I am enjoying very much the discussion on dreams and inter-relating. I'd
like to offer the comments of an undergraduate psychology student.

As an honors thesis I have chosen to contrast a jungian notion of
conciousness (particularly containment) with what I can best describe now
as the collection of western 'scientific' notions of psychology and
therapy. The gist is something like this;
the latter approach seems to be dominated by an effort to
quantify/qualify/validate notions of psychological reality. With respect to
stuff like pathologies/interventions and the research or 'knowledge' that
relates to this there seems to be a dim recognition of the fact that source
of the models or theories we use is wholly interior. There seems in
addition to be some marginal recognition in speaking of say a pathology
that the individual might posess some personal uniqueness that contributes
to his condition. At a metaphysical level there seems to be the operation
of an assumption that given enough observation and scientific method we can
be in the posession of complete truthful knowledge of another (even more
generally the outer world).

I believe Jung's most important contribution was the metaphysical notions
that his psychology implied (more and less explicitly at times). He seemed
to understand that no concious element could be completely seperated from
its unconcious origin with which it is organically continuous. Regardless
of the idiom, be it religious,philosophical,psychological or scientific,
all we could ever hope to produce is varying degrees of 'concious' images
inseperable from the dominant 'complex' ( or archetype) of the unconcious.
Of course this too would extend to his own psychology. What  entails from
such a metaphysic is the recognition that whatever we might come to 'think'
about therapy or psychology (or anything in general) is neccessarily a
product of a wholly inner dialectic between conciousness and its organic
origin.