What Hillman and other are saying is that psyche is larger than psychology - and so too are dreams. Yes, there are innumerable debts and long traditions and a whole host of clinical practices that involve dreams, but they are not only the province of psychology. Since 1953 and the first REM experiments, the scientific community has know this. Even around Freud's time there were a host of natural scientists observing and studying dreams outside their clinical uses. Many famous writers have drawn upon dreams not for psychological insight, but for inspiration in writing.
Artists have always know the value of dreams for inspiration.
The Surrealist took dreams beyond the psychological and aesthetic into the political, showing how dreams can be used to move us past repressive habits into the marvelous. Lucid dreamers and extraordinary dreamers, group dreamers and dream flyers enjoy dreams for the sake of the experience itself. None of this is meant as evidence that the dream is or isn't dangerous. It is a statement saying that the dream is not owned by psychology and psychologists, nor by clinicians or the board of behavioral sciences. I haven't yet been able to understand the arguments that dreams in and of themselves are simply too psychologically toxic, too revealing, to apt to cause major psychological damage in and of themselves.