ll as
phylogenetically, according to a dynamic scheme as it were.

If we apply this fundamental principle to symbolism there develops
therefrom the obligation to keep both visible poles in view, between which
the advance of significance, the process of intro-determination is
completed. (An externalization is also possible, yet the internalization
or intro-determination must be regarded as the normal process.) [It
corresponds namely to the process of education and progress of culture.
This will soon be cleared up.] To the most general type belong then,
without doubt, those symbols or frequently disguised images, concerning
which we wondered before, that besides representing "titanic" tendencies,
they are fitted to represent the anagogic. The solution of the riddle is
found the instant we regard these images as types with a certain degree of
intro-determination, as types for a few fundamental forces of the soul,
with which we are all endowed, and whose typical symbols are for that
reason of general applicability. [I will therefore call these types the
human elementary types.] For example, if by psychoanalysis we deduce
father and mother, etc., from some of the symbols appearing in dreams, we
have in these representations of the psychic images, as the psychoanalyst
calls them, in reality derived mere types whose meaning will change
according to the ways of viewing them, somewhat as the color of many
minerals changes according to the angle at which we hold them to the
light. The actual father or mother, the experiences that surrounded them,
were the material used in the formation of the types; they were external
things even if important, while later the father, etc., emerging as
symbol, may have significance as a type of the spiritual power of the very
person in question; a spiritual power to be sure, which the person in
question feels to be like a father for otherwise the father figure would
not be suited for the symbol. And we can go so far as to call this
spiritual power a father image. That should not however, mislead us into
taking that real person, who in the individual case generally (though not
always) has furnished the type, for the real or the most essential. The
innermost lies in ourselves and is only fashioned and exercised upon
persons of the external world.

So then we get for the typical symbol a double perspective. The types are
given, we can look through them forward and backward. In both cases there
will