I have discussed the overt resemblances between Gilles Deleuze’s philosophy and James Hillman’s archetypal psychology a number of times on this blog. For example here and here.
As far as I know neither Deleuze nor Hillman read the other.
Deleuze certainly read Jung, more than he later let on.
All three (Deleuze, Hillman, Jung) have in common a profound influence from Nietzsche.
So I think any similarities between the two are the result of convergent evolution rather than of influence one way or the other. Both shared an engagement in pluralism, and came to similar conclusions in extrapolating Jung’s own pluralism.
Most non-Jungian-inspired critics who discuss Jung have in mind the Jung of SYMBOLS OF TRANSFORMATION.
Jung himself clearly criticised and revised the paradigm contained in this book at least twice:
1) after his RED BOOK experience
2) after his encounter with alchemy.
We know that Hillman went through analysis and then rejected major elements of that experience in favour of a different model.
Deleuze is more discreet about his experience, but he came to reject the Freudo-Lacanian psychoanalytic model in favour of the schizoanalytic meta-model.
In both cases their final positions were convergent with Jung’s final position expressed in his alchemical works.
AGENT SWARM 
Interested to hear more on this! I don’t know Jung’s ‘final position’…..I am curious as to how all these positions might sit in relation to the esoteric tradition that claims the existence of ‘higher being bodies’ – such as astral etc….a ‘materialism’ a la Gurdjieff…..all concepts and theories are secondary to this???? ‘le travail’ – the work
J’aimeJ’aime
just one realm for Jung, something akin to Whitehead or other panpsychists, where Freud had a kind of pragmatist sublimation the later Jung was more into sublation…
« Sublimation is not a voluntary and the forcible channeling of instinct into a spurious field of application [as Freud states], but an alchemical transformation for which fire and the black materia prima are needed. Sublimatio is a great mystery. Freud has appropriated this concept and usurped it for the sphere of the will, and the bourgeois, rationalistic theos. » [C.G. Jung, Letters, I:171]
J’aimeJ’aime
Ping : BIBLIOGRAPHY OF MY WRITINGS (10): Deleuze and Jung (and Hillman) | AGENT SWARM