‍

Howe’s Dialogue with Jung

Dr. J. A. Hadfield, of the Tavistock Clinic, invited Jung to give a series of five lectures, which he delivered from September 30 to October 4, 1935. Most of the audience, approximately 200 in number, consisted of members of the medical profession. Many notable psychoanalysts and psychiatrists were in attendance, including many founding members of the Tavistock Clinic, H. Crichton-Miller, H. V. Dicks, Wilfred Bion, Ian Suttie, and Eric Graham Howe. Bion, Suttie, and Howe were participants in the discussion of Jung’s first two lectures, although, they did not participate in the discussion of the final three.

The purpose of Jung’s lectures was to outline his psychology, specifically in relation to Freud and Adler’s. (During the 1930s, when Jung delivered his lectures, orthodox Psychoanalysis, Adler’s Individual Psychology, and Jung’s own Analytical Psychology were the three major schools of depth psychology.) In the discussion of lecture 1, Howe began his series of questions to Jung by asking if emotion and feeling can be equated with conation and cognition. Jung agreed with Howe, stating that Howe’s assertion was basically correct in that it stated in “philosophical terminology” what Jung put in psychological terminology. Howe then stated that Jung’s classification of the four functions corresponds to the spatial and temporal: one-, two-, three-, and four-dimensional classification system. He then went on to point out that Jung, in his lecture, used the phrase, “three-dimensional” in reference to the body and that the function of intuition differed from sensing, thinking, and feeling in that it included the element of time. Howe then questioned Jung as to whether intuition corresponded to the fourth dimension. He then summed up his position by providing his own four correspondences in relation to Jung’s four functions: “Perhaps, therefore, it corresponds to a fourth dimension? In that case, I suggest that ‘sensation’ corresponds with one-dimensional, ‘perceptual cognition’ with two-dimensional, ‘conceptual cognition’ (which would correspond with your ‘feeling’) with three-dimensional, and ‘intuition’ with four-dimensional on this system of classification” (1989, p. 28). Again, Jung fundamentally and for the most part, gave his consent to Howe’s statement. Yet, Jung and Howe seemed to disagree as to the possible existence of the fourth dimension. Jung felt that Howe went too far in his assertion that the function of intuition is based on the experience of a fourth dimension, where chronological time gives way to an experience of the timeless: “Since intuition sometimes seems to function as if there were no space, and sometimes as if there were no time, you might say that I add a sort of fourth dimension. But one should not go too far” (1989, p. 28). Jung, especially in his early writings, sought to establish himself an empiricist and a scientist; thus, the concept of the fourth dimension to which Howe speaks was seemingly dismissed by Jung because “it does not produce facts” (1989, p. 28).

Nevertheless, in Jung’s 1952 essay on synchronicity, he posited what he referred to as “the a-causal connecting principle” or the “meaningful coincidence of two or more causally unrelated events.” He attempted to verify with empirical evidence the validity of ESP, Astrology, I-Ching, and other divinatory practices. Jung’s position in 1952 flatly contradicted his position in 1935, as the validation of synchronicity would suggest the existence of a fourth dimension. The various divinatory practices that Jung researched pointed to its existence. Intuition, according to Jung (1989), is akin to H. G. Well’s eponymous device in The Time Machine:

(Speaking to Howe) You remember the time machine, that peculiar motor, which when you sit on it moves off with you into time instead of space. It consists of four columns, three of which are always visible, but the fourth is visible only indistinctly because it represents the time element. I am sorry but the awkward fact is that intuition is something like this fourth column (p. 28).

As brilliant as Jung’s analogy is, it seemed to suggest that simply because intuition is not visible it cannot be demonstrated empirically. While this may be true, from a strictly natural scientific perspective, a paradigm in which the Jung of the 1930s was operating, from Howe’s point of view, the existence of a fourth dimension does not necessarily require empirical evidence for its existence. Howe disagreed with Jung because he (Jung) was relying too heavily on direct observation to prove the existence of what he believed to be a metaphysical fact. (Recall that in 1965, in Cure or Heal?, Howe argued that “clinical methods,” which were based on direct observation, were no longer enough, because “our data are so much more than the eye can see or the hands can touch.” Although this position was explicitly made in 1965, this idea is evident even in Howe’s early writings.) From Howe’s perspective, Jung made his conclusion in reference to intuition because he (Jung) did not have a clear philosophical or metaphysical system on which to base his empirical approach. While Jung seemingly dismissed intuition, he proposed that “unconscious perception” could be empirically demonstrated. For Jung, “unconscious perception” referred to perception by means that are unconscious to the perceiver (1989, p. 28). This could simply refer to seeing, hearing, tasting, and touching, all forms of sensual perception. Yet, unconscious perception can also refer to the function of intuition, if we view intuition, from Howe’s metaphysical perspective, as a type of sense. For example, a person can say that he “sees,” but cannot (empirically) explain the neurological and psychological processes that make his vision possible. Similarly, a person can say that he experienced an intuition, a premonition, and then point to the fact that his intuition “came true,” but cannot explain the connection between the experience and the empirical fact that “came true” several days later. Just because both “seers” cannot explain how they saw, that does not mean that each did not “see.”

