I think the word “genius” in that discussion only refers to this passage:
[size=95]The relative abolition of the ego affects only those supreme and ultimate decisions which confront us in situations where there are insoluble conflicts of duty. This means, in other words, that in such cases the ego is a suffering bystander who decides nothing but must submit to a decision and surrender unconditionally. The “genius” of man, the higher and more spacious part of him whose extent no one knows, has the final word.
[Jung, Aion, “Christ, a Symbol of the Self”.][/size]
I think we should think here, partly because of the quotation marks, of the original Latin meaning of “genius”:
[size=95]guardian deity or spirit which watches over each person from birth
[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=genius.][/size]
This should remind you of the ‘Holy Guardian Angel’ from the Western Hermetic tradition:
[size=95]We have already seen that each of us is the final Heh [of Yod Heh Vau Heh], the Princess living in Assiah far from our original estate. But who is this Vau, the Prince to whom we must surrender [compare the Jung quote above!] and who will be our Secret Lover and Champion? Where do we seek the Prince? In the Western Hermetic Tradition he is called THE HOLY GUARDIAN ANGEL and “he” is closer to us than our own heart-beat. He is our Secret Lover.
[The Pathworkings of Aleister Crowley, Appendix.][/size]
According to Jung, however, not “each of us” is the Princess: each woman is the Princess, whereas each man is the Prince. Which is to say that each man, though still the final Heh, is the Prince living in Assiah far from his original estate, who must in “insoluble conflicts of duty” surrender to his Vau which is the Princess. Jung has called these male and female Vaus the ‘Animus’ and the ‘Anima’, respectively: they are the person’s personified unconscious, which in the female has a male character, and in the male, a female one. The unconscious, therefore, the greatest part of the Self: that is what I think the word “genius” means in Jung’s mouth.
I don’t think Freud saw a synthetic mechanism. As I’ve already said, the ‘dialectics’ of repression are no actual dialectic: repression’s no synthesis of the RP and the PP, but simply the RP’s repressing the PP. And neurosis/sublimation’s no synthesis of repression and the PP, but the PP’s substitute gratifications in ways left open by repression (e.g., in dreams, in socially acceptable channels like art, etc.).
I have, by the way, lost my anxiousness regarding repression, for the moment, at least. This is thanks to the philosophy of science of Ernst Mach (from the sound barriers).
Though I have just begun to study him, I think he teaches that all experiences are sensations, and therefore that all pleasure is sensual pleasure (or that all experiences are impressions, and that all pleasure is therefore spiritual pleasure). Freud basically says that (self-)repression follows from object-loss (“loss of the friendly expanses”, to speak with Jim Morrison), but in Mach’s view there are no objects at all: there are only sensations and complexes of sensations, and the simplification of such complexes to ‘objects’ is a falsification on the part of the spirit/mind/intellect (Geist). Without objects, then, there can be no object-loss, but only the loss of pleasant sensations. But as for the child, all sensations are pleasant insofar as they’re not painful… My world, then, is full of pleasant sensations, and it does not matter if I derive these from ‘sublimations’ or not: for essentially, all pleasure is sensual pleasure, as I’ve already said.—