I have already gone into Gnostics and Kabbalists on their own. I have addressed Alchemy and Jungian perspectives related thereto - in many books and places. I know that many people think they care about each other and all the whales or birdies - but I also know they never look deep inside their own motivations or past their religious brainwashing. No - don't GO THERE! You do not have to go to church to be affected by the laws, nations, and memes or archetypes which bombard you from cradle to grave. So when I see Jung attacked for being an arrogant pompous ass alchemist, a ladies man, a Nazi, a nutcase, or almost anything other than a person who worked hard and strived to shed light on our human potential to be ONE with WHAT IS, I get a little passionate. He probably was arrogant when he did not want to discuss racist or brainwashed foolishness with so many semi-illiterates or jealous Freudians who set out to discredit him.
Many other students of Freud went their own way and maybe deserve these ridiculous charges more than Jung. Wilhelm Reich and his orgone etheric energy saw sexual communes form around his theories. His work probably was used at Roswell in altering weather as those initial reports might allow. Silberer wrote about Alchemy before Jung, and on it goes. This scholar more appropriately discusses Jung's alchemy as a syncretism or merging of many ancient mystical disciplines. He is wrong about the origins of each of them - but Jung certainly would not have the kind of knowledge from history that I do today even though his confreres at Eranos certainly grasped the Hero With a Thousand Faces or 462,000 years of civilized humans that Joseph Campbell brought to that austere forum of intellectual giants. Mircae Eliade takes the origins of alchemy back past shamans and smiths learning the sciences through observing Nature (God). Eranos included the Father of modern Kabbalistic ideology and Jung worked well with him and others in those circles - his name is Gershom Scholem and the author we will soon hear from acknowledges Scholem's contributions to his apparent personal demon or obsession. More importantly this quote from Scholem should be uppermost as we go forward.Is there a bigger argument in our social milieu than what our purpose is or should be, what is our best obsession?
“Sometimes one must learn how to read books against their declared intentions.”
Those who need an outer source for direction will find it in each other and common focal points or loci and individual extrapolations from these social memes and archetypes. I know it is not just Fukayama or Machiavelli who knew as social engineers these matters profound also had profound potential applications in governing or what is correctly called a Neo-Platonic hierarchy. Jung kept two books by his bedside for twenty years - his best obsession was knowledge and wisdom. Those books were The Tibetan Book of the Dead and the Iliad by Homer which has proven useful to understanding pre-Empire history and what Hellenizing or the destruction thereof (history has been propaganda) has created. Jung's foreword to the Evans-Wentz Book of the Dead is a masterpiece of insight we should have courses on in comparative religion at schools, from an early age.
Plato himself struggled to allow his soul to enjoin a greater collective in his studies of the Eleusinian Mysteries (Some do say - and his writings support). I am not sure that is true because the forces putting pressure on him were immense and lead to Socrates drinking Hemlock and Pythagoras having to leave his homeland to found a colony called Bruttium (Croton and Kroton in other tongues). There is not one author who has documented those forces and familial involvements as well as myself. It serves Empire and it's purposes to hide their Hellenizing destructive acts which took people for slaves and automatons or made them sword and cannon fodder (far worse for the women). So much for me prattling about history, it has it's own course to travel and all hard sciences have made me seem prescient over the last two decades, because I never assumed people like Socrates or Pythagoras were only what was said about them. I accepted they followed the Magian Law to "Keep Silent" and you will find little or nothing written by either of them under their own name.
Plato was not so great an alchemist and had more of a Noble lineage which influenced him. I agree with a meritocratic approach such as his family deserved to hold positions of governance in high places since Solon. Solon tried to stem the rising tide of destruction of women's rights by maintaining some right to own property for them. Plato tells us a group of people having average intellect and knowledge are the worst form of government but his associate Aristotle went to Carthage and saw remnants of Brotherhood and equality that made Athens seem autocratic. So much for a debate we could engage in on government and our current Platonic top-down hierarchy or synarchy. There is no easy answer to be sure, and great minds and planners of the Enlightenment Experiment created the USA which has maintained enough of the ethos for freedom that they have some right to be proud of their Republican (Drawn from the name of a book by Plato - Republic) form of managing people.
The bigger issue for me and Jung is or has been something spiritual and all the other verbiage you just saw only sets the stage to see Jung and his desire to help people in some wholistic perspective. The author under my scrutiny almost says Jung had Nazi leanings and of course he was pressured to conform as he lived in Germany, but Jewish scholars he was involved with have done a good job proving that trash to be what it is - trash! So I won't even go there. But we must ascertain whether the acknowledged Father of Modern Psychoanalysis and still often top dog of dogma in Psychiatry (See Niles Crane in Frasier) is, as this author says - a Kabbalist or Christian Gnostic.
One of the things I agree with Drob about is that Jung became more open and aware of the inter-connectedness of things as he grew older. But Jung (my Jung) was always a humanist who cared deeply for his role in helping to lift the scales off the eyes of mere mortals. However, Drob pictures a destitute Gnosticism and a "dead" alchemy which is due to Drob buying the Classical History of Empire and an overall lack of appreciation for earlier wisdom. Here is a quote from his essay which is a little on point, as he throws the cape of Kabbalah ever further over all knowledge.
"Years later, when Jung comes to take a second look at Gnosticism through the eyes of a more fully developed archetypal psychology, he reverses himself and interprets it in a manner which is far more friendly to the world and the individual, and, as I will argue, far more Kabbalistic than Gnostic."