09-06-2015, 08:50 PM
Your enthusiasm and support for Tyman's approach to the archetypes in particular makes me feel like I was unfair with him when I read through it the first time.
My attitude about the archetypes has been, for years now, that every time Ra talks about the nature of the 3D experience (which is frequently), he is using archetypal resonances to do so. On the one hand, that makes expounding of the philosophy as a totality necessary to the project of treating the archetypes. On the other hand, it also suggests that by merely treating the archetypes, one will have no choice but to incidentally expound the philosophy as a whole.
Tyman actually intended (and hopefully still intends) to write two more books. Presumably, since the first one dealt so much with expressing the Law of One philosophy without recourse to the Ra Material, the latter two would be able to deal with the archetypes more frontally.
My own approach to the subject, (current hosting woes not withstanding), has been almost the diametric opposite of Tyman's. Where he sought to bring the reader's cognition into a super-rational state in order to touch upon the archetypes each in our own unique way, I seek to bring the archetypes down to the ordinary world in order to reveal them at work in our every word and deed. And it's a good thing, too. It would be annoying to discover that someone else has already written the book you're working on.
My attitude about the archetypes has been, for years now, that every time Ra talks about the nature of the 3D experience (which is frequently), he is using archetypal resonances to do so. On the one hand, that makes expounding of the philosophy as a totality necessary to the project of treating the archetypes. On the other hand, it also suggests that by merely treating the archetypes, one will have no choice but to incidentally expound the philosophy as a whole.
Tyman actually intended (and hopefully still intends) to write two more books. Presumably, since the first one dealt so much with expressing the Law of One philosophy without recourse to the Ra Material, the latter two would be able to deal with the archetypes more frontally.
My own approach to the subject, (current hosting woes not withstanding), has been almost the diametric opposite of Tyman's. Where he sought to bring the reader's cognition into a super-rational state in order to touch upon the archetypes each in our own unique way, I seek to bring the archetypes down to the ordinary world in order to reveal them at work in our every word and deed. And it's a good thing, too. It would be annoying to discover that someone else has already written the book you're working on.
![[+]](https://www.bring4th.org/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png)