In Archetypes LO26387 Winfried writes in response to Gavin's question,
>In "Psychological aspects of LO's LO26302" Gavin asked me:
>>A question for you. What do you think is the structure- process behind the
>>archetypes.? What makes the archetypes the way they are?
>I have nothing to say with confidence on archetypes. I have encountered
>this word in two contexts, C.G. Jung and Senge. A day after reading this
>question, my imagination was ignited by a harmless umlomo-sentence in a
>book which I browsed intentlessly in an andrewlike manner: Archetypes are
>form without content. My imagination browsed a universe in itself, which a
>million words cannot describe and the poet within me is not yet mature so
>as to put it in a few words. Yet I wrote some stumbling rambling, which
>started it's own odysee, hopefully not a faustian drama.
>Now let me put these ramblings up in the light of this delightful list and
>see what will become of it's colours.
One very powerful way to become aware of archetypes is to be quite
mindlessly making a series of images and then to have some-one come along
and point out a whole set of related archetypes postioned variously in the
imagery as it unfolds. It's like having a dream analysed for the first
time, stunning. I don't have much to say about this subject except that I
think archetypes are 'potentialities' (Jung), which I think is what you
imply (implicate) Winfried? I think the 'seven essentialities' are
similarly 'potentialities' becoming<>beings in endlessly rich chains like
the DNA helixes? I think that maybe once a more primitive and connected
people (society) perhaps saw, felt and apprehended the 'seven
essentialities' in a way impossible for us right now, though I know some
of us are working on it. I think Maturana thinks this too. Maybe he reads
here? And if so, I cordially invite you to comment. Humberto Maturana,
you write of Homo sapiens amans, you have written of lost civilisations in
which loving mothers brought up entire a species that then, unaccountably,
died leaving us some distant cousins with a faint, longing memory or
archetypal echo of this deep civility desiring it to become re-born again.
Is this an archetype you recognise? I see them as Jung did, as trends to
some inevitability, ability, ability....desirous of practice, practice,
practice....an invitation to browse the universe that is multiversa that
is self upon self upon self seven times self. Patterns to clothe the
cosmos. Somewhere in this archive I wrote about 'squaring the circle'.
When my post got converted to the archive format a square appeared after
the sentence. I wrote about it but I suspect no-one cared to go to the
archive to look there to see this strange alchemical transfiguration. How
can such a thing happen between two distinct states where no mortal hand
touches? This is the 'nothing' behind the archetypes that the 'not
thinking' adduces is it not? Winfried you say you are not yet a poet
sufficient and you write as if you did not see it, "My imagination browsed
a universe in itself-" and in this you unlock it all. Every step a
thought, every thought a knock and then as if by magic;-) at a mere arm's
length i reached out, the pages fall and at Matthew 7 : 7 "Ask, and it
will be given to you; seek; and you will find; knock, and it will be
opened to you." As if if were ever closed. Who told us it was closed? And
Gavin's question is a strange coincidence since this morning I happened to
be browsing intentlessly and came upon this which to me connects
Both are Augustine.
The City of God V, 9
"As God is the Creator of all natures, so He is the giver of all powers,
though not the maker of all choices....Therefore, our wills are capable of as
much as God willed them to be capable of."
And, Confessions X, 40, 65
"Such is the weight of habit! here I abide, although I would not; there I
wish to be, but cannot. In both I am always unhappy."
'Love' is the only archetype?
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.