Carl Jung on Emotional Components affecting Bodily Functions

Dr. Evans: An interesting area which is being discussed a lot in the United States today, and I’m sure is of interest to you as well, is that of
psychosomatic medicine, an area dealing with the way in which emotional components of personality can affect bodily functions.

Dr. Jung: As an example of this, I see a lot of astounding cures of tuberculosis—chronic tuberculosis—effected by analysts; people learn to
breathe again.

The understanding of what their complexes were—that has helped them.

Dr. Evans: When did you first become interested in the psychic factors of tuberculosis? Many years ago?

Dr. Jung: I was an analyst to begin with; I was always interested naturally.

Maybe also because I understood so little of it, or more importantly, I noticed that I understood so little.

Dr. Evans: To expand on my earlier question, we are right now becoming more and more interested in the United States in how emotional,
unconscious personality factors can actually have an effect on the body. Of course, the classic example in the literature is the peptic ulcer. It is
believed that this is a case where emotional factors have actually created pathology.

These ideas have been extended into many other areas.

It is felt, for example, that where there already is pathology, these emotional factors can intensify it.

Or sometimes there may be actual symptoms or fears concerning pathology when no true pathology exists, such as in cases of hysteria or hypochondriasis.

For example, many physicians in America say that 60 to 70 percent of their patients do not have anything really physically wrong with them, but
they instead have disorders of psychosomatic origin.

Dr. Jung: Yes, that is well known—since more than fifty years.

The question is how to cure them. ~Carl Jung, Evans Conversations, Pages 34-35.

Carl Jung and Synchronicity

Dr. Evans: We might go a little further into some of your recent works in this area which many consider quite profound,
but are not too well known to many of our students.

Dr. Jung: Of course not.

Nobody in the general public actually reads these things.

Of course, my books are at least sold.

Dr. Evans: To be more specific, I’m referring to the concept, synchronicity, which you have discussed, and which has some relevance at this
point in our discussion. Would you care to comment on synchronicity?

Dr. Jung: That is awfully complicated.

One wouldn’t know where to begin.

Of course, this kind of thinking started long ago, and when Rhine brought out his results, I thought,
“Now we have at least a more or less dependable basis to argue on.”

But the argument has not been understood at all, because it is really very difficult.

When you observe the unconscious, you will come across plenty of cases which show a very peculiar kind of parallel events.

For example, I have a certain thought of a certain definite subject which is occupying my attention and my interest;
and at the same time, something else happens, quite independently, that portrays just that thought.

This is utter nonsense, you know, looked at from a causal point of view.

However, that there is something else to it which is not nonsense is made evident by the results of Rhine’s experiments.

There is a probability; it is something more than chance that such a case occurs.

I never made statistical experiments except one in the way of Rhine.

I made one for another purpose.

But I have come across quite a number of cases where it was most astounding to find that two causal chains
happened at the same time, but independent of each other, so that you could say they had nothing to do with each other.

It’s really quite clear.

For instance, I speak of a red car and at that moment a red car comes here.

Now I haven’t seen the red car, because it wasn’t possible; it was hidden behind the building until just this
moment when it suddenly appeared.

Now many would say that this is an example of mere chance, but the Rhine experiment proves
that these cases are not mere chance.

Now it would be superstitious and false to say, “This car has appeared because here were some remarks
made about a red car; it is a miracle that a red car has appeared.”

It is not a miracle; it is just chance—but these chances happen more often than chance allows.

That shows that there is something behind it.

Rhine has a whole institute, many co-workers, and has the means.

We have no means here to make such experiments; otherwise, I probably would have done them.

Here it is just physically impossible, so I have to content myself with the observation of facts!! ~Carl Jung, Evans Conversations, Pages 33-34.

Carl Jung on “Motivational Concepts”

Dr. Evans: One question which is quite important as we attempt to understand the individual centers around the problem of motivation, why
the person does what he does. To some degree you have already talked about this when you discussed archetypes. However, to go further into
this problem, earlier when we discussed the libido, that which Freud considered a psychic, sexual energy, you may recall your suggestion that
it was more than just sexual energy. You suggested that it could be something much broader. You have certain principles concerning psychic
energy which are very provocative, and one of these principles, I believe you refer to as the principle of entropy.

Dr. Jung: Well, I alluded to it.

The main point is to take the standpoint of energetics as applied to psychical phenomena.