Howe remained silent for the remainder of the discussion of Jung’s first lecture. In the discussion of Jung’s second lecture, Howe again made his voice known, this time in reference to Dr. Eric Strauss’s question in response to Jung’s discussion of his word association experiments conducted between 1904 and 1910. (Strauss asked Jung to clarify his position on the unconscious in relation to Freud’s.) Howe felt that during the discussion of the first lecture, Jung merely “reproved him for using words” (1989, p. 58). Ironically, Jung’s early experimental research suggested Howe’s point that “words must be clearly understood,” the very basis for which Howe believed he was being reproved. At the time, Jung’s word association experiments seemingly (empirically) validated Freud’s understanding of the unconscious. Jung found that certain words elicited strong physical, psychological, and emotional responses from his subjects. Thus, the word that elicited the response signified the presence of an unconscious complex. Hence, from Jung’s perspective, the unconscious could be verified based on the connection between the words, or in some cases word clusters, and the specific series of responses to the words. Howe asked Jung if he ever applied his word association experiment to the words, “mystic” or “fourth dimension” (1989, p. 58). It is likely that Howe asked this question, not out of ignorance, but because Jung, during the discussion of his first lecture, stated that intuition was not “mystical.” Hence, Howe seemed to be performing his own word association experiment on Jung. He was probably more curious to know how Jung himself would respond to the words. Howe (1989) postulated that more than likely subjects, in response to the words, would either postpone/delay their responses and/or respond with intense concentration (pp. 58–59). Subtly, Howe was directing his postulation to Jung himself, in addition to inviting Jung’s response in general. (As will soon be seen, Jung picked up on Howe’s subtlety and responded accordingly). No matter how many times Jung attempted to dismiss the fourth dimension, Howe repeatedly returned to it, as he felt it was needed to facilitate understanding. During the discussion of Jung’s first lecture, Howe recognized early on that he and Jung were moving toward a disagreement in reference to the intuitive function in its relation to time. Thus, he would not let Jung simply dismiss the fourth dimension on account of it not being empirically verifiable.

To have Jung further elaborate his position, Howe referred to Jung’s understanding of the unconscious. Howe (1989) asserted that Jung denied the existence of the unconscious: “I understand from Professor Jung that there is no such thing (as the unconscious), there is only a relative unsconsciousness which depends on a relative degree of consciousness” (p. 59). Howe then compared and contrasted Jung’s system with Freud’s by asserting that Jung’s was four-dimensional and Freud’s was three-dimensional; Jung’s was fluid and dynamic and Freud’s was static and unchanging. By so doing, Howe directly answered Strauss’s question while Jung attempted to skirt around it. Moreover, Howe implied that Jung was complicating his own presentation by offering a four-dimensional system as three-dimensional, that he was explaining his system in a Freudian fashion! In essence, that Jung was dismissing the fourth dimension, which was implicit to his understanding of the unconscious. Howe (1989) stated:

According to Freudians, there is a place, a thing, an entity called the unconscious. According to Professor Jung, as I understand him, there is no such thing. He is moving in a fluid medium of relationship and Freud in a static medium of unrelated entities. To get it clear Freud is three-dimensional and Jung is, in all his psychology, four-dimensional. For this reason, I would criticize if I may the whole diagrammatic system of Jung because he is giving you a three-dimensional presentation of a four-dimensional system, a static presentation of something that is fundamentally moving, and unless it is explained you get it confused with the Freudian terminology and you cannot understand it. I shall insist that there must be some clarification of words (p. 59).

From the perspective of Howe’s own psychology of relationship, he interpreted Jung’s system as relational and Freud’s as a-polar.

