Jung's writings do often give the impression of importing mysticism into science or of mysticism for its own sake, an impression sustained by some of his critic

Jung's writings do often give the impression of importing mysticism into science or of mysticism for its own sake, an impression sustained by some of his critics, supporters, and this (fairly good) article. However, after reading most of his collected works, the overall thrust of his work seems the opposite -- to grapple deeply with the mystical and have it yield to the conscious, probing tools of analysis (if not quite science). In the Jungian view, myth, folklore, archetypes, scripture, and dreams are common artifacts along the path towards understanding unknown, threatening things. Rigorous analysis (the article overstates this when comparing this to solving quadratic equations) can yield insights into what unknowns an individual, culture, or organization is grappling with and the progress that has been made. Unfortunately, Jung did not lay out this kind of explanation in an accessible or concise manner. Some followers have improved on the situation: http://www.amazon.com/Maps-Meaning-Architecture-Jordan-Peterson/dp/0415922224 http://www.amazon.com/Maps-Meaning-Architecture-Jordan-Peter... Hacking and startups repeatedly put people on the edge of what is known; a hacker's daily trade is in conjecture and hypothesis. When things work well, conjectures can be tested definitively, safely, and in small pieces; therefore the unknown can be conquered routinely. When that is not possible, hypotheses solidify into myth and legend, and progress can still be made. But a startup has to be able to break down and understand those myths over the long run, salvage what is useful, and discard what is not.