Now with psychical phenomena you have no possibility to measure exactly, so it always remains a sort of analogy.

Freud uses the term “libido” in the sense of sexual energy, and that is not quite correct.

If it is sexual, then it is a power, like electricity or any other form or manifestation of energy.

Now energy is a concept by which you try to express the analogies of all power manifestations; namely, that they have a
certain quality, a certain intensity, and there is a flow in one direction, viz., to the ultimate suspension of the
opposites. Low-high-height —a lake on a mountain flows down until all the water is down, you know, then it is finished.

And you see something similar in the case in psychology.

We get tired from intellectual work or from consciously living, and then we must sleep to restore our powers.

Then by sleeping through the night, it is as if the water were pumped from a lower level to a higher level, and we can work again the next day.

Of course, that simile is limping too, so it is only in an analogous way that we use the term “energy.”

I used it because I wanted to express the fact that the power manifestation of sexuality is not the only power manifestation.

You have a number of drives, say the drive to conquer or the drive to be aggressive, or any number of others.

There are many forms.

For instance, you take animals, the way they are building their nests, or the urge of the traveling birds that migrate.

They all are driven by a sort of energy manifestation, and the meaning of the word “sexuality” would be entirely gone if all these different
urges and drives were included in its definition. Freud himself says that this is not applicable everywhere, and later on he corrected himself
by assuming that there are also ego drives.

That is something else, another manifestation.

Now in order not to presume or to prejudice things, I speak simply of energy, and energy is a quantity of energy that
can manifest itself via sexuality or via any other instinct.

That is the main feature, not the existence of one single power.

Dr. Evans: Many approaches to motivation in our academic psychology today emphasize what is sometimes referred
to as a biocentric theory. It suggests that the individual is bom with certain inborn physiological, self-preserving types
of drives, such as the ‐ drive for hunger, thirst, etc. Sex is just one of them. In the case of all these drives, however, their satisfaction i
s necessary to the maintenance of the organism. Then as the individual is influenced by reality and the culture in which he lives, these
primary drives are modified in terms of the society in which he functions. For example, as a result of specific cultural influences,
the general hunger drive is supplemented by a specific urge for certain kinds of food. Later, if this is important in the culture in which he lives,
he may develop needs for social approval, influencing further his food preferences, and so on. Would this general approach to the understanding
of the development of motivations be consistent with your ideas? Would you say that basic, innate, instinctual patterns are modified by the
environment or culture to which they are subjected?

Dr. Jung: Yes, certainly.

Dr. Evans: Also, concerning motivation, or the condition which arouses, directs, and sustains the individual, there appear to be two views
found in much of our psychology in America today. One might be called an historical view, as illustrated by the biocentric theory just
discussed, where we try to look at the history and development of the individual for answers as to why he is doing a certain thing at the
moment. Then we have another view, postulated and discussed by Dr. Kurt Lewin, which is a field theory. He did not believe that the history—the past
—was the most important element in motivation. Instead he suggested that all the conditions which affect the individual at a given moment help
us to best understand the individual and predict his behavior. Do you think that the “present field” idea of Dr. Lewin has any virtue?

Dr. Jung: Well, obviously I always insist that even a chronic neurosis has its true cause in the moment now.

You see, the neurosis is made every day by the wrong attitude the individual has.

On the other hand, however, that wrong attitude is a sort of fact that needs to be explained historically, by things that have happened in the past.

But that is one-sided too, because all psychological facts are oriented, not only to course, but also to a certain goal.

They are, in a way, physiological; namely, they serve as a purpose, so the wrong attitude can have originated in a certain way long ago.

It is equally true, however, that it wouldn’t exist today any more if there were not immediate causes and immediate purposes to keep it alive today.

Because of this, a neurosis can be finished suddenly on a certain day, despite all causes.

One has observed in the beginning of the war cases of compulsion neuroses which had lasted for many years and suddenly were
cured, because they got into an entirely new condition.

It is like a shock, you see.

Even the schizophrenic can be vastly improved by a shock because that’s a new condition; it is a very shocking thing, so it shocks them out of their habitual attitude.

Once they are no more in it, the whole thing collapses, the whole system that has been built up for years.

Dr. Evans: You have brought up many interesting and provocative ideas here. Another concept related to motivational development is the
process of individuation, a process to which you frequently refer in your writing. Would you like to comment about this process of
individuation, how all these factors move toward a whole— a totality?