According to John Heaton, Howe was very critical of the London school of Jungians and sympathized more with the Zurich school (Personal Correspondence, May 2003). Howe felt that the London Jungians interpreted Jung’s system as three-dimensional and static, while the Zurich school read Jung in a more dynamic, fourth-dimensional manner. In his writings, Jung’s concepts and his presentation are both dynamic and fluid. Howe was criticizing Jung for slightly deviating from the style of his writings, for not acknowledging the metaphysical aspect behind his psychological system. Jung’s system is based on a fluid, dynamic understanding not only of the psyche, but of the entire cosmos. The London Jungians, many of whom were heavily influenced by orthodox psychoanalysis and object-relations theory, in a sense, remained Freudian. They may have replaced one lexicon for another, Freud’s for Jung’s, but were essentially Freudian in their static, a-polar interpretation of the psyche.

Despite some disclaimers, Jung basically agreed with Howe. Jung acknowledged that everyone would have difficulty in responding to the words “fourth dimension” and “mystical” due to relative ignorance or unfamiliarity. Furthermore, Jung stated that it is complicated to allow psychology to be dynamic without recourse to expressing it in a three-dimensional fashion. Implicitly, Jung acknowledged that he did perhaps present his four-dimensional system three-dimensionally and thereby create some misunderstanding. Jung asserted that time, as the fourth dimension, was necessary when speaking of the dynamics of the psyche, yet when the word “fourth dimension” is used in reference to the time factor, it is likely to be met with narrow-mindedness (1989, p. 59). Thus, Jung maintained his insistence that the word should not be used. Jung rightly suggested that the word is somewhat “taboo,” due to its history. If the word did not invoke confusion, it was likely to provoke scorn, especially from the scholarly and professional communities. It was often associated with occultism, esoteric philosophy, and “mysticism.” Thus, Jung did not disavow the existence of a fourth dimension but disapproved of Howe’s use of the term “four-dimensional.” Jung (1989) then advised Howe as if he were his teacher,

The more you advance in the understanding of the psyche the more careful you have to be with terminology, because it is historically coined and prejudiced. The more you penetrate the basic problems of psychology the more you approach ideas which are philosophically, religiously, and morally prejudiced. Therefore certain things should be handled with the utmost care (pp. 59-60).

Evidently Howe did not take Jung’s advice. While he wrote about the dynamics of the psyche and was primarily a psychodynamic psychologist and psychotherapist, he repeatedly used historically charged words such as “meditation,” “mindfulness,” “detachment,” and “mysticism,” to name a few. Yet, Jung himself used historically charged words associated with mysticism, occultism, and esoteric philosophy – even more so than Howe. Thus, to what is Jung referring when he cautioned Howe in the use of such terms?

The major difference between Jung’s use of such terms and Howe’s is that Jung always provided a detailed, historical context of the terms themselves before illustrating their relevance for psychology and/or the practice of psychotherapy. Howe, on the other hand, provided very little in the way of historical context, if at all. Thus, in Jung’s writings there is a strong historical element whereas Howe’s are basically a-historical. If Howe had taken Jung’s advice in 1935, it is possible that history would have remembered him – by providing more in the way of context to his ideas, by better explicating his sources, it is likely that Howe would have been written into the history of psychoanalysis.

Howe responded to Jung by stating “the audience would like you to be provocative. I am going to say a rash thing” (1989, p. 60). From Jung’s perspective, Howe was already “indiscreet” and “rash” in his use of the words “mystical” and “fourth dimension.” Howe further pushed the envelope by continuing his own provocation of Jung. Howe (1989) stated:

You and I do not regard the shape of the ego as a straight line. We would be prepared to regard the sphere as a true shape of the self in four dimensions, of which one is the three-dimensional outline. If so, will you answer a question: “What is the scope of the self which in four dimensions is a moving sphere?” I suggest the answer is: “The universe itself, which includes your concept of the collective racial unconscious” (p. 60).

Jung then asked Howe to repeat the question. Howe responded by making his question more succinct, “How big is this sphere, which is the four-dimensional self? I could not help giving the answer and saying that it is the same bigness as the universe” (1989, p. 60). At the time of Jung’s Tavistock lectures, Howe had just recently finished the six lectures he delivered for the Home and School Council of Great Britain, in London, from October-November 1934. These lectures became the basis for I and Me: A Study of the Self, which was published in 1935 and is one Howe’s earliest works. Howe’s “selves” psychology, as was discussed in Chapter 6, included the idea of a multi-dimensional self. The Whole Self, which for Howe was four-dimensional, included the entirety of the cosmos, and hence, transcended and included one-dimensionality, two-dimensionality, and three-dimensionality. Points A, B, and C were absorbed into the unity and wholeness of the Self. And as Howe acknowledged, Jung influenced his own understanding of the Self.

