Psychology & The Cross

 There is something healing that can be brought out of an encounter, and what makes an encounter an encounter, And not just an analytic hour session, is this idea of I and Thou, the two Thou's who are going to be respecting each other.

We are here today to talk about a person who lived 80 years ago it's an early psychoanalyst and his name is Hans Trüb, I would want to start off the conversation by asking how come you started to write about Hans? Well, thank you very much, Jakob, for inviting me back.

And Thank you for facilitating this discussion because don't get many chances to, to talk about Trüb, and I dare say that few of us do. He's, he's, he's become a kind of kind of marginalized figure. And, and, although I think that's changing and we, we, we know that there is editorial work going on that's, that's bringing his work out.

So it's a good moment for us to have this, to have this discussion about him. I, I came across him simply in the course of doing research out of the doctoral work on, on Jung and Nietzsche. And of course, one of the things that I became aware of was the, the, the huge amount of seminar work that, that Jung did.

And this led to the broader question of analytical psychology as a kind of culture. It. There's all the stories about Jung setting up the Psycho Logischer Club in, in, in Zürich as he was beginning to find his own way and formulate his his own approach. And even though I'd decided to focus pretty clearly on, on, on Jung and Nietzsche I became aware of a bigger question that's in the background there, which you would describe, I think, as, as, you know, the analytic culture, the, the discursive culture around Jung as he begins to set out his, his intellectual straw, if you, if you want.

And I know that there's been work done on the important figures behind Bollingen that William Maguire did. I mean, it's a lovely book that that he wrote called Bollingen and is a kind of intellectual history of Bollingen. And one of the things that I became aware of but didn't have the opportunity then to actually follow through would be a similar analysis of The analytic culture that Jung instigated, for which you need it's basically time and money, and it's the old history of very, very difficult to get funding for a project that is as large as that.

But it's a project which I think still needs to be done, which is to understand in a critical, that is to say, in an academic rather than just an anecdotal way, what, who were the figures around Jung that helped him formulate his ideas? At the moment, and for very good reasons, there's a big focus on what we've had, the red book, and now the, now the black books.

And as it were, the work that Jung was doing inside himself, the interior work that, that Jung undertook, that led to the creation of analytical psychology. But there's another, an accompanying side, which is figures who are on the outside, the people that he, that he knew, not just the tittle tattle about female relations and his female friendships, but that sense of how was an analytic community founded.

And, and Krube is one of those figures not the only one, but I think an interesting one, a significant one, and someone with whom I feel I have a kind of affinity and, and so on. And the reason why Toby is so is so interesting is because he asks what is the purpose of psychoanalysis and proposes a view of it as something which is essentially synthetic, i.

e. it's about, it's about synthesis. And this whole question of synthesis and the role of synthesis in, in psychoanalysis For me prompted a really, in retrospect, obvious question, why is analytical psychology called analytical psychology? I mean, it's obviously trying to distinguish itself from social, from, from fian psychoanalysis.

And it wasn't the only term that that Jung used in order to describe what he was doing as you, as you know, sometimes called complex psychology, complex sub, um. And sometimes called archetypical Tiefenpsychology. But analytical psychology is the label that's stuck. And in some ways that seems to be a curious thing.

Because if I've understood anything about analytical psychology, it's that its outlook is fundamentally a synthetic one. It is about bringing things together. It is about integration. And that's also what Hans Trev at times would call his psychotherapy, psycho psychosynthesis, was it? Yeah, that's right.

Well the term is first used, so what I wanted to do was to try and do a little bit of intellectual history on it and work out where this term comes from. And as far as I can tell, the first time that the idea of psychosynthesis is used, and the term is used, is in 1907. When the Swiss psychiatrist, Domingo Bezzola there's a conference in 1907 Congress for Psychiatry and Psychology and he gives a paper there and he, and he uses this term and, and Jung picks up on he writes an account in the Yabucho Psychiatry and Psychopathological Forschung in 1910.

When he quotes the definition that Bitsoda gives of of psychosynthesis what Jung writes is, he says, psychosynthesis can consist in taking the various individual conscious components and feeling you have to nachempfinden them, you have to, you have to empathize with them in, in such a way that They can be invigorated by subterranean, by unconscious, associated components, and in this way bring about a solution of the psychotraumatic symptoms.

In other words, we've got this idea of, of synthesis, of bringing, bringing together. Really quite early on, 1907 in Bitsawler. And I think it's related to the work that Jung is doing at the time, and, and Trube is also there in the Borghoffli, and there, you know, there's a lot of experimental work that's that's going on.

And, and one of the things that Jung is interested in, I think, is the difference between analytic judgments and synthetic judgments. In terms of his work on word association. And I think that's you know, the very early empirical side of Jung actually is tied up with this conceptual difference between analytic associations, analytic word associations, and synthetic word associations.

What about Roberto Asagioli? Well, today if anyone asks, we say psychosynthesis, everyone would say, yeah, that is Roberto Asagioli. Yeah. Can you say how he connects to this? Absolutely. Well he's he, I think takes this term of psychosynthesis. And and runs with it. Jung is very early on in the correspondence with Freud.

He's aware of what Assaggio is doing. And he's a little bit skeptical, I think about him. As they all are of each other. I mean, I think he's, you know Freud wants to propagate his view of, of, of psychoanalysis. Everybody's trying to define themselves and find their way forward. This would apply to, you know, all of them.

