Xanthippe,
Ok, let's start over. Having read zillions of your postings on this board over the years I can say that I like you and what you contribute to it. That being said, I really hate when threads degenerate into discussions about discussions rather than about content. I didn't intend to offend, just didn't want to go where it seemed like you were heading. Maybe I misread you, sorry.
So, in a good-faith attempt to return to the subject at hand, I offer this:
First of all, I never said that McLeod was "anti-Jungian." I don't know where you got that idea, but it wasn't from me!
I did write, "You might find this article written by Saul McLeod informative."
In fact, nothing I wrote can or should be construed as "anti-Jungian."
My comments have been about Jung's goofy ideas about "archetypes," the subject which this thread is all about. It is those ideas which have been widely discredited by those that take a scientific approach to psychology, not everything Jung said, wrote or did. I never said that, nor did I in any way imply it.
Again, if you re-read my first post on the subject, you will see that the very first thing I wrote about Jung is this: "Jung’s work has made some contributions to mainstream psychology."
But if you read the quotes from Wikipedia about his legacy (see above), you'll see that most of his later work was New Age nonsense and woo. It is Jung's ideas of the archetype which BW has been espousing and which are non-scientific in nature. Even he called it the "mother figure in mythology," (see the previous page of this thread).
After waking up to TTATT and leaving behind the bullshit of the WTBTS, why would we ever want to replace one set of myths and false beliefs with another?
Oubliette