03-17-2012, 06:13 PM
I think both of your analyses demonstrate "true" aspects--why must we decide that these archetypes are either one or the other? The complex analysis isn't the easiest to hold in the mind, but it may be closer to the truth than the straightforward one--if we are neither male nor female exclusively, why would we expect to see a single polarity in the archetypes? Further, our "reality" is actually based on a kind of paradox--we are all one AND we are all experiencing separation. I'd imagine paradoxes are more the norm than the exception!
I think of Great Ways as environments--so in one sense, they are FORMS. However, the environment of the Body seems dynamic to me in that it acts upon the body. I called the Great Way of the Body, "Time"--the environment in which we can experience the veiled, physical existance that brings about the transformation in the significator. So in the body series, I'd make Time a FORCE that acts upon or activates the FORM; the FORM is transformed. I called the transformation "Resurrection".
But I think we need to explore the levels more--in general I think FORM/FORCE or female/male or static/dynamic are a function of the planes of reference. The whole thing makes me think of a multi-layered chess or checkers game.
I think of Great Ways as environments--so in one sense, they are FORMS. However, the environment of the Body seems dynamic to me in that it acts upon the body. I called the Great Way of the Body, "Time"--the environment in which we can experience the veiled, physical existance that brings about the transformation in the significator. So in the body series, I'd make Time a FORCE that acts upon or activates the FORM; the FORM is transformed. I called the transformation "Resurrection".
But I think we need to explore the levels more--in general I think FORM/FORCE or female/male or static/dynamic are a function of the planes of reference. The whole thing makes me think of a multi-layered chess or checkers game.