 Do you think his work can have its effect without the analytic process? There is the idea floating around that analysis is a form that might end. It's something that grew up in the 19th, 20th century and it might not go on as a way of doing things. The analytic process itself. I don't believe that. If one takes the analytic process as certain young pupils take it as a whole technique and an encounter with certain payment regulations and all these technicalities, transference, counter-transference, that's all nonsense, but that was never what young meant. For young analysis it was a spontaneous encounter of two human beings and I think that will always happen. Because you look in the far east, the real wisdom has always been transmitted from master to pupil. That means always from human being to single human being. It's the only way to really transmit something. But there's usually a container of some kind, a form that holds you together. I think that will just vary. It will just be different. I don't know what form it might take or not take. And then certainly many of the ideas young have expressed are what one would call in the air and people find them independently without knowing young or reading young. They, by looking into themselves, come to the same conclusions. So to my idea there are thousands of Jungians in the whole world who have never heard the word young. But to me they are Jungians because they are based on the same experience and the same inner truth. They give you different names and that doesn't matter. You can't really say that Jung's work represents just science or science in the old sense or that it's not a religion and yet what is it itself, the work that he did? Doesn't it somewhere live on the border between those two? It's certainly beyond science if you take science in the sense of the 19th century. It's not a hard science. It's partly a hard science. I mean the doctrine, let's call it, or the hypothesis of the archetype and these things. You can really prove with hard science. With hard research. With hard research and you can put it under everybody's nose and you can make experiments with it and so on. So there is a bit of hard science in it. Then there is an art because analysis is an art, it's a skill. It depends on the personality, on the spontaneity of the personality. I would say that's much more something artistic or generally human. And then you can say, if you want the definition I would say the closest to it is something like the original Taoism in China. A kind of wisdom. Now the Taoism later became schools and techniques. But in the Lao Tsai and Chuang Tsai and so much people. That was a wisdom which has infinitely influenced China without having definite techniques. And I see Jungian psychology more parallel to that a bit. That's why it's not a religion and it's not a science. If you want the word I mean I don't like words but if you want to pin the word on it I would say a kind of wisdom.