ARCHETYPES I
This is the first part of an article that introduces the concept of "archetypes". In this first part I will talk about them in general, and in the second part I will take some time to explain their individual typical reactions to conflict.
In the Imaginal World there are no human beings, but archetypes. That is, mythical creatures. For example, fairies or dragons. As the Imaginal World is partly objective and partly subjective, what we see are actually symbols of a deeper reality which has no form. It is very important to understand that whatever is perceived in the Imaginal World has reality only as a symbol.
Since the mind of every person is involved in the creation of the Imaginal World, I can only speak of it as perceived by my own mind and as described by the teachings that I have received. People who are able to perceive this world (they must have a strong and working body of water) may find variations with what I present. I repeat it because it's important: the reality of the Imaginal World is symbolic, partly created by the mind that perceives it. What lies behind the symbol is something that the human mind can not grasp.
From the earth plane we can say that the archetype is one (or several) string of blood placed on the third eye chakra. It strongly conditions the responses of people to situations that, in their subjective opinion, produce some kind of conflict. The degree of conditioning in behavior is much greater than people think.
Some people have more of an archetype, that is, more than one string of blood. If the several archetypes that a person has are compatible between them, nothing bad happens, but if they are inconsistent, this person will suffer from many problems or will create them to others (often the same thing).
The mechanism of activation of archetypes is as follows:
1.- An external conflict occurs. The consciousness of the individual (situated in the navel chakra) takes notice of the conflict.
2.- From the navel chakra, where consciousness is situated, the conflict travels to the to third eye
3.- The archetype produces a behavioral response and from the third eye this response travels directly to the solar plexus chakra
4.- The solar plexus is the most superficial layer of the personal unconscious and from the solar plexus originates the response that determines the behavior of the person. Because it is unconscious, the person does not notice his conditioning and believes that his behavioral response has been freely chosen.
There are people who can send their behavioural responses from upper chakras such as the heart or the larynx. In these cases, the response is much more subtle, less mechanical, more influenced by factors other than the archetype. In general, a person needs to have a working body of fire in order to send a response from the heart chakra, a working body of water to send it from the thymus or larynx chakras, and a strongly working body of blood to send it from the third eye and actually cancel the archetype.
There is an archetype called "angel". I'm not talking about spiritual creatures, but about an archetype that exists in the Imaginal World. Angels can send their behavioural response from the third eye and therefore are the only absolutely free beings in what respects their behaviour. Angels are not conditioned by their archetype and can react as they see most appropriate.
Although there are people with other archetypes who have a body of blood able to function, I've only seen angels as having the amount of force needed to fully cancel the archetype. For example, I know a person with an archetype "owl" who has a working body of blood. However, he continues to send his behavioural responses from his larynx chakra. I do not know exactly how much force is needed to completely cancel an archetype, but I'm sure it's a lot.
As I said, in the event that the person is able to send the behavioural response from his heart, thymus or larynx chakras, the strength of the archetype decreases. It will not be completely canceled, but the person acquires more freedom without being totally conditioned by their archetype(s).
Once the body of fire starts working, we have more freedom as to the behavioural responses that we send to the world. If we consider the human being as a machine, we could say that "outputs" change. It is not true freedom, from my point of view, since the "inputs" continue to remain the same, but to change the responses is a very valuable relief. The "inputs" change only after the body of water starts to work. I have discussed this in another article.
If we go deeper, what happens is that the response from the archetype is combined in the heart, thymus or larynx chakras with the response that the deep mind of person would give, according to the education they received, the ethical principles he believes in, etc.
If the body of fire does not work, the response is entirely conditioned by the archetype. Even if the person consciously believes in ethical principles, he won't be able to apply them beyond what his archetype will allow. When this unfortunate situation occurs, that is, when the archetype of the person gives selfish behavioral responses and the person consciously believes in ethical principles, the result is what is often called "hypocritical behavior" and "deceiving oneself".
As I said before, people can evolve positively and reduce the force exerted by their archetype. Let me give an example. Specifically, I'm talking about a woman with archetype "fairy". When I met this woman she did not have a body of fire that worked and used to respond to flattery increasing the channel of trust with the person who was flattering her. A fairy tends to like compliments, we can say that this is one of their weaknesses. The response of a pure archetypal fairy is to place more trust in the person who flatters her, although it might be clear that the flattery is false. The fairy archetype can not resist flattery.