Jung responded to Howe by reiterating that Howe’s question is philosophical and not psychological. Yet, Jung (1989) attempted to answer what he believed to be Howe’s philosophical question psychologically: “The image of the world is a projection of the world of the self, as the latter is an introjection of the world” (p. 60). He then asserted that only the philosopher would go beyond the world whereby things are static and isolated. Unlike Howe, Jung was reluctant to go beyond this world as he felt that it would “cause an earthquake in the ordinary mind” (1989, p. 61). Because most of the world believed that it was static and isolated, Jung felt that it would do more harm than good to challenge what he believed to be the consensual view of reality: “The whole cosmos would be shaken, the most sacred convictions and hopes would be upset, and I do not see why one would wish to disquiet things. It is not good for patients, nor for doctors; it is perhaps good for philosophers” (1989, p. 60).

While many of Jung’s theoretical notions were revolutionary, expressing a four-dimensional view of the psyche in its relation to the cosmos, in practice he often stayed within a three-dimensional world. (It could be argued that, based on Jung’s developmental psychology, it is necessary to work with patients who are in the first half of life within a three-dimensional system, practicing a predominantly Freudian-based psychotherapy. However, when patients are in the second half of life, middle age to old age, it is necessary – barring the presence of an abundance of fixations and unresolved complexes – to work within a four-dimensional system, practicing a more transpersonally-based psychotherapy.) Howe, in Nietzschean fashion, often “shook the cosmos” and “upset the most sacred hopes and convictions.” Howe felt that it was often good for both doctors and patients to question their three-dimensional, consensus reality, as from his point of view, a static and unchanging view of the cosmos, “rigidity” in one’s relationship to life, was in large part responsible for the “symptoms” that were being presented in the consulting room.

‍

Introduction to Howe’s Meaning of Time

We are told by those who ought to know, such as mathematicians and philosophers, that time is the fourth dimension, which goes beyond the familiar three of space. If this is so, then time is certainly outside the capacity of egoic man to comprehend it, for he is devised to dwell consciously in space, but not in time. Time, being outside and beyond his conscious mind, requires clocks to tell him of its existence. Of time itself, of experiential time, egoic man knows nothing. Not knowing that time is experience, and experience is time, it is not surprising that, as he constantly watches his clocks, saving time whenever he can, he has little time for experience, now (Howe, 1965, p. 147).

Evidently, Howe’s position on time in 1965 did not deviate much from his position in 1935. What Howe did in Cure or Heal? was to make his understanding of time more thematic. (He began to write about his understanding of time in relation to metaphysics in 1937 in War Dance and further refined it in 1965 in Cure or Heal?) Specifically, Howe clarified his distinction between three-dimensional man, egoic man and four-dimensional man, the whole person. Howe suggested that one of the ways to differentiate between the two types is by the respective ways in which they each understand time. Egoic man knows “clock” time while the whole person knows experiential time. From Howe’s perspective, because egoic man lives in a three-dimensional, static, a-polar, unchanging world, he cannot grasp experiential time. Based on Jung’s point of view, Howe, by his insistence on using a “fourth dimension” to describe time, placed himself in the company of those who are most associated with the term – namely, “mystics.” As has been mentioned, Howe was not necessarily concerned with how he was going to be remembered. For him, the “fourth dimension” was a suitable philosophical and metaphysical backdrop to situate many of his own as well as his patients’ psychological experiences.

