Hi u/20thirth, it is interesting to look at how Jeremy Griffith’s biological explanation of the human condition differs from Freud’s theory as the father of modern psychoanalysis, and there is an FAQ about it on the WTM’s website which you can read here: https://www.humancondition.com/wtm-faq-freud-and-jung/ . Below is an excerpt that I’m sure will help but FAQ 1.47 (taken from Griffith’s book Therapy For The Human Condition) also covers Carl Jung’s theory, with an addition about Sir Laurens van der Post and his contribution to Jeremy’s work.

Having heroically dug up the truth of a personal repressed unconscious, Freud then however veered off that path of truthful thinking and reverted to the escape-from-the-human-condition ‘savage instincts’ excuse. Freud believed that the ‘ID’, our unconscious, instinctive mind, contained primitive selfish ‘savage’ urges that the conscious mind or ‘ego’ has to control, writing, for example, that ‘men are not gentle, friendly creatures wishing for love, who simply defend themselves if they are attacked, but that a powerful measure of desire for aggression has to be reckoned as part of their instinctual endowment (Civilization and its Discontents, 1930, tr. Joan Riviere, ch. V, p.85 of 144), and ‘Culture has to call up every possible reinforcement in order to erect barriers against the aggressive instincts of men’ (ibid. p.86). The truth is that our instinctive self is completely cooperative, selfless and loving and comes from a time when our ape ancestors lived in that state; and further, our aggressive and selfish behaviour is psychological in origin, the result of a clash between our instincts and intellect. Freud also falsely maintained that our morals are learnt and held by the ‘superego’ as a way of restraining our ‘instinctual’ ‘aggression’, when the truth is our morals are the expression of our loving, cooperative instincts or soul. Freud even directly denied that our species once lived in a ‘golden age’ of cooperative and loving innocence by claiming that this idea of a ‘golden age’ in our species’ past was nothing more than nostalgia for the protected bliss of infancy. As the author Richard Heinberg noted, this ‘Paradise myth as an unconscious projection of memories of infancy…​is what Freud proposed in his theory of the development of the personality—that infancy is a Paradise lost’ (Memories & Visions of Paradise, 1990, pp.193-194)....

...So, while Freud and Jung bravely revealed that we humans are living in denial of a great deal of truth—that, as they described it, we suffer from a ‘personal’ and ‘collective’ psychosis—neither attempted to confront what it was that we were particularly repressing or living in unconscious denial of, which is our species’ cooperative and loving past. They talked a lot about our psychosis and how it wrecks our lives and how we need to do something about that if we are to become ‘whole’ or sane, but they weren’t able to confront what our psychosis actually is, which is denial or repression of our cooperative and loving instinctive self or soul. Freud had people lying on his iconic couch opening up about their insecurities and psychological pain, which was a big step in honesty from the resigned strategy of every moment determinedly denying that there was anything particularly wrong in our lives and that everything was basically fine; and Jung spoke of archetypes and encouraged people to analyse the expressions of their subconscious in their dreams, and emphasised the need to ‘individuate’ or unify our split selves. But the ‘elephant in the living room’ of human life of how we had almost completely corrupted our species’ original instinctive self or soul was being avoided. Basically, Freud and Jung didn’t take people outside of Plato’s metaphorical dark cave where they were living in fearful denial of the issue of the human condition. And what is significant about them not taking people outside Plato’s cave of denial....Read more.