Constantin Brunner

[No Robots]

Constantin Brunner

This thread is intended as a free-ranging discussion of the work of Constantin Brunner [1862-1937], a much-neglected German-Jewish thinker. His work touches on all aspects of thought. What I would like to do is leave the floor open to questions to which I will respond to the best of my ability.

I came across Brunner’s book, Our Christ: The Revolt of the Mystical Genius, while looking into philosophical approaches to the question of Christ. I was immediately captivated by this book, and eagerly sought out more. I found far more than I could possibly have hoped for. For over ten years I have been completely devoted to Brunner. I have struggled to learn German in order to read his voluminous untranslated works.

You can brief yourselves quite quickly by googling him. His doctrine is quite simple in its essence. It is its wide-ranging applicability that makes it so challenging.

In any case, I await your comments and questions. Being that this is Friday afternoon, I don’t expect anything too involved immediately.

I thank Storm for graciously proposing this subforum as an appropriate venue for this discussion.

 

[Storm]

Perhaps you might start by giving your own understanding of his doctrine?

 

[doppelganger]

Here's a bit from Our Christ that I've always liked but I don't think I've ever quoted at RF before that might get some discussion going (and it might even pertain to the subject of the "Pantheism" forum):

But we must also surrender the word "God", this most unphilosophical word, most inimical to philosophy and possessing an ineradicable power to generate myths . . . the anthropopathic and amthropomorphic God is only the even more pathetic tendency of our thought to absolutize the ideatum of the human body and human life into an ideated God . . . we must destroy each and every ideatum that is imagined to be ideated externally to ourselves, if our sound ideas are to form a solid and integral whole.

(pp. 22-23)

 

[No Robots]

In German, it is called Die Lehre von den Geistigen und vom Volke. It is difficult to translate this in a way that does it justice, and that doesn’t alienate. Basically, Brunner construes two types of thinkers: das Volk, those who base their thought on the practical, material, sensible, observable facts of perception; and die Geistigen, those who base their thought on the conviction that thought itself (das Denkende, the Cogitant) constitutes the real, of which our phenomenal perceptions are merely contingent, finite and relative.

He further classifies the Geistigen into two groups. First, there are the great creative geniuses of art, philosophy and mysticism (love), with Spinoza standing as the greatest exemplar of philosophy, and Christ of mysticism (love). Second, there are those who are receptive to the work of the creative geniuses, and who modify their lives in response to art, philosophy and mysticism (love).

Although occasionally stirred by creative work, das Volk remains generally within the realm of practical existence.

Brunner’s aim is to establish the Gemeinschaft (community) der Geistigen, that would allow those who so wish to lead life on the basis of Geist, free from interference from das Volk.

Other than with great exemplars like Christ and Spinoza, Brunner did not advocate assigning people to one group or another. Instead, his aim was to encourage people to decide for themselves where their nature must inevitably lead them to ally themselves. In this way, he puts forward a challenge to thinking individuals to devote themselves entirely to thought, rather than to just playing at thinking.

 

[doppelganger]

Other than with great exemplars like Christ and Spinoza, Brunner did not advocate assigning people to one group or another. Instead, his aim was to encourage people to decide for themselves where their nature must inevitably lead them to ally themselves. In this way, he puts forward a challenge to thinking individuals to devote themselves entirely to thought, rather than to just playing at thinking.

Have you ever read much about Gnosticism and the distinction between the "pneumatic" or "psychic" and the "hylic" or "somatic"? You might find some fascinating parallels.

 

[No Robots]

Have you ever read much about Gnosticism and the distinction between the "pneumatic" or "psychic" and the "hylic" or "somatic"? You might find some fascinating parallels.

Absolutely. As you know, Our Christ has extensive treatment of this subject. Unfortunately, I haven't reached 15 posts here, so I can't do links, but I have on my website a passage from the scholar of mysticism, Rufus Jones, that goes over the two-fold division of mankind, and mentions the Gnostics. I found out about Jones by the fact that Brunner's stepdaughter, under the pen-name E.C. Werthenau, translated one of Jones' books.

 

[Storm]

In German, it is called Die Lehre von den Geistigen und vom Volke. It is difficult to translate this in a way that does it justice, and that doesn’t alienate. Basically, Brunner construes two types of thinkers: das Volk, those who base their thought on the practical, material, sensible, observable facts of perception; and die Geistigen, those who base their thought on the conviction that thought itself (das Denkende, the Cogitant) constitutes the real, of which our phenomenal perceptions are merely contingent, finite and relative.

He further classifies the Geistigen into two groups. First, there are the great creative geniuses of art, philosophy and mysticism (love), with Spinoza standing as the greatest exemplar of philosophy, and Christ of mysticism (love). Second, there are those who are receptive to the work of the creative geniuses, and who modify their lives in response to art, philosophy and mysticism (love).

Although occasionally stirred by creative work, das Volk remains generally within the realm of practical existence.

Brunner’s aim is to establish the Gemeinschaft (community) der Geistigen, that would allow those who so wish to lead life on the basis of Geist, free from interference from das Volk.

