Replying to LO26387 --
I'm enjoying your conversation, Gavin and Winfried.
Richard Tarnas writes, in his "Passion of the Western Mind," that:
"In his later work, however, and particularly in relation to his study of
synchronicities, Jung began to move toward a conception of archetypes as
autonomous patterns of meaning that appear to structure and inhere in both
psyche and matter, thereby in effect dissolving the modern subject-object
dichotomy. Archetypes in this view were more mysterious than a priori
categories--more ambiguous in their ontological status, less easily
restricted to a specific dimension, more like the original Platonic and
Newplatonic conception of archetypes."
Plato (through the words of Socrates) would have us believe that
archetypes have a real nature and exist independently of the phenomena
which are merely their shadows. It's interesting to note that both Plato
and Augustine believed that our ideas (logos) are illuminated by
archetypes; and Aristotle and Aquinas believed that we must know the
concrete things before we can see the universal form. It seems to me that
Senge's archetypes are more similar to the latter than the former.
regards,
Doc
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?
Winfried answered, in part:
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.
--"Richard Holloway" <learnshops@rciti.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.