Structure of the Archetypes

[JustLikeYou]

Interestingly, archetypes being outside of space or time, do not have any inherent structure.

I don't buy this claim. The first measure by which each Logos gives structure to its creation is the selection of an archetypal system. We all know the quotation from Ra, of course: "The archetypical mind, when penetrated lucidly, is a blueprint of the builded structure of all energy expenditures and all seeking, without distortion" (91.37). If we were to split hairs about this quotation, it can be interpreted either way. However, I think that the side which weighs heavier in the scales is the interpretation that the "builded structure of all energy expenditures and all seeking" refers to the structure of the archetypes themselves as fashioned by the Logos; whereas, the verbiage which immediately precedes and immediately follows this clause refers to the unique perspective that each seeker will have. But we don't need to rely on conflicting interpretations in order to resolve this issue.

The fact that each seeker will have a different perspective of the structure of the archetypes does not thereby entail that the archetypes do not have inherent structure. Rather, it suggests that this inherent structure has more dimensions than a human mind is capable of fathoming. There are an infinite number of possible two-dimensional images of a three-dimensional object. Yet the structure of the three-dimensional object is fixed. If, by analogy, our minds can only perceive a subset of the dimensions along which the archetypal mind exists, then it stands to reason that each of us will have a different image of its structure, though none of us will have the entire picture.

Moreover, structure itself is not limited to the confines of space and time. The octaval shape of creation also supercedes space and time, and yet this cannot be said to be anything but a structure imposed upon the creation itself. I can anticipate that you may choose to argue this point, but such a discussion would become a question of the meaning of the word "structure" more than anything else.

That said, I agree with all of this:

All structure (and properties) emerge and are presented to consciousness according to individual disposition. We meet that aspect of the archetypal mind due to an affinity which is unconscious. From that meeting, we derive meaning and structure.

The point here is that although we may not have access to an objective perspective, this lack of access does not thereby prevent an objective state of affairs from obtaining. Or, in well known logical terms: the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

Jivatman:

Will you motivate your association of the Death archetype with the Male polarity? I would use the same associations as you if it weren't for the fact that if I have to choose a gender, Female is the only one that seems to fit Death. Similarly, I cannot conceive of the Chariot archetype as being more Female than Male. My current resolution to this conundrum is to cease attempting to associate firm gender polarities with the Transformation and Great Way archetypes and to look, instead, for a complimentary complex of gender associations. I'd like a tidier resolution, though.