In "Psychological aspects of LO's LO26302" Gavin asked me:
>A question for you. What do you think is the structure- process behind the
>archetypes.? What makes the archetypes the way they are?
I have nothing to say with confidence on archetypes. I have encountered
this word in two contexts, C.G. Jung and Senge. A day after reading this
question, my imagination was ignited by a harmless umlomo-sentence in a
book which I browsed intentlessly in an andrewlike manner: Archetypes are
form without content. My imagination browsed a universe in itself, which a
million words cannot describe and the poet within me is not yet mature so
as to put it in a few words. Yet I wrote some stumbling rambling, which
started it's own odysee, hopefully not a faustian drama.
Now let me put these ramblings up in the light of this delightful list and
see what will become of it's colours.
We have written on ontology - the form behind content, I have asked about
the becoming of such form: Such becoming is shaping our world today - for
good or worse. Now Gavin asked for the essentialities, and about
archetypes. Archetypes are also form without content. How do they become?
They evolve by giving them attention, by filling them with content, by
transforming energy into them, by entropy production. Is this why souls
realize themself in physical bodies to evolve? Makes sense to me, but the
form of such thought has already history and evolution, so here would be a
choice for learning.
What is the relation of the essentialities to "form without content" like
ontology, archetypes, soul? Each of them can be more or less rich in
essentialities. Thinking about the way At de Lange has discovered the
essentialities, I may say that "the" chemical reaction is the soul of
chemistry, realized in any real chemical system. And that toposlogic is
the soul of mathematics, realized in any mathematical system. Ultimately
this may lead to the insight that the soul of all is one and that this one
is unconditional love. Is unconditional love also evolving? But there
could also be archetypes characterized by impaired essentialities. They
cannot be realized, yet they also can attract attention and grow in power
and influence. But they will never leave their world of shadows and
experience their realization, because their outcome is destruction. A
study of all the demons of all cultures could be a via negativa to the
essentialities. Or having a look at the essentialites from the rulers
perspective. Other possible becoming choices.
On Archetypes and Openness I had a funny mental video of an archetype
(looking like a human-shaped balloon), feeded by our attention and growing
and growing. Suddenly it bursts. Wouldn't it burst, openness would be
impaired.
Liebe Gruesse,
Winfried
--"Dressler, Winfried" <Winfried.Dressler@Voith.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.