Years later, this "fairy" woman managed to develop a body of fire that worked. When someone tried to flatter her, the fairy archetype still sent his response (increase the trust channel with the flatterer) from the third eye chakra to the solar plexus chakra, but her body of fire intercepted it in the heart chakra, and in almost all cases modified it, especially if the person had disappointed her in the past. She still continued to increase her confidence channel with the person who flattered her, but way less than before. I estimate that she had removed at least 50% of her problem of being sensitive to flattery, thanks to the intervention of her body of fire. In this case the behavioural response was given from her heart chakra, and from there it passed directly to the outside world.
To respond from the thymus or larynx chakra the body of water has to be working. Some people have a working body of water and in these cases we can say that the force of the archetype may be diluted by maybe 70% to 80%. All these numbers are only my own personal estimates, based on personal experience.
It is very important to understand that there are no better or worse archetypes except the "angel", which is a better archetype than the rest, and the "scorpion", which is worse. To be very honest, I don't really know whether it's worse, but the scorpion archetype is clearly more destructive than the rest, sometimes in ways that are not obvious.
Some archetypes are able to understand better or worse other archetypes, from a purely instinctual point of view. This has historically been used to recommend (or not) marriages. I don't give advice about romantic relationships. My position on this issue is the same as that of Socrates. Socrates was once asked, by a young man in Athens, whether he (the young man) should marry. Socrates responded by saying: "Do as you wish. Marry or do not marry. You will likely regret both".
Having said that, I can also add that, in general, for example, fairies and wizards have difficult relationships with each other. Bearded vultures and scorpions have also very difficult mutual relationships. Giants and fairies understand each other well. Clowns and giants also very well, etc. There are always archetypes with which the communication is easier than with others. And I want to repeat it: speaking in general, there are no better or worse archetypes.
In classical Persian literature the subject of archetypes has been treated. We have for example Farid ud-Din Attar's (XII century) epic poem "The Conference of the Birds", which tells about the difficulties that the various archetypes encounter to undertake a journey to God. Attar used different kinds of birds to talk about different archetypes. In my opinion, he chose to use the image of birds in order to give a more poetic tone to his story, but perhaps he really perceived that the different archetypes were different kinds of birds. As I told at the beginning, our mind participates in the creation of the (symbolic) Imaginal World.
In Western literature, the only person who (in my opinion) has clearly understood the concept of archetype was Gurdjieff. Paracelsus also speaks of mythical creatures that correspond to imaginal archetypes (gnomes, undines, etc..), but unfortunately Paracelsus is very difficult to understand.
One of the most interesting things that Gurdjieff says is that it can't be known how many different archetypes exist, because the only way to know an archetype is to know the person who owns it, and it is clear that no one knows absolutely everyone in the world. He also says that, in real life, we often find six or seven different archetypes. That is, some archetypes are much more common than others. Finally, it also says that a person can have more than one archetype.
I can confirm from personal experience that these observations coming from Gurdjieff are correct.
All this can be read in the following excerpt from the book "Fragments of an Unknown Teaching" by Ouspensky.
"There was once a very long and interesting talk about "types." Gurdjieff repeated everything he had said before about this together with many additions and indications for personal work.
"Each of you," he said, "has probably met in life people of one and the same type. Such people often even look like one another, and their inner reactions to things are exactly the same. What one likes the other will like. What one does not like the other will not like. You must remember such occasions because you can study the science of types only by meeting types. There is no other method. Everything else is imagination. You must understand that in the conditions in which you live you cannot meet with more than six or seven types although there are in life a greater number of fundamental types. The rest are all combinations of these fundamental types."
"How many fundamental types are there in all?" asked someone.
"Some people say twelve," said Gurdjieff "According to the legend the twelve apostles represented the twelve types. Others say more."
He paused.
"May we know these twelve types, that is, their definitions and characteristics?" asked one of those present.
"I was expecting this question," said Gurdjieff "There has never been an occasion when I have spoken of types when some clever person has not asked this question. How is it you do not understand that if it could be explained it would have been explained long ago. But the whole thing is that types and their differences cannot be defined in ordinary language, and the language in which they could be defined you do not as yet know and will not know for a long time. .... You still do not understand me and will not understand for a long time yet. Think of the difference between knowledge and being. There are things for the understanding of which a different being is necessary."
In my opinion, the "different being" needed to understand archetypes is equivalent to having a body of water that works and at the same time is strong.
As Gurdjieff said, archetypes are defined in another language. Specifically, in the language of the Imaginal World. Certainly not all people can understand and speak it. But I've found, in my personal experience with the archetypes, some typical patterns of behavior in case of conflict. I will write about them in the second part of the article.