As we do not need new examples for reimagining psycho-pathology, so do we not need new psychopathological classifications or even explanations. The search for explanations is again a problem of the understanding.
The imaginal does not explain; myths are not explanations. They are bound to ritual happenings; they are stories, as our fantasies are, which project us into participation with the phenomena they tell about so that the need for explanation falls away. The myth both involves us and, at the same time, through its ritual precision, detaches us.
— The Myth of Analysis, Part Two: On Psychological Language