17 Divine Forms 3 : Archetypes

17 Divine Forms 3 : Archetypes

Genesis 1:27:

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him;”

Romans 5:14:

“Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.”

Patterns “of the one to come” is what we have been talking about for the past three weeks, in our discussion of divine forms. This discussion has led us to two definite conclusions:

1. All creations spring from an impulse of identity with the Father.

2. The Cosmic Original, formless and timeless, nevertheless possesses an ESSENTIAL NATURE which may be echoed, somehow mirrored, in articulate mundane expressions—expressions limited by the constraints of time and space, giving form to the ESSENTIAL NATURE only in part, but which are, nevertheless, in spite of this limitation, still capable of focussing our minds upon higher modalities of existence.

The representation of the ESSENTIAL NATURE, as embedded in the central core of articulate manifestations, leads quite naturally and inevitably to a discussion of archetypes. One wonders if the archetypes are formed by the essence, or if the archetypal form is a chosen channel through which the essence adapts itself to our puny powers of appreciation. It amounts to the same thing, either way.

The question of archetypes has a bearing on most of our thinking about spiritual things, because it is the manifestation of essence, through articulate forms, that defines the language and symbology of our doctrines, our rituals, and even our ethics.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“The concept of an archetype is found in areas relating to behavior, modern psychological theory, and literary analysis. An archetype can be:

a statement, pattern of behavior, or prototype which other statements, patterns of behavior, and objects copy or emulate;

a Platonic philosophical idea referring to pure forms which embody the fundamental characteristics of a thing;

a collectively-inherited unconscious idea, pattern of thought, image, etc., that is universally present in individual psyches, as in Jungian psychology;

or a constantly recurring symbol or motif in literature, painting, or mythology.

In the first sense, many more informal terms are frequently used instead, such as "standard example" or "basic example", and the longer form "archetypal example" is also found. In mathematics, an archetype is often called a "canonical example".

Etymology

The word archetype, "original pattern from which copies are made", first entered into English usage in the 1540s and derives from the Latin noun archetypum, latinisation of the Greek noun ἀρχέτυπον (archetupon), whose adjective form is ἀρχέτυπος (archetupos), which means "first-molded", which is a compound of ἀρχή archē, "beginning, origin", and τύπος tupos, which can mean, amongst other things, "pattern," "model," or "type."

Plato

The origins of the archetypal hypothesis date back as far as Plato. Plato's ideas were pure mental forms that were imprinted in the soul before it was born into the world. They were collective in the sense that they embodied the fundamental characteristics of a thing rather than its specific peculiarities. In the seventeenth century, Sir Thomas Browne and Francis Bacon both employ the word 'archetype' in their writings; Browne in The Garden of Cyrus (1658) attempted to depict archetypes in his usage of symbolic proper-names.

Jungian archetypes

The concept of psychological archetypes was advanced by the Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung, c. 1919. In Jung's psychological framework, archetypes are innate, universal prototypes for ideas and may be used to interpret observations. A group of memories and interpretations associated with an archetype is a complex ( e.g. a mother complex associated with the mother archetype). Jung treated the archetypes as psychological organs, analogous to physical ones in that both are morphological constructs that arose through evolution.At the same time, it has also been observed that evolution can itself be considered an archetypal construct.

In The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche Jung states:

“religious ideas in their present form are variants of archetypal ideas created by consciously applying and adapting these ideas to reality.”

In part one of Man And His Symbols Jung states that:

"My views about the 'archaic remnants', which I call 'archetypes' or 'primordial images,' have been constantly criticized by people who lack a sufficient knowledge of the psychology of dreams and of mythology. The term 'archetype' is often misunderstood as meaning certain definite mythological images or motifs, but these are nothing more than conscious representations. Such variable representations cannot be inherited. 

The archetype is a tendency to form such representations of a motif—representations that can vary a great deal in detail without losing their basic pattern."

Campbellian Archetypes

"Campbell explores the theory that important myths from around the world which have survived for thousands of years all share a fundamental structure, which Campbell called the monomyth. In a well-known quote from the introduction to The Hero with a Thousand Faces, Campbell summarized the monomyth:

"A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man."