Dr. Jung: Well, you know, that’s something quite simple.

Take an acorn, put it into the ground, and watch it grow and become an oak.

That is man.

Man develops from an egg, and develops into the whole man; that is the law that is in him.

Dr. Evans: So you think the psychic development is in many ways like the biological development.

Dr. Jung: The psychic development is out of the world; it is something else, or maybe an opinion.

It is a fact that people develop in their psychical development on the same principle as they develop in the body.

Why should we assume that it is a different principle?

It is really the same kind of evolutionary behavior as the body shows.

Consider for instance, those animals that have specially differentiated anatomical characteristics, those of the teeth or something like that.
Well, they have a mental behavior which is in accordance with those organs.

Dr. Evans: So as you see it, there is no need to bring in other types of ideas, other types of theories to explain development. The basic
biological law is still—

Dr. Jung: The psyche is nothing different from the living being. It is the psychical aspect of the living being. It is even the psychical aspect of
matter. It is a quality. ~Carl Jung, Evans Conversations, Pages 26-27

Carl Jung on the "Intuitive Extrovert" and "Intuitive Introvert."

Dr. Evans: More specifically, what would be an example of the difference between an intuitive extrovert and an intuitive introvert?

Dr. Jung: Well, you have chosen a somewhat difficult case, because one of the most difficult types is the intuitive introvert.

The intuitive extrovert you find in all kinds of bankers, gamblers, etc., which is quite understandable.

The introvert is more difficult because he has intuitions as to the subjective factor, namely the inner world; and, of course, that is very
difficult to understand because what he sees are most uncommon things, things which he doesn’t like to talk about if he is not a fool.

If he did, he would spoil his own game by telling what he sees, because people won’t understand it.

For instance, once I had a patient, a young woman about 27 or 28.

Immediately after I had seated her, she said, “You know, doctor, I came to you because I’ve a snake in my abdomen.”

What! “Yes, a black snake coiled up in the bottom of my abdomen.”

I must have made an awful face at her, so she said, “You know that I don’t mean it literally.”

I then replied, however, “If you say it was a snake, it was a snake.”

In a later conversation with her, which took place about in the middle of her treatment, treatment that only lasted
for ten consultations, she reminded me of something she had foretold me.

She had said, “I come ten times and then it will be all right,” to which I responded with the question, “How do you know?”

“Oh, I’ve got a hunch,” she said.

Now at about the fifth or sixth hour she said, “Doctor, I must tell you that the snake has risen; it is now about here.”

A hunch.

Then on the tenth day I said, “Now this is our last hour, and do you feel cured?”

Just beaming, she replied, “You know, this morning it came up, came out of my mouth, and the head was golden.”

Those were her last words.

When it comes to reality now, that same girl came to me because she couldn’t hear the step of her feet anymore,
because she walked on air, literally. She couldn’t hear it, and that frightened her.

When I asked for her address, she said, “Oh, Pension so and so.

Well, it is not just called a pension, but it is a sort of pension.”

I had never heard of it.

“I have never heard of that place,” I said.

She replied, “It is a very nice place.

There are only young girls there; they are all very nice young girls, very lovely young girls, and they have a merry time.

I often wish they would invite me to their merry evenings.”

And I said, “Do they amuse themselves all alone?”

“No,” she replied, “there are plenty of young gentlemen coming in; they have a beautiful time,
but they never invite me.”

It turned out that this was a private brothel.

She was a perfectly decent girl from a very good family, not from here.

She had found that place, I don’t know how, and she was completely unaware that they
were all prostitutes.

I said, “For heaven’s sake, you fell into a very tough place; you’ll hasten to get out of it.”

She didn’t see reality, but she had hunches like everything, vraiment.

Such a person cannot possibly speak of her experiences because everybody would think she was absolutely crazy.

I myself was quite shocked, and I thought, “For heaven’s sake, is that case a schizophrenic?”

You don’t normally hear that kind of speech; but she assumed that the old man, of course, knew everything and did understand such kind of
language.

So you see, if the introverted intuitive would speak what he really perceives, practically no one would understand him; he would be
misunderstood.

Thus they learn to keep things to themselves.

You hardly ever hear them talking of these things.

