Just found this table which I thought was quite well done, could be a useful tool for any interested. Has been very good at honing my understanding of the different influences in each major archetype.
http://mrob.com/pub/std/archetypes.html
Quote:Human beings undergo a maturation process that leads from prototypical human behavior during early childhood to fully powerful manifestations as mature adults. The mature adult character can be viewed as manifesting itself as a combination of archetypes. Each archetype represents certain attributes of temperament, character, and behavior. In the systems I use, there are five primordial dimensions (described in more detail on the primordial archetypes page) that combine to form the 48 numbered elements in the table.
A good start, but suggests an awful lot of unresearched material with rather vague apprehensions. Goes off onto suspicious tangents (gender roles, manipulation) as if placing particular focus on the author's personal issues he was trying to learn about.
(05-05-2013, 09:49 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]A good start, but suggests an awful lot of unresearched material with rather vague apprehensions. Goes off onto suspicious tangents (gender roles, manipulation) as if placing particular focus on the author's personal issues he was trying to learn about.
Have you come across anything similar to this ?
zenmaster Wrote:Goes off onto suspicious tangents (gender roles, manipulation) as if placing particular focus on the author's personal issues he was trying to learn about.
Archetypes are what gender roles are based on. And shadow archetypes typically have manipulative undertones.
(05-05-2013, 07:03 PM)Sagittarius Wrote: [ -> ] (05-05-2013, 09:49 AM)zenmaster Wrote: [ -> ]A good start, but suggests an awful lot of unresearched material with rather vague apprehensions. Goes off onto suspicious tangents (gender roles, manipulation) as if placing particular focus on the author's personal issues he was trying to learn about.
Have you come across anything similar to this ?
Sure, in some of the author's sources. It's useful to understand archetypal influences, but remember the whole point is to reveal distortions. Distortions are ultimately revealed through awareness of imbalance. So ideally, they would be presented in a balanced manner (even if distorted by cultural conventions). So when they are presented in that limited, selective manner it necessarily presents a window more to the the author's personal issues rather than a more generic template of the collective (planetary) influences. Nevertheless, they are archetypes and the examples do provide insight into their function.
It's interesting that he picked a periodic table (increasing levels of development) to express them rather than something like a circle, as they exist and function at the same ontological level as far as I can tell.
(05-05-2013, 07:41 PM)JustLikeYou Wrote: [ -> ]zenmaster Wrote:Goes off onto suspicious tangents (gender roles, manipulation) as if placing particular focus on the author's personal issues he was trying to learn about.
Archetypes are what gender roles are based on. And shadow archetypes typically have manipulative undertones.
Yes but once you start taking "gender" as social roles, no. It's no longer the archetype but a complex derivative with selective association. i.e. finding yin/yang is like finding faces in cloud formations. For shadow archetypes, they do have manipulative undertones. But guess what, those are not primary to the archetype - i.e. you can associate passive/aggressive behavior to any of them. It begs the question.
Zenmaster, I don't think you've read the whole page. This is an extremely balanced depiction. It is also presented in a hierarchical model for a reason. There are four sets of four balanced archetypes, two for masculine, two for feminine. Within each gender, there is a mature set and a youthful set. Then, for each of these 16 archetypes, 2 shadow archetypes are offered, one for each side of the polarity created by repressing an aspect of the self into the shadow.
This couldn't possibly be a more balanced depiction. And it's quite elegant, as far as structural models go.
Also, Sagittarius, this is definitely the wrong forum for this thread.
zenmaster Wrote:Yes but once you start taking "gender" as social roles, no. It's no longer the archetype but a complex derivative with selective association. i.e. finding yin/yang is like finding faces in cloud formations.
There are only two ways of discovering archetypes: meditation and observation. A keen observer will notice that -- quite incidentally -- there are various gender roles which are persistent in both history and culture. These roles can be reasonably seen as archetypal. That is, there is some portion of the collective mental structure of Planet Earth that these people and cultural works are tapping into. The social roles that this author is using can be seen as conceptual placeholders. The point is that the reader has an idea of which archetype is being described and can then locate it within the world. Yin and Yang are very much visible in the world, but each instance of Yin and Yang is only a sign which points to the original.
zenmaster Wrote:For shadow archetypes, they do have manipulative undertones. But guess what, those are not primary to the archetype - i.e. you can associate passive/aggressive behavior to any of them. It begs the question.
These character types are very persistent in literature and history. There is no reason to think that they are anything less than archetypal. Sure, there is a particular hue that Earth archetypes have -- one which is rather distorted. But that doesn't make these archetypes less relevant. It only makes them less cosmic.
zenmaster Wrote:lol!
If you are capable of making a more balanced literary archetypal map, I think there are many people who would be appreciative.
(05-05-2013, 08:10 PM)JustLikeYou Wrote: [ -> ]There is no reason to think that they are anything less than archetypal.
The concept of placeholders being anything less than archetypal is humorous. You are definitely making my point. The idea of doing a better job is also humorous.
It's very pop-culture but no 'androgynous Pat' or metrosexual or honey boo boo.
I get the feeling we disagree in vocabulary. Will you define "archetype" for me, zenmaster? Then, will you define "balanced" in reference to an archetypal map?
rie Wrote:It's very pop-culture but no 'androgynous Pat' or metrosexual or honey boo boo.
Right, my first impression was "this is very elegant, but it may also be very incomplete."