No wonder that our theme is so charged, that we cannot take hold of the senex-puer problem anywhere without getting burnt; no wonder that it cannot be fully circumscribed and contained. It cannot become clarified, for we stand in the midst of its smoke. Its split is our pain. This split of spirit is reflected in the senescence and renewal of God and of civilization. It is behind the fascination with Lebensphilosophie and the comforting aphorisms of stages of life, which by taking the polarity as its starting point can offer no healing. [49] This split gives us the aches of the father-son problem and the silent distance between generations, the search of the son for his father and the longing of the father for his son, which is the search and longing for one's own meaning; and the theological riddles of the Father and the Son. It tells us that we are split from our own likeness and have turned our sameness with this likeness into difference. And the same split is in the feminine as the spirit is represented in her by the animus, its poles that divide her and cause her to divide others, leading her into the either/or clarifications of the animus that but further new divisions such as love versus loyalty, principle versus abandon, or find her mothering the inspired puer or being the inspired daughter of the senex. The same split gives the frustrations of homosexual eros, the search for angelic beauty, the fear of ageing, the longing for the union of sames.
— James Hillman
Hillman is not describing a problem that has a solution — he is describing the air we breathe. The senex-puer split is not something we look at from a distance; it is the condition of looking itself, which is why every attempt to get clear about it only thickens the smoke. The polarity is not a tension to be resolved by developmental wisdom, not a stage the mature person graduates through. The "comforting aphorisms of stages of life" Hillman dismisses here are themselves a senex move — the wise elder perspective that domesticates the puer's wildness by assigning it a proper phase and then superseding it. That gesture is precisely the split re-enacting itself as therapy.
What you are left with, reading carefully, is that the longing for one's own meaning — the son's search for the father, the father's longing for the son — cannot be satisfied by finding the right figure, external or internal. The split is structural. It is in the feminine as animus-poles, in theological paradox, in the ache of homosexual eros seeking its mirror. What these all share is a desire for union with likeness — a sameness the psyche has converted into difference and then spends enormous energy trying to recover. The suffering is not incidental to that project. It *is* the project, the engine that keeps the search running, the proof that what is being sought cannot be simply handed over.
James Hillman·Senex and Puer: An Aspect of the Historical and Psychological Present·1967