Carl Jung Depth Psychology Facebook Group

Letters Volume II

To Traugoti Egloff

Dear Herr Egloff, 8 June 1959

I am very much obliged to you for your kind gift.

It has awakened old memories of my youth, when I read Kiigelgen’s book.

The little book you have given me is a valuable document from an age when the newer psychology was putting forth its first tender shoots.

You are quite right when you say that the “truth” is actually staring us in the face but that often we are as though smitten with blindness so that we cannot see it.

Everything could be said much more simply, but this simplicity is just what we ourselves and others lack, with the result that it is more trouble for us to speak really simply than to speak in a rather complicated and roundabout way.

The simplest is the most difficult of all, because, in the process of reaching consciousness, it breaks up into many individual aspects in which the mind gets entangled and cannot find a suitably simple expression.

The trouble may lie in language itself, which is just as much lacking in that needful simplicity as are our powers of conception.

Only numinous experiences retain their original simplicity or oneness which still gives us intimations of the Unus Mundus.

with nature and himself separated from the gods, thus shaping temples of elongated form, the gods at one end and the human public at the other end.

Most pronounced in the Christian churches, except the old Baptisteria, in which man’s original identity with God is reasserted.

Any development that leads further away from the round and the square becomes increasingly neurotic and unsatisfactory, particularly so when the elements of the building, i.e., the rooms, lose their approximtion to the round or the square.

A certain interplay of round and square seems to be indispensable.

This is about all I can tell you about “architectural archetypes.”

Sincerely yours,

C.G. Jung Carl Jung, Letters Vol. II, Pages 509-510