“
There it is the golden top of a walking stick which Zarathustra receives from his disciples, a sun or a globe with a snake coiled round it. And the sun, the golden germ, the Hiranyagarbha as it is called in the Upanishads, is another symbol of the self; it is also called the golden child, the precious, perfect substance that is made by man or born out of man; and it is of course the alchemistic gold and the all-roundness of the Platonic being and the sphairos, the most blissful god of Empedocles. That substance is played upon or handled in a mystic circle, the meaning being that such a circle of people, where there is that mystical relationship, are all held together by the sun germ, that one perfect golden ball-that germ which is moving among them, partially or chiefly moved by the people themselves, but according to a preexistent pattern. This is an exceedingly difficult picture, and of course we could not explain such an image out of Zarathustra if we did not have other materials by which to elucidate the peculiar symbolism.
It is the idea that the self is not identical with one particular individual. No individual can boast of having the self: there is only the self that can boast of having many individuals. You see, the self is an extraneous unit in one's existence. It is a center of personality, a center of gravity that does not coincide with the ego; it is as if it were something outside. Also, it is not this individual, but a connection with individuals. So one could say the self was the one thing, yet it is the many. It has a paradoxical existence which one cannot define and limit by any particular definition. It is a metaphysical concept. But we must create such a concept in order to express the peculiar psychological fact that one can feel as the subject and one can also feel as the object: namely, I can feel I am doing this and that, and I can feel I am made to do it, am the instrument of it. Such-and-such an impetus in me makes my decision. I am feeling a principle which does not coincide with the ego. So, people often say that they can in a measure do what they like, but that the main thing is done by the will of God. God is doing it through them; that is, of course, the religious form of confessing the quality of the self. Therefore, my definition of the self is a non-personal center, the center of the psychical non-ego-of all that in the psyche which is not ego-and presumably it is to be found everywhere in all people. You can call it the center of the collective unconscious. It is as if our unconscious psychology or psyche were centered, just as our conscious psyche is centered in the ego consciousness. The very word consciousness is a term expressing association of the contents of a center to the ego, and the same would be the case with the unconscious, yet there it is obviously not my ego, because the unconscious is unconscious: it is notrelated to me. I am very much related to the unconscious because the unconscious can influence me all the time, yet I cannot influence the unconscious. It is just as if I were the object of a consciousness, as if somebody knew of me though I didn't know of him. That center, that other order of consciousness which to me is unconscious, would be the self, and that doesn't confine itself to myself, to my ego: it can include I don't know how many other people. And this peculiar psychological fact of being the same self with other people is expressed by the image of the pelote, the ball that is played in a certain pattern within a certain circle, symbolizing the relations going hither and thither.
Jung, C. G.. Nietzsche's Zarathustra: Notes of the Seminar given in 1934-1939. Two Volumes: 1-2, unabridged (Jung Seminars) (p. 782-783). Princeton University Press.
”
”
C.G. Jung (Nietzsche's Zarathustra: Notes of the Seminar given in 1934-1939 C.G. Jung)