Archetypes

Post Reply New Topic

How does the group mind shape our personality? Is there a dynamic relationship between archetypes and primordial images and the structure of your own character? How potent a force is the group mind and how does it interact with the global consciousness? Could the idea of the bodily humours and planetary influence be an analogy for the influence of large group minds on the individual? Are jungian archetypes static or do these primaeval collective desires form reform and break into new form giving structures from which to derive cultural memes? Does democracy actively use jungian archetypal thinking as the basis for the election system?

You would have no mind, nor personality, if you werent born into a society with a culture and language. The group you are born into gives you the software that programs the hardware of your brain.

Bodlly humours, and the astrological influence of planets, are not metophors for anything. They are just primitive hypothesis to explain stuff.

But archetypes do exist in the human psyche. And the do reappear in new guises.

For example dragon-like creatures appear in mythologies around the world. As modernity and reason took over in the West belief in dragons in the West gradually dwindled away. But then victorian scientists stumbled upon the buried remains of real giant prehistoric creatures-some of which were very dragon-like. The extinct creatures were dubbed "terrible lizards"- or dinosaurs. And pulp fiction, comic books, Hollywood, and Barney fans, have been hooked on dinosaurs ever since. Which suggests that the real fossil creatures trigger the same thing in the human psyche that mythical dragons used to.

Do democracies exploit archetypes to get concensus? Interesting question. I heard the author of book about the history of the space program on the radio mention the mad scramble to get the Mercury program together in response to the Russian advance into space, and about how NASA picked "seven astronauts" to train. The number seven was chosen for its "mythical significance" for PR some say.

If one examines the neotextual paradigm of narrative, one is faced with a choice: either accept semioticist rationalism or conclude that the law is capable of social comment, but only if consciousness is equal to language; otherwise, the task of the writer is significant form. Lyotard suggests the use of precapitalist discourse to challenge hierarchy. Therefore, if semioticist rationalism holds, the works of Eco are reminiscent of Koons.

Actually, per science, that is not completely true, although complex written language is a cultural construct. Language itself is innate.

So in other words, human beings are born to speak, per their modern genetic constitution. A big problem today, is people are separated somewhat from their human instincts that are as powerful as they are in any other animal, for one who is not domesticated by culture, by varying degrees.

In fact, as a direct result of culture, people are actually losing abilities to both have personality and to speak.

Culture and complex language per the written cultural way, can be and is a double edged sword, in many ways, particularly per emotional and physical intelligence that are core human instincts for both personality and language; particularly non-verbal language that constitutes anywhere from 60 to 93 percent of all of human reciprocal social communication, depending on which study one consults.

And instinct is core to human archetypes. The warrior, the spiritual guide, the clown are all human archetypes of mind and body, where of course there is no separation but illusion, as is the case when folks think we are mostly environmentally produced instead of innate in full potential as human being. But yes, it can be more than a 50/50 mix, in environments like school, or sitting in front of a TV or Internet 'box', where mechanical cognition takes center stage in one's life.

And yes, in actually escaping culture, myself, both through language at several points in my life, as a non-verbal child, who lost language later at some points in life, I have direct personal experience with this too.

Escaping language, now, is usually my goal in life, whenever I am away from this keyboard and not in reciprocal social communication form in real life expectations. But no, verbal language is what I am escaping. Non-verbal language, I never escape, unless I am asleep, in deep sleep, or dead, but not yet, on the last one, thank whatever. :)

Martial arts works great for me to escape and the feeling of escaping verbal language is definitely the best part of my day, when I exercise that part of my life in real life, up to and over 8 hours a day, depending on the day of the week.

And speaking of physical intelligence, dance and martial arts are also archetypes of mind and body. These human attributes require absolutely no formal cultural or verbal language lessons or even non-verbal ones from other folks. And my styles of both arts per effect in real life are certainly evidence of that.

Instinct and Human archetypes are truly more art, and complex language per the written word, can be a little too much science, when the poetic expression of life and emotion are not a substantial part of the human language innate equation.

For one who lives in the 'science/culture part' the innate part of ART, can most definitely be hard to get back into, but yes, I personally believe almost anything is possible with time, effort, and yes will, faith, belief, and hope. Those too, are archetypes of human mind, which unfortunately the environment can take away, through complex written language and culture too.

And yes, culture most definitely can, will and does manipulate human archetypes and all most everything else in life, for those who fall fully prey to it. Yes, in some ways culture is a virus. But, no, innately humans are not any more so called 'evil', than the peace loving free sex engaging Bonobo who shares the similar empathy gene with Human primates that does appear to set us apart from the other primates in ways of 'innate love'.

And no, they have no formal language, but they have more personality than some human beings I have come across. That is for sure. And more mind too, as far as I can see for the emotional intelligence that is truly the intelligence that counts to be a social animal in any social animal group.

In fact, some dogs have more, with their barks and bites, all considered too, in my opinion, and yes growing in the scientific field as opinion too, per the mind with emotions and personality of dogs, who go bark, bark, for their way of language.

If you examine the logistics
and heuristics of the mystics
You will find that their minds
rarely move in a line
So it's much more realistic
To abandon such ballistics
And resign to be trapped
like a leaf on the vine
-Brian Eno, 'Backwater' from the album 'Before and After Science'

Where I come from...them's FIGHTIN' words!

I see Jungian archetypes behind so many of the things people do. I even see them in myself, when I analyze my actions/attitudes. So why not in some of the functions of society? I often ask people about archetypes, but the usual response is either, "What are they?" or they come out with some of the newer archetypes. A lot of new ones have been "invented" since Jung.