Paul Stein, Ph.D., LMSW, BA / Holistic Analysis


Archetypal alchemic image from Jung’s The Practice of Psychotherapy: Essays on the Psychology of the Transference and Other Subjects, 213.
An archetypal Western alchemic image of psyche’s paradoxically informing intrapsychic personification of projected supreme symbolic opposite numinous shadows of duality in a potential differentiated and re-embodied original whole man and woman, united from above within that overcome the strife of egos culturally inculcated, one-sided superior ignorant nuclear defense with a diplomatic soul-loving dialogue with differences in “wholeness.”     


Paul Stein provides in-depth analytic dialogue with a man’s and a woman’s innate imaginal soulful desire to re-member, re-collect, re-cognize, and re-embody their “forgotten,” if ever known, archetypal sacred ritual images of cultural birthright in “wholeness” projected onto a “mate” or “parental governing bodies” “to have” and “to hold” for them.  Not a good idea.  There is an inner symbolic “bride” and “groom” behind “psyche’s” numinous ego-enthralling projection of “wholeness” that rational one-sided Western ego is ignorant of and fondly believes the numinous libidinal autonomy of that “mythic inner partner” or “mate” or “progeny” or “country” “it” is projected into is the sole property of its rational superior ignorant ego.  That does not work to well either.  Clients have found that a little dialogue, a little depth, and a little relationship with psyche’s consciously identified, internalized, differentiated, re-membered, re-embodied, and re-cognized symbolic inner opposite “bride” and “groom” shadow in a man’s and a woman’s dreaming-body story about its whole “individual cultural self” “in-relationship(s)” in context over time is helpful.

Psyche’s archetypally inherited, opposite, autonomous, libidinal, hermaphroditic, mythiic, dreaming-body shadows, referred to by Jung as “anima” in a differentiated and re-embodied original whole man, and “animus” in a differentiated and re-embodied original whole woman, are not assumed conscious by virtue of birthright or relationship; are not the sole property of rational ego; are not the sole property or fault of a mate required to activate them; are not the responsibility of a mate to know, understand, re-cognize, “to have” and “to hold” in the opposite mate for the opposite mate; are not the sole property of a historically disinforming, Western, white, Zionist/Christian, psychiatric, military medical-model paradigmatic complex of one-sided totalitarian “isms” of desire to become and independent State uber alles; are not the sole property of a “numerically coded,” “final solution” of a “New and Improved” “APA Approved” disembodied, detached, “artificial” “DSM V” or “ICD 10 treatment”; cannot be eliminated from the equation of “relational dialogue” “in love” with their mythic dreaming-body shadows that invites it into the “marriage bed” of “fantasies” about “wholeness.”   

Because it is only through individual men and woman’s “dreaming-body projections of wholeness” “in-relationship(s)” that “culture” is created, analytic dialogue with the unknown archetypal shadow of psyche’s symbolic inner opposite “bride” and “groom” projections of “wholeness” is a “therapy of culture” and imaginal epical basis of “our” “constitutional democracy.”

The eyes are the mirrors of the soul and its dreaming-body image of innate desire to become a whole soulfully related and culturally distinct individual man and woman touches the heart of every relationship and the ideas we have about it.

“As most people know, one of the basic principles of analytical psychology is that dream images are to be understood symbolically;

that is to say, one must not take them literally, but must surmise a hidden meaning in them. This ancient idea of dream symbolism has aroused not only criticism, but the strongest opposition. That dreams should have a meaning, and should therefore be capable of interpretation, is certainly neither a strange nor an extraordinary idea. It has been known to mankind for thousands of years….For modern (men and women) it is hardly conceivable that a God existing outside ourselves should cause us to dream, or that the dream foretells the future prophetically.  But if we translate this into the language of psychology, the ancient idea becomes much more comprehensible. The dream, we would say, originates in an unknown part of the psyche and prepares the dreamer for the events of the following day….According to the old belief, a god or demon spoke to the sleeper in symbolic language, and the dream interpreter had to solve the riddle. In modern speech we would say that the dream is a series of images which are apparently contradictory and meaningless, but that it contains material which yields a clear meaning when properly translated.  (Jung, Symbols of Transformation, 7).

“We are the great danger.  Psyche is the great danger. How important it is to know something about it, but we know nothing about it.  A child is not born a tabula rasa as one assumes….A child is born a high complexity with existing determinants that never waiver through the whole life, that gives the child his (or her) character….We are born into (an archetypal) pattern.  We are a pattern.  We are a structure that is pre-established through the genes.  It is a biological order of our mental functioning, as for instance our biological or physiological function follows a pattern, or the behavior of any bird or insect follows a pattern, and that is the same with us.  Man (and woman) have a certain pattern that makes (them) specifically human, and no man (or woman) is born  without it, we are only deeply unconscious of these facts because we live all by our senses and outside of our selves.  If a man (and a woman) could look into (themselves they) would discover it.” (Jung, The World Within, In His Own Words, ). 

