Gnostics spoke of the Syzygy. Though in different words between different authors, they circled around the same symbol. In astronomy as well astrology it refers to a conjunction of planets. The etymology of the word comes from the greek 'suzugos', meaning roughly bound together. When dealing with a symbol, we shouldn't confuse the finger with that towards which it's pointing. There are facts pertaining to the symbol, but the symbol is not a fact. We understand facts around the symbol and move in circles around its meaning.
The originator of Manichaeism, the profet Mani, named the spirit who provided his revelations as "Syzygos", his heavenly twin. Mani expressed reality as divided into a spiritual world of light and the material world of Darkness. In the writings of Valentinus, the fullness of the world is understood as emanating from different pairings of complementary qualities. Each pair of qualities is what Valentinus refers to as a Syzygy. What is common between them is a notion of duality and of a bridging of this duality through the conjunction of complementary aspects between them. In Valentinus, reality unfolds in several 'layers', each of which contains an inherent duality with a dialectic between polarities. The syzygy refers to the harmonization between those polarities. Putting it in to a Hegelian perspective, the syzygy would not refer to the synthesis but to the relation between thesis and antithesis out of which the synthesis emanates.
In one of his final works, Aion, Carl Jung used understands the Syzygy as when a complementary position within the unconscious is reached and integrated to consciousness. It is through the relation between the conscious position and the unconscious position that a new understanding and insight can reach consciousness. This isn't the same as becoming conscious of a fact. It rather has to do with a transformation of how one experiences the world and oneself. Throughout history, artists have to varying degrees of consciousness been undergoing and expressing this process. In creating art, the artist leaves the conscious and structured understanding of reality and ventures into the underworld of the unconscious in order to bring forth something new to consciousness. It is this bringing up of new content to consciousness that defines a process as "creative". By art degenerating into playing with abstractions, references and ideologies, stringing together conscious content in different manners without ever leaving the confines of the reality one has already assumed, the creative process is all but lost to our culture. All the while beneath our feet, under the abstractions and concepts we cling to as reality, the repressed unconscious mind threatens to rise up and devour every truth we hold as reality.
Can you sense it? How everyday, ordinary life day by day fragments further and the boiling pressure underneath that threatens to erupt in madness and horror at any moment? It isn't something that can be measured or quantized, it won't conform to any systematic approach towards it, this isn't something you can know. It is the living, organic darkness that stirs behind every assumption about reality you made and it will debase everything that you hold as sacred. It will turn all your kindness into vileness and reveal the pathetic shallowness behind your attempts at being good. Can you sense it? Can you see that these accusations are not from this text, but that they come from inside yourself? Do not look at the finger. Look to where its pointing.

In the psyche, function of relating the ego, or conscious personality, to the unconscious is what it Jung called Anima or Animus (soul or spirit). It is a psychic factor, and should be understood as something caused by our biology rather than as a detached spiritual phenomenon. But is also properly, from a psychological standpoint, understood as an autonomous factor of the psyche, something that has a personality, and something that is not contingent on the ego-consciousness. It is something that the ego relates to. It is to be found within, in one's experience, but it isn't part of oneself or one's personality. It has a separate and independent personality from oneself. The establishing of a conscious relationship to one's anima/animus is what is understood as a Syzygy.
However, this requires a recognition and admition of an unconscious part of experience, where in angels, demons and all sort of spirits that modern rationality cannot make sense of as real because they lack physicality - as archetypes, they are a priori to experience in the Kantian sense. We have to understand them from inside, from how they effect experience. Even if they have a material cause through our biology, they rather have an effect on how we interpret the meaning of the material world than they are something that can be reached through a material reduction. There is an unconscious reason behind why we even think material reductionism is a valid method. The reason for adopting the method isn't uncovered by applying it. It requires one to look behind it. The unconscious forms the backdrop of experience. We never perceive it directly, but it is always there. Sometimes, in those dreamlike moments where the world seems alive and breathing mystery, we think we can spot it in the periphery. But we never get a clear look of it.

The archetypes of the unconscious are forms of experience, in the sense Kant used the term, rather than a part of experience itself. They are not a part of experience, but the whole towards which the parts point. You can understand the molecular structure of the finger, the social reasons that has lead it to point towards where it point, the angle by which it points, the anatomy of the tendons and muscles that moves the finger and the neurological process by which signals are sent by the brain through the nervous system to make the body perform the action of pointing. You can try to fully understand the psychological reasons that lie behind the pointers decision to point, the why of the pointing, what system, or lack thereof, of faith, ideology or moral, by which one would deem pointing to be necessary. You could know all this and still confuse the finger with where its pointing.Just as we do not experience time in itself but understand it when we abstract temporality from experience, the archetypes lend a certain character to experience and are understood though their effect, they do not manifest themselves outright. Except when they do. Things can get weird if one starts taking one's unconscious into careful consideration.
But hey, it's a Fool's Gambit.