Archetypal Revelation

[Henosis]

So I've had this problem for a while that has not allowed me to understand the archetypal mind. I think others may have this problem as well but I'm not too sure. This has caused me a great deal of confusion which was clarified by attempting to answer a question of GeminiWolf.

There is a substantial difference between the general term archetypes, and archetypes as they are spoken of in relation to the archetypal mind. It seems as though the archetypal mind is a blueprint of the architecture and *functions* of the mind. These *functions* of Matrix/Potentiator/Catalyst/Experience/Significator/Transformation/Great Way, are somewhat anthropomorphized into archetypal images/ideas/concepts such as Magician/High Priestess/Empress etc., which are used to personify the functioning of the archetypal mind.

However, there is a substantial difference in this use of archetypes as compared to let's say Plato's Forms/Ideas/Archetypes (such as Beauty/Justice), Jungian archetypes (Wise Old Man/Anima-Animus/Shadow), or let's even say astrological signs which may describe archetypal patterns of behavior. While I was trying to penetrate or understand what is meant by the archetypal mind, I consistently brought my prior understanding of archetypes as Universals with me.

For example, if your're familiar with Platonism, the Platonic Idea/archetype of Beauty would substantially exist in it's pure Form, within the Nous, in the intelligible metaphysical realm equivalent to what would be 7th density (or Chokmah in Kabbalah), with the highest Idea/Form/archetype being the Form of the Good, which would represent the Logos, or Kether. The highest archetype spawns all other archetypes. These archetypal forms would serve as sort of a gauge of purity. Plato asserted that these abstract archetypal Forms hold a much higher degree of reality than the physical world or geometric shapes that make it up. Everything was the shadow of these archetypes, as represented in the Allegory of the Cave.

Perhaps another more simple example would be something like an apple. When you see an apple, you are consciously/unconsciously comparing the apple to the PERFECT apple, which substantially exists as an Idea in the metaphysical realm outside of space and time (7th density). You could say the same thing for humans, things, ideas, or anything else. The idea comes first, then the material manifestation, then the evolution of the manifestation into the Idea. These Ideas are sort of seen as thoughts in the Mind of God. Perfect thoughts.  I believe Christianity somewhat utilized this concept as the figure of Christ represented the Perfect Man in the metaphysical realm which serves as sort of a universal archetype for all men to follow if they wished to return to the Kingdom of Light.

I apologize if my thoughts are scattered, but this realization of the different use of the term archetype by Ra as a *function* of Mind/Body/Spirit has significantly helped me out and will continue to do so until the end of time. If my understanding is incorrect or you have any thoughts on the matter, please do chime in.

Love and Light

[Plenum]

another way of seeing 'function', would also be 'Process'.

[JustLikeYou]

there is a substantial difference in this use of archetypes as compared to let's say Plato's Forms/Ideas/Archetypes (such as Beauty/Justice), Jungian archetypes (Wise Old Man/Anima-Animus/Shadow), or let's even say astrological signs which may describe archetypal patterns of behavior.

This is actually something I've spent a long time reflecting on. I will share with you my own synthesis of these different treatments.

It seems as though the archetypal mind is a blueprint of the architecture and *functions* of the mind.

I can certainly see why you would think so, but remember that the direction in which each interview with Ra moved was the vector of Don's curiosity. Our perception that the archetypes are primarily functional may very well be a result of Don's tendency to think in terms of functionality. He was, after all, a physics professor.

These *functions* of Matrix/Potentiator/Catalyst/Experience/Significator/Transformation/Great Way, are somewhat anthropomorphized into archetypal images/ideas/concepts such as Magician/High Priestess/Empress etc., which are used to personify the functioning of the archetypal mind.

This is halfway true. Consider the two following quotations:

88.17

To attempt to condense the archetypes is to make an erroneous attempt. Each archetype is a significant ding an sich, or thing in itself, with its own complex of concepts. While it is informative to survey the relationships of one archetype to another it can be said that this line of inquiry is secondary to the discovery of the purest gestalt or vision or melody which each archetype signifies to both the intellectual and intuitive mind.

88.24

we encouraged the initiate to learn to become each archetype and, most importantly, to know as best as possible within your illusion when the adoption of the archetype’s persona would be spiritually or metaphysically helpful.

The archetypes, then, are actually existing entities, or dinge an siches (this Kantian turn of phrase should lead us, as you surmise, to a Platonic metaphysics). Moreover, these actually existing entities have innate personas, the uniqueness and aesthetic of which Ra conveys through the term "melody."