Campbell called this journey of the hero the monomyth. While Campbell offers a discussion of the hero's journey by using the Freudian concepts popular in the 1940s and 1950s, the monomythic structure is not tied to these concepts. Similarly, Campbell uses a mixture of Jungian archetypes, unconscious forces, and Arnold van Gennep's structuring of rites of passage rituals to provide some illumination. However, this pattern of the hero's journey influences artists and intellectuals worldwide, suggesting a basic usefulness for Campbell's insights not tied to academic categories and mid-20th century forms of analysis.

Archetypal literary criticism

Archetypal literary criticism argues that archetypes determine the form and function of literary works and that a text's meaning is shaped by cultural and psychological myths. Archetypes are the unknowable basic forms personified or made concrete by recurring images, symbols, or patterns (which may include motifs such as the 'quest' or the 'heavenly ascent;' recognizable character types such as the 'trickster' or the 'hero;' symbols such as the apple or snake; and imagery) and that have all been laden with meaning prior to their inclusion in any particular work.

The archetypes reveal shared roles among universal societies, such as the role of the mother in her natural relations with all members of the family. This archetype may create a shared imaginary which is defined by many stereotypes that have not separated themselves from the traditional, biological, religious and mythical framework."

The terms “universal societies”, “shared imagery”, and “stereotypes”, lead us to the word “collective”. The “Collective Unconscious” is container for all the archetypes that spring from Human consciousness. The ultimate form of Collective Consciousness may be thought of as the “Omega Point”, a concept famously announced by Teilhard de Chardin:

“The Omega Point is a spiritual belief that the universe is evolving toward a higher level of material complexity and consciousness. The term was coined by the French Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955). Teilhard argued that the Omega Point resembles the Christian Logos, namely Christ, who draws all things into himself, who in the words of the Nicene Creed, is "God from God", "Light from Light", "True God from true God," and "through him all things were made." In the Book of Revelation, Christ describes himself thrice as "the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end." 

Five attributes:

Teilhard de Chardin's The Phenomenon of Man states that the Omega Point must possess the following five attributes. It is:

• Already existing
• Only thus can the rise of the universe towards higher stages of consciousness be explained.

• Personal (an intellectual being and not an abstract idea)
• The increasing complexity of matter has not only led to higher forms of consciousness, but accordingly to more personalization, of which human beings are the highest attained form in the known universe. They are completely individualized, free centers of operation. 
• 
  
• It is in this way that man is said to be made in the image of God, who is the highest form of personality. Teilhard expressly stated that in the Omega Point, when the universe becomes One, human persons will not be suppressed, but super-personalized. Personality will be infinitely enriched. This is because the Omega Point unites creation, and the more it unites, the increasing complexity of the universe aids in higher levels of consciousness. Thus, as God creates, the universe evolves towards higher forms of complexity, consciousness, and finally with humans, personality, because God, who is drawing the universe towards Him, is a person.”
• 
  
• [Sidebar: The Personality of the Omega Point is of immense interest to us, because it the Person of God, articulated in the Christ Consciousness, to which we all wend our way back. It is the image of the Christ Consciousness that awakens memories of our own unique, personal origins.
• 
  
• Back to Chardin:]
• 
  

• “The Omega Point is outside the framework in which the universe rises, because it is by the attraction of the Omega Point that the universe evolves towards Him.
• Autonomous
• That is, free from the limitations of space (nonlocality) and time (atemporality).
• Irreversible
• That is, attainable and imperative; it must happen and cannot be undone.

Of course all these pictures of the universe painted by philosophic imagination are non-specific, as they ought be having sprung from visions of higher worlds, and yet recurrence of identical articulate patterns, throughout the collective unconscious, leads us to the conclusion that: shared experience creates shared idiomatic expressions.

The idea of a “collective spiritual community” is developed in Thomas Moores’s Care of the Soul:

“Like all activities of the soul, community has its connection to death and the underworld. Christianity talks about the “community of saints,” meaning all the people present and past to whom we are related by reason of the human community. From the point of view of the soul, the dead are as much a part of community as the living. In a similar spirit Jung makes a mysterious comment in the prologue to his memoirs: 

“Other people are established inalienably in my memories only if their names were entered in the scrolls of my destiny from the beginning, so that encountering then was at the same time a kind of recollection.”

[Sidebar: The ideas of deja vu and “recollecting” the present are not unrelated to the idea of pre-destination: the ordering of events OUTSIDE TIME, the present felt as fate or myth.

