Jungs private work Liber Novus ("The New Book") or known as red book, was a manuscript he worked on that wasn't relased till 2009.
The text is interesting both in its style and the nature of its content. It aligns perfectly with what is known as Revelations in the New Testament.
Revelations actually makes no sense read as a map of the territory. We can read that purely scientia or deductively as a map, and as such come away assuming its total nonsense. As a map it most certainly is. The interesting aspect to revelations is it knows this.
At the end of revelations there is an easily skipped over thus invisible statement written. It says "do not add a word nor take away a word from what is written.. If we see through the lens of mapping or scientia we will automatically try to interpret (i believe,i dont believe, i am agnostic) the text is a map and that nonsense is a singular. All three agree we start with a map, and the map determines the territory. False. In the old testament thats treated as sin. Never mind what nonsense that orthodoxy says since its deductive by its nature.
The text is in actuality identical to jungs red book that book is not a map of the territory, but an experience of the territory. Its expressed sapientia not scientia. Where experience is primary, and mapping, or (belief, non belief agnosticism) is nonsense as being primary. If i ask what comes first the music written down or the music experienced, a musician knows how that is. Music is much much much older than writing. But (i believe, i dont believe, i am agnostic) has that reality inverted deductively.
Mental hospitals are filled with individuals mapping what they are experiencing. (i believe, i dont believe, i am agnostic) while scientia will automatically look at what is believed, what is not believed, what is agnostic first, jung and others are looking noy at the statements but the underlying process itself. Jung was clear and difficult to understand. Mystics swim where the insane drown. That ocean is the territory no mapping of it is it. To believe so is what kant called transcendental illusion.