It w i l l have become apparent from our exposition so far that Jung does not speak of God as an idea, but that when he speaks of God at all he means something quite different. God is not thought or contrived, nor is he ap prehended and exhausted by our ideas: he is experienced. And as long as what a man experiences' of God is alive, he is influenced by it. Consequently, Jung prefers to speak of a God-symbol, and he holds that what is true of sym bols in general is true also of the God-symbol. He may speak sometimes of a God-image, which is, however, not to be thought of as a metaphorical representation of God, but by the term “image” he means a psychological mag nitude. We can reflect on a symbol or psychic image, yet its content can never be formulated exhaustively in terms of ideas-indeed, if it can, the symbol or image has lost its psychic efficacy: it is dead, the perished relic of a psy chic state that is no more. Although the God-image must address itself to reason, it must still have something of the irrational at the back of it, something that is pregnant with meaning, that is intuited but not clearly formulated.