Daemon-Eidolon Dyad According to C J Jung

I received an email today from a member of this blog who is located in Switzerland. ArtFunk forwarded me an email that had been sent to him by a friend from Australia. Art wished to let me know the similarities between my theory of the Daemon-Eidolon Dyad and those of the great psycho-analyst Carl Gustav Jung. Jung uses the term Dioscuri. I have been long aware of Jung's writings but it was new to me exactly how similar to mine they are. Here an extended quote from his book "Concerning Rebirth" -

"This “other being” is the other person in ourselves – that larger and greater personality maturing within us, whom we have already met as the inner friend of the soul. That is why we take comfort whenever we find the friend and companion depicted in a ritual, an example being the friendship between Mithras and the sun-god. This relationship is a mystery to the scientific intellect, because the intellect is accustomed to regard these things unsympathetically. But if it made allowance for feeling, we would discover that it is the friend whom the sun-god takes with him on his chariot, as shown in the monuments. It is the representation of a friendship between two men which is simply the outer reflection of an inner fact: it reveals our relationship to that inner friend of the soul into whom Nature herself would like to change us – that other person who we also are and yet can never attain to completely. We are that pair of Dioscuri, one of whom is mortal and the other immortal, and who, though always together, can never be made completely one. The transformation processes strive to approximate them to one another, but our consciousness is aware of resistances, because the other person seems strange and uncanny, and because we cannot get accustomed to the idea that we are not absolute master in our own house. We should prefer to be always “I” and nothing else. But we are confronted with that inner friend or foe, and whether he is our friend or foe depends on ourselves.

You need not be insane to hear his voice. On the contrary, it is the simplest and most natural thing imaginable. For instance, you can ask yourself a question to which “he” gives answer. The discussion is then carried on as in any other conversation. You can describe it as mere “associating” or “talking to oneself”, or as a “meditation” in the sense used by the old alchemists, who referred to their interlocutor as aliquem alium internum, “a certain other one, within” This form of colloquy with the friend of the soul was even admitted by Ignatius Loyola into the technique of his Exercitia spiritualia, but with the limiting condition that only the person meditating is allowed to speak, whereas the inner responses are passed over as being merely human and therefore to be repudiated. … But a real colloquy becomes possible only when the ego acknowledges the existence of a partner to the discussion…. (p. 132)
[It is about transformation] “It is my own transformation – not a personal transformation, but the transformation of what is mortal in me into what is immortal. It shakes off the mortal husk that I am and wakens to a life of its own; it mounts the sun-barge and may take me with it”. (~ C.G. Jung, “Concerning Rebirth”, The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious, C.W. volume 9i. Page 134)

Interesting is it not.