Rank, and Steklin, and, and, you know, all of the people who are involved with Freud. But equally Jung, who is seen initially as a kind of, you know, keeper of the faith, then goes his own way, much to Freud's upset, and and, and so on. And I think that Roberto Assagioli is, is someone who most clearly thinks out what this idea of, of psychosynthesis is meant to be and develops techniques which are very, elaborated at a very early stage, some of which do, however, sound quite Jungian and so on.

So, I mean, he writes in his, his book, Psychosynthesis, a manual of principles and, and, and techniques. He talks about exercises in disidentification techniques of visualization, techniques of auditory evocation, techniques of imaginative evocation, and, and so on. And my mother is, of course, well Nobody knows at the time, but is this the kind of thing that Jung is doing in the Red Book?

And Asaduri is advocating something pretty similar, but it doesn't involve painting and pictures and creating Red Books in the same kind, in the same kind of way. So I suppose, Jakob, one of the questions is, in psychoanalysis, are the differences as large as the people proposing them really believe they are?

Or is in fact much bigger overlap and a much greater sense in which, okay, there are different emphases and, and so on. But the, the goal is, is, is really very similar in each case, it's just the technicalities of how you, of how you get there. Because I certainly feel that misunderstandings that took place between between Troup and Jung, if, if Troup had known that Jung was working on a rent book, would, would Troup have taken but the relationship between them have fallen away in the same way that it actually did.

Okay, well, let's go back to that question soon. Where would you then place Roberto Asagioli in, did he have a contact with jung, , I know he was at Birkholzli, I know that Asagioli had contact with Freud, but , do we know if he was also in contact with Rube? I don't really know where it was in contact with I think it's, we've got these individual lines which are, which are coming out of the early psychoanalytic community that sort of seems to fall out of the picture very, very early.

I haven't been able to find much more. Evidence of of his activity I think that Asagioli badges this idea of psychosynthesis for himself very early on and it's maybe one of the reasons that Jung decides to prevent the label of analytical psychology is because psychosynthesis, this notion of psychosynthesis, is too easily associated with, with Asagioli.

I think that was one of the things, you know, to restate this point, each thinker is trying to do is to, is to profile their work and to you know, communicate in a way which, which emphasizes what is what is distinctive about it. Just in the same way that there's been very little discussion between, let's say C.

G. Jung and Rudolf Steiner. So as far as I know, there's very little point of contact between Roberto Sagioli and Jung.

And if we should focus in on Hans Trub, , most of the listeners might not even know his name actually, could you give a little bit of a background? Who, who is he? How does he get in contact with Jung?

Yeah

of course his name doesn't help, does it? Because if we translate Trub into English, it's, it's, it's Mr. Miserable. Whereas, and, and, and he's not a to miserable figure, but there's in, in, in many ways he's a kind of a beacon of sanity in this, in, in this whole enterprise of people being very competitive with their ideas and, and some, so tube is born 20th of August, 1889 in, in in a, in, in a, in a small town.

He's the son of the local and the Hitler's mother, Emma, they are, he's got four siblings very heavily involved at an early stage with the youth movement Helvetia and the Schweizer Wundervogel. And again, that's a kind of good example of the, the, the institutional culture which is going on behind so many intellectual enterprises of, of, of the time.

One could also cite as a, as a kind of analogous example the Jugendtag on the Uwe Meissner in, in 1913 in, in Germany for which Ludwig Klagers wrote his paper. Mensch und Erde, so humankind, human beings, and and earth. Seminal paper for, for Klage's intellectual trajectory. Seminal paper, though often not referred to for the history of the, of the Green Movement.

And it's interesting, I think, just as a kind of bit of background to it, that although Klagers wrote the paper, Mensch und Erde, he never actually went and delivered it in person. But it was included in the, in, if you like, you know the book of the, the book of the meeting that that took place for those who, who did So Twoop is very much caught up in this sense of you know, what is new, the Jugendbewegung and often now sometimes looked at as scant and, and, and seen as being intellectually dubious.

But I think in the early stages of the Jugendbewegung is a search for something new and a sense of outlaw, a sense of things which are change, in, in vandal in transition, I suppose, to use, to use the title of Collected Works, Volume, Volume 10. And, and Trude was part of that and was there, and I understand was very accomplished with his with his guitar playing skills as, as well.

Then in 1909, he goes to the University of Geneva and undertakes a, a medical study. So he's got a similar kind of background to Jung in terms of coming from a small town going and deciding that, that he can study at medicine he undertakes a number of empirical scientific projects, um, which I've already already mentioned.

And therefore it's at the, the broad hopefully clinic that the two of them meet. And I think in fact it's 1913 that hunts Troop meets meet young and they have. As far as one can tell very positive relationship, very friendly, very warm relationship between them. That maybe casts light, perhaps, on the, the sense of disappointment of what of what happens.

When when Jung sets up the Psychologischer Club in 1916, then Trub is going to be a member of, member of that. In 1920, I think it is, he becomes the president of the Psychologischer Club. So he's, he's in there, he didn't, he's part, you might say, of the, the inner circle. In those in those early days of the development of analytical psychology.

