Hello John, thank you for trying to start up a "more serious" exchange. I am not certain if online chats can facilitate well such explorations, so I tend not to join in. However, here are my two pennies worth, on this occasion...

I do think that there will be a radically different dimension opening up in psychology, psychotherapy, etc. once we begin to incorporate (literally 'embody') K's material. I am working on a book at the moment, in which I argue that K's discoveries (and David Bohm's contributions, etc.) in fact enable a new model of individuality, including a new theory of relationship, etc.

But here's a little extract from the book which might be relevant (if still relatively introductory):

"The influence of unknown factors on the human mind has been recognised for a long time, and human beings have circled this issue of not knowing exactly how consciousness “works” for just as long. Naturally, we have invented various explanations, from the notion of gods and destiny, to the theory of the "unconscious" mind, and so on. In fact, it was only relatively recently, at the beginning of the twentieth century, that various people seriously developed the notion that these unknown factors were located inside the mind, in an unconscious, subterranean realm of our minds.

Sigmund Freud, the "father" of psychoanalysis, argued that it was a certain set of early individual experiences of one’s life that was responsible for shaping this concealed, hidden aspect of the mind, embedding patterns that would likely remain for the course of a lifetime. Freud put a great deal of emphasis on the idea that much of the activity of the mind goes on in the absence of consciousness. He also argued that bringing “up” to conscious awareness, as it were, thoughts which were unconscious because we had repressed them, would enable us to cope better in life, making us more rational.

The swiss psychiatrist, Carl Jung — who for some time collaborated with Freud — came to approach this supposed unconscious realm somewhat differently. Jung suggested, for example, that the shaping of this subterranean aspect of the mind wasn’t an individual affair, but rather was a process that had begun long ago in history, and accompanied the evolution of mankind as a whole. Thus Jung came to develop notions such as ‘archetypes’ — universal, innate prototypes or forms that channel experiences and emotions — or ‘the collective unconscious’ — a collective reservoir of all the experiences of all members of a particular species — and so on.

The division of the mind into conscious and unconscious realms was likely born out of the recognition of our lack of direct awareness of what is actually going on inside our minds, in our consciousness. But this division has raised more questions that it could answer. For example, the obvious problem of the relationship of these two — the conscious mind and the unconscious — seems like a good example of a problem we have thrown at ourselves: By assuming (even believing) that there is a real division in our mind, we are left with the problem of the right and wrong methodology, approach, technique, etc. of finding a connection, of bridging the gap, of assimilating the two into a whole.

Of course, not everybody has accepted this division: Krishnamurti — a contemporary of both Freud and Jung — categorically denied that a division of consciousness into conscious and unconscious halves had any validity, or ground, at all. Instead, Krishnamurti consistently and repeatedly emphasised that behind the seemingly hidden and not so hidden aspects of the mind, was one, undivided movement — the movement of thought."

You can find out more about the book here. As above I am somewhat skeptical of forums / chats as avenues of exploration, so apologies both for the length of this "reply", and also for likely not engaging more here in the future. Which isn't to say that I definitely won't. Ok, thanks again :)