I don’t know what’s in your head when you use the word “archetype.” Most of the time when I see the term in articles, tweets, or books, it seems to mean something between “stock character” and “type of character,” which isn’t my understanding of the idea at all.
I agree that archetypes are essentially long-living, that repeat “the same” forms and patterns for millions of years, while each “same” is also new and different.
I wonder if/when we collectively move beyond the anthropocentric, to what I hope is something more like an “anthropocosmic” stance (that’s what I’m calling it), that these patterns are more commonly referenced than their ego-laden Jungian correlates. I suppose the I-Ching is one clue — that it is the dynamic flows/processes rather than the structured shapes that are more true (more fractal) about Reality. Or perhaps it’s that structures/processes co-arise. (My influences include Ghendlin, which you’ve mentioned, as well as Whitehead, Gebser).
I agree that archetypes are essentially long-living, that repeat “the same” forms and patterns for millions of years, while each “same” is also new and different.
I wonder if/when we collectively move beyond the anthropocentric, to what I hope is something more like an “anthropocosmic” stance (that’s what I’m calling it), that these patterns are more commonly referenced than their ego-laden Jungian correlates. I suppose the I-Ching is one clue — that it is the dynamic flows/processes rather than the structured shapes that are more true (more fractal) about Reality. Or perhaps it’s that structures/processes co-arise. (My influences include Ghendlin, which you’ve mentioned, as well as Whitehead, Gebser).