Other than with great exemplars like Christ and Spinoza, Brunner did not advocate assigning people to one group or another. Instead, his aim was to encourage people to decide for themselves where their nature must inevitably lead them to ally themselves. In this way, he puts forward a challenge to thinking individuals to devote themselves entirely to thought, rather than to just playing at thinking.

Hmmmmm.

Initial reaction is my frequent refrain, "it's not that simple." But your last paragraph gives me pause.

 

[doppelganger]

Does he say that people "decide" where they will go, or that they are constituted to go where they will go, according to their nature?

 

[autonomous1one1]

Greetings No_Robots. Welcome to RF. Tis interesting that when one googles for Constantin Brunner one is returned right to this thread already. Must do a Brunner brushup - back later.

 

[No Robots]

The idea is to stimulate a spiritual awakening in those who are capable of such an awakening. For example, if you as a teacher read to your class the poetry of William Blake, chances are that very few of the students will have any receptivity to it. Brunner seeks optimal conditions for spiritual awakening. The principle of the community is part of this because, with a raised visibility and greater coherence of the spiritually-oriented life, more people will feel encouraged to follow their intuition and adopt it, rather than remaining in isolated misery, believing that philistine existence is the only possibility. It is a democratic means of establishing an aristocracy. Anyone can say, "Look, I want to be part of this." Great! Now, let's get going, and build this thing, I say. We don't even have to work together, or even agree on everything. We can just take strength in the knowledge that we hold to the same ideal. Really, the community is just that, an ideal. It is an operating principle by which we can organize our lives, a goal toward which we strive, that helps lift us out of the mire of believing only in material existence. Ultimately, it validates material existence, by helping us to relativize our perceptions, and realize that everything is part of the One, even those who oppose everything to do with the community of Geist.

 

[No Robots]

So, to finish my response to doppelgänger, the idea is to establish the community of Geist so that those who are so inclined do have a choice. Without the community, they have no choice but to live pretty much as the Volk do.

 

[doppelganger]

The idea is to stimulate a spiritual awakening in those who are capable of such an awakening.

Right, that's how I understand him as well. So it's not that one "chooses" or "decides" but the circumstances are set for those with the capacity to see it when they encounter it. I like your William Blake example.

My awakening pre-dates ever encountering Brunner (who I met through you actually, as I recall). My fondest regards are reserved for Nietzsche and Joseph Campbell whose words and ideas were there when the light first turned on. Perhaps in the same way I suspect reading Brunner was for you? Once the light goes on (yeah, it's a cheap metaphor), you can pick up the work of pretty any great artist, philosopher or mystic and it opens up beautifully.

I don't know that it is innate in some people and not in others, like a dormant capacity only present in some as Brunner suggests. I have drawn comparisons before between the Gnostics' psychic/somatic divide and the work of psychologists like Kohlberg, Loevinger and Cook-Greuter in understanding the progression of ego or moral development - which, when you get to the "unitive" and "ironist" stages, is basically Brunner's "mystical genius."

 

[No Robots]

We're totally on the same page here. I'm going to go ahead and quote that passage from Jones:

It looks as though there were two quite diverse types of man, though it would be truer to fact to say that the distinction is probably one of degree rather than one of type. There is, on the one hand, the person who has little or no interest in a Beyond. He responds to the world which his senses report to him and in large measure he confines himself to that world. He lives biologically and seems to care little about intrinsic values, and is for the most part unconscious or dimly conscious of transcendent Realities. This type of man, however, is not completely what the Gnostics called a hylic man, devoid of spiritual capacity and composed entirely of material stuff. His unconcern is due more to the influences of nurture and social pressure than to an original bent of mind. This unconcerned and seemingly "biological man" may some day be shaken awake, may set his feet on the way back to the Fatherland, and may become a genuine citizen of it.

The other type of man seems from the first to be more truly bien né, to have come "with trailing clouds of glory from God" and to be aware that he "belongs" to the Fatherland of the Spirit. He can never be content with biological existence. The walls of separation are for him thinner, and this type of person is more sensitive and more responsive to another Realm of Reality. But these mystics who are treated in this book always insist that there is "something of God" in every person, though it may be only "a spark," something that forms a junction with that higher Realm.

This gift of "correspondence" is as unique as is the genius of the poet or the musician or the artist. It is present, I believe in all normally endowed persons, but it rises to a very high level in persons who possess a peculiar gift of sensitivity for this deeper environment of the soul. Alexis Carrel in his Man the Unknown considers mysticism to be, rightly I think, among the fundamental human activities.

--The flowering of mysticism: The Friends of God in the fourteenth century by Rufus Matthew Jones. New York: Macmillan, 1940: p. 7-8.​

Brunner was always very alert to Nietzsche. When Lou Andreas Salome came to Brunner, he found it significant that she came to him from Nietzsche. And Brunner's stepdaughter published a work comparing and contrasting them.