In a way, that is a great disadvantage, but in another way it is an enormous advantage that these people do not speak of their
experiences, both their inward experiences and those which occur in human relations.

For instance, they may come into the presence of somebody they don’t know, not from Adam, and suddenly they may have inner images.

Now these inner images may give them a great deal of information about the psychology of that person they have just met.

That is typical of cases that often happen.

They suddenly know an important piece of the biography of that person, and if they did not keep things to themselves, they would tell the story.

Then the fat would be in the fire!

So the intuitive introvert has in a way a very difficult life, although it is a most interesting one.

It is quite difficult to get into their confidence.

Dr. Evans: Yes, because they are afraid people will think . . .

Dr. Jung: They are sick.

The things that they hint at are interesting to them, are vital to them, and are utterly strange to the ordinary
individual. A psychologist, however, should know of such things.

When people make a psychology, as a psychologist ought to do, it is the very first question—is he introverted or extroverted?

The psychologist must look at entirely different things.

He sees the sensation type; he sees the intuitive type; he sees thinking and feeling types.

These things are complicated.

They are still more complicated because the introverted thinking, for instance, is compensated by extroverted
feeling, inferior, archaic, extroverted feeling.

So an introverted thinker may be crude in his feeling, like for instance the introverted philosopher who is always carefully
avoiding women may be married by his cook in the end.

Dr. Evans: So we can take your introvert-extrovert orientations and describe a number of types; the sensation-introvert and extrovert types,
the feeling-introvert and extrovert types, thinking-introvert and extrovert types, and the intuitive-introvert and extrovert types. In each case
these combinations do not represent a concrete category but simply, as you have indicated, a model that can be helpful in understanding the
individual.

Dr. Jung: It is just a sort of skeleton to which you have to add the flesh.

One could say that it is like a country mapped out by triangulation points, which doesn’t mean that the country consists of triangulation points;
that is only in order to have an idea of the distances.

And so it is a means to an end.

It only makes sense as a scheme when you deal with practical cases.

For instance, if you have to explain an introverted-intuitive husband to an extrovert wife, it is a most painstaking affair because, you see,
an extrovert sensation type is furtherest away from the ‐ inner experience and the rational functions.

He adapts and behaves according to the facts as they are, and he is always caught by those facts.

He himself is those facts.

But if the introvert is intuitive, to him that is hell, because as soon as he is in a definite situation, he tries to find a hole where he can get out.

To him, every given situation is just the worst that can happen to him.

He is pinched and feels he is caught, suffocated, chained.

He must break those fetters, because he is the man who will discover a new field. He will plant that field, and as soon as the new plants are coming
up, he’s done; he’s over and no more interested.

Others will reap what he has sown.

When those two marry, the extrovert-sensation and the introvert-intuitive, there is trouble, I can assure you. ~Carl Jung, Evans Conversations, Pages 25-26.

Dr. Jung on misconceptions about "Types.

Dr. Evans: Of course, one of the very common misconceptions, at least in my opinion, about your work among some of the writers in America
is that they have characterized your discussion of introversion and extroversion as suggesting that the world is made up of only two kinds of
people, introverts and extroverts. I’m sure you have been aware of this. Would you like to comment on it? In other words, do you perceive of
the world as one made up only of people who are extreme introverts and people who are extreme extroverts?

Dr. Jung: Bismarck once said, “God may protect me against my friends; with my enemies I can deal myself alone.”

You know how people are.

They have a catch word, and then everything is schematized along that word.

There is no such thing as a pure ‐ extrovert or a pure introvert.

Such a man would be in the lunatic asylum.

Those are only terms to designate a certain penchant, a certain tendency.

For instance, the tendency to be more influenced by environmental influences, or more influenced by the subjective fact—that’s all.

There are people who are fairly well-balanced who are just as much influenced from within as from without, or just as little.

And so with all the definite classifications, you know, they are only a sort of point to refer to, points for orientation.

There is no such thing as a schematic classification.

Often you have great trouble even to make out to what type a man belongs, either because he is very well‐ balanced or he is very neurotic.

The last one is hard because when vou are neurotic, then you have always a certain dissociation of personality.

And then too, the people themselves don’t know when they react consciously or when they react unconsciously.

So you can talk to somebody, and you think he is conscious.

He knows what he says, and to your amazement you discover after a while that he is quite unconscious of it, doesn’t know it.

