I never was one for Freud (who seems to have interpreted almost everything in terms of libido and the death drive) but Jung doesn't have a profound attraction for me either, maybe because they're both into dream analysis and I don't believe that symbols are universal. I somehow doubt that the collective unconscious exists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_unconscious as an innate inherited archaic primordial species-specific unconscious independent of the personal unconscious. 

The meaning of dreams, in my opinion, is best figured out from the dreamer's personal point of view. A butterfly, in my own world view/schemata, doesn't necessarily represent the soul, although I can see that it could represent a psychological metamorphosis or maturity, for example when a caterpillar turns into a butterfly.  As George Lakoff says, the personal unconscious seems to think in metaphors. http://georgelakoff.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/metaphor-the-language-of...

All the same, I immensely enjoyed reading Freud's Moses and Monotheism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_and_Monotheism  (as an interesting hypothesis for the origin of his ancestral religion) and can be interested in Jung's archetypes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archetype , such as the hero, the sage, the trickster, the shadow (The Shadow by Hans Christian Andersen comes to mind,) etc., given my penchant for mythology, folktale, fairytale and other forms of narratives that can be constructed/deconstructed in terms of archetypes.  In this regard, Vladimir Propp's approach to narratology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Propp also interests me.

I also like the idea of turning archeytpes/stereotypes upside down and seeing things from different perspectives as in Bakhtin's topsy-turvy notion of the carnivalesque. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivalesque  (One example of topsy-turvy that comes to mind is  Mademoiselle Jaïre (1934) a play by Michel de Ghelderode.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_de_Ghelderode )

I can also be interested in what Jungians have to say about the academia, where Freud seems to be far more popular than Jung. (See the article If the University Won't Have Jungians, Then How Might Jungians Have the University? )