David Ray Griffin (ed.), The Archetypal Process: Self and Divine in Whitehead, Jung, and Hillman. This is probably the single best book for exactly your question. Northwestern University Press describes it explicitly as a study connecting Whitehead/Hartshorne process philosophy with Jung/Hillman archetypal psychology. Particularly relevant are Chapter 2, “Jung and Whitehead on Self and Divine,” and Chapter 6, “Eternal Objects and Archetypes.”

The latter comparison is especially useful because it asks whether Jungian archetypes can be understood alongside Whiteheadian eternal objects—patterns or possibilities that enter concrete becoming. The Internet Archive also has a borrowable/library copy listed.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5893738&forum_id=2...id.#50071618)

| ------------------------------------------------ | ----------------------: | --------: |

| Jung and Whitehead generally | moderate | ★★☆☆☆ |

| Archetypes ↔ eternal objects | comparatively developed | ★★☆☆☆ |

| Jung/Whitehead on creativity/individuation | some direct work | ★★★☆☆ |

| Whitehead + transpersonal psychology | established niche | ★★★☆☆ |

| **Psychoid ↔ Whiteheadian ontology** | sparse | **★★★★★** |

| **Unus mundus vs process ontology** | sparse | **★★★★★** |

| **Synchronicity + prehension/causal efficacy** | very sparse | **★★★★★** |

| **Jung/Pauli + Whitehead + contemporary monism** | scattered/adjacent | **★★★★★** |

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5893738&forum_id=2...id.#50071622)

For example, in feeling an injured part of my body, I feel it by sharing its pain. Whitehead in fact called this kind of perception or feeling a “conformal” feeling, because the subject’s feelings are conformed to the feelings transmitted by the objects felt.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5893738&forum_id=2...id.#50071807)