It is a long and painstaking procedure to find out of what a man is conscious and of what he is not conscious, because the unconscious plays in him all the time.

Certain things are conscious; certain things are unconscious; but you can’t always tell.

You have to ask people, “Now are you conscious of what you say?”

Or, “Did you notice?”

And you discover suddenly that there are quite a number of things that he didn’t know at all.

For instance, certain people have many reasons; everybody can see them. They themselves don’t know it at all.

Dr. Evans: Then this whole matter of extremes—introvert and extrovert—you say is a schematic approach, a frame of reference.

Dr. Jung: My whole scheme of typology is merely a sort of orientation.

There is such a factor as introversion; there is such a factor as extroversion.

The classification of individuals means nothing at all. It is only the instrumentality, or what I call “practical psychology,” used to
explain, for instance, the husband to a wife, or vice versa.

It is very often the case, for instance—I might say it is almost a rule, but I don’t want to make too many rules in order not to be schematic— that an introvert marries an extrovert for compensation, or another type marries a
countertype to complement himself.

For example, a man who has made a certain amount of money is a good business man, but he has no education.

His dream is, of course, a grand piano at home and being around artists, painters or singers or God knows what, and intellectual people; and he marries accordingly a wife of that type, in order to have that too.

She has it, and she marries him because he has a lot of money.

These compensations go on all the time.

When you study marriages, you can see it easily.

And, of course, we analysts have to deal a lot with marriages, particularly those that go wrong, because the types are too different sometimes and they don’t understand each other at all.

You see, the main values of the extrovert are anathema to the introvert, and he says, “To hell with the world, I think.”

His wife interprets this as his megalomania.

But it is just as if an extrovert said to an introvert, “Now, look here fellow; these here are the facts; this is reality.”

And he’s right! And the other says, “But I think, I hold—,” and that sounds like nonsense to the extrovert because he doesn’t know that the other one, without knowing it, is beholding an inner world, an inner reality; and that other one may be right, as he may be wrong, even if he found himself upon God knows what solid facts.

Take, for instance, the interpretation of statistics.

You can prove almost anything with statistics.

What is more a fact than a statistic? ~Carl Jung, Evans Conversations, Page 23.

Carl Jung on Introversion-Extraversion and Fantasy

Dr. Evans: Dr. Jung, another set of ideas, original with you and very well known to the world, center around the terms “introversion” and
“extroversion.” I know that you are aware that these terms have now become so widely known that the man on the street is using them
constantly in describing members of his family, his friends, and so on. They have become probably the psychological concepts most often used
by the layman today.

Dr. Jung: Like the word “complex”—I invented it too, you know, from the association experiments—this is simply practical, because there are
certain people who definitely are more influenced by their surroundings than by their own intentions, while other people are more influenced
by the subjective factor.

Now you see, the subjective factor, which is very characteristic, was understood by Freud as a sort of pathological
auto-egotism.

Now this is a mistake. The psyche has two conditions, two important conditions. The one is environmental influence and the
other is the given fact of the psyche as it is born.

As I told you yesterday, the psyche is by no means tabula rasa here, but a definite mixture and combination of genes, which are there from
the very first moment of our life; and they give a definite character, even to the little child.

That is a subjective factor, looked at from the outside.

Now if you look at it from the inside, then it is just so as if you would observe the world.

When you observe the world, you see people; you see houses; you see the sky; you see tangible objects.

But when you observe yourself within, you see moving images, a world of images generally known as fantasies.

Yet these fantasies are facts.

You see, it is a fact that the man has such and such a fantasy; and it is such a tangible fact, for instance, that
when a man has a certain fantasy, another man may lose his life, or a bridge is built.

These houses were all fantasies.

Everything you do here, all this, everything, was fantasy to begin with, and fantasy has a proper reality.

That is not to be forgotten; fantasy is not nothing.

It is, of course, not a tangible object; but it is a fact nevertheless.

Fantasy is, you see, a form of energy, despite the fact that we can’t measure it.

It is a manifestation of something, and that is a reality.

That is a reality, like for instance, the Peace Treaty of Versailles, or something like that.

It is no more; you can’t show it; but it has been a fact.

And so psychical events are facts, are realities.

And when you observe the stream of images within, you observe an aspect of the world, of the world within, because the psyche, if you understand
it as a phenomenon that takes place in so-called living bodies, is a quality of matter, as our bodies consist of matter.

