A Fool's Phenomenology

[rva_jeremy]

Having said that, I felt that his treatment of the actual archetypes took a back seat to his expounding of the overall philosophy of the Law of One. I was also left wondering who his intended audience was, since he seems to assume so much familiarity with the history of philosophy. I really would have liked to see him spend more time with the eight archetypes he chose for this book.

Agreed.  It's weird to read a book about archetypes that doesn't really deal with archetypes, but with the negative space around them.  Then again, isn't that appropriate?  Isn't the poetic approach that gives them an inspirational valence, rather than the academic approach that gives them a discrete definitional gravity, just perfect -- as unsatisfying to the "ratiocinative" mind as it is?

Also, I think he dealt more with the archetypes as abstract functions (if the archetypes can be more abstract) than as specific, articulable dingen an sich.  The discussion of the 22 archetypes as specific stations was vague if not completely lacking.  But discussion of what it means to be a significator, matrix, potentiator, etc. was definitely there.  I admire the emphasis on the kinetic depth of meaning in the archetypes, divorced from the actual things in relation.  That probably helps people understand the archetypes on their own, more subtle basis instead of capturing them with words.