Back to Care of the Soul:]

“Outward community flourishes when we are in touch with the inner persons who crowd our dreams and waking thoughts. To overcome loneliness, we might consider releasing these inner figures into life, like the one who wants to sing or cuss in anger or is more sensual or more critical or even more needy than “I” would like to admit. To “admit” who I am is to “admit” those people into life, so that the inner community serves as a start for a sense of belonging in life. I “remember” people I met for the first time because I am in touch with the archetypal world of my imagination, and on the basis of that self-knowledge I can love anyone I meet and be loved in return. The roots of community are immeasurably deep, and the process of belonging, dealing actively with loneliness, begins in the depth of the soul.”

In his book, Matrix Energetics, Dr. Richard Bartlett refers, in a somewhat sideways flight, to the origin of the essential nature of the archetype as a configuration of “light and information”.

 “The term “Matrix Energetics” comes from books on energy medicine by James Oschman, who in turn was inspired by the work of Alfred Pischinger, author of Matrix and Matrix Regulation: Basis for a Holistic Theory in Medicine. In both Pischinger and Oschman’s work, the term deals only with our normal, electric atom/molecule level of physical reality. Dr. Bartlett, on the other hand, thinks that we are basically constructed from light and information and are thus malleable to focus intent. Under this rubric, Matrix Energetics is an archetype; practitioners maintain a state of awareness and enter into a kind of energetic rapport with clients, holding for them what shamanic cultures call “sacred space” so that they can have the freedom to express a different outcome for their physical state.”

Framing the expression “from light and information” to describe the essential structure of human beings, suggests a state of being, not unlike that which is commonly represented as “angelic”. Thus, if we are, in our essential nature, like the angels, then “information and light” must result in  AN ENTITY. This leads us to the idea of the archetype AS AN ENTITY, not unlike angels.

The following book review summarizes the idea that archetypes are actually spiritual beings: 

Jung & Steiner by Gerhard Wehr: A Book Review by Bobby Matherne ©2004

"There was one area where Jung stayed out of the realm of content in his work, and that was in his understanding of what an archetype was. At least he never admitted any differently in his writings. I came across a piece in a news item somewhere a couple of years ago, perhaps after Sardello wrote the words below. It quoted a close friend of Jung's who said that, a couple of years before his death, Jung had admitted to him privately that "archetypes are spiritual beings" but said he had been afraid to say so publicly. What Jung did to strengthen his claims for the archetypes was to build on the solid scientific foundation of Kant's epistemology. That limited Jung to speaking of the phenomenal world and blocked him from speaking about the noumenon. He was left to describe transcendent reality with what Sardello calls, "the truth within."

This is why Jung posited the existence of the archetypes but would never say anything of their reality beyond what could be said "psychologically."

On the other hand, Steiner makes it clear that he speaks of spiritual beings and that archetypes in Jung's sense are ways of talking about a spiritual reality."

Back to Wikipedia:

Steinerian archetypes

"In his early book Theosophy - An Introduction to the Supersensible Knowledge of the World and the Destination of Man, which, as its name indicates, was written when he was still in his theosophical phase, even if it was later revised, Steiner presents a comprehensive account of the archetypes of the spiritual world as he perceived them.   He begins by describing the dynamic qualities of the archetypes:

"In the spiritual world all is in perpetual mobile activity in the process of ceaseless creating.  A state of rest....does not exist here because the archetypes are creative beings.  They are the master builders of all that comes into being in the physical and soul worlds…"

[Sidebar: The idea of archetypes as living conscious beings is significant. I have long maintained that the truth of music was not the representation of things, but the miraculous manifestation of the divine in the physical. People are always trying to get me to explain to them what makes good music and what makes bad music. Over the years, I have invented a few convincing lines about the quality, time periods, unity-in-variety, etc.,; or I have suggested different ways of gauging how honestly (accurately?) nature is reflected in the art, all based on somewhat rational principles. But preparing this sermon has awakened in me the realization that my response to music is not really rational at all; that the reflection of the inner divine impulse in an outer form is something that can only be sensed intuitively. 

