>>40940460
it isn't that schizo most people just dont understand jung so make it seem more schizo then it actually is.
The key thing to understanding jung is he is a kantian who basically thinks external understanding of reality isn't possible so views everything as an examination of our psychological structure.
"Archetypes" including the anima are unconcious functions that are part of our experience of phenomena that we can never fully articulate or make clear but having some bearing on our experience.
It's totally psychological/phenomenological, jung was really explicit about being an "empiricist" and wanted to come off as a scientist so he basically never said anything that wasn't about this internal psychological kantian view here the external world is unknowable.
All the weird esoteric stuff for jung like alchemy is just Jung saying "these things represent relations of different aspects of the psyche" the key thing to understand jung is he does not thing it's reasonable to say anything about external reality. It's simply not a consideration for him.
Popular jungian stuff entirely misses this, probably because people lack the background in phenomenology/kant but he does not ever get past that. (see most of the posts in this thread, they basically have nothing to do with jung)
For him any actual description of what things are or the external world are impossible, all we can do is describe the psyche and how it responds to experience.
Archetypes are just a part of this psyche that it uses to understand reality that we can't clearly understand/articulate.
The anima isn't a thing, our psyche has a part of it we can call the anima that seems to come up in our experience of things and understanding that and integrating it is a part of individuation. It's not a person, it's not a thing, it's not separate from you.