From Symbols of Transformation, page 255:

Now it is a fact amply confirmed by psychiatric experience that all parts of the psyche, inasmuch as they possess a certain autonomy, exhibit a personal character, like the split-off products of hysteria and schizophrenia, mediumistic “spirits,” figures seen in dreams, etc. Every split-off portion of libido, every complex, has or is a (fragmentary) personality. At any rate, that is how it looks from the purely observational standpoint. But when we go into the matter more deeply, we find that they are really archetypal formations. There are no conclusive arguments against the hypothesis that these archetypal figures are endowed with personality at the outset and are not just secondary personalizations. In so far as the archetypes do not represent mere functional relationships, they manifest themselves as daimones [?], as personal agencies. In this fomr they are felt as actual experiences and are not “figments of the imagination,” as rationalism would have us believe. Consequently, man derives his human personality only secondarily from what the myths call his descent from the gods and heroes; or, to put it in psychological terms, his consciousness of himself as a personality derives primarily from the influence of quasi-personal archetypes. Numerous mythological proofs could be advanced in support of this view.

I used to really have trouble reading Jung’s stuff directly, but I’m starting to get kinda into it. You gotta trudge through all kinds of things, with him just pulling in references constantly to all sorts of crazy shit, but once you get used to it, its cool. It’s like being in a speedboat and trying to catch fish or something. I don’t know if that’s the best analogy, but it’s a funny one.