am convinced that the growing impoverishment of symbols has a meaning. It is a development that has an inner consistency.

Hence there appear “signs in the heavens,” superior beings in the kind of space ships devised by our technological fantasy.

From a fear whose cause is far from being fully understood and is therefore not conscious, there arise explanatory projections which purport to find the cause in all manner of secondary phenomena, however unsuitable.

“The cause must strike at the roots of our existence if it is to explain such an extraordinary phenomenon as the Ufos” (CW10 ¶616)

As Carl Gustav Jung pointed to the basic knowledge of their structure, it consists in the simple fact that “something is seen, but one doesn’t know what.” (CW10: ¶591)

Projection can be observed at work everywhere, in mental illness, in ideas of persecution and hallucinations, in so-called normal people who see the mote in their brother’s eye without seeing the beam in their own, and finally, in extreme form, in political propaganda. (CW10#609)

If the round shining objects that appear in the sky be regarded as visions, we can hardly avoid interpreting them as archetypal images. (CW10 par 622)

“This remarkable fact in itself surely merits the psychologist’s interest: Why should it be more desirable for saucers to exist than not?” — C. G. Jung bit.ly/3krwOT3

As one can see from all this, the observation and interpretation of Ufos have already led to the formation of a regular legend.

Be that as it may, one thing is certain: [UFOs] have become a living myth.

— Do you now believe in God?—“Now? [pause] difficult to answer. I *know*. I don’t need to believe. I know.” (C. G. Jung Speaking 428).

It is difficult to form a correct estimate of the significance of contemporary events, and the danger that our judgment will remain caught in subjectivity is great.

So I am fully aware of the risk I am taking in proposing to communicate my views concerning certain contemporary events, which seem to me important, to those who are patient enough to hear me.

The authors should have addressed me on the fundamentals of an archetypal theory of myth

Whoever looks into the water sees his own image, but behind it living creatures soon loom up; fishes, presumably, harmless dwellers of the deep—harmless, if only the lake were not haunted.

They are water-beings of a peculiar sort. Sometimes a nixie gets into the fisherman’s net, a female, half-human fish. Nixies are entrancing creatures: Half drew she him, Half sank he down And nevermore was seen.”

My mythic review of Don’t Look Up is finally out—join the conversation at JCF forum for a more in depth look at its mythic dimension: bit.ly/3BlICgu

It is the opposite which is good for us.

I use the term enantiodromia for the emergence of the unconscious opposite in the course of time.

This development is an almost regular phenomenon.