Are Myths Valuable?

[DLJ]

...
Jung thought that by examining ancient myths, one may find profound truths concerning the "inner reality" of the human psyche. Do you agree with Jung here?
...

Nope. Because Jung did not understand what human psyche actually consists of.

However, he was on to something, kinda, from an anthropological perspective, in that moral events (from which lessons can be learned) have three sources (which brain chemistry will not distinguish between):
1. Current sense data
1.1 Physical
1.2 Logical
2. Stored sense data

Examples:
1.1 Observation of a live event e.g. seeing someone being attacked (or hearing it).
1.2 Observation of a fictional event e.g. in a movie, play or book.
2. Feelings of guilt over e.g. not protecting someone being bullied at school.

Note that the latter may surface years after the event and may be misremembered or indeed may be a false memory.
Note also that second-hand live events, e.g. watching the news, could be included in 1.1 or 1.2 (depending on whether it's fake news or not) but human psyche, at the physical layer, initially does not care... it's just stimulus.

Myths would be in 1.2. i.e. 'the moral of the story'. But they would only be of use as thinking tools if they are relevant to a current situation. This is why one can read a story many times over many years and draw out (notice / will be alerted to) different morals at different times (or none at all). They need a baseline for comparison.

So, yes, myths are valuable and truth (source/reputation) is irrelevant.

One can get as much if not more moral stimulus from reading A Song of Ice and Fire as one can from reading a history of The War of The Roses.

Did we require Jung's ideas to get to modern Information Governance Theory? Not so much.