Archetypes

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 23 Aug 2001, and now archived in the Forum Library.

Talisman	23 Aug 2001
'Lo all, You know, the Majors are said to represent prototypes, original patterns which trigger organizing conceptions and regulative principles. Archetypes. This suggestion might be seen as politically incorrect or some kind of ethnic slur or something, and I really don't mean that, but -- When I say: Gypsy fortune teller Doesn't a picture leap to your mind? I'll bet, whatever continent or island you may be on, when I say that you have a quick mental image. And I think all those images will be similar. Isn't that an archetype? Talisman

MeeWah	23 Aug 2001
Talisman: I think I get your drift; however, I do not know if wide-spread familiarity with a phrase or concept would cause it to be an archetype in the purest (& purist) sense. Sort of like when one refers to a tissue as "a Kleenex" & most know what it is due to the persuasive powers of advertising & common usage; thus transforming a brand name into a generic term for an object. It may depend on one's cultural &/or societal influences. In metaphysics, archetype refers to the theory that material objects symbolize ideas. In psychology, according to Carl Jung's theory, archetype is a way of thinking that is inherited from a common group experience & remains in the consciousness of the individual, influences his view of life. Jung is credited with the origin of the term the "collective unconscious" as well as with "synchronicity". Up until some time ago, I was more familiar with "soothsayer". In my first language, the equivalent of soothsayer (fortune teller) translates literally to mean "life seer"; or "one who sees".

Marion	24 Aug 2001
I agree with MeeWah. Archetype is the background collective unconcious where an organizing idea can crystallize around a particular situation, giving it a larger significance. I remember one particular example he gave (besides a huge number about mothers... you have your own personal mother, plus a cllective unconcious idea of 'Mother" etc). His example was a leader, during an unstable warlike situation. With his troops, unsure of what to do. They come to a river and as they cross it he makes a decision and takes decisive action. This is in no way to say that crossing a river causes you to take decisive action, but that the time was ripe for this man, and that crossing a river triggered achetypal images in his mind and he did decide. Jung also compared it to what we would call a saturated solution. It just looks like a liquid until you put a seed or nucleus particle into it, then suddenly a whole crystal grows. An organizing principal... it is always there, part of the unconcious landscape, and a real world event/emotion whatever troggers it.

purplelady	24 Aug 2001
An archetype-Something, usually a figure of someone,a symbol that people of almost any culture on earth can relate to and understand.For instance, the empress, or the hermit,to name just a couple. The archetypes exist in the collective unconscious,or even superconscious.Archetypes are Living symbols.They come alive in our minds, dreams , and lives.

Kiama	24 Aug 2001
I agree with the idea that an archetype is something which you get from your background and upbringing. However, the Tarot is mostly Western, so the majority of Tarot users do not have a problem with the archetypes in them, such as the Mother, being the Empress, the famous and widely loved Wounded Healer as the Hanged Man, the Guide as the Hermit, Father as Emperor, etc.... Kiama

Melvis	24 Aug 2001
I understand the various archetypes that are usually represented in our unconscious as people or types of people, but are there archetypes that are not usually equated with living beings? Can an archetype be more abstract, like a concept or idea? It seems to me like it should, but my brain is having a hard time coming up with an example. Thanks, all! Peace, Melvis ______________________________ "Curiosity is one of the permanent and certain characteristics of a vigorous mind." Samuel Johnson, 1751

RiotFemme	24 Aug 2001
In Jungian psychology, an archetype is an inherited pattern of thought or symbolic imagery derived from the past collective experience and present in the individual unconscious. While "Gyspy fortune teller" certain conjures up an image in our minds, I think it's more of a stereotype than an archetype. It's in the same line of "cheerleader." Doesn't that conjure up an image as well? Most real gypsies (who don't even like to be called "gypsies") are not like the romantic, Carmen-like image we have anyway. I think of archetypes as being more like: the mother, the father, the warrior, the trickster, the lover.

truthsayer	25 Aug 2001
i agree w/ riotfemme that archetypes are like the mother, father, etc. the big test for a archetype is that you'll find some kind of symbol of it in every civilization and/or culture. it is an enduring symbol that goes beyond recorded history . even tho the words used to describe it are different, everyone can agree they know what lovers are, for example.

Talisman	25 Aug 2001
First off, I agree with RiotFemme that my suggestion of "Gypsy fortuneteller" is far more stereotype than archetype. And with Kiama, and others, that universal images such as mother, father, hermit, etc., do have the resonance to be archetypes. But, if I hadn't stereotyped it, and simply suggested fortune teller, by whatever name -- oracle, seer, soothsayer, augur, sibyl, mantologist, diviner, geomancer, haruspice, extispex, valicinatress, haruspex, sorcerer, pythoness, etc. etc. --then I think it does become universal, and thus an archetype. Of course without the dumb question we wouldn't have had intelligent and enlightening commentary by MeeWah, and Marion and others, on just what an "archetype" means. Talisman Wandering around in the ozone somewhere.

