Ok so you come from an analytical background, which is fair. But there are other branches of philosophy, and lots of intelligent thinkers have explored the idea of subjective experience as the primary substance of existence.

It goes back to his model of knowledge, which of course is also very Jungian. You have to understand that from this perspective we know very little about the actual facts of being. There is the unknowable void in which consciousness is situated, then there's us, then there's our model of ourselves. From this perspective archetypes and symbols acquire an actual substance of being, because all articulated knowledge first emerges from the chaos in symbolic form.

Again, you may not agree, but I wouldn't just write him off so easily. I don't agree with everything he says, but I think people underestimate him as a thinkers.