And then it seems, it's in the twenties and right about 1922 that something goes wrong. And that's when there is a, a big break that takes place. Between, between Krupp and Jung. Up until then, he's been more closely associated with the Psychological Krupp. Jung also helps him set up his practice, helps him get lots of clients, and so on.

And then, something goes wrong and I don't think we're quite clear what it is, but it is tied up with the activities of the, of the club, and should we say it's, it's discursive culture of the time. And is it correct that Hans Trieb was then introduced to Jung through Tony Wolff, the sister of his wife?

No, no, that's very, that's very a very good question. I don't know the Tony Wolff connection there. That's interesting. No, I think it's, this is, Susie Trub, I think, was the sister of Tony Wolfe. Right, okay. Right. So that might have. That might have helped cement the the relationship as well.

Certainly the contacts that they had together in the Borgholtzli is Yeah, of course. A strong part of their, a strong part of their background,

and when we say that they develop a relationship. I also read somewhere they went out sailing. . They went to maybe bike tours together. They have this professional, but especially they had a private relationship, a friendship. I think you're right to emphasize the fact that the, the relationship that was there was a very warm personal one as, as well as, as well as an intellectual one, as, as well as a professional one.

And of course, it's so often the way because I mean, you know, that's the, that, that, that's the story of Freud Yong, isn't it? You know? And bestest friends and all, all the communications they have together very intensive. Exchange of correspondence and then something happens and there is a, a, a, a falling apart and a falling away and the kind of bitterness which, which arises out of the, the sense of loss of a very close friendship.

And I don't think the, the relationship between between Troup and Jung is, Nothing, I think, can have the intensity of the Freud Jung relationship. That would be that would be highly unusual. But they have very good, they have very good professional relations, very, very good personal relations.

And, and again, that's what I mean by this sense of, of a community, a cultural life. They spend time together, they, they, they undertake activities going out on the lake together and, and so on. And the story that's that's been told by Nadia Weber, who has been working to re edit Jung's sorry, re edit Troubes works both his major work Heilung aus der Begegnung, so, so Healing through Encounter and a very useful little collection.

Papers which came out just a few years ago called, so World and, and, and Self. The story that that vapor tell is that that Y used the Ship Club as a kind of, of laboratory for psychological group experiments. And the the particular. experiment according to, according to Weber, is that when the club met, or at least in some of their meetings, then the members of the club were meant to provoke each other were, were meant to, um, kind of have a dig at, at each other in order that repressed material would then come to the surface and become apparent.

And in other words, you would have Even though it's in a collective environment, you would have a a sort of acting out of individuation and so on. And I'm very interested in this account because I've never heard anything. Like it said about the, the Psychologischer Psychologischer Club. And I guess I can kind of see the thinking behind it and, and so on, that, you know, if you are going around provoking other people, then, yeah, you will get a lot of unconscious material that will come that will come to the surface.

On the other hand but someone who doesn't have an analytic training, it sounds like a recipe for disaster. If you, if you have a group of people who are going to sit there and come out with negative remarks about each other, I don't see how that could possibly end in anything other than complete catastrophe.

Yeah, especially with a group of unions. I think that's, that's, that's very bad. Well, you, well, you might say that. Yeah, but wasn't it also the case that they had different visions around the psychological club that Trieb had this idea of wanting to create a more, let's say, democratic place or a place where there's more, yeah, meeting on eye level, while Jung was the founder, Jung was the big, genius, and for Jung, it was more an experimental place for, for his ideas to take root or be tested. No, I think you're absolutely, absolutely right and, and again, I suppose that draws attention to the to the question of, you know, this is, this is like a repeat of what happens in the psychoanalytic circles in, in Vienna that, you know, they have the, they have the evening meetings and, and, and so on and, and Freud's view is, well, these events are to Develop psychoanalysis and take psychoanalysis forward and and what happens actually is that the people that start to then go in their separate ways and the circle falls apart.

And all, all the attended difficulties, including, I think, on. On Freud's part, then a sense of betrayal that, you know, this is, you know, you've all signed up to psychoanalysis and, and, and now you're breaking his fundamental tenets. That also, of course was the accusation of the debate of Jung as, as well, that in moving in particular away from, the emphasis on the sexual nature of libido that Freud is, is that Jung is denying a chief, a chief tenant.

Jung sees that as, well, Freud is turning this into a kind of church, into a kind of, a kind of one man show, into a kind of rigid dogma, and so on. And I want to free myself from Then it's ironic that, that a similar kind of dynamic is said to have been playing itself out in the, the Psycho Orchestra Klub.

That, that Jung wants to then see it only as a vehicle for, for his ideas and, and not for, not for anybody else's. And this time it's true. Who, who falls into the role of, of being the person who's, who's shifting it away from the, the emphasis on, on, on, on the father of ideas, if you'd like.

What catched me with troop, and I think that comes most from the work , in the practice room as a clinician, I found trips, ideas resonating very much with me on a relational level.

60 years before anyone even mentioned terms like relational psychoanalysis or relational psychotherapy, he really emphasized the encounter. The encounter between two people and the therapeutic effect of two people. Of course we find that in Jung, of course we find that in Freud in certain ways, but I'm thinking now when we speak about , the different approach to the psychological club, for Jung, his ideas, it's about him, and then, , seems like here. comes more from a place of wanting to create less of hierarchy and more on meeting on eye to eye level. But just seems to me that there is something there where there's a contrast and where there might be a conflict because as much as we can hear Jung speaking about that, it's the relationship that heals.