“The underlying idea of the psyche proves it to be a half bodily, half spiritual substance, an anima media natura…an hermaphroditic being capable of uniting the opposites, but who is never complete in the individual unless related to another individual.  The unrelated human being lacks wholeness, for he (or she) can achieve wholeness only through the soul, and the soul cannot exist without its other side, which is always found in a ‘You.’ Wholeness is a combination of I and You, and these show themselves to be parts of a transcendent unity whose nature can only be grasped symbolically….I do not, of course, mean the synthesis or identification of two individuals, but the conscious union of the ego with everything that has been projected into the ‘You.’ Hence wholeness is the product of an intrapsychic process which depends essentially on the relation of one individual to another.  Relationship paves the way for individuation and makes it possible, but is itself no proof of wholeness.” (Jung, The Practice of Psychotherapy; Essays on the Transference Phenomena and other Subjects, 244-245). 


“The transference itself is a perfectly natural phenomenon which does not by any means happen only in the consulting-room—it can be seen everywhere and may lead to all sorts of nonsense, like all unrecognized projections.”  Dream analysis of “anima” and “animus” projection in a potential differentiated and re-embodied original whole man and woman respectively, gives them a priceless opportunity to identify and integrate the archetypal shadow of psyche’s projections and to make good their losses.  The libidinal impulses underlying psyche’s transferred phenomena…“certainly show their dark side to begin with, however much one may try to whitewash them, for an integral part of the work is black shadow which every man and woman carries with them.  That shadow embodies the inferior and therefore hidden aspect of the personality, the weakness that goes with every strength; the night that follows every day; the evil in the good.  The realization of this fact is naturally coupled with the danger of falling victim to the shadow, but the danger also brings with it the possibility of consciously deciding not to become its victim.  A visible enemy is always better than an invisible one.  In this case I can see no advantage whatever in behaving like an ostrich.  It is certainly no ideal for people always to remain childish, to live in a perpetual state of delusion about themselves, foisting everything they dislike on to their neighbors and plaguing them with their prejudices and projections.  How many marriages are wrecked for years, and sometimes forever, because he sees his mother in his wife and she her father in her husband, and neither ever recognizes the other’s reality!  Life has difficulties enough without that; we might at least spare ourselves the stupidest of them.  But, without a fundamental discussion of the situation, it is often simply impossible to break those infantile projections.  As this is the legitimate aim and real meaning of the transference, it inevitably leads, whatever method of rapproachement be used, to discussion and understanding and hence to a heightened consciousness, which is a measure of the personality’s integration.  During this discussion the conventional disguises are dropped and the true man and woman comes to light.  They are in very truth reborn from this psychological relationship, and their field of consciousness is rounded into a circle.  (Ibid., 218-219).    

“Psychologically we can say that the situation has thrown off the conventional husk and developed into a stark encounter with reality, with no false veils or adornments of any kind.  Man stands forth as he really is and shows what was hidden under the mask of conventional adaptaiton: the shadow.  This is now raised to consciousness and integrated with the ego, which means a move in the diection of wholeness.  Wholeness is not so much perfection as completeness.  Asssimilaiton of the shadow gives a man and a woman body, so to speak.  The animal sphere of instinct, as well as the primitive or archaic psyche, emerge into the zone of consciousness and can no longer be repressed by fictions and illusions.  In this way man becomes for himself the dificult problem he really is.  He must always remain conscious of the fact that he is such a problem if he wants to develop at all.  Repression leads to a one-sided development, if not to stagnation, and eventually to neurotic dissociation.  Today is is no longer a question of ‘How can I get rid of my shadow?’—for we have seen enough of the curse of one-sidedness.  Rather, we must ask ourselves:  ‘How can man live with his shadow without its precipitating a succession of disasters?’  Recognition of the shadow is reason enough for humility, for genuine fear of the abysmal depths in man.  This caution is most expedient, for the man wihtout a shadow thinks himself harmless pirmarily because he is ignorant of his shadow.  The man who recognizes his shadow knows very well the he is not harmless, for it brings the archaic psyche, the whole world of the archetypes, in direct contact with the conscious mind and saturates it with archaic influences.  This naturally adds to the dangers of ‘affinity,’ with its deceptive projections and its urge to assimilate the object in terms of the projection, to draw it into the family circle in order to actualize the hidden incest situation that seems all the more attractive and fascinating the less it is understood.  The advantage of the situation, despite all its dangers, is that once the naked truth has been revealed the discussion can get down to essentials; ego and shadow oare no longer divided but are brought together in an—admittedly procarious—unity.  This is a great step forward,but at the same time it shows up the ‘differentness’ of one’s partner all the more clealry, and the unconscious usually tries to close the gap by increasing the attraction, so as to bring about the alchemical idea that the fire wich maintins the process must be temperate to begin with and must then gradually be raised to the highest intensity.”  (Ibid., 239-240)    