Ascribing personas to the archetypes, then, is not at all a post-hoc anthropomorphization. In fact, this line of thinking puts the cart before the horse. The archetypal mind gives the blueprint, not only for the functioning of a mind/body/spirit complex; it also gives the blueprint of our personalities. In other words, the personality of every human being you meet is a complex arrangement of these 22 archetypes. By analogy, you can think of a human personality like an improve jazz song and the archetypes like the various licks jazz musicians learn in order to string them together in their improvisations.

For example, if you're familiar with Platonism, the Platonic Idea/archetype of Beauty would substantially exist in it's pure Form, within the Nous, in the intelligible metaphysical realm equivalent to what would be 7th density (or Chokmah in Kabbalah), with the highest Idea/Form/archetype being the Form of the Good, which would represent the Logos, or Kether. The highest archetype spawns all other archetypes. These archetypal forms would serve as sort of a gauge of purity. Plato asserted that these abstract archetypal Forms hold a much higher degree of reality than the physical world or geometric shapes that make it up. Everything was the shadow of these archetypes, as represented in the Allegory of the Cave.

I think it may be helpful to release Plato's specific version of Platonism. Given that the Creator created in order to experience what could not otherwise have been experienced, I don't think it is especially useful to think of archetypes as being more real or purer than their manifestations. It is probably more useful to think of them as "ideal" in the sense we mean when we say an "idealist" is also naive and out of touch with the manifest world. They are a blueprint, but not a full fleshing-out; the consequences of their combination and the variety of possible manifestations were not yet imagined.

Whereas Plato thought that each form was eternal, unchanging, and unified, it's probably not safe to make that same judgment about archetypes. I think of minds as nested within each other as we move up the hierarchy of being. So the human mind exists within the planetary mind and the planetary mind exists within the Logoic (or archtypal) mind, and the Logoic mind exists within the cosmic mind (the mind of the One Logos). As such, whatever the nature of the higher minds are, the lower minds must conform to those rules, though freedom of expression within those bounds is allowed. The archetypes exist in the mind of the Logos, but they also exist within our minds; however, the substance of mind is the concept, of which there are atomic units (in the Democritan sense). An irreducible concept is an atomic unit of mind. Just as the Logos builds its blueprint for our experience by constructing the archetypal mind, so we build our blueprint for our own experience through belief systems. And just as a your belief system is unchangeable to the ego, which is lower in the hierarchy than your totality, so the archetypal mind is unchangeable to your totality. The ego cannot escape the belief system from which it springs, but can be reborn into a new one. The same is true of you as a complete entity. This property of the immutability of minds higher in the hierarchy means that concepts are changeable from one perspective but unchangeable from another. So I prefer to separate my conception of mind into fields of force and particles of substance. The concepts which flow into and out of our minds are the particles, and the natural laws according to which our minds operate are the fields of force. The Logos assembles concepts on its own plane, and then these concepts, immutable from the perspective of entities lower on the chain, radiate fields of force which tend to bring concepts in the lower realms into agreement with the the concepts on the higher planes.

Given the above conjecture (which is my best one) the human act of cognition is an act of assembling concepts into useful configurations. While our unconscious mind is inherently compelled by the force of the immutable archetypes assembled by the Logos, our conscious mind has to reverse-engineer these concept-complexes in order to establish harmony between itself and the unconscious mind. So the conscious mind must create its own replica of the archetypal mind using the particle-concepts that exist on its own plane. If the project is successful, then the ego will operate in harmony with the total self because it follows roughly the same archetypal patterns as the total self does. This is not to say that the ego is capable of violating the boundaries laid out in the Logos' archetypal mind; rather, this is to say that the ego will tend to express bits and piece of these archetypes in confused and self-defeating ways.

When you see an apple, you are consciously/unconsciously comparing the apple to the PERFECT apple, which substantially exists as an Idea in the metaphysical realm outside of space and time (7th density).

I think this concept of perfection is incoherent in Ra's system. For Ra, there is no imperfection in the classical (i.e. Platonic/Christian) sense, though there is finitude. Ra will sometimes use the term "perfection" in the classical sense, but they often do so only in contrast to their own preferred definition. For Ra, "perfection" seems to indicate a disciplined personality rather than a correspondence to the ideal. Consider:

38.5

Questioner: Could you tell me how each of the rays, red through violet, would appear in a perfectly balanced, undistorted entity?

Ra: I am Ra. We cannot tell you this for each balance is perfect and each unique. We do not mean to be obscure.