‍

The Meaning of Time and Fractal Geometry

One of the best ways to understand Howe’s concept of the fourth dimension, as the meaning of time, is to situate it in relation to fractal geometry. From the vantage point of fractal geometry, the fourth dimension, which comprises the space-time continuum, is reality. In the fourth dimension, the infinite numbers of phenomena are related to one another through both time and energy. In the Time domain, the Fourth Dimension continues the movement of the Third Dimension (Past) to form a wave, constituting (fractally) the space-time continuum. The fourth dimension is portrayed geometrically by what is called the hypercube:

‍

From the center of the cube, which can be likened to Howe and Jung’s understanding of the Self, through its eight diagonal lines, the Self is related to the entirety of the cosmos. Four diagonals to form a center point cut the hypercube. The center point is akin to Howe’s PRIMARY CONSCIOUSNESS, SELF. What is meant by infinity, in the fourth dimension as experiential time, is the infinite number of relationships that can simultaneously exist at any one moment in time. “The number of the diagonals is 4×3=9, according to the Pythagorean theorem. The four diagonals, being 1–5, 2–6, 3–7 and 4–0,” are as follows:

1–5 Matter

2–6 Consciousness

3–7 Energy

4–0 Self-Organization

‍

The fourth dimension is the space-time continuum of man and the cosmos where there is a continuous feedback loop. The fourth dimension includes the first three dimensions, but also the gaps or intervals between them, the fractal dimensions.

Matter, energy, consciousness, and self-organization all intersect at the point of the Self. Thus, Howe’s conclusion in 1935, that the Self is as “big as the universe,” complements fractal geometric theory, yet paradoxically, it is as small as the universe as well. Fractal geometry is based on chaos theory and quantum mechanics. Hence, Howe’s understanding of experiential time – time as four-dimensional, time as understood by the whole person – could be appreciated as a kind of psychology of chaos. Master Dogen, a 13th-century Zen Buddhist monk, and the founder of the Soto school of Zen, had a similar concept of time that he called being-time: “Whenever anything happens it happens now and ‘now’ is this ‘happening.’” Dogen’s being-time nicely complements Howe’s assertion that time is a function of movement-in-relationship; it is a gestalt-of-three, its items indivisible other than by the bridge of the relationship which joins them (1965, p. 147). Recall that from Howe’s perspective, the self is a “moving sphere” rather than a straight line or even a hypercube. Yet, the hypercube, from the perspective of Fractal Geometry, nicely complements and further represents in pictorial fashion Howe’s descriptions of the self as a “moving sphere.” No matter where it moves, whether we are talking about Howe’s “moving sphere” or Fractal Geometry’s Hypercube, the cosmos moves with it. The cosmos from Howe’s perspective, and from the perspective of fractal geometry, is both fluid and dynamic. Thus, like time itself, as the nature of reality, it is movement-in-relationship. Hence, matter, consciousness, and energy will eternally intersect at the point of the Self. Because this is the case, awareness or gnosis of experiential time is simultaneously Self-Knowledge as well as Cosmic Knowledge.

The fourth dimension, as experiential time, as a function of movement-in-relationship was integral to Howe’s practice of psychotherapy; thus, it was not only a metaphysical or philosophical speculation. It was part of the foundation for his praxis of healing. Howe (1965) stated that he was sometimes asked, “If you do not use either knives or drugs, what do you do for your patients that justifies your charging fees?” His answer was that he gave them TIME (p. 159). What did Howe mean by this simple, yet mysterious, assertion? Egoic man, while he certainly lives by the clock, ironically, never has enough time. His calendar and appointment book are full of routines, activities, dates, meetings, etc. Yet, at the end of his day, even though there is some measure of satisfaction, there is a part of him that feels unfulfilled. What he forgot, during his day, was he, himself, and by virtue of forgetting himself, he forgot the other. He was immersed in his three-dimensional, static world, not genuinely relating to anyone or anything, even though an infinite number of possibilities were presented. He was unconscious of the four-dimensional reality in which he existed. This is not to say that Howe attempted to “awaken” his patients to this reality. By giving his patients time, he gave them what they were not allowed to have as children. Howe (1965) made the important point that “the therapist, in giving his own time (with a small t) is giving the patient his own TIME, which is his source of PERSONAL healing within himself (p. 160). The therapist is the catalyst for the healing process to occur in time. What does the healing, from Howe’s perspective, is the SELF, HEALER, TIME. All three terms are synonymous with the Center of the Cosmos. Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) stated that nature is an infinite sphere whose center is everywhere and circumference nowhere. The fourth dimension, Time, as a function of movement-in-relationship, is the healer of wounds, the comforter of pain. The patient must be “patient,” he must, at times, wait for TIME to heal him. By giving his patient time, the time that he never had as a child and still does not have as an adult, the therapist is creating a space for the dawning of TIME, the movement of the fourth dimension, a tectonic shift of what was previously a static psyche.

‍

Image: Time by Andreas Brooks ‍

Video: Soft Ice by Oszilot

‍