Dear Jason,
First of all, thank you for your kind words about my essay. They were appreciated.
I haven't read anything by Jung, although I did mean to once. I found his notion of archetypes intriguing. Indeed, I think I read once, somewhere, that the myth of Prometheus, was also a story about the awakening consciousness of man. However, perhaps because I am older (but not necessarily wiser), I'm more apt to return to my own religious roots and read the sacred texts, as they were originally intended, as a gateway into a more numinous realm; although, admittedly, with my scientific training, and the kind of secular world we live in now, that is not always easy.
I also appreciate your honesty in your assessment of the progress you have made on creating the kind of language you are hoping for. I think this is often true for any task that is worth the trouble of doing well. Often it is one step forward, two steps back, and then a third step sideways.
I think this is the same task that Liebniz embarked on. So you have illustrious predeccessors. My own take on this, is that modern scientific language is the language in which to express such objective propositions about the world. Nevertheless, because we are human, because we are many, and thinking is diverse and plural, such a language is likely never to be uniform. My own experience of mathematical language, which many people take to be uniform, I find is often shot through with many discontinuities, and I so often wished that people would stick to a uniform notation!
Warm wishes,
Mozibur Ullah