image, and his non-Kantian philosophy, allows him to clarify some of these issues in Jungian psychology. Even Jung’s repeated emphasis on “Christ in us” remains ambiguous unless the self/soul as God-image reflects a Christ that is transcendent to it.

There is much more that can and should be said about this. I am surprised that Dourley, who is a Catholic priest, finds it strange that so many Jungian analysts “still cling to the idea of a God beyond the psyche” (Dourley 27). But I hope that my comparisons with Baader show how such a view of divine transcendence is not inconsistent with Jungian psychology. As I said before, I am going in a different direction than the one that Dourley wants to take.

We need to briefly look at what Jung says about our use of symbols. We make use of symbols in different ways:

1. artistically (like Goethe).

2. philosophical speculation. He gives Nietzsche as an example.

Jung claims to avoid a speculative use of symbols. But recall that for Baader, speculation is from ‘specula’ or mirror, and so Baader’s kind of speculation is imaginative, in attempting to recover the archetypal image of man (See Baader’s “Speculative Dogmatics,” Werke 8). The archetypal nature of the quaternity also explains, says Grassl [11], why for Baader, each speculation concerning it requires an Imagination, an inner generation or inner birth.

3. a quasi-religious use of symbols, which leads to heresy and sects. This is a subjectivism and results in individualism, and we can see its beginnings in Protestantism’s emphasis on the subject. It represents “a new form of detachment from the world, the immediate danger of which is re-submersion in this unconscious dynamis. This is the cult of the “blond beast.” (CW 6, para 433).

4. symbols can be squandered in licentiousness. This way and the previous way of applying symbols were apparent in the ascetic and anarchic schools of Gnosticism (Psychological Types, CW 6, para. 426-427).

5. Jung then gives his own view of the way that symbols are applied:

Sometimes we cannot adapt to reality, but only endure it. Even in that case, endurance “is made easier by an elaboration of the fantasy-images (para. 427). How do we elaborate a symbol? Jung says that there are two ways of such “treatment”:

Let us examine this text more closely.

a) The reductive use of symbols

The reductive approach is a regression to the primitive. It traces symbols back to our primitive instincts. This is the first stage discussed above, where we over-value the object. But this reductive approach is only the descent to the pre-personal unconscious. It needs to be completed by what we discussed in Lecture 1 about what Jung says concerning the ascent to the suprapersonal, which is the beginning of individuation.

This reductive use, this regression to the primitive, creates a “retrogade current” that can us to sacrifice of ego, but only if we sacrifice our existing relation to the world, and our existing sense of ego. This leads to the second stage, “participation mystique.” In that second stage, we lose our sense of ego, and become immersed in the flood of unconsciousness.

b) The synthetic use of symbols

The synthetic approach develops the symbolic fantasies into a process for differentiating the personality. In this creative use of symbol, the selfhood is again split into God-image and ego. The God-image is seen again as something objective, which works through us, like Christ within us. This is an enormously creative phase. It is leads to differentiation of the personality and renewal of life. It is the transcendent function; a transition to a new attitude (para. 252). The subjective “I live” becomes objective: “It lives me”; This results in a state where because of the detachment of consciousness, the subjective “I live” becomes the objective “It lives me.” (“The Secret of the Golden Flower,” CW 13, para. 78).

(3) that God is Himself unconscious, and requires humanity’s consciousness in order to become aware of and to reconcile conflicts within Himself.

Dourley says that Eckhart’s view of divine relativity, of the human relation to the divine as wholly intra-psychic in the interplay between ego and self. This makes divinity as dependent on humanity for its incarnation in consciousness as the human on the divine for the initial creation of its consciousness (Dourley, 17).

We will deal with the issue of God’s dependence on man in much more detail when we look at Boehme. For now, it is sufficient to point out that Dourley’s argument only applies to the God-image, and not to God Himself being dependent on humanity.

Go to Part 2 of Lecture 3

Endnotes

[1] Meister Eckehart, “Rechtfertigungsschrift,” online at [http://www.pinselpark.org/philosophie/e/ eckehart/texte/proz_rechtf01.html]

[2] See Entry on Meister Eckhart, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/eckhart.htm].

[3] Franz von Baader: Sämtliche Werke, ed. Franz Hoffmann (Leipzig, 1851-1860) [‘Werke’], 15, 159; See David Baumgardt: Franz von Baader und die Philosophische Romantik (Halle: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1927), 34 [‘Baumgaradt’].

[4] Deirdre Bair: Jung: A Biography (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 2003), 35 [‘Bair’].

[5] C.G. Jung: Psychological Types, CW 6, para. 411.

[6] John P. Dourley: “Revisioning Incarnation: Jung on the Relativity of God,” online at [www.jungianstudies.org/publications/dourleyjp1.pdf]

[7] C.G. Jung: The Psychology of Kundalini Yoga: Notes of the Seminar Given in 1932 by C.G. Jung, ed. Sonu Shamdasani (Princeton: Bollingen, 1996), 28.

[8] Meister Eckehart, “Rechtfertigungsschrift,” online at [http://www.pinselpark.org/philosophie/e/ eckehart/texte/proz_rechtf01.html] (my emphasis).

[9] C.G. Jung: The Psychology of Kundalini Yoga, ed. Sonu Shamdasani (Princeton, 1996) [‘Kundalini’].

[10] See Jung’s discussion of this in The Psychology of Kundalini Yoga. Jung explains the need for us to ascend from this stage. See my “Jung, Ramana Maharshi, and Eastern Mysticism,” online at [http://www.members.shaw.ca/cgjung/JungRamana.html].

[11] 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).

Go to Part 2 of Lecture 3

Sept 17/08