Earth in 3D/7th Octave?

[Quantum]

Nonetheless, because the archetypes are both a resource for development (will) and dictate the process of evolution itself (faith), when considering the relationship between archetype and evolutionary stage, a pattern may be revealed which can suggest a developmental or operational role of one or more of them.

Please do take a moment, if I may invite you, to elucidate more to your last paragraph above.

Not sure how to begin with an elucidation.

How do you define resource for development to mean will vs process of evolution to mean faith?

If you would further elaborate on how one might describe the Magician at the Beige level given that the Magician may be seen as the culmination, the Rosetta Stone or Touch Stone if you will, and thus removed if not transcendent to "the level of basic survival; food, water, warmth, sex, and safety as priority. Uses habits and instincts just to survive. Distinct self is barely awakened or sustained. Forms into survival bands to perpetuate life."

If one was centered in Beige valuing, then any transcendence would be difficult to recognize as that person is drawing upon very basic ideas. Yet might the same actuator that manifests as foraging behavior at Beige, be seen as some type of analogous outreaching at more complex stages? First physical needs are addressed, then on to subtler needs.
Remember, Spiral Dynamics vMemes are recognized, distinct groups of core values. The evolution of core values follows from one or more other evolutionary lines, such as what Piaget identified with his cognitive schemas. Whereas the archetypes are a template for any form of evolution (such as complexity in cognition), not just what we can identify as collections of core values.

I take it then that you are in a sense suggesting that the Magician may be seen as though on "every level", i.e., be it beige, green, yellow, or etc, and not as I understood you to originally mean that the Magician was analogous to being relegated 'specifically at the Beige level, or only at that level for the purpose of your illustration?

If I am closer to your meaning or definition, then is not every other representative archetype also at every single other represented level in kind as well? If this is so, then the distinction of naming or representing the archetype at all to a corresponding color is confusing for me in as much as I have difficulty then in the original representation offered?

Am I lost, being pedantic, or obtuse to your original consideration...or perhaps all three (lol)?