4.3.2
The symmetry between spirit and matter in Hermetic alchemy
and complementarity
part 5 (will
follow):
4.3.3
Carl Jung's ambivalence between the trinity and the quaternity
and the Axiom of Maria prophetissa: A preliminary analysis
4. Neoplatonic
and Hermetic alchemy: Eternal infertility versus
incarnation
(part
2)
4.2
Neoplatonic alchemy
4.2.1
The impossibility of transmutation (Wandlung) in the Neoplatonic
opus
In
a letter to Marie-Louise von Franz of October 16th, 1951
Pauli describes the parallels and the differences between the two
branches of alchemy in detail. His synopsis verifies further differences. One of the most important is the fact that in the
opus of the Neoplatonic alchemists the process consists in
an ascent to the heavenly spheres. By this process
matter, thought of as obscure and evil, transforms into spirit, which
is „bright“ and good, as the Christian God. At the end of
this opus the state of the amor coelestis is reached, which,
of course, has nothing to do with the amor vulgaris, the
profane and sexual love. As we can imagine, this Neoplatonic concept
fitted very well into the ideas of the Christian Fathers, which was
the reason why this branch of alchemy was especially spread out in
clerical circles.
In a letter to
Carl Jung's secretary Aniela Jaffé, a Jewish woman with
whom Pauli exchanged some very interesting reflections, he describes
the central ideas of the Neoplatonic process in clear words. Almost
the same text he used in his Kepler essay (1952), the English
translation of which was published in the year 1994. He writes:
„Das Leben der mehr
oder weniger pantheistisch aufgefassten, das heisst mit der
Ganzheit des Kosmos identifizierten Gottheit besteht für den
Platoniker in einem kosmischen Kreislauf, beginnend
mit der Emanation der ‘Ideen’ und ‘Seelen’, dann
der Körperwelt aus der Gottheit und endend mit der
Rückkehr aller Dinge zu Gott. Die Vorstellung vom
Opus und seinem Resultat und damit die Idee einer Wandlung
ist dem Platoniker fremd.Der Endzustand des
Kreislaufes ist mit dem Anfangszustand identisch und
dieses Spiel geht ewig weiter...Die Seele des Einzelnen kann
nichts anderes vollbringen als sich diesem kosmischen Kreislauf
einfügen, und dadurch der Schönheit des Kosmos
teilhaftig werden. Dies ist der Zweck der Kontemplation...“
[emphasis mine]
English translation:
“For the Platonist,
the life of the Deity which he conceives in a more or less
pantheistic spirit, that is to say as identical with the totality
of the world, consists of a cosmic cycle which
begins with the emanation from the Godhead first of the “ideas”
and “souls”, then of the corporeal world, and ends
with the return of all things to God. The idea of the
opus and its result, and thus the idea of
transmutation (Wandlung), is foreign to the Platonist.The final stage of the cycle is identical with the initial
stage, and this process continues for ever and ever. …
The soul of the individual can do nothing but fit itself into this
cosmic cycle in order to become a participant in the beauty of the universe. This is the purpose of contemplation …”
[emphasis mine]
As a result of
these quotations we can draw the two important conclusions that
the Neoplatonic process is not involved in sexual love
but only in the amor coelestis, and that it is a
process the beginning is spiritual and the end is spiritual and thus
the two states remain the same on into eternity. Therefore no
change happens and the idea of the creation of something new is
nonexistent in this opus. It is obvious that these two ideas belong
together because with the help of the amor coelestis no “child”
will be born, the coniunctio spiritualis between heaven and
earth remains infertile.
