If one goes with the makeshift distinction proposed in the previous post in this series between the noetic Jung and the empirical Jung, it is not in order to diminish his achievement.
If we seek the noetic Jung it is there in his books and correspondence, and we are faced with the problem of the interpretation of his oeuvre.
If on the other hand we are looking for the empirical Jung, we are confronted as well with the problem of the hagiography surrounding the various biographical recollections, testimony, and studies that are available.
A dissenting, and controversial, glimpse of the empirical Jung is provided by Richard Noll in his two books THE JUNG CULT and THE ARYAN CHRIST: THE SECRET LIFE OF CARL JUNG.
If there is a cult around Jung, and one only has to dip one’s nose into the Jungian literature to see that there is, then it needs to be denounced and deconstructed.
The hegemonic understanding of Jung up to now has been spiritualist and metaphysical, and those who broke from that view were obliged to propose new ideas and new ways of thought within the Jungian universe, they were creative, as Jung demanded that we be.
I am thinking here of post-Jungian thinkers and analysts such as James Hillman and Wolfgang Giegerich, who have proposed new and fruitful interpretations, visions and perspectives.