Before I respond to the particular questions raised in your letter, I would like to deal with a question of terminology.
We speak of “thinking” and “feeling,” and we name the types concerned accordingly. As you know, I have introduced these types in an earlier publication, under the names of the introverted and the extraverted type.74 For the former, adaptation proceeds via abstraction from the object, for the latter, via feeling into the object.75 The term “introversion” thus describes an inward turning of the psychic energy, which I called “libido,” because the introvert does not comprehend the object directly, but by means of abstraction, that is, by a thinking process that is inserted between himself and the object. The attitude he assumes toward the object is a certain rejection, therefore, which can even develop into a kind of fear of the object. His primary reaction toward the object is actually not love but rather fear.76 The ancients knew these two original powers well, the eros and phobos.77 It is not permissible to say that fear of the object is just a repression of an unbearable love of the object, because then we could also say that the extravert’s characteristic love of the object is nothing but a repression of an unbearable fear of the object. It is more likely that in the unconscious of the introvert there is a love for the object that compensates his fear of it, while in the unconscious
74 Jung 1913a. See the introduction for the prehistory of this pairing.
75 Already in 1913, Jung had equated Worringer’s notions of “feeling- into” and “abstraction” with his concepts of extraversion and introversion respectively (1913a, §§ 871–73). Cf. Shapiro & Alexander, 1975.
76 “To the introverted type the universe does not appear to be beautiful and desirable, but disquieting and even dangerous” (1913a, § 873).
77 Greek for love and fear; in the original, written in Greek letters.