We discover that this matter has another aspect, namely, a psychic aspect.

And so it is simply the world from within, seen from within.

It is just as though you were seeing into another aspect of matter.

That is an idea that is not my invention.

The old credos already talked of the spiritus atomis, namely, the spirit that is inserted in atoms.

That means psychic is a quality that appears in matter.

It doesn’t matter whether we understand it or not, but this is the conclusion we come to if we draw conclusions without prejudices.

And so you see, the man who is going by the external world, by the influence of the external world—say society or sense perceptions—thinks
that he is more valid, you know, because this is valid, this is real; and the man who goes by the subjective factor is not valid, because the
subjective factor is nothing.

No, that man is just as well based, because he bases himself upon the world from within.

And so he is quite right even if he says, “Oh, it is nothing but my fantasies.”

And of course, that is the introvert, and the introvert is always afraid of the external world.

This he will tell you when you ask him.

He will be apologetic about it; he will say, “Yes, I know, those are my fantasies.”

And he has always resentment against the world in general.

Particularly America is extroverted.

The introvert has no place, because he doesn’t know that he beholds the world from within.

That gives him dignity, and that gives him certainty, because it is the psyche of man. ~Carl Jung, Evans Conversations, Page 22.

Carl Jung on: The Unconscious: Archetypes

Carl Jung on: The Unconscious: Archetypes

Dr. Evans: You mentioned earlier that Freud’s Oedipal situation was an example of an archetype. At this time would you please elaborate on
the concept, archetype?

Dr. Jung: Well, you know what a behavior pattern is, the way in which a weaver bird builds its nest.

That is an inherited form in him.

He will apply certain symbiotic phenomena, between insects and plants.

They are inherited patterns of behavior.

And so man has, of course, an inherited scheme of functioning.

You see, his liver, his heart, all his organs, and his brain will always function in a certain way, following its pattern.

You may have a great difficulty seeing it because you cannot compare it.

There are no other similar beings like man, that are articulate, that could give an account of their functioning. If that were the case, we could—I don’t know what.

But because we have no means of comparison, we are necessarily unconscious about the whole conditions.

It is quite certain, however, that man is born with a certain functioning, a certain way of functioning, a certain pattern of behavior which is
expressed in the form of archetypal images, or archetypal forms.

For instance, the way in which a man should behave is expressed by an archetype.

Therefore, you see, the primitives tell such stories. A great deal of education goes through story telling.

For ‐ instance, they call together the young men, and two older men act out before the eyes of the younger all the things they should not do.

Then they say, “Now that’s exactly the thing you shall not do.”

Another way is they tell them all of the things they should not do, like the Decalogue, “Thou shalt
not,” and that is always supported by mythological tales.

That, of course, gave me a motive to study the archetypes, because I began to see that the structure of what I then called the collective
unconscious was really a sort of agglomeration of such typical images, each of which had a unique quality.

The archetypes are, at the same time, dynamic.

They are instinctual images that are not intellectually invented.

They are always there and they produce certain processes in the unconscious that one could best compare with myths.

That’s the origin of mythology.

Mythology is a pronouncing of a series of images that formulate the life of archetypes.

So the statements of every religion, of many poets, etc., are statements about the inner mythological process, which is a necessity because
man is not complete if he is not conscious of that aspect of things.

For instance, our ancestors have done so and so, and so shall you do.

Or such and such a hero has done so and so, and that is your model.

For instance, in the teachings of the Catholic church, there are several thousand saints.

They show us how to do— They have their legends— And that is Christian mythology.

In Greece, you know, there was Theseus and there was Heracles, models of fine men, of gentlemen, you know; and they teach us how to
behave.

They are archetypes of behavior.

I became more and more respectful of archetypes, and that naturally led me on to a profound study
of them.

And now, by Jove, there is an enormous factor, very important for our further development and for our well-being, that should be
taken into account.

It was, of course, difficult to know where to begin, because it is such an enormously extended field.

And the next question I asked myself was, “Now, where in the world has anybody been busy with that problem?”

I found that nobody had except a peculiar spiritual movement that went together with the beginning of Christianity, namely, the Gnostics; and that was the first thing actually that I saw.

They were concerned with the problem of archetypes, and made a peculiar philosophy of it.

