Twain Talk

The New-Ager’s often talk about ‘archetypes’, as in the ‘female archetype’, or even more obscurely, the ‘divine feminine’.

What they mean by an archetype is usually derived from Jungian psychology and generally treated in a positive way.

If it makes you (my sane readers) want to throw up then it’s an example of the positive, such as “10 Female Archetypes and Leaders to Inspire You.”

However, of late, I have seen and heard a few references to unhappiness associated with the promotion of archetypes.

For example, men searching for their female archetypes are dooooomed to fail. She doesn’t exist mate, and apparently near enough isn’t good enough. You’ll be miserable so let her go. And such forth.

Upon reflection I think Jung might have got this all slightly askew, and the well meaning morons that followed after him certainly did.

When someone is chasing an archetype, whether that is a man, a woman, a politician, a dog turd, or whatever, what they are really seeking (most of the time) is:

1. The groovy feelings associated
2. Perceiving that
3. Other people
4. Known to them or otherwise
5. Perceive that
6. They (the feeling person in point 1) have a lifestyle that
7. Implies that
8. They (the feeling person in point 1) have nailed life
9. With respect to
10. Achieving the cuddling up to a bunch of archetypes
11. At least more than others have
12. So there

I can see at least half a dozen ways to stick a spoke in that wheel and thereby easily disengaging from the injurious habits of chasing 19 archetypes.

However, pondering further, maybe we should carry these moon missions around with us, just so we can toss them overboard when we really need to; for when we are really in trouble.

‘She was a sinking vessel, with no freight in her to throw overboard and lighten ship withal.’