[This continues an earlier line of thought. Start here.]
Unfortunately, the formulation “incessant circling” which I used to characterize Jung’s writing can be interpreted in multiple different ways. So let’s clarify.

What I don’t mean, when I refer to Jung’s circling, are those many (and extensive) passages of “amplification” which we find in some of his works, especially the later ones. Instead, I want to keep strictly to passages where Jung outlines his principal ideas, such as the collective unconscious, the “I” and the shadow, persona and anima, and so on.
The contrast is clearest in Aion. The book starts with one of the passages I have in mind: four chapters of exposition (§§ 1-67), which are even entitled “Das Ich”, “Der Schatten”, “Die Syzygie”, and “Das Selbst”, referring to the notions of Ego, Shadow, Anima/Animus, and Self, respectively (the collective unconscious is introduced at the end of the first chapter, too). Then again, the final chapter (“Schlußwort”, §§ 422-429), is a similar walk through much the same sequence, now enriched with some perspectives as a result of what, presumably, came out of the main body of the book. Twice, then, Jung gives us a presentation of his principal ideas and their interconnections here. But sandwiched between these presentations are chapters V-XIV, mostly made up of long chains of loosely connected (loosely means: just by association and similarity, and by way of the apropos) exhibits of symbolism ranging from the Christian via the Alchemistic towards the Gnostic, not to speak of various sidetracks. The chapters bear headlines, but often enough the current of text merely takes these as a starting point, and then ventures afar, never returning to a cohesive focus — even within a single chapter. The theory, of course, was that such “amplification” demonstrates patterns in the symbolic strata of the psyche, as expressed over twenty centuries, and quite obviously Jung was convinced that these would be evident just by themselves, once presented in this manner. (This is obvious from his many frustrated complaints about critics, who, on the contrary, often didn’t find them evident at all just from these passages.)
Now, it might seem natural to characterize those latter (“amplification”) passages as “incessant circling”. They are not, however, what I have in mind. In fact, when I’m recommending a new reading of Jung’s work, a reading which takes us away from how much of the tradition itself has approached it, I’d suggest to mostly leave those “amplification” passages out of it. They’re simply too unstructured and arbitrary to be helpful. (At least initially; perhaps they’ll come in somewhat useful at a later stage, with the principal ideas cleared up, in order to supply detail.) In this I depart, quite obviously, from the tradition, which has often seen the core of Jungian insight represented by those very text portions — and occasionally even embraced this style of just heaping meandering thought and rampant detail onto the reader. In the words of Hillman, Jung ’s writing here approximates (RVP 215) that of Renaissance “philosophy”, in that it
follows a wandering course. If this style is repetitious it is because the way of the soul, according to Plotinus, is the way of the circle. (RVP 213)
Hillman, of course, proposed to make this the style of choice for his re-visioned psychology, whereas my suggestion is to better ignore (or, if fruitful, reformulate) it.
In part, that is because of methodological considerations: “amplification”, to put it bluntly, is not a method; frequently enough, it is little more than an excuse to indulge in a museum mentality. In part, too, it is because of the sheer subjectivity of choice: for contrary to what Jung seems to have supposed, there is generally no agreement between multiple readers of the same “symbolism” exhibits as to how they should be interpreted. Interpretation is not the same as following a method; making it appear so is misleading at best.
So when I refer to Jung’s incessant circling, I’m not talking about these passages, such as the middle portion of Aion. I’m talking about passages such as chapters I-IV, and then again the end chapter of Aion. And here, the meaning of circling is somewhat different.
Each of these passages run us (roughly) through the same sequence of concepts. These Jung explicates, again and again. But there are subtle differences between these runs. And that’s what makes it interesting: they repeat, but variate. Why?
It is of course possible that these variations have simple explanations: they could reflect shifting interests in Jung himself, who may have focused on different aspects; they might also have to do with the changing audiences, especially if we compare, say, a public lecture Jung held for a general audience with a monograph directed at co-professionals.
But I think there’s more to it than that. My working hypothesis is that these variations have deeper roots, that they expose a fundamental rift in the conceptual structure of Jung’s Gedankengebäude. The reason why he returned over and over to the same line of thought and attempted to reformulate it somewhat differently has to do with this fault line. Jung was experimenting with different ways of approaching it, and working through it.
This effect, however, is difficult to recognize. Partly, that is because it is overlayed with other factors, such as those I have already mentioned: Jung’s interest would have changed over time, and his work addressed a range of different audiences. Partly, too, it is because it shows itself only when we directly compare a number of (rather extensive) text passages and work out the commonalities and differences in their respective presentation of Jung’s principal ideas and their interconnections — which in themselves are a system of ideas of substantial complexity. And all this is compounded by the fact that, of course, Jung (being human) will have made some mistakes and bad choices, and by the inescapable differences that come with us (today) reading works from about a century ago: historical backgrounds, obviously, also change. (Psychology, in particular, has developed rapidly and mostly in different directions from those pursued by Jung himself, and many of the references he makes to scientific methodology must be criticized in the light of insights from the philosophy of science in the second half of the 20th century — something Jung himself, obviously, could not yet have done at the time.)
Thus to demonstrate that the working hypothesis is accurate, we’d have to compare a lot of text, and many details. We’d need to trace the line of thought, note differences in the presentation, correct for other influences (all those I have listed above), and then, hopefully, we’ll be able to identify the underlying root problem that generates the fault line.
Correcting for the differences can be done, in part, by obvious and simple means: where possible, prioritize comparisons between texts from the same time period, and texts directed at similar audiences. These might not always show the same structure, and expose the fault line in the same way, but they will certainly help eliminating the less relevant factors. Tracing the differences and commonalities in a line of thought, however, is a challenging task. After all, what we’re comparing are complex ideas, their interdependencies, and dynamic interactions.
And yet the textual work is only a preliminary. The most interesting question is whether, once the fault line is identified, we can restructure the whole system of ideas in a better way (which no longer runs into the same problem). That, of course, was what was drove Jung’s circling, too. So we cannot expect simply to do another run through Jung’s principal ideas, with merely slight adjustments — and be successful with it. It’s more likely that we’d have to seriously reformulate, and possibly drop one or two of the main ideas (perhaps introduce some new ones, too).
[will be continued]