Everybody makes a peculiar philosophy of it when he comes across it naively, and doesn’t know that those are structural elements of the unconscious psyche.

The Gnostics lived in the first, second and third centuries; and I wanted to know what was in between that time and today, when we suddenly are confronted by the problems of the
collective unconscious which were the same two thousand years ago, though we are not prepared to admit that problem.

I was always looking for something in between, you know, something that would link that remote past with the present moment.

I found to my amazement that it was alchemy, that which is understood to be a history of chemistry.

It was, one could almost say, nothing less than that. It was a peculiar spiritual movement or a philosophical movement.

They called themselves philosophers, like Narcissism.

And then I read the whole accessible literature, Latin and Greek.

I studied it because it was enormously interesting.

It [Alchemy] is the mental work of 1,700 years, in which there is stored up all they could make out about the nature of the archetypes, in a peculiar way that’s foolish.

It is not simple.

Most of the texts are no more published since the middle ages, the last editions dated in the middle or the end of the sixteenth
century, all in Latin; some texts are in Greek, not a few very important ones.

That has given me no end of work, but the result was most satisfactory, because it showed me the development of our
unconscious relation to the collective unconscious and the variations our consciousness has undergone; why the being’s
unconscious is concerned with these mythological images.

For instance, such phenomena as in Hitler, you know.

That is a psychical phenomenon, and we’ve got to understand these things.

To me, of course, it has been an enormous problem because it is a factor that has determined the fate of millions of European people, and of
Americans.

Nobody can deny that he has been influenced by the war.

That was all Hitler’s doing—and that’s all psychology, our foolish psychology.

But you only come to an understanding of these things when you understand the background from which it springs.

It is just as though, as if a terrific epidemic of typhoid fever were breaking out, and you say, “That is typhoid fever— isn’t that a marvelous disease!”

It can take on enormous dimensions and nobody knows anything about it. Nobody takes care of the water supply, nobody thinks of examining
the meat or anything like that; but everyone simply states, “This is a phenomenon.”—Yes, but one doesn’t understand it.

Of course, I cannot tell you in detail about alchemy.

It is the basic of our modern way of conceiving things, and therefore, it is as if it were right under the threshold of consciousness.

This is a wonderful picture of how the development of archetypes, the movement of archetypes,
looks when you look upon them with broader perspective.

Maybe from today you look back into the past and you see how the present moment has evolved out of the past.

It is just as if the alchemistic philosophy— That sounds very curious; we should give it an entirely
different name.

Actually, it has a different name.

It [Alchemy] is also called Hermetic Philosophy, though, of course, that conveys just as little as the term alchemy.—It was the parallel development, as Narcissism was,
to the conscious development of Christianity, of our Christian philosophy, of the whole psychology of the middle ages.

So you see, in our days we have such and such a view of the world, a particular philosophy, but in the unconscious we have a different one.

That we can see through the example of the alchemistic philosophy that behaves to the medieval consciousness exactly like the unconscious
behaves to ourselves.

And we can construct or even predict the unconscious of our days when we know what it has been yesterday.

Or, for instance, to take a more concise archetype, like the archetype of the ford—the ford to a river.

Now that is a whole situation.

You have to cross a ford; you are in the water; and there is an ambush or a water animal, say a crocodile or something like that.

There is danger and something is going to happen.

The problem is how you escape.

Now this is a whole situation and it makes an archetype.

And that archetype has now a suggestive effect upon you.

For instance, you get into a situation; you don’t know what the situation is; you suddenly are seized by
an emotion or by a spell; and you behave in a certain way you have not foreseen at all—you do something quite strange to yourself.

Dr. Evans: Could this also be described as spontaneous?

Dr. Jung: Quite spontaneous.

And that is done through the archetype that is concerned.

Of course, we have a famous case in our Swiss history of the King Albrecht, who was murdered in the ford of the Royce not very far from Zurich.

His murderers were hiding behind him for the whole stretch from Zurich to the Royce, quite a long stretch, and after deliberating, still couldn’t
come together about whether they wanted to kill the king or not.

The moment the king rode into the ford, they thought, “Murder!”

They shouted, “Why do we let him abuse us?”

Then they killed him, because this was the moment they were seized; this was the right moment.

So you see, when you have lived in primitive circumstances, in the primeval forest among primitive populations, then you know that phenomenon.

You are seized with a certain spell and you do a thing that is unexpected.

