Are Demons Just Our Darker Selves?

Are demons just extensions of the self? For one, I would say that the idea that angels and demons are merely projections or revealed aspects of the one's own self before they are brought to gnosis is a speculation that is less tenable than the view they are separate entities. For if they are merely parts of the self that only appear to be separate due to our ignorance, then how can we distinguish anything intuitively prior to our rational abilities kick in? For reasoning is a continuum, not an either/or (except in the case of intuited necessary truths), and there is no point we 'know' the difference between ourselves and those phenomena outside of it unless we regard certain intuitive categories (that's not me that is something else) as immediate. Likewise, if reasoning reveals through laborious thinking differences then how can it establish anything outside of solipsism. Indeed, even solipsism cannot support the position that anything exists or 'is' given the epistemic leap from knowledge to ontological statements such as x is the case. As well, I would also say that Crowley's statement, though I think one of the most well thought out and thorough definitions, suggests that ALL actions initiated by the will are magick. Of course, he invented the term and therefore can do whatever he 'wills' with it, no pun intended. But I would say that magick, however it is spelled, requires a paranormal, or non-naturalistic, origin; namely that one wills, or causes, something to happen without physically touching it with one's body nor without appealing to another's will through conversation. I would say that magick is tapping into a more primal origin of reality and causing changes in this realm and allowing it to precipitate or emanate downward. I think prayer and meditation for the entirety of human existence has done this. As to Jung's views, I think the jury is still out on whether archetypes are separate phenomena, themes, entities from the self or not. It isn't clear, and I may be wrong here since it has been a long time since I actually read Jung, that he had a firm view on them being actual extensions of the self. If he did, I would disagree. However, I am convinced that they are separate given my above view on intuited categories and their logical inconsistency with reasoning out previously unconscious content. To caveat this statement, we are held in existence by ONE being. But our distinction is real and our distinction can continue (and I would argue will since if ONE being is the source of goodness and it is good we exist then there would be no reason to dissolve our being a separate entity or thing held by this ONE being). It was Parmenides, the Greek philosopher, that held to the view that the many is an illusion. Many subsequently followers of this school, such as Zeno, demonstrated the problem of the many with Zeno's paradox which logically showed that motion is impossible. However, the only flaw in his logic was to assume that human logic is sufficient to explain ALL things without phenomenal disclosure (see Heidegger's phenomenology) or religious or spiritual revelation. For if Zeno was right then it would be impossible for there to be phenomenal traits that exhibit multiplicity. Therefore, when we recognize that a phenomenon is separate from us, in intentions, agency, and expression, it really is.