Response to Robin McGlashan

I will reiterate that we cannot assume that the self, which symbolically represents the wholeness and unity of the psyche, constitutes the psychic totality of conscious and unconscious. In my theoretical conception the self mainly denotes the unconscious mode of psychic experience, which at its core is based on a central archetype symbolizing the wholeness and unity of the psyche. Although this unifying concept may satisfy a need for all-inclusive meaning, I find it inadequate. It does reflect the discriminating ego mode of psychic experience and it does not do jutice to the paradoxical nature of the psyche. I contend that the ego, as a psychic entity, represents other crucial and contrasting psychic aspects not encompassed by what we generally term the ‘self’. I do not ‘overlook’ or ‘exclude’ the existence of an ‘archetypal deposit’ which has a directive function in the psyche. But in my opinion this archetypal source does not adequately explain or describe the workings of the psyche. Individuation occurs through a ‘relationship’ between the major psychic entities and does not rest solely on an archetype. A central holistic archetype does not take the relationship of difference/diversity into account. The mutually fructifying influence of the ego and the self, the conscious and the unconscious, is what makes for the richness of the developmental process. The eternal play of the opposites is as ‘true’ for psychic reality as the ‘unifying symbol of wholeness and unity of the psyche’. I would again refer to the quote from Heraclitus in the paper, which for me expresses the paradoxical nature fo the psyche better than a unifying symbol of the self. I have taken the position that both the interplay of opposites and the reality of the archetypally based self (which unites the opposites) are necessary for providing a more complete picture of the psyche. I cannot accept that this paradox which characterizes the individuation process is resolved through postulating a unitar