“Thus the encounter with anima and animus means conflict and brings us up against the hard dilemma in which nature herself has     placed us.  Whichever course one takes, nature will be mortified and must suffer, even to the death; for the merely natural man (and woman-ps) must die in part during his (and her-ps)  own lifetime.  The Christian symbolof the crucifix is therefore a prototype  and an ‘eternal truth.’…Nobody who finds himslef (or herself-ps) on the road to wholeness can escape that characteristic suspension which is the meaning of the crucifixion.  For he (and she-ps) will infallibly run into things that thwart and ‘cross’ him (and her): first, the thing he (and she-ps) has no wish to be (the shadow); second, the thing he (and she-ps) is not (the ‘other,’ the individual reality of the ‘You’); and third, his (and her-ps) psychic non-ego (the collective unconscious).  This being at cross purposes with ourselves is suggested by the crossed branchs held by the ‘king’ and ‘queen’ who are themselves man’s cross in the form of the anima and woman’s cross in the form of the animus. The meeting with the colective unconscious is a fatality of which the natural man (and woman-ps) has no inkling until ‘it’ ‘overtakes’ him (and her-ps).”  (Ibid., 262)

“Our present-day civilization with its cult of consciousness—if this can be called civilization—has a Christian stamp, which means that neither anima or animus is integrated but is still in the state of projection, i.e., expressed by dogma.  On this level both these figures are unconscious as components of personality, though their effectiveness is still apparent in the numinous aura surrounding the dogmatic ideas of bridegroom and bride.  Our ‘civilization,’ however, has turned out to be a very doubtful proposition, a distinct falling away from the lofty ideal of Christianity; and, in consequence, the projections have largely fallen away from the divine figures and have necessarily settled in the human sphere.  This is understandable enough, since the ‘enlightened’ intellect cannot imagine anything greater than man except those tin gods with totalitarian pretensions who call themselves State of Fuehrer. This regression has made itself as plain as could be wished in Germany and other countries.  And even where it is not so apparent, the lapsed projections have a disturbing effect on human relationships and wreck at least a quarter of the marriages….Just as materialism led to empirical science and thus to a new understanding of the psyche, so the totalitarian psychosis with its frightful consequences and the intolerable disturbance of human relationships are forcing us to pay attention to the psyche and our abysmal unconsciousness of it.  Never before has mankind as a whole experienced the numen of the psychological factor on so vast a scale.  In one sense this is a catastrophe and a retrogression without parallel, but it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that such an experience also has its positive aspect and might become the seed fo a nobler culture in a regenerated age.  It is possible that the endogamous urge is not ultimately tending towards projection at all; it may be trying to unite the different components of the personality on the pattern of the cross-cousin marriage, but on a higher plane where ‘spiritual marriage’ becomes an inner experience that is not projected.  Such an experience has long been depicted in dreams as a mandala divided into four, and it seems to represent the goal of the individuation process, i.e., the self.”     

“Loss of soul amounts to a tearing loose of part of one’s nature; it is the disappearance and emancipation of a complex, which thereupon becomes a tyrannical usurper of consciousness, oppressing (a whole-pls) man.  It throws him off course and drives him to actions whose blind one-sidedness inevitably leads to self-destruction.”  (Jung, Aspects of the Feminine [in a whole man-pls], 10). 

“The dark depths of the unconscious are no longer to be denied by ignorance and sophistry —at best a poor disguise for common fear—nor are they to be explained away with pseudo-scientific rationalizations.  On the contrary it must now be admitted that things exist in the psyche about which we know little or nothing at all, but which nevertheless affect our bodies in the most obstinate way, and that they possess at least as much reality as the things of the physical world which ultimately we do not understand either.  No line of research, which asserted that its subject was unreal or a ‘nothing but’ has ever made any contribution to knowledge.”  (Jung, Dreams, 165). 

“One does not become enlightened by imaging things of light but by making the darkness consciousness….The psychological rule says that when an inner situation is not made conscious, it happens outside as fate.  That is to say when the individual remains undivided and does not become conscious of his (or her) inner symbolic opposite, the world must perforce act out the conflict and be torn into opposing haves.” (Jung, Word and Image, 216). 

“Men (and women-ps) have always lived in the myth and we think we are able to be born today and live in no myth and without history….That is a mutilation of the human being….American life is in subtle ways so one-sided.  The real natural man (and woman) is just in open rebellion against the utterly inhuman form of life….It is unfortunately, only too clear that if the individual is not truly regenerated in spirit, society cannot be either, for society is the sum total of individuals seeking redemption.”  (Jung, The Undiscovered Self ). 

