A Fool's Phenomenology

[rva_jeremy]

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.

Well, you didn't say anything about the book I hadn't myself thought.  But also keep in mind that I'm only 2/3 done with it.  The further into it I go, the more I see the relevance of the archetypes as subjects of the book rather than supporting characters.  But it's subtle; I think as LOO students we're looking for signposts to interpret works we respect and like.  We place the work in a LOO context, identify and capture the insights we expect to find, and consider it "understood".  What I'm starting to see is that this finality of analysis can sometimes crowd out deeper insights we didn't expect to find.  That's certainly a position I've come to between the moment this thread started and the present.

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.

Granted, but I think you're justified in expecting a book titled "Archetypes of Spiritual Evolution" to deal with its claimed subject in a more forthright manner.  Like I said, I'm seeing more and more how this book does deliver on what it promises, but you have to meet Steve more than halfway to get there.  I wonder if that's just inherent in any sort of philosophy of mind, where the author has to beckon the reader to digest complex concepts in novel ways.

Tyman actually intended (and hopefully still intends) to write two more books.

Well, that finally explains why he lists only the archetypes of mind at the very beginning of the book!  I didn't get a chance to really discuss this work with Steve at Homecoming this year, but he has agreed to correspond with me and I'll check in with where he's at on this project.  Surely I'm not expecting anything soon; he's been through the meat grinder version of catalyst lately.

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.

Indeed!  By the way, if you need help with any of those hosting issue, holla.  I'm sure we can find a way to help you continue serving.  I enjoy your blog and have been steadily working through the archetype essays you've written.  

In a way, I see a unity to what both you and Steve are doing, at least in the sense that you've both realized you have to go beyond what Ra provided in order to make a study of the archetypes useful to a reader.  It demonstrates in spades the multifaceted nature of this subject, and has shown me that it requires not one approach but the non-dogmatic, fluid ability to transition between perspectives to see the full shape and volume of deep mind.