screen,¹ and the screen in this case is that which I call the experience of ultimate concern. If you have this experience, then you can do what the projector does, namely can have a little picture of the father, then you put it on the screen, but this screen is the ultimate, is the experience of the infinite, of the eternal, of the unconditional. And this is not the father, but the father is only the little picture which is put on it. Now this simple technical consideration is devastating for all projection theories, and you will hear and read, in the psychoanalytic literature, a lot of these projection theories. They all are nonsense, if they don’t do what the older and wiser projection theories did, for instance Feuerbach^e, more than 100 years ago, when he said that religion is a projection of our infinite desire and infinite love. Now if this is the case, then infinity is the screen and then this theory makes sense.

But if we have that screen, namely ultimate concern, then we can say, “All right, now come with your psychology. You are probably right. And I know what it means to interpret the Calvinistic^h God in terms of father-image—or in this country, a little bit more of mother-image [smiling; laughter]— to see how the concrete traits are formed by the actual experiences our unconscious has with our parents, with our early friends, with persons who have impressed us very early, even with experiences with nature, with dreams, and what not—everything! I give you all the apparatuses in the world for projection purposes—psychology, in that case. And I give you one more, namely “collective unconscious,"