If one hears about Jung's work as an analyst, it often seems he's more there almost like a medicine man or he's sharing his interpretation. While , reading Hans Trieb is more like a dialogue. Yeah. And I think we will also get to that when we continue and talk about Booba and how things develop between Martin Booba which is not a giant that we will make a link to.

But I wanted to ask you first, because you said something interesting before . , if I understood you right, if Trieb would have known about what Jung was working on in his red book, maybe things would have been different. Because in the background of this, I think they met in 1913. In the background, we have Jung working on his own experiments.

Yes, I, just before I do that, I'll, just to to, to kind of wrap up that point about you know, the purpose of the, of, of the Pseudo Orchestra Club and so on is you know, I, I, I can sympathize with Freud and, and, and his view of the psychoanalytic circles in, in Vienna you know it wouldn't have, that, that This culture, these circles wouldn't have come into being had it not been for, or at least not in that, in that form.

And, and similarly also I can see that that the function of, of the Pseudo Orchestral Flug is in some respects a, a strategic one, because it's meant to move things away from Vienna. And and, and, and to Zurich and I think that very often when, when intellectual historians, you know, describe these, these shifts and, and, and moves, there's somehow a sense as if, you know, these, these great thinkers shouldn't be, shouldn't be concerning themselves with such sort of grubby practical matters and, and so on.

But I think you could look at it another way and say, you know if you've got a big set of ideas and you want to get them out there and you want to have them propagated, You need to have an institution that's going to help you get it out there. It's, it's a purely pragmatic thing in, in many ways. And I think that Jung was someone who was particularly shrewd at a very early stage in understanding that you had to get psychoanalysis to America.

I remember when they, when they, when they set off on their, on their journey Freud is, is really very reluctant about the whole thing, keeps fainting all the time, and so on and so forth. Jung understands we've got to get psychoanalysis to contact with the wider world and, and America in, in particular.

And, and of course, you know, Jung connects with the American University system and he, he connects with Americans generally. He offers seminars in, in, in English the first seminars in Cornwall, then the seminars that he gives subsequently. 925, the, the, the Nietzsche seminars in 34 to 39.

So he's very happy working in an English environment in a way that Freud never, never was. So I think this, this sense of having an institutional strategy doesn't have to be seen just as a sort of dark power game. Maybe there is a bit of dark power game in it, but, but equally there is a, a purely strategic consideration that, that needs to be, needs to be thought on.

And the reason why I made that point about Goop and the Red Book, would it have been different if Jung had shared more widely what he was doing on his work in the Red Book? I wonder if, you know, because the Red Book is such a sign of vulnerability in many ways that would make people That would have made people look at Jung in a different in a different light and it would have established a different kind of discursive environment for them to discuss differences, if indeed differences were of an intellectual, of a principal kind, rather than differences of personality within.

And I think you're right, you brought in this this key notion of for for Troupe which is analogous to what one can find in Jung, but distinctively different in some ways, which is this idea of dialogue a dialogue between two, between two equal partners. And that seems to be fundamentally different from the way that, that Jung conceives of the cycle and encounter, which is in itself fundamentally different from the way that, that Freud sees it.

So in the case of Freud the psychoanalytic encounter, you have psychoanalyst in the chair and the patient, client, whatever expression one's going to use, analysand on the couch and without having visual contact. As I understand it, what the, one of the innovations that Jung made was that you would have.

The, an, the, the analyst in the analyst and would be, would be facing each other and would be, there would be more, more, more direct. You'd have visual contact there and, and so on. But, but Jung still seems to be operating with the idea that that one finds in Freud of, you know, the Uber tagle, the transference of the counter transference.

And Tube seems to take out that entire element of. And a fundamentally unconscious encounter, but which is what I see such a powerful idea with Jung is that, is that in the analytic session the unconscious will, will react with that of the of the analyst and, and this is, as it were, the, the motor that drives, you will know better than I will about this, Jakob, so you can correct me if I'm, I'm wrong on that.

What it seems to me is particular about two. And what makes it interesting is, is the idea that it is not simply a conscious encounter of, of Two egos with unconscious reactions which are going on underneath the surface there. Rather than it is going to be an encounter of two selves, two selves.

And that encounter is essentially going to be constructed in a way that he describes as, as dialogic. And then this, this fits into the broader question of how dialogism was, was seen in 20th century thought. And they were absolutely right. It's Martin Buber. He's the big figure.

Yeah, let's go to Buber. Buber. Do we know how they met and how it came to be that they started a dialogue, Buber and Thieb? I I don't know what the personal connections were between between Trupp and and Martin, and Martin Buber but it's in 1923, I think, that he he first makes contact or intellectual contact with Buber when he reads Ich und Du.

So, I, I and thou Ich und du sounds so, it's so much more natural in German than I, I and thou sounds, sounds so, so antiquated in, in English. I and you just sounds so banal, so, again, it's one of these examples where something sounds very, very natural in German, hard to, hard to get that. Adequately and easily conveyed into and well, of course, Buber in his own right a huge intellectual figure and you should, you should definitely have a podcast on, get a proper Buber expert in and, and, and have a discussion about, about the role of Martin Buber more generally in, in relation to, to 20th century theology because, because a key thinker there.