Let us offer an example. In a particular entity, let us use this instrument, the rays may be viewed as extremely even, red, orange, yellow. The green ray is extremely bright. This is, shall we say, balanced by a dimmer indigo. Between these two the point of balance resides, the blue ray of the communicator sparkling in strength above the ordinary. In the violet ray we see this unique spectrograph, if you will, and at the same time the pure violet surrounding the whole; this in turn, surrounded by that which mixes the red and violet ray, indicating the integration of mind, body, and spirit; this surrounded in turn by the vibratory pattern of this entity’s true density.


This description may be seen to be both unbalanced and in perfect balance. The latter understanding is extremely helpful in dealing with other-selves. The ability to feel blockages is useful only to the healer. There is not properly a tiny fraction of judgment when viewing a balance in colors. Of course when we see many of the energy plexi weakened and blocked, we may understand that an entity has not yet grasped the baton and begun the race. However, the potentials are always there. All the rays fully balanced are there in waiting to be activated.

Perhaps another way to address your query is this: In the fully potentiated entity the rays mount one upon the other with equal vibratory brilliance and scintillating sheen until the surrounding color is white. This is what you may call potentiated balance in third density.

Here, Ra unequivocally informs us that perfection is not a matter of living up to some specifiable ideal way of being; rather, perfection is inherent in all of creation. The closest Ra comes to a satisfying answer to Don's question is in the last two sentences: but even here, Ra side-steps the concept of perfection and focuses instead on potentiation.

this realization of the different use of the term archetype by Ra as a *function* of Mind/Body/Spirit has significantly helped me out and will continue to do so until the end of time.

Excellent! Ra would support the judgment that archetypes describe functionality; just remember that that's not the only thing they do.

[Infinite Unity]

Right right its not mechanistic, its a symphony of being.

[Henosis]

JustLikeYou

Thank you for that awesome write up. Upon further thought, I realize the archetypes are not just functions/processes but also somewhat "living personas". Our labels of the archetypes such as Magician/High Priestess are the closest and perhaps most suitable concept-complexes to the "thing in itself". This is a baffling and somewhat difficult realization to comprehend.

As far as the Platonic Forms/Ideas, Plato referred to these Forms as eternal and unchanging but as you mentioned they are only immutable from the perspective of the creation. So while the archetypes of Ra may not quite be eternal, the general concept I believe is quite similar and I wouldn't dismiss it as being unhelpful. A great point you mention is that "the consequences of their combination and the variety of possible manifestations were not yet imagined".

Using your example above, I see the particles of the mind being more and more informed by the fields of the force, causing the concepts of the mind to be drawn closer and closer to the immutable concepts radiating those fields of force, with the concepts of the individual mind eventually merging or becoming enveloped by the immutable concepts (that should be....interesting?)

The only part of what you wrote that I don't necessarily agree with at this point is that the archetypes are no less real or pure than their manifestations. If the Logos assembles these concepts, and radiates these fields of force to bring our concepts into alignment with the immutables, then I can't help but see them as entities of extreme purity, even if only in potentiation. As you mentioned, the conscious mind "reverse engineers" the archetypal mind creating its own replica...are you perhaps referring to the replica of the conscious mind holding a higher degree of reality than the archetypal of the unconscious mind? I'm not sure what you meant by that.

I do have one question... you mentioned that the personality of each and every human being is a complex arrangement of these 22 archetypes. I agree with this, from the understanding of archetypes as personas. However, I could equally agree with the statement that the personality can be indicated exclusively by the Significator, from the understanding of archetypes as functions. I see both statements as valid, yet I understand the archetypes as both functions and personas. Would you please comment on this somewhat dual use of Ra's archetypes? Would both be appropriate depending on how one is using the term?

[Cobrien]

In the very first session Ra said we are dancing thoughts. No entity can enlighten you. It is up to you. Demonstrate your intent by understanding and understand your intent.

[JustLikeYou]

The only part of what you wrote that I don't necessarily agree with at this point is that the archetypes are no less real or pure than their manifestations.

I see your point, and I agree. Archetypes in manifestation are mixed expressions of archetypes, often combined in dysfunctional ways and expressed only narrowly. However, I'm trying to avoid one of the connotations in the word "pure." Consider an analogy: I don't know what it would mean to say that a law of energy conservation is purer or more real than an event in which energy is conserved. The event is simply a manifest expression of the law, and the law is the rule by which the event plays out. The danger I see in using the Platonic concepts of purity and perfection is that they can lead to body denigration.