Returning to the subject of the division between Geistigen and Volk, and the establishment of the community of der Geistigen, it is extremely important to realize that this is not an attempt to exclude some people and exalt others. It is simply the recognition of a self-evident fact that some people need to establish their lives on a basis wholly different from that of the vast majority. It is like they live in an inverted Maslow’s hierarchy, where spiritual self-fulfillment is the only thing worth doing, and food and shelter are trivial details. The two groups are constantly at each other’s throats, and it is time for some détente. Most Volk don’t want to be made over into Geistigen, and the best Geistigen cannot fake being Volk. There are those among the Geistigen, the receptive rather than the creative ones, who are better able to “pass” as Volk. Their role is extremely important in this time of transition, because they can help deal with das Volk while the community establishes itself. With the establishment of the community, there will be a place where the creative geniuses—people like Christ, Spinoza, Mozart, Beethoven—can live their blessed lives free from popular prejudice and oppression.

 

[doppelganger]

As I recall, Brunner had a fair amount of vitriol for Nietzsche - owing to misunderstanding the latter's comments about Judaism I think. I'll have to look and see if I can find it again in Our Christ.

EDIT: Okay, I found it. He mentions Nietzsche twice in Our Christ. Once to point out that he was sexist toward women (comparing his sexism to the anti-semitism of other writers) and once to point out that he though Nietzsche was such a megalomaniac that he made himself sick, by which I assume he is referring to the myth that Nietzsche's philosophy drove him to madness.

 

[autonomous1one1]

Greetings, not intending to interrupt but please permit two questions. Brunner says that Christ is the perfect mystic. Christ undoubtedly realized identity with God (or the Absolute? in Brunner terminology). Do you understand that for Brunner there is the possibility of such realization of true identity for anyone in the Geistigen group? Had Brunner himself realized this true identity? Some say that there are two perspectives in the awakened - one's identity is seen as a part and one's identity is.

 

[No Robots]

Brunner considers Nietzsche to be a hybrid of Geistigen and Volk. Such individuals, among whom he also counts Aristotle, Augustine, Schopenhauer, and Wagner, “are not sick persons per se. They are only dazed by the roars of glory, by the drumming and blasting of the general spirit and of progressivism and of the scientistic metaphysics of monism based on evolutionism; they have only succumbed to the fumes of the dominating opinion” (Lehre, 73).

 

[No Robots]

Greetings, not intending to interrupt but please permit two questions. Brunner says that Christ is the perfect mystic. Christ undoubtedly realized identity with God (or the Absolute? in Brunner terminology). Do you understand that for Brunner there is the possibility of such realization of true identity for anyone in the Geistigen group?

Certainly Brunner envisaged such a possibility. In fact, one of the functions of the community is to ensure that when such individuals come forth, they have some protection from mass prejudice.

Had Brunner himself realized this true identity?

This is a difficult question. Brunner certainly denied that he was a mystic. And I don't know that he ever claimed to be a philosopher or an artist. He certainly understood himself as a thinker and as a critic. Brunner's self-understanding is something that I haven't spent much time investigating. This is really a wide-open field of investigation, for which the primary tool would certainly be the journal of his stepdaughter. For myself, I see his doctrine as a practical instrument for the development of a coherent social science.

 

[autonomous1one1]

...This is a difficult question. Brunner certainly denied that he was a mystic.

Thank you for responding. Mysticism was so important to Brunner, at least in "Our Christ," that it would seem strange if he had not pursued it fully. Denying to be a mystic is quite different from not saying that one is a mystic. It would seem to come only from not having 'realized' or for the avoidance of persecution although don't believe a true mystic ever does this latter. Where can it be found that he denied it?

.....For myself, I see his doctrine as a practical instrument for the development of a coherent social science.

Interesting, care to explain further?

 

[No Robots]

Thank you for responding. Mysticism was so important to Brunner, at least in "Our Christ," that it would seem strange if he had not pursued it fully. Denying to be a mystic is quite different from not saying that one is a mystic. It would seem to come only from not having 'realized' or for the avoidance of persecution although don't believe a true mystic ever does this latter. Where can it be found that he denied it?

He is quoted in Lotte's journal as saying that, as a youth, "once, I went an entire winter long without going out the door – exactly like a mystic, which I am actually not at all."

He definitely had many qualities of a mystic. But his definition of a mystic is very specific, and thus he ruled himself out. Mystics make their will to love their sole and exclusive occupation in life, with utter disregard for practicalities. Brunner, on the other hand, was vitally concerned with the concrete facts of material existence. His whole argument basically comes down to the need to apply spiritual thought to practical questions and problems. In this sense, he fills a gap between pure spiritual thought as we find it in mystics, and practical mundane reality.

Interesting, care to explain further?

Brunner proposes his doctrine as the foundational principle of social science, the atomic theory of the humanities. It provides a principle of discrimination that allows us to classify coherently the whole spectrum of human phenomena, and provides a prescriptive direction for improvement of the human condition. It is perhaps easiest to think of it as the complement of Marx, a dialectical idealism in contrast to the latter's dialectical materialism.

 

[No Robots]

Under the spur of this thread, I have been reading Lotte's journal, and it appears that I have to qualify what I wrote earlier about Brunner seeing himself as a thinker. The journal in fact quotes him as saying, "I do not have thoughts. I know or I do not know, but I cannot 'think.' Perhaps therein lies my security: for he who thinks, can err," and, "essentially, I know no thoughts; I know only men."