....For from the archetypal point of view, the matter is less that one feels guilty than to whom: to which person of the psyche and within which myth does my affliction belong, and does it bespeak an obligation? Which figures in which complexes are now laying claim? From this perspective the guilt brought by pathologizing takes on radical importance. It leads out of the ego and into a recognition the through a pathologized experience I am bound to archetypal persons who want something from me and to whom I owe remembrance.

....Let us suppose that pathologizing too were interwoven in the cosmos of each event just as its beauty, its virtue and its truth; pathologizing necessary and intrinsic....Its particular function (not its telos) depending on its particular context. In one instance affliction may signal disease, at another inform danger; or, it may heighten awareness or narrow it; promote fantasies of freedom, surcease and oblivion; constellate hopelessness; motivate courage; induce sympathy; or bring to mind the sage who asks what purpose.