I think this type of psychological text is for a very specific type of person and generalizes very poorly to the general populace. It's filled with extremism and bad poetry. As an example; the author says public education is bad (we can all agree on that), but the solution?
"New schools will be needed to teach children how to work with Nature spirits, the nature beings who make our life on Earth possible."
Look at the (lack of) practicality of that statement; it addresses a real problem--pollution--but instead of saying something practical, the author recommends something just as silly as the system currently in place. Why change entire school systems to teach children a simple lesson that their parents should teach them? For example, you could do it the easy way and assume they're intelligent humans: "Hey, this ocean is nice, right? (Yup) Would you throw a lot of trash in before you go swimming? (No!) Why not? (It's gross)." Then explain, "Well, funny thing, people are doing that now and we need to stop it." Lesson learned. Or if they don't listen, randomly empty the trash can in their bath, on their dinner plate, and in their bed. I think they'll get the point in a lesson or two, and all it will cost the parent is re-filling the trash can and perhaps a little extra cleaning. Pretty easy, and doesn't require people be taught about "nature spirits" in school, and reorganizing the entire school system to teach one simple lesson. I'm all for spirits philosophically, I find it interesting, but people are trying to solve real problems, and having feelings toward the problem does not necessitate giving it a spirit. I think emotion is a good thing, but there's a reason people don't solve problems with pure emotion; it doesn't fix anything because it has no hindsight or foresight. Living is the present is great, but even Tibetan Buddhist monks (known for their philosophy of living in the moment) stored food for the winter, and if they don't find anything wrong with acknowledging that reality, I don't see why people who quote them should, either.
Another problem is the oversimplification of complex subject matter; for example, in the book the author says:
"I have suggested that the Abusive Personality is an archetype, in the tradition of Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell. He or she is an anti-hero, the shadow side of the ancient hero myth which is repeated in story and song throughout the ages. Our character, the Abuser, is often as charismatic and intriguing as the hero, but his or her effect on others is the opposite. Where the hero acts to preserve and protect, the anti-hero does the opposite. In personal, financial or political relations, the anti-hero's actions always lead to pain and destruction."
The problem is, this is an extremely black and white view of reality. Think about the results of the Civil War in the United States; the status quo was segregation. Even people in the northern states were sometimes opposed to mixed-race schools (and relationships). They were scared and angered and desperate when people forced racial integration into their schools. So who do you consider the heroes, the preservers of the status quo who wanted to protect their scared constituents, or the people who said "To hell with their comfort; they'll get over it. Other people are suffering as a result of how they see the world." ?? The second group of people are considered the heroes (I think rightly so); protecting equality and preserving basic human rights. The reality is, however, they trampled (for political and their personal moral reasons) the beliefs of the people that wanted segregation. They scared and angered those people. And to this day, no one cares about what those people thought (or some still think). That is the very definition the author gave of an anti-hero. They destroyed the status quo for their personal moral beliefs. Does that make them abusers? I don't think so, but I realize that is my opinion based on my expectations and my experience. I did not like that subjective reality and the individual were treated in so ill a manner in this book; it does a huge disservice to people in general, and misses several key points in collectivist philosophy. Let me give you another example from the text:
"[...]the fulfillment which comes from being of service to others, selflessly, without need for reward or ego satisfaction, taps into our sense of creativity and belonging. This is the cure for self-hatred."
This statement is paradoxical and does not take several principles into account. How can a person help someone if they themselves do not have the skill necessary to help? You can watch YouTube videos of people who live in third world countries and they say that they appreciate people wanting to come help them, but they also say that a lot of people are actually a hindrance or are useless because they are not taking advantage of their individual skill. As an example, take someone that is wanting to help during relief efforts after a large natural disaster. If they know nothing about building, about rescuing people buried alive, rebuilding infrastructure, or some other useful thing, all they can possibly do is take a job away from anyone else there (and then they'll have nothing to do). Everyone knows how to do "nothing jobs." People who are trying to help often do not feel happy in those situations, upon realizing how actually useless they are in that situation. However, when they get home, they are able to make use of their skills as financiers, money-raisers and goods-suppliers. That service helps a lot when given to the right people. That is a >personal< skill they were able to use, one that provided ego satisfaction; they got to help people by using their situation, time and effort in a personal way.
I recall an interview with the Dalai Lama where he discussed Buddhist ideology in regard to helping people that are suffering. Buddhist belief, according to the Dalai Lama (sounds like an expert to me), states that a person should not become overwhelmed by emotion, because feeling bad for someone will not help them fix their real problems. Jung's work seems to reflect that attitude as well, especially his self-experimentation and self-analysis that took place during the writing of his "Red Book," which is an extremely interesting and insightful view into the man that's still prevalent in modern analytical psychology. His interest in defining "the self" and being able to relate his inner mechanisms to those of the rest of society is much more realistic than denying ego satisfaction is a reliable means of self-therapy. Denial is a horrible long-term therapeutic model (though a great coping mechanism). Even European Stoic philosophy (that heavily influenced Eastern religious philosophy when it was introduced to Europe) is successfully used in cognitive behavior therapy (and was what inspired it to begin with), and the entire philosophy bleeds of self-control, self-improvement, recognizing and handling outside influence, and basically developing a stronger sense of self. None of that resonates with the idea of denying the need for ego satisfaction.
I hate giving this book such a low rating; the writing is not bad and I enjoyed that aspect of the book. I simply dislike the thought put into it; its applicability and usefulness are next to nil in a real situation, and it seems based on an ill-conceived ideology rather than proven methods of self-therapy (other than placebo effect-based psychotherapy, perhaps).
I would recommend:
The Black Sun: The Alchemy and Art of Darkness by Dr. Marlan Stanton as a better alternative. It's a more difficult read, but much more interesting and useful.