An important aspect of Jung's analytical theory is his description of the conscious and unconscious desires of the personality. Specifically, Jung describes states of mind in which the person holds two contradictory desires simultaneously. In his book *The Mystery of Human Relationship: Alchemy and the Transformation of the Self*, Nathan Schwartz-Salant refers to these as "mad states" and acknowledges them as fundamental components of the psyches of persons acting in relationship. 

It is not as though these are competing conscious desires, but often conscious and unconscious drives, desires, values, or even value systems that motivate the principles and actions of the individual simultaneously. The reason that the state is "mad" is these opposing faculties are *not* in conflict, though they are chaotic. Schwartz-Salant describes a process in which relationships benefit from acknowledging the mad states in one's self and in the persons to whom the self relates, even itself. He doesn't endorse a resolution of the opposing aspects or elimination of subordinate aspects, but the marriage of opposing faculties, the understanding that people are not simple but psychologically complex, and that adopting this understanding by individuals allows relationships to operate symbiotically not despite the chaos, but in light of the spontaneity, creativity, and possibility afforded by it. 

In context of the will to power, this implies that for a person to say "yes" to the will, he may also be saying "no" to its compliment also present in the person, and in so doing may not be "self-overcoming" by affirming the will to power but merely forsaking one genuine and valuable aspect of the soul for another in order to achieve a perceived self-affirmed state. 

In describing the will to power, does Nietzsche address this tendency of people to simultaneously hold opposing drives, desires, or values? 

Edit: 

In discussing Adler's psychological application to *will to power,* Jung responds contemporarily, writing that all neuroses inevitably can be traced back according to that drive. 

He says the same of Freud's psychosexual method, but he doesn't imply a contradiction. Jung observed that both methods described a singular human *drive to live and affirm life*, which he contrasted with the *Thanatos*- the *drive to die*, to retire from perturbations and return to the still of the cosmic womb. Is this acknowledging this life-affirming drive the yes-saying Nietzsche is discussing?