Jung - c or d

Jung was trendy where I went to college back in the 70s. My sense of him, now that I have some decades between me and reading anything he wrote, is that he was valuable mainly for reviving the study of symbolism as an intellectually valid subject.

He's kind of like William Blake, in that he was both seminal and hard to distinguish from a lunatic.

"The Gentiles do not have the Law; but whenever they do by instinct what the Law commands, they are their own law, even though they do not have the Law. Their conduct shows that what the Law commands is written in their hearts. Their consciences also show that this is true, since their thoughts sometimes accuse them and sometimes defend them."

Romans 2. Compare:

"The Collective Unconscious... is universal. It cannot be built up like one's personal unconscious is; rather, it predates the individual. It is the repositary of all the religious, spiritual, and mythological symbols and experiences."

I listened to an episode of “this jungian life” about the origins of self-loathing and found it thrilling. Characterizing psychic drives as, like, sub-personalities that you can personify and engage with at that level, like a dis-identified level, seemed like an intuitive way to think about the mind. Anyone here ever undergo Jungian analysis?