Theories of dreams there are aplenty. Any well-stocked analytical community— uptown Manhattan, Harley Street or Hampstead, Beverly Hills, Zurich — can display wares of all sorts: Freudian, orthodox Freudian, neo-Freudian, modified psychodynamic Freudian, Jungian in various contours and pastels, Gestalt-dramatical, transcendental-mystical, scientific-empirical, ego-behavioral, primal-parapsychological, as well as existential and phenomenological approaches that reach back to the romantics and earlier.
Yet, none I know asks the mythic question; none tries to suggest a theory, and a praxis with it, derived from an archetypal approach to the whole business of dreams. Others have seen myths in dreams and have used myths for amplifying dream motifs. It is, however, another vision altogether to look at dreams as phenomena that emerge from a specific archetypal “place” and that correspond with a distinct mythic geography and then, further, to reflect this underworld in psychological theory.
By connecting psychological theory with mythological theoria (“viewing,” “speculation”), we are essaying a psychology of dreams that tries to keep a sense of underworld always present in our work with them.
— The Dream and the Underworld, ch 1