I concede that Jung has done much to counterwork rationalism and reductionism; but much is wrong in his psychology, which bears similarities to a New Age religion.
Yeah, but it is Jung's interest in the meaning of symbol and mythos for the psyche which interests me. I place Freud above Jung as a psychologist and theorist; Freud was, in my opinion, one of the ten (and perhaps even of the five, along with Darwin, Einstein, et. al.) most important thinkers of not only the 20th century, but of the entire modern era. However, because of my own personal interest in symbol, myth, and representation, I love Jung more. I did not intend to appear "whiny", though...sorry if my comments made me appear so.
I am not well read in contemporary psychology, but if, as I think, the emphasis is upon behavioral therapy (a relatively quick, cheap "fix" for those who have to live and deal with psych patients, but a travesty...a tragedy for those suffering problems of the mind, in my opinion, as the treatments so classified ignore the roots of thinking disorders) then it is easy to understand why Jung's work is of but tangential interest to contemporary psychologists. I view the primary interests of Jung to be rather more theoretical in nature than those which might be of use in, say, cognitive behavioral therapy. (These comments coming not from a psychologist, now!)
I will read your writing on Quora and elsewhere, gladly! I am sure to learn a bit there.
EDIT:
I just read your Quora reply. I think it quite good; you are obviously well versed in the matter. I can disagree in no substantial point, and I especially like and agree with Tarnas' ideas about the bifurcation of Western intellectual life. Further...in my view, the stark (scientific) materialism underpinning modern thought has demeaned the life of modern man, even while it has helped to render a truer conception of our universe. Now, we know more, but we are less wise, a sentiment in support of which the events in Europe during the Second World War seem eloquently to testify. As a general process, this can be viewed, I think, as an instance of reductionism...as a reduction of all analysis to that which can be materially shown.
The only point of contention that I have is with considering psychology as a science. It is a "social science", but of course, social sciences are not really sciences, are they? (They do not employ the scientific method in any strictly
quantifiable way, are not reducible to mathematical measurements and analysis, and cannot do nor be so, because of their subject matter. In the social sciences, "theory" cannot make the transition into "law", since reliably replicable experimentation is apparently not achievable.) Sigmund Freud, as a psychological theorist, and as important a theorist as he was, was not a "scientist" in the strict sense of the term. As a physicist by training, I am sure that you must agree.