he doubts his own visions and is more interested in the vision-making function than simply proclamation.

Karl Jaspers says so and lists five reasons why this going into the underworld and talking with figures and listening to voices, and doing what Jung did, is demonic, it’s non-Christian.

and if psychology is to move it has to speak to the soul and it has to speak about the soul.

This doesn’t strike a happy note with me because I hear the way that psychology uses its language as apotropaic—as a way of covering the fundamental anxiety that we don’t know anything really about psyche.

attention that Jung’s work does have something to do with religion!

I think we should take exception to that idea, that Jung had and went through a creative illness. I don’t see how you can call what he had an illness. I don’t think the term “illness” is benefited by giving it an adjective called “creative.”

The issue is not to become a windowless monad but simply to get out of yourself, reconnecting through one’s own depths. That’s Jung’s intention.

If someone comes in talking about spirits, he talks about spirits.

One is dealing quite specifically with the dead of human history.