“The archetype—let us never forget this—is a psychic organ present in all of us.  A bad explanation means a corresponding bad attitude to this organ, which may thus be injured…For the archetype is an element of our psychic structure and thus a vital and necessary component in our psychic economy.  It represents or personifies certain instinctive data of the dark, (ancestral) psyche, the real but invisible roots of consciousness….Since the unconscious is the psyche of all the body’s autonomous functional complexes, its ‘fantasies’ have an etiological significance that is not to be despised.”  (Jung, C.G. and Kerenyi, C., Essays on a Science of Mythology; The Myth of the Divine Child and the Mysteries of Eleusis, 79, 91).

“An archetype always stands for some typical event.  As we have seen, there is in the coniunctio a union of two figures, one representing the daytime principle, i.e., lucid consciousness, the other a nocturnal light, the unconscious.  Becaue the latter cannot be seen directly, it is always projected; for, unlike the shadow, it does not belong to the ego but is collective.  For this reason it is felt to be something alien to us, and we suspect it of belonging to the particular person with whom we have emotional ties.  In addition a man’s unconscious has a feminine character; it hides in the feminine side of him which he naturally does not see in himself but in the woman who fascinates him.  That is probably why the soul (anima) is feminine.  If, therfore, man and woman are merged in some kind of unconscious identity, he will take over the traits of her animus and she the traits of his anima.  Although neither anima nor animus can be constellated without the intervention of the conscious personality, this does not mean that the resultant situation is nothing but a presonal relationship and a prersonal entanglement.  The personal side of it is a fact, but not the main fact.  The main fact is the subjective experience of the situationin othe words, it is a mistake to believe that one’s personal dealings with one’s partner play the most important part.  Quite the reverse: the most important part falls to the man’s dealings with the anima and the woman’s dealings with the animus.  Nor does the coniunctio take palce with the personal partner; it is a royal game played out between the active, masculine side of the woman (the animus) and the receptive, feminine side of the man (the anima).  Although the two figures are always tempting the ego to identify itself with them, a real understanding even on the personal level is possible only if the identification is refused.  Non-identification demands considerable moral effort.  Moreover it is only legitimate when not used as a pretext for avoiding the necessary degreee of personal     understanding.  On the other hand, if we aproach this task with psychological views that are too personalistic, we fail to do justice to the fact that we are dealing with an archetype which is anything but personal.  It is, on the contrary, an a priori so so universal in scope and incidence that it often seems advisable to speak less of my anima or my animus and more of the anima and the animus.  As archetypes, these figures are semi-collective and impersonal quantities, so that when we identify ourselves with them and fondly imagine that we are then most truly oursleves, we are in fact most estranged from outselves and most like the average type of Homo sapiens.  The personal protagonists in the royal game should constantly bear in mind that at bottom it represents the ‘trans-subjective’ union of archetypal figures, and it should never be forgotten that it is a symbolical relationship whose goal is complete individuation….The right way, like the wrong way, must be paid for…it is in either case an opus contra nuturam.  It goes against nature to commit incest (a discriminating reflective symbolic re-union of split-off opposites within ones self. ps), and it goes against nature not to yield to ardent desire. And yet it is nature that prompts such an attitude in us, because of the kinship libido (desire for transcendent unity – ps)….‘Nature rejoices in nature, nature conquers  nature, nuture rules  over nature.’ (A-ps) man’s (and a woman’s-ps) instincts are not all harmoniously arranged, they are perpetually jostling each other out of the way.  The anciencts were (wise enough-ps) to see this struggle not as a chaotic muddle but as aspiring to some higher order.”  (Jung, The Practice of Psychotherapy; Essays on the Transference Phenomena and other Subjects, 260-262)

“Every creative person is a duality or a synthesis of contradictory aptitudes. On the one side (a man and a woman) is a human being with a personal life while on the other side (they are) an impersonal, creative process…The ‘artist’ is not a person endowed with free will who seeks his (or her) own ends, but one who allows art to realize its purposes through (him or her). As a human being (they) may have moods and a will and personal aims, but as ‘artists’ he is ‘man’ (and she is ‘woman’)—in a higher (or whole) sense—(they are a) ‘collective man’ (and woman)—one who carries and shapes the unconscious, psychic life of mankind. To perform this difficult office it is sometimes necessary for (them) to sacrifice happiness and everything that makes life worth living for the ordinary human being.“ (Jung, Modern Man in Search of Soul ). 

Resource links to my analytic archetypal approach to the “transference phenomena” of “anima” and “animus” creation mythos projections of “wholeness” as the foundational basis of “individuational relational cultural development” and imaginal sustainable basis of “our” “constitutional democracy” over time:    

Comprehensive Bibliography

Paul Stein, Ph.D., LMSW, BA

Individual Analysis

Domestic / International



About Author

Leave A Reply