Jung wrote those lines — Hillman is carrying them forward — and what they insist on is the refusal of resolution. The child archetype is not a symbol of hope, not a promise that what was wounded will be healed. It is both the abandoned thing and the thing that cannot be extinguished, held in that tension without any synthesis available. The "incongruity" is not a problem to be solved by development; it persists as the condition of the personality itself.

What the pneumatic imagination does with this image is immediate and predictable: it reaches for the "triumphal end," spiritualizes the abandoned child into a latent divinity, and uses the arc of redemption to escape the exposure that comes first. The passage resists that move. The abandonment and the power are not sequential — they are simultaneous, the same fact seen from two angles. To hold that simultaneity is to stay with something that has no comfortable home in either trauma narrative or spiritual narrative.

The "ultimate worth or worthlessness of a personality" is not determined by what happens to the child figure — whether it is rescued, integrated, honored. It is determined by whether the personality can bear carrying an imponderable at all — something that does not resolve, does not graduate, does not become only light.