Marion	25 Aug 2001
oracle, seer, soothsayer, augur, sibyl, mantologist, diviner, geomancer, haruspice, extispex, valicinatress, haruspex, sorcerer, pythoness, etc. etc. __________________ Wow, I had definitely not heard of at least a third of those. Haruspex... I like it. "A person who inspected the entrails of sacrificial victims in order to foretell the future." Had to look that up. Great stuff. :)

truthsayer	25 Aug 2001
talisman, when you elaborated on the meaning to be that of an oracle, soothsayer or whatever, i agree that that does put what you are saying into the realm of the archetype. i think all early ppls had some type of shaman or oracle to help guide them in spiritual matters that would lead the oracle to become a part of the collective unconsious. now i'm trying to decide what tarot card defines what that would be. i think that the hierphant prob would if we take out any negative connotations the card symbolizes to some of us. i think the hierphant reps more than religious authority. i think it's unchristianized meaning would be that of a spiritual mentor, oracle, soothsayer or guide. perhaps a wise man like the hermit. this is a really interesting thread, talisman. i don't find your question stupid at all. sometimes it's the simplest questions that are the most thought provoking b/c it leads us to more fully examine truths we may have taken for granted.

nexyjo	26 Aug 2001
if an archetype is defined in terms of a "universal" consciousness, i have to believe that the idea of a specific culture comes into play. depending on whose doing the defining, that cultgure puts different "twists" on what exactly that archetype represents. because the person or persons doing the defining have already been ingrained with their own cultural background, they have a certain and specific idea of what each archetype represents, and that may very well be different to some degree as compared to people from different cultures. i also think the idea of stereotypes might heavily influence archetypes, though i'd venture to guess that many would not agree with that. as one example, the idea of "god" - or more specifically, the creator of the universe, is certainly an archetype. yet depending on the specific religion in which one was brought up, that archetype can be quite different. and further, can change significantly as we grow and gain more experience. christians might have one idea of god, and to those around them also brought up in the christian religions, it's pretty universal. yet even jews, who use part of the same bible, would see god differently. in this example, the jew may see god as the entity who chose him as "his chosen people", and that has a major influence on how he sees god. while the christian may recognize the jew as one of god's chosen people, as it clearly states that in both bibles, the christian may argue that the new testiment sheds a completely different light on the people of the earth, and if one doesn't accept jesus, one is not truely "chosen", and will burn in hell. further, jesus takes on a huge role in the christian god, as part of a trinity. yet jews see no such trinity in the archetype that is god. if one wants to suggest that perhaps god is too broad a term as an archetype, the archetype of "mother" offers another example. for a poor child brought up by a single mother, the term mother is more encompasing that for a child brought up by both parents. the single mother is everything, head of the household, and of the family, whose authority has no question. in the married family, the father is the head of the household (at least most commonly), and can be thought of as an even higher authority than the mother. these cultural and environmental influences color each person's idea of what any specific archetype represents, and i don't think that can be argued. as yet another example, "the lover" can have numerious manifestations, with some varities coming from the sexual orientation of the person, and even the sex of the person. some may see tenderness, others may see partnership, and still others may see sexual interaction as the primary attribute of this archetype. perhaps combining the entire collection of ideas of what a specific archetype represents makes up an archetype, but then, it's still different for each person. sorry, went into over analysis mode there... luv and light, nexy

purplelady	27 Aug 2001
nexyjo.............perhaps the archetype remains the same,but each person , being unique,having different backround and experience, Uses or sees the archetype in their own unique way,or even mixes 'em up a little bit!Maybe they even create a new one! For instance, lets say both you and I each own a copy of the universal-waite deck , the images are technically the same deck , but we veiw and use and read those images unique to ourselves ..............In the same way , the archetype of "mother" or "hermit" exists in the collective unconscious, to come alive and "speak" to someone's conscious or unconscious in a unique way that only that person experiences. Yet , we both have in common the collective archetypes,perhaps like books in some unconscious library.

purplelady	27 Aug 2001
In that sense, take 3 seperate people, one who's mother died at their birth , another raised by a single mom , and another raised by mom and dad.The archetype"mother" remains the same , But perhaps each of our 3 people experience a different face, or aspect of Her. The same way god is one god (supposedly) but everyone experiences their own unique veiw of god,because he (or she) is So vast that our brains could not comprehend but a small portion. Or the triple goddess is really 3 aspects of one goddess. The "mother" archetype might speak to each of our 3 in a different way , Yet she is still the mother archetype...........She is not really a stereotype, which is something more of the outside or society.She is as alive as the past , the future, your dreams................

Talisman	10 Sep 2001
Nexy, purplelady, I think this is interesting, and I think you have both touched on the idea of an archetype that crosses all cultures. Well, Nexyjo talks about god, the creator of the universe. Is there any culture, anywhere in the history of the world, that doesn't have some kind of creation myth? Sorry, I've just read a biography about Crazy Horse, a Lakota, and it made me think. Can't we all agree that that is archetype number one? And mother? And, after we invented cause and effect, father? But, I think the second man in the world, wandering around Oldavia Gorge, found a penny laying in the sand. He picked it up. And flipped it. And waited to see if it would land heads or tail. Talisman

New River	10 Sep 2001
Talisman, great thread! i'm wondering if what everyone is boiling down to is the concept that archetypes do cross all culture lines; although the thought and image may be projected in many different ways. just like the god and mother archetypes? and don't angels do that too? doesn't every culture show some artistic rendition of a guardian angel? i don't know this for sure, so i'm asking. love, light and happiness, New River

Major Tom	10 Sep 2001
Quote: purplelady (28 Aug, 2001 03:52): nexyjo.............perhaps the archetype remains the same,but each person , being unique,having different backround and experience, Uses or sees the archetype in their own unique way,or even mixes 'em up a little bit!Maybe they even create a new one! For instance, lets say both you and I each own a copy of the universal-waite deck , the images are technically the same deck , but we veiw and use and read those images unique to ourselves ..............In the same way , the archetype of "mother" or "hermit" exists in the collective unconscious, to come alive and "speak" to someone's conscious or unconscious in a unique way that only that person experiences. Yet , we both have in common the collective archetypes,perhaps like books in some unconscious library. Indeed we do all relate to the archtypes in our own individual ways }> That is precisely how Major Tom's tarot was born - as an individual journey. The universal truth here is that we all live in our own worlds. }>

The Archetypes thread was originally posted on 23 Aug 2001 in the Talking Tarot board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Talking Tarot, or read more archived threads.