Reddit mentions of The Neurobiology of the Gods: How Brain Physiology Shapes the Recurrent Imagery of Myth and Dreams

I feel the same, but understand it to be relative to collectivity (both conscious and unconscious), and the 'weight' and demands of empirical materialism and the biomedical model still being the dominant ideology.

Perhaps Jung's typological model could be applied usefully to surveying society at large, or whole groups of people within it? (although that could only be loosely applied). Perhaps Jung's theories only appeal or make sense to those with high degrees of 'introverted-intuitive' features of psychological make-up, but don't approach meaning qualifiers in those whose minds operate according to different measures of emphasis and meaning validity?

>Surely having names for mental illnesses is the first thing that is wrong in western society?

I don't know if its the 'first' thing wrong (arguably that could be lack of knowledge of ones Self and lack of spiritualised awareness), but it is problematic when the concept associated with the name is too narrow. Naming situations, events, phenomena, processes, is important, it makes a link between the observed and the self existing through language and thought embodied, it builds conscious connections, which is crucial in individuation.

It needs to be kept in mind also we live in a society where increasingly any knowledge unsupported by empirical science is treated with suspicion or disdain, has no place of meaning, because of the assumption of truth and authority science has come to assume; 'Scientism', as if it is a new kind of religious ideology. Jungian theory maps to the 'inside' of phenomenal existence and subjectivity, which is why it is useful and can become clearly apparent as 'truthful' to ones experiences and perceptions, but isn't so easily quantified when it comes to technological mapping of 'exteriors' or models that presume the surfaces of those exteriors mapped is all there is, or reduces what else exists phenomenally to those domains of meaning and 'objectivity'. I see it more as a case of both/and; aspects of the 'objective' and 'subjective' interfold, entwine one another.

Perhaps people in part resist Jung's insights, theory and method because they have no natural reference for his ideas? Its not like this content is readily taught in schools or conveyed accurately in cultural forms of expression, that we may absorb by osmosis as we grow and develop in varying cultural and social contexts.

Or perhaps it is because the demand of the Jungian 'way' is a kind of conscious work? Therapeutic process as individuation requires an investment of emotional time and energy, it requires effort, and who has surplus time or energy for that, unless the value of it can already be determined, and one is already driven towards self-actualisation/activation?

Perhaps it is because Jung calls us to face the most difficult aspects of ourselves? Who really wants to turn and face consciously, have rise up in ones body-mind, as felt feelings and intensities, as weird and disturbing dreams and interior content, potentially disabling and painful interior affect and material? ("really, you want to move towards your shadow and darkened aspects of ugliness and shame and pain and so on?"). This is, apparently, an uncommon quality even now, unless life itself forces it upon you through experiential encounters. Perhaps the West and its peoples haven't suffered enough, truly, deeply, where everything has been wrenched from them and they've reached the end and emptiness of all, or leapt off the cliff of self for the unknowns and uncertainties of the continual process of bringing into becoming of Self?

I don't know, it is hard to say. I would encourage though, cultivating more detachment in relation to where others are at (by emphasising and developing inwardly attentive methods, which does not also mean abandoning the external and social-relational worlds present to yourself, but only extending ones 'gaze' increasingly into the darkness of the unconscious, bringing the light to it, illuminating the caverns walls increasingly).

I only just discovered this book yesterday, Fear of Jung, which sounds like it explores some of the issues you raise in the OP, albeit in a more academic, and theoretical or philosophical manner (link to a downloadable version here.

There is also this book, Neurobiology of the Gods, which makes moves towards rehabilitating Jung's work in light of contemporary neuroscience and evolutionary psychology and biology. From the foreword:

>..Such methodology, coupled with the broad range of his inquiry and the fact that Jung's collected works were spread out over twenty volumes (and as many volumes of unpublished seminars, letters and speeches), have contributed to Jung being misunderstood and to easily dismissed. Then, too, some of Jung's followers have eschewed evidence-based research and advanced one-sided interpretations of his work. For example, archetypes are sources of typical actions, reactions and experiences that characterize the human species, primordial roots of patterns that structure behavior, images, affects and thoughts as these emerge in typical situations of life. They are both instinct and image. This definition is true to Jung's original intuition of the archetype, and it is one that Dr. Goodwyn shows to be supported by evidence-based research. Along with contemporaries such as John Haule, Dr. Goodwyn is one of a new generation of depth psychologists to show us that Jung's most important theories not only hold up quite well in the light of empirical study, they were amazingly prophetic.

>Of course, we live in a time of great specialization, in which narrowly focused researchers have a hard time keeping up with their own fields of study. It has been rightfully said that today researchers know more and more about less and less. But when one travels through the evidence assembled since Jung's death in 1961, one finds Jungian concepts being rediscovered and restated using new vocabulary with nary a mention of Jung in the footnotes. Jungian theory of complexes, developed in the 1920's, reemerges as neural networks, archetypes are re-postulated as domain specific algorithms, and the collective unconscious is redeployed in neuroscience as core human psyche.

There are others engaged in this readdressing of a significant omission of credit and championing. It will happen, it just may take some time before the significance of his work is more widely appreciated, understood and applied.