Must/needs become complex

[Bring4th_Austin]

Is it possible to have a complex, within a complex, within a complex etc., etc.,?

Ra does say that each archetype contains its own complex of concepts. Perhaps the real answer is just too convoluted for me to understand

They are indeed unified. There isn't any separation. Every archetype nests, fractalizes from the one before.

The archetypes are only complex as in a fractal: Each one contains the whole yet there is still a sense of distinction as awareness becomes distinct through creation itself.

The biggest problem most people are having with the archetypes is that they are seeing them as very distinct concepts when, in fact, they blend. They blend very well. They are a process.

A non-complex archetypal system is one with so little contrivation, that there is no illusion of the spirit nor sense of separation from the Source, "the creator."

What I am interested in exploring here are the archetypes according to Ra. Certainly personal interpretations would be welcome, but do you think that when you say, "The biggest problem most people are having with the archetypes is that they are seeing them as very distinct concepts when, in fact, they blend" is compatible with what Ra says here?

"Each archetype is a significant ding an sich, or thing in itself, with its own complex of concepts. While it is informative to survey the relationships of one archetype to another it can be said that this line of inquiry is secondary to the discovery of the purest gestalt or vision or melody which each archetype signifies to both the intellectual and intuitive mind."

It seems very clear that Ra is saying that the most fruitful explorations of the archetypes is as viewing them as things in and of themselves rather than "blending" as you signify.

This line of thinking, whether or not the archetypes can (or should) be seen as things in themselves might be key to understanding the issue I'm having with the idea of complexity. Your words might help me grasp them if they didn't seem to directly contradict Ra's.