On Archetypes

Our thought forms are biased based on patterns that fit into our taste profile for symbolic structure, and I see these structured thought forms as archetypes which are based not on some transcendent reality beyond our awareness, but are built upon the hidden factors that lead to and construct the human condition.

Over evolutionary time, realities such as time, entropy, well-being, and kinship are encountered and encoded into our instinctual profile to build up a biological semiotic metasymbology that aids in building constructive thought forms to understand ourselves, our world, and our relationship with scenarios we encounter in the world.

At the root of these biosemiotic metasymbologies are the constant forces of the universe and the world around us. These are both universal, such as the passing of time and the movement of mass, and local, such as the amount of time in the Earth’s day, or the social order encountered in human society.

These base archetypes form the subsymbolic structure that leads to human symbolic formation, and the echoes of reality that are too deep to be understood yet are formative in our psychology are built upon hidden physical realities deeply ingrained in the quantum and hypothetically sub-quantum phenomena—such as the possible roots to reality itself—which may yet be emanating from a singular instance of creation that tore through the super-reality in a process of chaotic expansion.

Though I think this expansion is the cause of all universes, and ours just happened to be stable and support life, I am going mostly off intuition—an intuition that, when informed by the sciences, tells me our holographic projection of reality is an emanated expansion where past, present, and future stem from a singular moment of creation that is both a single point in the timeline of the super-reality and an ever-present arrangement of forces spread through the substrate of our holographic projection.

It is our conscious mind, which evolved in this universe of patterns and laws, that is the most suited instrument for determining its nature—but only once sufficient attunement of the mind’s base metasymbology to the base laws of known science and the irregularities observed through experiment that suggest deeper structures.

Our mind operates as a projection of its own sort. I believe this is a result of the holographic projection of the brain’s symbolic operations in its various regions being synthesized through bioelectric harmonization, connecting the atoms of the brain into a single bioelectrically illuminated system. Think of it like a 5-dimensional simulator for all of our senses and cognitive capacities.

The perfect harmonization of the projection to being such a coherent form that we call our experience is the result of the use of this unifying principle being perfected over billions of years of evolution. And so, the symbolic structures within also have remnants of the structure of the reality it has formed to navigate within it, and the laws can be found by comparing the internal structure of our thought to the external structure of the world.

Though absurd and meaningless, we create meaning through harmonizing the structure of our minds with the structure of the universe, and what is meaningful becomes what is a coherent description of reality. The admittance that the human mind is an absurd and creative machine that can project and shape archetypes with a lesser and greater degree of accuracy—not necessarily tied strongly to the hard patterns of deeper existence—is to me the most coherent interpretation of the human condition.

As the human mind forms and identity is shaped through play and peer association, and it is tested against the existing structures and restraints of the world, it forms associations and builds those into archetypes that are familiar to it. So there are no universal archetypes—each person is the creator of their own archetypes—but there are universal relationships and attributes that form subsemiotic code that are recombined by each mind into archetypes: those they identify with, those they reject, and those they are attracted to.

This archetypal symbology does, as a result of being a reflection of reality, form seemingly similar archetypes—but due to cultural drift and human capacity to change, will change and evolve as human culture changes over time. What might have seemed like universal archetypes to Jung may not have any relevance to a human civilization in the future that has gone through a technological singularity that could either structure or diversify humanity beyond recognition. If a subset of pre-singularity human cultures were preserved, then the abstractness of their archetypal identity would be much more evident against the backdrop of post-human and Homo Novus populations.

And so, though there are benefits to our archetypal arrangements as they are, the true nature of good and evil is the ability to use the metasymbolic code deep in our evolutionary psyche to create accurate archetypes for the future—not the past—and shape those into hypothetical relationships which we can then call an ethos. This theory of archetypes and human biosemiotics is the closest thing I can come up with to describe my observed subjective and objective experiences relating to the paradigm formation and abstract logistics of human behavior.