Similarly, when I say they are no less real, I do not mean that they are not less distorted. Our reverse-engineered archetypes are much more distorted than the Forms that they emulate; however, they are also not any less real because anything that exists is equally existent to anything else (it's all some part of the Creator). Does it help if I say that they are more illusory but equally real?

Now that I'm thinking about it again, Plato's Form/object relationship seems to be fairly accurate in describing the relationship between the Archetypal Mind and our reverse-engineered conception of the Archetypal Mind. The second is a shadow of the first. I am very uneasy, however, with extending this relationship to the manifestation of the archetypes; that is, the ways we act them out.

I do have one question... you mentioned that the personality of each and every human being is a complex arrangement of these 22 archetypes. I agree with this, from the understanding of archetypes as personas. However, I could equally agree with the statement that the personality can be indicated exclusively by the Significator, from the understanding of archetypes as functions. I see both statements as valid, yet I understand the archetypes as both functions and personas. Would you please comment on this somewhat dual use of Ra's archetypes? Would both be appropriate depending on how one is using the term?

Think of a person you know who has a very distinct personality. If you reflect on this person's personality long enough, you'll find that it is specially suited for accomplishing some task in our social order. We sometimes talk about what people were "born to do" as a feature of personality. This is what I have in mind. I don't think it's a dual-nature as much as I think it is a dual perspective on a single reality. To be a persona is also to have a function. And, as ancient pantheons suggest, to have a function is to act out a persona.

Re: Significator. I agree with your characterization of this archetype. This is where all our biases are stored. I think of it as both the story and the storyteller. All of the characters in our mind live here. Naturally, this is also where the reverse-engineered Archetypal Mind will be built. So, again, I don't see these two notions as being in conflict. While personality can be indicated exclusively by the Significator, the Significator (the union of conscious and unconscious mind) also contains the Archetypal Mind within it. I don't know how familiar you are with set theory, but it provides an analogy I find helpful: the Significator is the self-referential member of a set that contains itself.

[Henosis]

The only part of what you wrote that I don't necessarily agree with at this point is that the archetypes are no less real or pure than their manifestations.

I see your point, and I agree. Archetypes in manifestation are mixed expressions of archetypes, often combined in dysfunctional ways and expressed only narrowly. However, I'm trying to avoid one of the connotations in the word "pure." Consider an analogy: I don't know what it would mean to say that a law of energy conservation is purer or more real than an event in which energy is conserved. The event is simply a manifest expression of the law, and the law is the rule by which the event plays out. The danger I see in using the Platonic concepts of purity and perfection is that they can lead to body denigration.

Similarly, when I say they are no less real, I do not mean that they are not less distorted. Our reverse-engineered archetypes are much more distorted than the Forms that they emulate; however, they are also not any less real because anything that exists is equally existent to anything else (it's all some part of the Creator). Does it help if I say that they are more illusory but equally real?

Now that I'm thinking about it again, Plato's Form/object relationship seems to be fairly accurate in describing the relationship between the Archetypal Mind and our reverse-engineered conception of the Archetypal Mind. The second is a shadow of the first. I am very uneasy, however, with extending this relationship to the manifestation of the archetypes; that is, the ways we act them out.

I do have one question... you mentioned that the personality of each and every human being is a complex arrangement of these 22 archetypes. I agree with this, from the understanding of archetypes as personas. However, I could equally agree with the statement that the personality can be indicated exclusively by the Significator, from the understanding of archetypes as functions. I see both statements as valid, yet I understand the archetypes as both functions and personas. Would you please comment on this somewhat dual use of Ra's archetypes? Would both be appropriate depending on how one is using the term?

Think of a person you know who has a very distinct personality. If you reflect on this person's personality long enough, you'll find that it is specially suited for accomplishing some task in our social order. We sometimes talk about what people were "born to do" as a feature of personality. This is what I have in mind. I don't think it's a dual-nature as much as I think it is a dual perspective on a single reality. To be a persona is also to have a function. And, as ancient pantheons suggest, to have a function is to act out a persona.

Re: Significator. I agree with your characterization of this archetype. This is where all our biases are stored. I think of it as both the story and the storyteller. All of the characters in our mind live here. Naturally, this is also where the reverse-engineered Archetypal Mind will be built. So, again, I don't see these two notions as being in conflict. While personality can be indicated exclusively by the Significator, the Significator (the union of conscious and unconscious mind) also contains the Archetypal Mind within it. I don't know how familiar you are with set theory, but it provides an analogy I find helpful: the Significator is the self-referential member of a set that contains itself.

My mind is tingling in content from this mutual understanding