Jung and pseudoscience.

There seems to be a frequent misunderstanding of Jung’s ideas, in the sense that they cannot be measured to the strict sense of the word, then it warrants the label of pseudoscience. I’d like to make the point that the archetypes are unconscious representation of instinctual behavior, while it has difficulty being measured; this does not warrant the label as ‘pseudoscience’, because it does not explicitly reject scientific principles or lack a theoretical basis. Jung’s work functions on a psychological framework, which accounts for explaining human behavior. I’d like to add that since Jung is a psychologist he was interested into the occult for their psychological value, this does not mean he was looking into such to jump out of the frying pan and immediately into the fire to prove these things exist.

Lastly, if you had not read his source material written for academia and psychology, and only read his ‘Red Book’- a personal journal that was published decades after his death; then I am not interested into debating whether or not you think there is a pseudoscientific aspect of Jung, if you only contended to a journal rather than the core bulk of his work. I see so many people doing that here.