Excerpt From Archetypes in Context

Qualifications of Archetypes

Archetypes can be described in a number of ways, but it is far harder to define them. Most simple attempts at defining the concept of the archetype are somewhat nebulous, few are comprehensive, and even more so, may perhaps be too broad. It is apropos that should be the case because archetypes are to be found somewhere in the space between the psyche (conscious and unconscious) and matter; hence, it is better to qualify them instead. The raw material of any archetype is energetic, informational, ideational, and conceptual.

It seems to me that it is all too easy and too commonplace for those in this field to let our qualification of what is archetypal get away from us and name everything as archetypal, such as the archetype of the doorknob, the archetype of tile, the archetype of candy, the archetype of the toilet bowl and so on. There is truth in that every manifest thing belongs in some way to an archetypal field, but putting that in perspective is of great importance to advancing clarity in our discipline. We must first define or, better yet, qualify what archetypes are and what archetypal patterns versus what is “archetypal” (meaning — having some relation to an archetype or having qualities or flavors of an archetype) and recognize the importance of delineation of the three concepts.

So, lest we make the mistake of calling everything an archetype, it would do us good service to define the qualifications of archetypes and differentiate the archetype itself from the dynamical system or form that expresses it or which it drives. This is because there is not one system, pattern, or form for any particular archetype but a myriad of potential expressions. It is also suggestive that there are perhaps different classes of archetypes, and we should explore that avenue of inquiry in our attempt to qualify archetypes. Let’s first begin with the qualifications for an archetype.

In its most basic occurrence, an archetype is a qualitative model of nucleic essence, i.e., the nucleus of a complex or constellation or the hidden force behind it. Whereas, an archetypal pattern is a uniquely charged complex of information superimposed upon a field that eventually becomes entrained in nature. They are unique in that an archetype charges them. Much like the universe itself, which is superimposed upon the akasha (the screen upon which all is imprinted) – ideas, information, and imagination and their energetic expressions arise before any observable physical manifestation and are imprinted upon a field, much like astamp on paper. Consider for a moment how the semi-translucent images on a film emulsion (think of them as an idea), which blocks the purity of a beam of light, superimposes images on the silverscreen. This movie screen is a field; the emulsion that obstructs the light is the ideation of the creator and appears as matter, as do all subsequent sub-creations, such as the actors. In this case, the screenwriter or filmmaker/s is the creator, the flow of ideas and the juxtaposition and interaction of their qualities creates the drama and action on the screen, and the light is the agency of the unchanging source – the creator itself as the illuminating quality of awareness.

If archetypes are, in fact, building blocks of our “world” or our “reality,” we must ask ourselves, “With which archetypes do we wish to concern ourselves?” The vast majority of people involved in considering archetypes come from the profession of psychology, and hence, the majority of the conversation is about how archetypes affect the psyche and personality, focusing mainly on how archetypes affect individuals, their expressive effect, and their relationships to others and the world around them. Yet archetypes also affect material expressions and creations; in fact, they drive the processes that manipulate matter of all sorts through cosmogony, ordinary existence, and eschaton. Hence, the question of which archetypes matter most is not so simple, for “matter affects the psyche and psyche effects matter,” and the inverse is also true. Again, here we find a contradiction in concurrent operation, and it must complicate our discussion if we are to be real about it.

What type of systems are archetypal patterns? Archetypes are elemental, and individually, their patterns are of the “weak emergent” type, meaning they contain an essential stability in identifiable constituent parts; yet their dynamic interaction with other archetypes and systems creates a “strong emergence” that is holistic and greater than the sum of its parts. The result of such a new blend of systems is not quite predictable; it is instead a source of novelty in emergent systems in nature, mind, and behavior.