4.2.2 The reduction
of the quaternity to the Trinity by the early Medieval Platonist
Scotus Eriugena and the Hornberger Schiessen
In Appendix III of
his Kepler essay (Pauli, 1994, p. 277-9) Pauli brings up a very
interesting example of this Platonic “infertility”. First
he mentions that Platonist mostly have a Trinitarian view of the world, “in which the soul occupies an intermediary position
between mind and body”. But then he calls our attention to the
fact that the earliest Platonic thinker of the Middle Ages, Scotus Eriugena, had a quaternarian view of the
world. He shows a figure (see figure 4.1)
figure 4.1: Quaternity as
conceived by Scotus Eriugena in De divisione
naturae
and explains it as follows:
“[Scotus
Eriugena] introduces two pairs of opposites: a pair of active principles,
viz., the creans (that which creates) as
opposed to the non creans (that which does not create); and
a pair of passive principles, viz., the creatum (that which
is created) and the non creatum (that which is not created). By the aid of this
terminology, which is very attractive
to the mathematically minded, Scotus arrives at his four natures, a
conception, that may be illustrated by the schematic
drawing on Fig. [4.1, above; RFR], which also reveals the
connection of Eriugena’s system with the Platonic
cycle of emanation and re-absorption. In identifying Stages 1 to 3
of the cycle with the three Divine Persons, Scotus Eriugena
attempted to compromise with the dogma of the Church. In the case
of the fourth stage, however, that of the natura nec creata nec
creans [not created and not creating; RFR], he seems
to have found himself in an embarrassing position. As a
Platonist he could not do as the Hermetic philosophers did and
allow a transformation (Wandlung) of the whole to appear
simultaneously with this fourth stage. Since he wanted to
return to the point of departure where no fourth Divine Person was
at his disposal, he could think of nothing better than to act as
though the natura nec creata nec creans were the same thing
as the natura creans nec creata at the beginning, for which
assumption no satisfactory reason is given. To the question of
what has happened to the fourth Person, therefore, the answer must
be in the particular case of Scotus Eriugena: ‘He has
disappeared in an identification with the first.’”
[emphasis mine]
What Pauli shares
here in a scientific language, he talked about in his private letters
much more sarcastically. There he always compared the Platonic and
Neoplatonic opus with the so-called Hornberger Schiessen. The
famous expression “Es endet wie das Hornberger Schiessen”
(It ends like the Hornberg's salute) reaches back to a historical
event in this German town: The citizens of Hornberg awaited the duke
but he was late. Then they saw a remote cloud of dust approaching and
in honour of the duke’s arrival began to shoot one salute after
the other. When the duke finally arrived, they did not have any more
ammunition to fire a salute in his presence…! Therefore the
expression “It ends like the Hornberg’s salute” one
uses to express in a sarcastic manner that something important is
heralded but does not receive any acclaim. Pauli uses it for the
purpose to show the fact that the Neoplatonic opus is mostly
explained with an incredible amount of philosophical arguments, but
in it, in contrast to the Hermetic opus, nothing new is created.
4.2.3
Einstein’s
objective worldview as a Hornberger
Schiessen
The Hornberger
Schiessen analogy seems to be just a funny joke, but was in fact
taken quite seriously by the Nobel laureate. It was his way of
expressing his reservation against the principles of causality and
the belief of nature’s objectivity. In a letter of March
9th, 1948 to Fierz he uses the Hornberger Schiessen
analogy in connection with Scotus Eriugena’s philosophy
to express the following argument:
Einstein defended
the belief of nature’s objectivity with the famous statement “The
moon is also there when nobody looks.”. In his letter Pauli
tried to prove that in this manner “the fourth is cheated away”
(“das Vierte wird weggemogelt”). The argumentation there
is very condensed and not understandable without a lot of knowledge
in modern epistemology. Therefore I will try to develop the argument
in my own words:
Pauli states first
that the fourth principle is the observer and distinguishes between
his role in classical and in quantum physics.
In causal
philosophy and classical physics, the observer is “detached".
This means, that he is only a record keeper of the phenomenon; he is
not really involved and therefore cannot influence it.
If a phenomenon is
independent of any observer, it is objective. This is why the
phenomenon is only an “effect” of “causes”;
the “causes” alone guarantee the “existence of the
phenomenon”. Thus the phenomenon is independent of its being recorded. Therefore the world functions causally or
deterministically.
In contrast to
this we have the opposite situation when one makes an observation in
quantum physics, for here the fourth, the observer changes the
phenomenon by the very act of his observation: he is a “creator
by observation”. Like this he creates the paradox of the subject/object
relation, which means that he [in the so-called
act of measurement; RFR] creates a non-automatic (spontaneous; RFR) event, i.e., a
quantum leap (explanation see below).
In classical physics, this non-automatic event is not
possible. The fourth, the observer, does not really exist because he is only a record keeper of
the events. Therefore no spontaneous event is obtained [no new creation; RFR], exactly as in Scotus Eriugena’s and in
Platonic philosophy. Therefore classical physics and the belief of
nature’s objectivity is a Hornberger Schiessen: “Alles
geht ‚nach Hause’ und sagt, ‚es ist nichts gewesen
damit. (Everyone goes home and says: Nothing happened).
This insight of
Pauli has far-reaching consequences. In scientific observation, and
especially in psychotherapy, the observer has the choice to behave as
a recorder or as a participator. As a recorder he functions in
accordance with the laws of classical science, as a participator he
may function as a quantum physical observer. The latter means that he
is able - by means we do not yet know - to observe a spontaneous
change of the client's situation.
