Please Log in to Vote.

2 out of 2 members found this useful.

Archetypal confusion

Posted September 15th, 2010 by Red Camosy
In Reference to:
Two Kinds of Archetype

 

Although Wilber makes a convincing case against elevating spontaneous dream imagery and prototypical "roles" themselves to the level of evolutionary ladder there is still (and Wilber admits the) psychological value in sorting out and integrating these energies from point of view of psychological health and disidentification with ego.

BUT the still unanswered question and real issue (in my opinon) is the consideration of the "stamp" of the real archetype upon those forms below. As an analogous example: We have the idea of a chair, and we have the physical chair. Wilber would suppose that if I see a physical chair, that the chair comes from the atoms below and not from the mental idea of the chair maker.

With regards to archetypes and the imagery which appears in the psyche (and in some mythology) Wilber confuses "material cause" with "formal cause". Some imagery may bear the imprint of a higher level cause, while some imagery may indeed be a bit of undigested beef, but you cannot know until you investigate and enter into a dialogue with the phenomemon.

And it's in the dialogue with the image (be it anima or Philemon, or recurring role or theme,etc...) that "something" may occur and be transformed.   BUT if you've convinced yourself that it's only a bit of undigested beef or infantile pre-rational junk then that dialogue isn't going to happen.  Wilber's reductionist presupposition, it seems, would thwart that dialogue.   Instead, a more useful posture would be to enter in a dialogue while keeping one's skepticism or even challenge the image - engagement with skepticism.

 

Joe Camosy

 

 

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

Wilber's foundational groundwork for exploring archetypes.

Posted September 16th, 2010 by Red Camosy

Annie,

Thanks for the response.  Can you direct me to those publications where Ken talks about his approach to the archetypes (and hopefully their correllates in the various spiritual traditions).  In my opinion, this is one area where the integral model still needs to be fleshed out - the area of  "Types"  (ie. archetypes).  And so to see Wilber present merely a negative argument for what archetypes are not, is a bit disappointing. 

Perhaps he should spend some time with a few Tibetan Buddhists and some Kabbalists and then flesh-out the "Types" portion of the Integral model. 

Thanks!

Joe Camosy

 

Please Log in to Vote.

2 out of 2 members found this useful.

a few thoughts

Posted September 16th, 2010 by Annie

 

Hi Jen and Joe,

Yes, we have been looking at some of this on FB and other threads, I hesitate to openly discuss some of this for fear of the incredulous, but Ken has laid some of the foundational groundwork for exploring it and so we can attempt to interpret according to some basic principles.

One of the concepts I really like that Ken has introduced is that when one awakes from the dream (illusion) we oftentimes use the archetypes as a prototype for inhabiting our being in the world. We test the fit and see how we are most motivated to express our self. He also implied that some can in fact be built right into our DNA…inherited. In some cases before we even begin to cognize the characteristics and traits of the archetype they make themselves known through dreams, visions and extraordinary insights.

Jen’s comment on the risk of being locked-up or committed is every bit as real as the archetypes themselves, but try as we might, we must attest to a world that is not visible through the eyes of flesh.

Some of things we have talked about before is that Kosmic addresses are actual locations with actual representational phenomenon, we also have said elsewhere that nothing ever really leaves this world, it only exists on another level. That means when consciousness evolves, those conscious grooves we create, enable others to easily follow. All knowledge is attainable through study and integration but it is not something that does not exist, our minds do in fact create this (consciousness) but it is created through a substance that is pre-existing. What this tells me is that my identity and consequently (the one whom I love) is my personal experience of being loved, the physical attention of this reality directed towards this body.

annie

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

BTW...

Posted September 15th, 2010 by Jennifer Grove

Welcome! I just realized you're new to the forums and this is your first post. 

Blessings and Love to you.

--

For just $14.95 a month, YOU TOO can reduce your Karma Footprint by becoming a Member of Integral Life!

[has that already been done?]

Please Log in to Vote.

2 out of 2 members found this useful.

Hi, Joe

Posted September 15th, 2010 by Jennifer Grove

How wonderful that you're asking about the very same thing I'm examining this week!

I have some limitations on my ability to understand all you've said, so if I've misunderstood you, please help me understand. 

I think reductionism may be in the eyes of the beholder. It seems like you've suggested that KW "reduced" "infantile pre-rational" to "junk" whereas I think he is actually a bit more flexible with it. When trying to make a distinction, it is important not to confuse the evolution and involution and pre- from trans-. He does indulge in polemic quite often when pushing for the distinctions and that irritates me sometimes. However, I try to see that he also sees the value of the pre- and the infantile as useful and valuable when it is discerned as so and treated properly. It's the lack of discernment and confused treatment that can be - and is - problematic and which, I believe, he gets on about. [knocks on wood]

It just so happens that some Archetypes have broken out of some kind of cage inside of me this week and I have been seeing them coming out of my neck and skull and other body parts. Fun times. I think it is mainly due to the fact that I got in touch with some really infantile stuff last week. I woke up one morning with something coming out of my head and then exposed myself to some really suggestive images and they just really started coming.

Mine are usually very Dark and Childless and some are now elder - and I love them. They're awesome! But I'm not confused about them being actual evolved deities who are at some Omega Point, attracting me towards them. It is clear to me that they are primitive and rough and prototypes and sharply organized and narrowly focused and limited in vision and agenda. I don't love them any less for this. It just is.

They don't belong in this world. This world puts people like that in jail for doing what they were created to do and what they do best. There is no place for them now. They are best represented in art forms and narratives. 

Several super-hero movies over the last few years (The Watchers, The Incredibles) have focused on this disallowance of those kinds of energies in the "real world" while at the same time the intense need for them. Archetypes are becoming self-aware. 

I fully believe in their power to transform and enrich life - as primitive energies. They don't have to be advanced or evolved life-forms for that to be real. I think KW would agree. 

My current favorite is the Predator. When I first found her she was like a ferral cat. Totally avoiding humans, no speech, only approached to feed, preyed without conscience, etc. By the time she was on someone, it was too late. They were food. I'm not talking about anything deadly, dangerous or illegal. But it was covert and without consent - from anyone! By feeling into her, I coaxed her into a friend, and now she is one of my best companions. She is now, the Cougar - with all the connotations that word implies. She is a Momma. She only eats enough for herself and to feed those she cares about. She is a clean killer, and actually quite merciful. My life, and the lives of my prey, would be greatly diminished if I did not have her present and integrated. She is well-loved. 

But she is not evolved. She is a mammal and has the morals of a mammal. That is all. Her value is as a pet, not a sole identity. 

I think this is pretty clear.

Would you agree? 

--

For just $14.95 a month, YOU TOO can reduce your Karma Footprint by becoming a Member of Integral Life!

[has that already been done?]