[Footnote 249: Lecture given before the Zürich School for Analytical Psychology, 1916.]
[Footnote 250: In a certain sense the "likeness to God" is always _a priori_ present even before analysis, not only in the neurotic, but also in the normal individual, with the difference only that the normal individual is effectively separated from the perception of the unconscious, whilst this separation becomes increasingly impossible to the neurotic. In consequence of his special sensitiveness, the neurotic is _a priori_ more closely affected by the processes of the unconscious than is the normal person, wherefore the God-Almightiness becomes more distinct in him than in the normal individual. By means of the knowledge of the unconscious acquired through analysis the "God-likeness" is increased.]
[Footnote 251: Pp. 69 and 95.]
[Footnote 252: The collective mind represents collective thought, the collective soul represents collective feeling, and the _collective psyche_ represents the general collective psychological function.]
[Footnote 253: I should here observe that I am intentionally refraining from discussing our problem from the standpoint of the psychology of types. A specialised and somewhat complicated investigation was necessary in order to discover formulations appropriate to the types. For instance, "person" means something totally different to the extrovert from what it does to the introvert. I must content myself here with pointing out the difficulties such a task would involve. In the types, the conscious and real adapted function in childhood is collective, but soon acquires a personal character, and may retain this to the end, unless the individual feels impelled to develop his type to the uttermost. If this happens, the conscious real adapted function attains a degree of perfection which may claim universal validity and therefore bears a collectivistic character, in contrast to its originally collective character. According to this mode of expression collective psyche would be identical with "herd soul" in the individual; but the collectivistic psychology would be a highly differentiated adaptation to society. For the introvert the conscious real adapted function is _thinking_, which in the lower stages of development is entirely personal, but has a tendency to acquire a universal character of a collectivistic kind; his feeling remains distinctly personal so far as it is conscious, and collective-archaic in so far as it has remained unconscious or is repressed. The opposite applies to the _feeling_ and thought of the extrovert. The introvert is always concerned with the endeavour to preserve the integrity of his ego, which results in a different attitude towards his own person from that of the extrovert, whose adaptation is made through his feelings, even at the cost of his own person. These few sentences indicate into what an extraordinarily difficult situation we should have been led had we considered our problem from the standpoint of the types.]
[Footnote 254: "Psychology of the Unconscious."]
[Footnote 255: That is, of a universal primary propensity or a universal primal aim.]
[Footnote 256: Cp. _Silberer_: "Probleme der Mystic und ihrer Symbolik." Wien, 1914. ("Problems of Mysticism and its Symbolism.")]
[Footnote 257: It should be borne in mind that no moral function is to be sought in this conception of dreams, nor do I look for it there. This function is just as little "teleological" in the sense of a philosophical teleology, that is to say of a set aim or purpose. It is in the first place compensatory, because it presents a subliminal picture of the actual situation. The phenomenon should first of all be understood from a purely causal standpoint. But it would be unjust to the essence of what is psychological if one were to consider it purely causally. For it does not only tolerate, but also demand, a final point of view. In other words, the question arises, what is the use of bringing just this material to constellation? This is not to assert that the final meaning of a phenomenon had already existed as an _a priori_ given purpose in the preparatory stages of the phenomenon. It would not be permissible, according to the theory of cognition, to presuppose some pre-existing purpose from the unmistakable final meaning of biological mechanisms. But it would be narrow-minded if, with the justifiable omission of the teleological conclusion, one wished also to give up the point of view of finality. The utmost that can be said is, it is _as if_ there were some pre-existing purpose present. In psychology one must be on one's guard against exclusive reliance either upon causality or upon teleology.]