And I think that's one of the, that's perhaps one of the sources of tension which later comes between between Jung and, and, and Buber is, is to do with this fact of, you know, it's, it's the two titans who are, who are battling it out. But, but in the background is this, is this fact that they had a, a common relation relationship to, to Hans True.

So he's kind of caught in the middle, if you like, between between these two between these two figures. And what, what Buber does in his works of 1922, Ich und Du Zwiesprache, Dialogue, who wants to call it that, 1932, the, the Dialogical Principles, as Deal, Law, Bishop, and Sip of 19, 1954 is to, make this fundamental distinction between the I It relation, essentially a way of relating as a subject to the world which sees it purely as something which which is an object and the fundamentally different relation which he calls that of the Ich Du Beziehung, the I Thou relation, which sees the world, sees other people in the world not so much as objects, but as in, as in themselves, individual, independent subjects, egos, eyes, whose subjectivity must be respected and recognized at all times, and essentially, and importantly so, must be recognized in order that an encounter Conversation, a dialogue can take, can take place.

And I think, I mean, it's, it's, it's, it's such a simple distinction, yet such a powerful one, because, I mean, obviously one of the things that one thinks about is, here we've got a critique of instrumental reason where we, where we only see the world as something which is to be manipulated and exploited for our own for our own purposes.

I can see, I can hear echoes of Heidegger as well. The science for Gessenheit that we don't recognize, as it were, the otherness of being. Surely see it in terms of items which are vorhanden, some. Again, we only have an instrumental relation to the to the world. And, and, and forget something fundamental.

Of course, hiding another figure that that young doesn't really have a lot of time for and, and so on. But, but that's the concept that Buber is introducing. And I think you, you can obviously see why this would've been so attractive to to Hunt's poop because we've got the idea of fundamental recognition of the, the ity of the other, but not just the otherness of the other, the otherness of the other as a vow.

As a subjectivity, and that that has to be recognized in order for there to be, to use the phrase which you've alluded to, and a begegnung auf Augenhöhe, so a sense of an equal relation an equal status of the partners in, in the conversation, in the dialogue, in the encounter that takes, that takes place.

So it's a fundamental shift away from a model which involves either transference, In the case of Freud, counter transference, or transference and counter transference in, in, in the case of Jung. And something which places a, a, a priority not simply on the rationality of the encounter, but on something which is far more far more fundamental a respect for the subjectivity of one's conversation partner.

It's difficult to put into words, and actually it isn't about words. It's about, it's about attitude, it's about how one conducts oneself. And how how one listens and responds to and respects what one's conversation partner is saying and doing, and of course it has to be reciprocal. That's, that's the whole point and that, that's why when one tries to diagram these these relations, there's a fundamental equality on both sides between the anomalies and, and, or, the model, the clue pool, we'll see it in Heilong, Auster, Begegnung, you know, that absolutely shows you the direction of travel that he's saying.

There is something healing that can be brought out of an encounter, and what makes an encounter an encounter, And not just an analytic hour session, is this idea of I and Thou, the two Thou's who are going to be respecting each other.

And these ideas he then took and turned into practice. When he wrote, he wrote a lot of case studies, he wrote a lot about the clinical work, and how this would be, practiced in the therapeutic encounter. I mean, his books are, correct me if I'm wrong, but they are mostly oriented to, to that type of therapeutic work, you would say, or more?

Yeah. Yeah, yeah, no, that's right. I mean, what we get in the in the essays that that, that Troop rights, and in Heilung Haus der Begegnung is an insight into how these notions of psychosynthesis, how these notions of encounter, how these notions of psychospiritual healing are actually meant to work in the, in the consultant room.

And I think there is, there is something refreshingly open. Frank about the way that about the way that Troubes writes. It, it, it's a very simple style, very elegant, clear. There's sometimes a certain sort of rhetorical pathos which is sits somewhat uneasily for us today. But, but it's clear of those terrible linguistic contortions that, you know, you would find with Lacan or something like that.

I mean, if you want, if you want a case of two extreme opposites in, in the therapeutic field, I think you'd, you'd cite Troube and Lacan as being, as being the example of that. And, and, and what Troube is, is doing is playing his role in what one might describe as, as the relational turn. In, in, in cyber analysis which emphasizes this question of the relation that's there, the dialogue that's there between the analyst and the, and the analyst's end.

Troop describes it, in fact, as a dialogical, anthropological model and if, if you want to think about it in terms of, in terms of diagram it has these wonderful, elegant little diagrams you can think of the, the, I'm going to use his, his vocabulary, the doctor on the one hand and the patient on the other you have two egos which are there involved on both sides, you have on a, on a, on a subterranean, on an unconscious level.

You have the shadow side that's there of, of each individual, both of the, the doctor and the patient, but, but central to both the doctor and patient, central to both parties in this encounter is then the self, and it's the relation between the selves, which is, which delivers the therapeutic effect. If if we read Troupe, that's, that is what's going to bring about healing.

Very strong words, Heilung there obviously has a quasi religious kind of sound to it as as well. And I think it posits a view of the self as something which is achievable. And that's maybe another important distinction compared with Jung, where, you know, what would it mean to be the Selbst?

