Reddit reviews Jung and the Post-Jungians

No, not outdated, only misunderstood by contemporary psychology so relegated to a backwater presently, to varying degrees depending on context and paradigm.

Jung can't really be outdated because he's dealing with mythic and psychic structures, strata that persist and insist, symbolic languages and forms, that have transhistorical, transpersonal implications even if operating through time, nature and civilisation, that is in terms of the archetypes in particular and alchemy as a psychological, transformational process associated with individuation. This is dealing with layers of organisation of human consciousness as experienced, and its unfolding processes teleologically. Inclusive to this is a religiospiritual dimension and function to his work that society and psychology at large hasn't even come to yet, re-turned to, so it hasn't even come into popular consciousness or regions of contemporary perceived relevance in research, scientific or academic theory enough to become outdated (albeit there is some evidence of this in regions of academic research and production, ie., growing interest and publication concerning Hermeticism, esotericism, gnosticism, alchemy, etc).

Dream work and active imagination, imagery based, are very now focused as much as 'forward' oriented in a creative, emergent sense.

Only some aspects of his work needs revision with growing understanding, such as outmoded cultural attitudes refracted through his theory, while others stand the test of time and developmental necessity.

As far as complexes go experience can determine their relevancy for you or not. This can be a useful concept for understanding subjective regions of experience and response. If something conceptual and methodological is useful and illuminates regions of perception and awareness that were obscured and somewhat mysterious previously could that be considered true and presently relevant? Consideration of how the unconscious influences our present isn't a 'blaming' on the past but a very real, proximal awareness of how the past folds into the present irrespective of linear time and sequential developmental process, and how much more influence what is unconscious to our sense of self retains, regardless of cognitive oriented paradigms and methodologies (though distinctions can be made in some regions between the concept of the cognitive unconscious and Jungian theories of the Collective Unconscious and its contents).

In terms of empirical, neural and cognitive science, it isn't yet clear in a straight-forward manner how these interrelate causally or interactively with Jungian psychology and concepts (or at least, it isn't clear to me), but in terms of phenomena and broader processes in nature and psyche that are operative and apparent it is as if a light switch has been thrown on in a darkened room or rooms of a living, evolving organic house I had difficulty navigating or seeing with any clarity previously.

The thing with Jung's ideas is you have to apply them, bring them to life in your own lived experience, otherwise the concepts can in some cases appear ungrounded in anything 'real'. That is the proof whether they are accurate and relevant or not.

A couple of books I can think of that might clarify some of this for you are Andrew Samuels Jung and The Post-Jungians, and a more recent text penned by a psychiatrist approaching Jungian terrain from a neuroscientific point of view, The Neurobiology of the Gods