I always hesitate to throw in the towel when it comes to the epistemological limits of expression, but I think, in this case, I really must admit that I don't know what makes good music or bad music: but I feel it. This feeling is, I'm sure, connected to some deep inner sense of the divine form in myself; and any distortion of that essential form turns me off. Two compositions may share literally identical musical materials, but, in the case of the "bad" composition, the constraints of idiomatic style effigies may cause a constricted, rather than free movement of higher intellect. In this case, the displacement of one note, or one phrase, in an expression, can make the difference between truthfulness and distortion of the inner divine form.

Further on in Steiner, we encounter the idea that archetypes exist on a continuum just like every other parameter of existence. Thus, there may exist archetypes of archetypes.

Back to Steiner:

Concerning these archetypes of archetypes, Steiner says:

"These regions differ from the lower ones because the beings here  supply the lower archetypes with the impetus for their activity.   They are the creative forces of the archetypes themselves, the  purposes that underlie our world.  Like living germ-points, the  archetypes lie here ready to assume the most manifold forms.  If these archetypes are projected into the lower regions, they well  up, as it were, and manifest themselves through the most varied shapes." 

"Here there is a spiritual language, the Spiritual Word through  which things and beings of this region make themselves known;  they utter what may be called their eternal names." 

"In the highest planes of Devachan are found the subtle or seed-archetypes, the thought-germs, which have a composite nature.  Only the germ-sheath manifests in the lower  worlds, whilst the life kernal it surrounds remains above.  This  life kernal has its origin in higher worlds.

In the seventh (or highest) subplane of the Spirit-world, Man stands in the presence of the life-kernals, at the  boundary of the three worlds (physical, astral and mental), and  recognises himself in his own life-kernal.  This means that for him the problems of the three lower worlds have been solved.  He has a complete view of the life of these worlds."

It is easy to talk about literary archetypes, since they are so up front in our literal (literary?) consciousness; but there are many, many musical archetypes as well. The foregoing material emphasizes archetypes as expressed in the medium of verbal communication, but I have been saying, for years, that musical archetypes contain the essence of Christ consciousness every bit as much as the story of Moses, or the Sistine Chapel.

The array of musical archetypes begins with such onomatopoetic expressions as thunder and lightning, bees buzzing and bombs crashing; but other more resonant, and less materially grounded, archetypes appear in the music portfolio: there is a whole library of stock musical cliches representing things like, "foreboding", or "excitement, wonder, anger. Musical archetypes, just like most items in the collective unconscious, change in their surface features the from one century to the next, while the underlying expressive impulse remains the same.

The following is an excerpt from Steiner's The Inner Nature of Music and the Experience of Tone:

"When the musician composes, he cannot imitate anything. He must draw the motifs of the musical creation out of his soul. We will discover their origin by pointing to worlds that are imperceptible to the senses. We must consider how these higher worlds are actually constituted. Man is capable of awakening higher faculties of the soul that ordinarily slumber. Just as the physical world is made visible to a blind person following an operation to restore his sight, so the inner soul organs of man can also be awakened in order that he might discern the higher spiritual worlds.

When man develops these faculties that otherwise slumber, when, through meditation, concentration, and so forth, he begins to develop his soul, he ascends step by step. The first thing he experiences is a peculiar transformation of his dream world. When, during meditation, man is able to exclude all memories and experiences of the outer sense world and yet can retain a soul content, his dream world begins to acquire a great regularity. Then, when he awakens in the morning, it feels as if he arose out of a flowing cosmic ocean. He knows that he has experienced something new. It is as if he emerged from an ocean of light and colors unlike anything he has known in the physical world. His dream experiences gain increasing clarity. He recalls that in this world of light and color there were things and beings that distinguished themselves from those of the ordinary world in that one could penetrate them; they did not offer resistance. Man becomes acquainted with a number of beings whose element, whose body, consists of colors. They are beings who reveal and embody themselves in color. Gradually, man expands his consciousness throughout that world and, upon awakening, recalls that he had taken part in that realm. His next step is to take that world with him into the daily world. Man gradually learns to see what is called the astral body of the human being. He experiences a world that is much more real than the ordinary, physical world. The physical world is a kind of condensation that has been crystallized out of the astral world. In this way, man now has two levels of consciousness, the everyday waking consciousness and the dream consciousness.”

The following article offers suggests scientific explanation or description of how the divine truth in the mind of God penetrates to the physical, creating archetypal images.