Several times when I was in Africa, I went into such situations where I was amazed afterwards.

One day I was in the Sudan and it was really a very dangerous situation, which I didn’t recognize at the moment at all.

But I was seized with a spell.

I did something which I wouldn’t have expected and I couldn’t have intended.

You see, the archetype is a force. It has an autonomy, and it can suddenly seize you. It is like a seizure.

So, for instance, falling in love at first sight, that is such a case.

You have a certain image in yourself, without knowing it, of the woman—of any woman.

You see that girl, or at least a good imitation of your type, and instantly you get the seizure; you are caught.

And after ward you may discover that ‐ it was a hell of a mistake.

You see, a man is quite capable, or is intelligent enough to see that the woman of his choice was no choice; he has been captured!

He sees that she is no good at all, that she is a hell of a business, and he tells me so.

He says, “For God’s sake, doctor, help me to get rid of that woman.” He can’t though, and he is like clay in her fingers.

That is the archetype.

It has all happened because of the archetype of the anima, though he thinks it is all his soul, you know.

It is like the girl—any girl.

When a man sings very high, for instance, sings a high C, she thinks he must have a very wonderful spiritual character, and she is badly
disappointed when she marries that particular “letter.”

Well, that’s the archetype of the animus.

Dr. Evans: Now Dr. Jung, to be even a bit more specific, you have suggested that in our society, in all societies, there are symbols that in a
sense direct or determine what a man does. Then you also suggest that somehow these symbols become “inborn” and, in part, “inbred.”

Dr. Jung: They don’t become; they are.

They are to begin with. You see, we are born into a pattern; we are a pattern.

We are a structure that is pre-established through the genes.

Dr. Evans: To recapitulate then, the archetype is just a higher order of an instinctual pattern, such as your earlier example of a bird building a
nest.Is that how you intended to describe it?

Dr. Jung: It is a biological order of our mental functioning, as, for instance, our biological-physiological function follows a pattern.

The behavior of any bird or insect follows a pattern, and that is the same with us.

Man has a certain pattern that makes him specifically human, and no man is born without it.

We are only deeply unconscious of these facts because we live by all our senses and outside of ourselves.

If a man could look into himself, he could discover it.

When a man discovers it in our days, he thinks he is crazy—really crazy.

Dr. Evans: Now would you say the number of such archetypes are limited or predetermined, or can the number be increased?

Dr. Jung: Well, I don’t know what I do know about it; it is so blurred.

You see, we have no means of comparison.

We know and we see that there is a behavior, say like incest; or there is a behavior of violence, a certain kind of violence; or there is a behavior of panic, of power, etc.

Those are areas, as it were, in which there are many variations.

It can be expressed in this way or that way, you know.

And they overlap, and often you cannot say where the one form begins or ends.

It is nothing concise, because the archetype in itself is completely unconscious and you only can see the effects of it.

You can see, for instance, when you know a person is possessed by an archetype; then you can divine and even prognosticate possible developments.

This is true because when you see that the man is caught by a certain type of woman in a certain very specific way, you know that he is caught by
the anima.

Then the whole thing will have such and such complications and such and such developments because it is typical.

The way the anima is described is exceedingly typical.

I don’t know if you know Rider Haggard’s She, or L’Atlantide by Benoît—c’est la femme fatale.

Dr. Evans: To be more specific, Dr. Jung, you have used the concepts, anima and animus, which you are now identifying in terms of sex,
male or female. I wonder if you could elaborate perhaps even more specifically on these terms? Take the term “anima” first. Is this again part
of the inherited nature of the individual?

Dr. Jung: Well, this is a bit complicated, you know.

The anima is an archetypal form, expressing the fact that a man has a minority of feminine or female genes.

That is something that doesn’t appear or disappear in him, that is constantly present, and works as a female in a man.

As early as the 16th century, the Humanists had discovered that man had an anima, and that each man carried female within himself.

They said it; it is not a modem invention.

The same is the case with the animus.

It is a masculine image in a woman’s mind which is sometimes quite conscious, sometimes not quite conscious; but
it is called into life the moment that woman meets a man who says the right things.

Then because he says it, it is all true and he is the fellow, no matter what he is.

Those are particularly well-founded archetypes, those two.

And you can lay hands on their bases. ~Carl Jung, Evans Conversations, Pages 16-18.