Thanks for your considered and thoughtful response.

Well I certainly took the bait, how could I do otherwise? I don't think Matthew was playing devil's advocate in any sense, and was stating his actual views.

I also share Matthew's concerns, which is why it is important to establish, if such a thing is possible, cosmic 'truth'. Surely only truth is going to solve the problems facing modern society.

Our battle has indeed become a bit personal. I don't know if you are aware of it, but we recently had a somewhat feisty and acrimonious exchange on the historical Jesus. I haven't read Matthew's response yet on this piece, but don't recall insulting him; I merely strongly disagreed with his position. If anyone was insulted in this exchange, it was the Jungian scholars/analysts.

It would take too long to go into detail here, but I disagree with you that Jung went off down the mysticism path. You can make a case that he went down that road in his private life but, as I explained in the article, his work as a psychologist was the study of material produced by the unconscious, whether his own or that of his clients, thus facts. Even dreams and visions are facts. The task is then to try to understand what they mean, and so on. Thus Jung was trying to apply a (kind of) scientific approach, and he said in various places that this was his aim.

I agree with you about Jungianism and Christianity. That is the major difference that Matthew and I have, and why the debate can get somewhat heavy. I have argued in many articles that Christianity in its current form has failed, and is in serious need of a new Reformation. That was also Jung's position. You can easily understand why that makes Matthew so uncomfortable.

Best wishes