Joe Loizzo, M.D., Ph.D.
Faces, Voices and the Brain-Heart Brake: The Divine Science of Tibet
 
"How can a face launch a thousand ships? Why do lullabies quiet an infant's cries? Must we be mystics to "still our beating hearts"? Over millions of lifetimes, we mammals evolved a range of special neural structures that have equipped us for an increasingly social life. Three of these help resolve a puzzle that has long stumped modern science: Why do archetypal images, prayers and gestures exert a stubborn hold even on scientifically schooled minds? Breakthroughs in the neuroscience of empathy, emotions and our conscious control of the breath have radically changed our view of our nature, helping explain the stubborn power of spiritual imagery, prayers and ritual.

The newest layer of brain behind our foreheads, called the prefrontal cortex, includes "mirror neurons" and other elements that help us read and imitate the facial expressions, vocal tones and bodily actions of others. These same neurons form "resonance circuits" with deeper brain layers that call up in our own hearts the emotions we read behind others' body language. Other parts of this newest cortex, unique to humans, allow us to exert a higher degree of control over bodily functions and primal emotions, helping us integrate neural functions around a conscious intention. Beyond just "reading minds," this new layer of brain allows us to tune our mindset, motivation and actions to meet those of others, sustaining higher social forms of life based largely on communication and teamwork.

The second special structure is a network of two-way links joining prefrontal areas with our emotional processing centers in the inner brain layer we share with the oldest mammals. Called the limbic cortex or "ring-like covering" since it arches like a ring over the core brain we share with reptiles, this inner layer of neurons holds the older half of the resonance circuits that support empathy and our higher control of motivation. 

Recently, we've learned that this network empowers us to consciously shift from reactive emotions like fear, rage and shame into proactive emotions like trust, care and love, a shift our newer cortex needs to support our full capacities for social engagement. This network is keyed into our ability to read the facial, vocal and bodily language of others' moods, and in turn influences and is influenced by our own face-voice-body expressions.

Finally, there's a missing link connecting the muscles of our face, voice, inner ear and breath to our reptilian core brain and the primal life-support centers of the brainstem. As our amphibious ancestors became the first mammals, the nerves that used to serve gill arches morphed into new "cranial" nerves linking our facial, vocal, auditory and respiratory muscles to our brainstem. One of these was a new branch of the ancient nerve that controls breathing, digestion, excretion and reproduction. Called the "vagus" or "wanderer" because it works to sense and regulate most of our internal organs, this nerve also counters the fight-flight reflex and supports our ability to relax the body, calm breathing and put a "brake" on heart rate. The new branch of this nerve only we mammals have, dubbed the "smart vagus," lets us consciously control breathing and also networks with the nerves repurposed for social expression, to feedback on our basic life support rhythms and bodily tone. It's thanks to the smart vagus, plus the new hormones oxytocin and vasopressin it releases, that our fears melt, our breathing slows, and our hearts calm when we recognize the face, voice and gestures of a loved one.

What does all this have to do with religious symbols and rituals? However social our brains have grown, nothing in the 70 million years it took for them to evolve could have possibly prepared them for the unnatural conditions that emerged in the eye-blink of civilization. Our pre-historic ancestors knew too well that our natures straddle the fence between higher social capacities and the reptilian self-protective instincts mammals needed to survive in the wild. Soon, they also learned that familiar masks, chants and dances helped us stretch our circle of kinship and tip the balance of our capacities in ways that helped adapt us to ever larger, more complex social groups. This is why the world religions that spread with civilization were set up like extended human families, to revolve around remembering the image, words and deeds of universal, model ancestors.”

 This excerpt is charming in its sincere effort to synthesize scientific phenomenology with issues of faith. It doesn’t really matter to me if these scientific rationalizations are true or not, it just matters that we come to understand that none of this stuff is simple—that we will NEVER reach the end our inquiries because each new discovery lights the way to an infinitely long cavalcade of more fresh new discoveries.

The thing to remember is that God is in everything, and everybody’s symbols lead back to God. We have often been warned to beware of ignorance and inattention. Let me add this warning: beware of missing out on the resonance of symbols, as they constitute the core of our rational mind state. We must finally accept the idea that meaning is hidden in every atom of carnal life, and that the more of this we can take in, the more alive we can be. 

Let us pray.

Jesus: Thank you for articulate expression, and the power to raise those expressions from lower to higher modalities being. Amen