Structure of the Archetypes

[jivatman]

Each group of seven cards of Mind, Body, and Spirit comes in three polarized pairs, and one "Significator" or unpolarized, simple and original archetype summing up each group.

Matrix and Potentiator, Catalyst and Experience, Significator, Transformation and Great Way.

Furthermore, Mind, Body and Spirit is a trinity. Trinities, contrary to popular belief, are not really co-equal, they have two polarized entities, and one non. For example in Will/Power, Love and Light; Love and Light is polarized while Will is the final concept.

In this case, it is mind and body which are polarized and spirit which is polarized. Each one of the seven cards in Mind has a Body card which is opposite. Spirit is the unpolarized resolution

Mind: Matrix: M; Potentiator: F; Catalyst: F Potentiator: M. Sig: (right-side up) Transformation: F; Great Way: M.

Body: Matrix F; Potentiator M; Catalyst M: Potentiator: F. Sig: (upside down) Transformation: M; Great Way F.

Note that figure in the significator of Spirit has long been represented androgynous as a small angel or child.

Also, Ra Mentions that Males are likely to have a preference for the Male cards and Females to the Female Cards.

[zenmaster]

Interestingly, archetypes being outside of space or time, do not have any inherent structure. All structure (and properties) emerge and are presented to consciousness according to individual disposition. We meet that aspect of the archetypal mind due to an affinity which is unconscious. From that meeting, we derive meaning and structure.

[Plenum]

yes, that seems to be the case.

Ra offers us 3 ways in which to study the archetypal mind: that of tarot, of astrology, and that of the kaballah.

take your pic(k) as to the lens.

[AnthroHeart]

I know very little about the archetypal mind. It's so far above me.
But that's ok. I'm not really seeking it.
Unless it helps me get in touch with STO anthros or intelligent infinity, I'm not too interested.
Ok, maybe I'm not that extreme, but it gives me thought.

[jivatman]

Plenum, I'd have added I Ching, and possibly Alchemy.

[Sagittarius]

yes, that seems to be the case.

Ra offers us 3 ways in which to study the archetypal mind: that of tarot, of astrology, and that of the kaballah.

take your pic(k) as to the lens.

I prefer just looking now hehe. Not that I ever took a serious interest in either of those 3 things. Hehe. Don't forget the upgraded flash.

[jivatman]

Noticed that all three cardinal virtue cards, Justice, Strength, Temperance are F cards of the body.

[Sagittarius]

Yes well to get to 6 you gotta turn it on it's head.

[jivatman]

In the earliest decks the hermit had an hourglass and was father time. So, we have time, the wheel of fortune(Or god fortuna) or chance/fate, and death. Three sorts of inevitability, all as an anthropormorphized force.

[Sagittarius]

Spin the wheel, blur the lines and all are one.

[JustLikeYou]

Interestingly, archetypes being outside of space or time, do not have any inherent structure.

I don't buy this claim. The first measure by which each Logos gives structure to its creation is the selection of an archetypal system. We all know the quotation from Ra, of course: "The archetypical mind, when penetrated lucidly, is a blueprint of the builded structure of all energy expenditures and all seeking, without distortion" (91.37). If we were to split hairs about this quotation, it can be interpreted either way. However, I think that the side which weighs heavier in the scales is the interpretation that the "builded structure of all energy expenditures and all seeking" refers to the structure of the archetypes themselves as fashioned by the Logos; whereas, the verbiage which immediately precedes and immediately follows this clause refers to the unique perspective that each seeker will have. But we don't need to rely on conflicting interpretations in order to resolve this issue.

The fact that each seeker will have a different perspective of the structure of the archetypes does not thereby entail that the archetypes do not have inherent structure. Rather, it suggests that this inherent structure has more dimensions than a human mind is capable of fathoming. There are an infinite number of possible two-dimensional images of a three-dimensional object. Yet the structure of the three-dimensional object is fixed. If, by analogy, our minds can only perceive a subset of the dimensions along which the archetypal mind exists, then it stands to reason that each of us will have a different image of its structure, though none of us will have the entire picture.

Moreover, structure itself is not limited to the confines of space and time. The octaval shape of creation also supercedes space and time, and yet this cannot be said to be anything but a structure imposed upon the creation itself. I can anticipate that you may choose to argue this point, but such a discussion would become a question of the meaning of the word "structure" more than anything else.

That said, I agree with all of this:

All structure (and properties) emerge and are presented to consciousness according to individual disposition. We meet that aspect of the archetypal mind due to an affinity which is unconscious. From that meeting, we derive meaning and structure.

The point here is that although we may not have access to an objective perspective, this lack of access does not thereby prevent an objective state of affairs from obtaining. Or, in well known logical terms: the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

Jivatman:

Will you motivate your association of the Death archetype with the Male polarity? I would use the same associations as you if it weren't for the fact that if I have to choose a gender, Female is the only one that seems to fit Death. Similarly, I cannot conceive of the Chariot archetype as being more Female than Male. My current resolution to this conundrum is to cease attempting to associate firm gender polarities with the Transformation and Great Way archetypes and to look, instead, for a complimentary complex of gender associations. I'd like a tidier resolution, though.

[jivatman]

The Chariot is indeed male according to my order. As for Death, I thought Death / Grim Reaper was almost always portrayed male? He certainly is in the English speaking world, for example in paradise lost.

The only one with a minor problem is the wheel of fortune, as Fortuna was traditionally a goddess, this may be why she's not typically actually represented on this card itself.

Overall, seems to fit remarkably well, in my humble opinion.

[jivatman]

I would like to add, additionally, that you can see the entire progression of the tarot as one becoming progressively more abstract and universal.

The Mind cards are all relatively concrete names of physical people, additionally, except for The Lovers and the Chariot, the card's genders are all essentially indicated in the name of the card itself (and none of the later cards do this).

The Body cards have the Three Virtues, and the Three Fates, which are represented as anthropomorphized forces/Gods.
The Spirit cards, of course, are all phenomenon of light, except for Judgement and The World, which are even more abstract and universal than the previous ones. (Additionally, the entire set of spirit cards can be seen as the process of Plato's Allegory of the Cave. Perhaps more on this later)

And of course it ends very universal... with the universe.

This is quite like the astrological signs by the way, which has the 4 personal, than the 4 interpersonal or social, then 4 universal. That is in addition to the more commonly used 4 elements and 3 cardinality. Both of these archetypal systems share the ability to be logically grouped in a variety of ways.

The main difference between these two systems is that the number 12 is more homogeneously divisible and group able, divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6, and all the signs are nominally co-equal, 22 is nearly a prime number and only divisible by 2, representing the two paths the appear when the fool is added. So while the 21 other cards may, like the Astrological signs, be considered nominally co-equal, these, as a whole, can be seen as entirely leading up to, and spinning around the Choice, which is the entire purpose of Third Density, and in fact "The Axis upon which the Creation Spins".

And spin it does. 22/7 is an extremely close rational approximation for Pi that has been used for a very long time. And in fact, Proofs that 22/7 exceeds PI have a very long and famous history, going to back to Archimedes, to being the winner of a 1968 Putnam prize, to still being used in IIT entrance exams.