What would it mean to, to, to constellate the Selbst? And as I read Jung, there's always a sense that the Selbst is a piece of work in progress that, that might never be achieved. That's not a reason for not striving to achieve it. It's really simply in the nature of the beast that it's always going to go, it's always going to go on.

And the Jungian self, it seems to me, remains a very powerful idea. It's a bit like Nietzsche's idea of the, the Übermensch. That it's very rare that you can actually point to, to somebody and say, Okay, well, that's going to be the Übermensch. I mean, Nietzsche does, I know, in the case of Goethe. So, Goethe has all the, characteristics and is described as this is what an ubermensch would look like.

But that's pretty rare. That's a pretty rare example. And I think Jung he very shrewdly makes the point about Faust's redemption taking place not in this life, but in the afterlife. beast in some kind of mythical afterlife that's portrayed in the the final concluding scene of Mounting Gorges at the end of Faust Part Two.

And Jung makes the point in Psychology and Alchemy, he says there's something very subtle. About this redemption because it's not achieved in the here and in the here and now. And of course J's view of the position of the T in position of the t in in the therapeutic process is that it is gonna be in the here.

And note that it's not just sort of. Wished away to some, to some never and ever land, but that doesn't mean that it's going to be achieved. And just, just as there's no sense that, that Jung will say, well, I have achieved selfhood and, and so on. Nevertheless, you can point to, you know, examples and, and in memories, dreams, reflections, it seems to me that Jung tracks throughout his own life this gradual integrative approach that's, that's taken place.

I mean, just, just, just to conclude that point, it's so significant, isn't it? Wouldn't you agree, Jakob, that, that the Red Book is never finished? It just breaks off.

But there is

also something around what is it that heals and there are different views on that, Jung's view versus Trupp. , if we follow Jung, we get different answers at different times in his life, but one of the answers that I think he would probably stand by at the end of his life is.

What heals is not this or that technique, but it's really the numinous, it's the experience of the numinous, that is the , healing aspect of a therapy that you get to experience, something that humbles you , that he would call the self the experience of that can be deeply healing for an individual.

While true would only speak less about the numinous images, and more about something that happens in that encounter in that dialogue in realizing. the other person as a self or realizing oneself in relationship to the other person.

For me, Trub has been like a balance point to Jung at times in analysis, because it's like, Oh, this is sort of grounded. And I think he also speaks about that. Yes. He criticizes Jungian therapy to becoming too individualistic at times, or too much focused on the interior.

And he says like healing has to do with yes, that meeting between two, but also to go out into the world and adapt actually to society. I feel like , the whole different parts of the thread that in my own encounters has been really helpful. There's some.

Humility or some sort of groundedness in Intrygdad that counterbalances at the times, , Jung's more bombastic or explosive idea around healing and, and also maybe expectations on healing there's a lot of focus on this archetypal experience.

While, at least from what I've read, you get very little of that in Trujillo.

Yeah, no, I think that, I think that's absolutely, absolutely right. And, and, and the whole question of you know, that, that numinosity. The sacred the archaic all of these kind wonderful conceptual and experiential areas that that are so important for for young.

You really don't find out there have been at all. It's, it's much more, it's much more sober. It's much more a, a clear cut. You don't, you don't have all, you know. You can't imagine Troop going on about, you know, the forces of Wotan marching around and, and so on. So it, it, it is a, a, a psychoanalysis I wouldn't say without the sacred, but, but a psychoanalysis without, without the numinous and without the archaic and, and the primordial and, you know, all of that, all of that kind of area which, which, which Jung delves into, which is so very, very, very important for him.

That there, there is a kind of a clarity, a sort of a apollonian rather than Ian kind of aspect to to troop. And I think you're right that there, there is a kind of a, a kind of balance there. I, I, I guess I would say that both of them see the purpose of, of therapy not simply is to patch up the individual but to, to, but to construct or allow to consulate itself.

A a more, a more natural and more integrative. Kind of, a kind of self, it's just that the ways that they're going to be used are going to be, are going to be very different another example, I can't imagine Troop getting interested in synchronicity and I can't see Troop getting involved with, Oli you know, a quantum young that makes sense.

Quantum tube. Find it. I find it, find it harder harder to imagine or indeed that the all, all of the interlocutors that Yung has in, in, in, in other areas. There is a kind of a focus in, in, in trope almost a kind of modesty, but, but, but a sense of. I suppose it stems from this, from this dialogic idea.

that it's, it's, as, as you've suggested with Jung, it's a little about, you know, the great theorist the shaman, the charismatic individual. That's not what Troop's about. Maybe that makes Troop a better psychoanalyst. I don't know. Yeah, maybe for some, but his work and was really to try to build some bridge or connection between Buber and Jung through his work , trying to synthesize these two ideas into something.

New or like to bring them together. I, that's right. I think that he, well suddenly he, he, he see, he understands the significance of what Bupa is elaborating, and its, its analytic its, its therapeutic. Applicability problem with this is in trying to bring about a poshmark is the falling out that takes.

place between, between Jung and, and Buber quite a few, quite a few years on now. I think we're talking about 19, 1952 in the, in the big day debate that takes place in in, in, in Merkur. It is in 1952 that that Buber publishes. In the German intellectual periodical Merkur, a very influential journal a real kind of intellectual at the powerhouse, publishes an article on religion and modern thought.

And in some ways it seems to me that this is, is a counterpart to picking up on what Jung wrote in 1928. In his article Das Seelenproblem des modernen Menschen So, so, the, the sole problem of, of modern man, to give it its, its, its English title lacking in inclusivity, but that's, that's how it's translated in, in, in Volume 10 of Collected of the Collected Works.

And It, it, it's a very strange essay that that you write. It's published in the oil p which is a kind of con conservative leaning cultural conservative leaning of the journal. Sub subsequently is, is, is republished in a collection of, of of Young's own papers in, in, in, in the nine, in the 1930s.

And, and in that. Indus in a problem doesn't just well down and mentioned young discusses, you know, the religious problem, the decline of religion, the pseudo religions that are, that are on the, that are on the move. And he's, I suppose, eyeing up the competition in some way. So he's, he's looking at.

Philosophy. He's got no time for philosophy. No time for Madam Ky. No time for Rudolph Steiner. No time for an Anthropo. He makes very dismissive remarks about people who go and build temples in door and so on. So he is, he, he, he's obviously got the good in, in sites and, and so on. And is a kind of reappraisal of, the spiritual question, the religious question, after the Great War, really interesting and insightful paper, and it's got a tone which is, I think, not typical of the way that we find Jung writing about things. And Religion and Modern Thought is is, is Buber's kind of, kind of equivalent only written in a, in a, in the progressive rather more progressive journal Merkur.

And one of the things that that he does when he's reviewing the question of religion and modern thought, is to discuss Jung and critically, to describe Jung's view of religion as being a Gnosticism. And this is the accusation that Buber makes, that Jung is a Gnostic that, that Jung really doesn't like at all.

Now, now, Buber knows whereof he's speaking. He'd moved in analytical psychological circles we've talked about the friendship that he in 1923, Buber delivered a lecture, The Psychologizing of the World, at the Zucker Orchestra Group in, in Zurich. In 1934, he attended and lectured at the Aeronauts Conferences, of course, with which Jung was very, very closely associated.

So, so, whatever one makes of Buber's assessment it, it, it's based on knowledge of the subject area. And Jung is Very, very negative in his his response. He writes a rejoinder titled Religion and Psychology, which appears in the in May. issue. Buber writes in February, Jung hits back in, in May.

And in the same issue Buber replies and the contributions to this debate that are taking place in Merkur are, are, are written in. His own work is then, Buber takes his own work and puts it into his book The Very Famous Eclipse of God, Gottes, for instance, is sort of of 1952. And of course, one of the questions is, why does Jung object so much to being described as a Gnostic?

The obvious point of reference is Seven Sermons to the Dead, where Jung apparently writes in the, in the position of Basilides and, and so on. There's the whole interest in Gnosticism that we find in, in, I mean, it's, it's, it's obvious. And yet, Jung reacts very badly to being described as such and in many ways it's been a bit of a puzzle.

I think two things that can help explain that puzzle would be the fact that in his 1928 paper, Jung accuses precisely Anthroposophy and Theosophy and other similar movements of being Gnostic. And he, he says he gets it's quite polemical, his tone, he says he talks about the widespread interest in all sorts of psychic phenomena, including spiritualism, astrology, theosophy, parapsychology, and so forth.

The world, he says, has seen nothing like it since the end of the 17th century. We can compare it only to the flowering of in the first and second centuries after Christ. The spiritual currents of our time have, in fact, a deep affinity with Gnosticism. There's even an Eglise Gnostique de la France, and I know of two schools in Germany, which openly declared themselves Gnostic.

And I think, you see, you'll find that, you know, Jung is taking a very negative view there of Gnosticism, and I think what he objects to, it's in this sense that he objects to Buber describing him, Jung, as, as Gnostic, and he says, No, I'm nothing to do with these other movements. That's why you have you have misunderstood me.

The other element, of course, is this friendship with Trump. In, in the background you know, the, the issues that are still there in the falling part of the friendship, this can't help. Make Jung more sympathetic or more inclined to, to different kind of response to what Huber writes about him being Gnostic.

And I suppose there's maybe a third reason as well, which is that anybody who is a Gnostic will precisely say they're not one. I mean, that's kind of part of the Gnostic deal in a way. But I wonder if that is if we read Buber's 1952 essay, which then goes into Eclipse of God in the light of what Jung writes in 1928 and his critique of what he sees as Gnosticism then, that helps explain why he doesn't want to be badged as Gnostic.

by Bruber of all people, who is this friend of his own former friend, Hunstry. I think those all three reasons could be to be a part of it. But isn't it also true that Jung always, when attacked publicly, wants to defend his persona as a scientist of the time, or as a psychologist or psychiatrist, that he needs to sort of Stay away from labels like that.

Isn't it also him is protecting himself, his professional , isn't that one level to this that he publicly almost have to or still struggles to the end of his life with this. wanting to be taken serious and be viewed as some sort of science or being upset at the end of his life while people are more interested in Freudian ideas.

, it seems like he was still fighting also for his theoretical system being accepted.

That, that's an interesting question, Yakob, and, and, and it reminds me of the that the argument that that Peter Kingsley has has made in, in, in Catal about this whole question of how do we take, I mean, Kingsley's argument in a nutshell is that Jung is a, is a prophet.

And yet part of the prophecy is in a way to be careful and with how one announces it. And I think Kingsley teases out quite well that the complexity of this relationship between the prophetic or however one, initiatory, however one wants to describe it, aspect of Jung, the part that we were talking about earlier, the numinous.

The archaic, the primordial and sound and, and, and then the, the fact that as you say, has also a doctor and an identity as a, as a doctor or as a psychologist as a, as a clinician, shall we, shall we say, and, and, and, you know, there's a workaday world to it, which is proposing something that will, that will offer.

Healing, redemption maybe even to to those who, who seek analysis with him. And, and so there's certainly, there certainly is a, a, a, a tension that's there. Of course, one of the things that I think one would say about Jung if he doesn't want to be seen as a, as a Gnostic is, is, is why he keeps on referring to Gnosticism.

I mean, Aeon being a very good, a very good case, case in point. Or again, If you want to be, if you want to be seen purely as a, as a doctor or a clinician why is he writing books about alchemy? All the time. So or flying saucers. I mean, that's one of the lesser rights on flying saucers. But I mean, he's writing all these books, but he's also trying to build them into a system of psychology.

That he's trying to get accepted. I mean, even Ion, he's all the time linking back to his theory of the psyche, which is this universal theory that can be adapted on anyone, anywhere. I think that's a very fair point. I suppose it then comes down to this question of the various ways that one has of, of, of, of seeing Jung.

And some people are going to come down and say, well, actually at the end of the day, he is, he is a, an analyst, a medical doctor. Peter King's going to come and say, well, at the end of the day, he's, he's a prophet. I suppose at the end of the day, I think of him as, as a Kulturkritiker, a bubble as someone who is receiving and working within the the tradition of German thought, German Catholicism, and German German Romanticism.

But that isn't to deny that there is clearly a clinical aspect, or even if one follows Kingsley a prophetic aspect or, or equally with Buber, a Gnostic aspect is, is the question of, you know, where does the emphasis lie at the end?

Last minute coming back to true, because it's easy to forget him when we assume someone speaks about Jung again, or Buber again, where is he now in the background somewhere?

He's not a giant. He's not a charismatic figure. I only seen one picture of him. Okay, so he died 1949 in a heart attack. Since then, , is there a legacy of Tryb is there a future for Tryb what happened since? Because again, he's one of those unsung heroes. Now we're giving him some voice, we're giving him some space, and you're also sharing with me there are people working on publishing more of his works.

I think the there is something of a, a, a troop Renaissance under underway. It's, it, it's not very grand, it's not very grandiose, but but it is steady. The publication republication of hi long in the beginning and the essays and world very, very, very, very important.

I think it. forms part and parcel of a larger piece of work that needs, needs to be done, which is to introduce the extraordinarily productive work of German speaking Jungian analysts to, to an Anglo American audience. I mean, whenever I go to a, to a Jungian conference in, in Germany, I look at the books at the conference bookstalls.

I'm, I'm just amazed at how much work is, is there and which, because it's translated. It doesn't make itself into the Anglo American reception whereas the other way around tends to be the case, that a lot of Anglo American authors then get translated into German. Or actually the fact that German Jungians have got enough English, they can go and read them in English, and that doesn't apply the other way around, and so on, with notable exceptions to be, to be sure.

So I think the fact that Jung, that Troubes works are becoming available again. Is, is, is, is tremendously helpful. I would like to see also translations of the work. And he is he's not as difficult to translate as, as, as Jung is. But I think it's to capture the tone is sometimes, is sometimes hard in, sometimes hard in English.

Just sort of read a little extract here. Something which perhaps answers this question of why, why should we be interested in, in, in Troupe? A little passage written by, by Troupe, which I've translated, which goes like this. He says, Psyche and world, or more precisely, being in hock to the self and being caught up in the world, are the two extremes of securing one's existence between that which an immature individual is taught to and afro.

Like a ball. Losing oneself, one is in thrall to the world, and asserting oneself, one loses the world. And correspondingly, loss of self and loss of world are the two associated dangers to which we are exposed as we try to escape this worrying contradiction and to find safety in the one or the other.

From the worries and woes of this tension between the opposites, compromise offers no escape. The only thing that can offer rescue is a recognition, one through suffering, of this tension as an unavoidable fact of human existence in the world, and of standing firm in it, with an awareness of one's responsibilities.

This is not something we voluntarily take on ourselves. Only accept to embark on this adventure When necessity compels us to do so, and this necessary compulsion teaches us in one way or another at a particular moment, or in other words, when there is a neurosis. This is the incurable sickness that brings healing, which draws the lost individual into the central point of one's self discovery.

It does not let us go until we have successfully emerged from this middle point into a new relation to the world. I think that there is a, there is a beauty and elegance. To that exposition, there is a real sense of integrity, there's a real sense of, of, of groundedness and, and purpose and I think when I, when I read passages, passages like that, I wouldn't mind, I wouldn't mind having Hans Trupp as my side, mind you.

Thank you so much, Paul. I think this is a fantastic place to end. Thank you very much. Appreciate your time. Thank you.