Science started with the uncensored motive to understand, and they called it magic.

Theory Of Archetypes in Archetypes


Archetype is a modern word for a force that has always been present in life. Their legitimacy is still being debated, but there are some questions that find their answers in the theory of archetypes that have no answer in any other paradigm.

Example, children are born with a section of their brain exclusively prepared to “learn” language. Also some basic instinctive responses occur quite commonly in individuals who have no practical reason to have them, like fear of spiders or snakes, without ever having seen one in person.

Archetypes are essentially non-verbal data. They are perhaps the most primal objects of awareness there are, and reproduce themselves in both our behaviour and in the pattern of events as they arise in nature and human activity on a “non-psychological” level. The most basic symbolism humanity has ever used, the prehistoric cave paintings, etc., have very clear depictions of archetypes that are still in human consciousness today like the “horned man” or the “great serpent”.

We brought those symbols into the religions, and deliberately edited and censored them to fit whatever was the dominant dogma of the time, but they do not have to be deliberately learned or used to manifest in your life.

Like a word becomes a swear word when culture says so? Yes. Please forgive the word, but two examples are bitch and ass. They originally referred to a female canine and an equine, and had no other meaning. The word bitch originally was used in a rather positive light, as female canines were often very loyal and good hunting companions.

It is all about the intention and energy we put behind the sounds/words and pictures/archetypes? Hence deliberately learned as you said? Yes. Each person can and does relate to the archetypes in an individual and personal way, but how you relate to the archetypes is how you relate to the world at large.

I know I don’t particularly like it when someone calls me that word, but the word itself doesn’t bother me. And even in the original sense it was derogatory. The peasant population were seen by medieval Nobles as being barely higher than livestock, and the peasants sort of accepted this using some terms in casual conversation with each other even. But if you called Duke so and so’s wife a bitch… Well, you would be killed. But to get back to my point, they are both non-verbal and non-conscious information, and are present in your make-up though no one ever officially taught you any such thing.

So archetypes are different then words in that respect? They come before words. One of the first words a child ever uses, even without being coached, is ma-ma. The mother archetype is in their minds already though they can’t sit and rationalize about it.

They are like pictures where you make up your own caption? Basically, yes. Thus you have one of the universal symbols, the dragon, having a wide variety of forms though all recognizable as dragons and having multiple roles in the human world view. But it goes deeper than just pictures in your head. In fact, the creative process of imagination is actually subordinate to the presence of archetypes in your mind. It has been proven that the human mind cannot create an image and not use information from real life, not even the seriously psychopathic. Ever wonder why this is?

I have thought about that in Second Life. How the creations there can’t break free of real life images even though it is technically possible. Every avatar has some basis in real life, be it animal, machine, or a more abstract archetype like dragons or fairies. But even in utero, the developing human is being subject to patterned sounds, the psychosomatic tension patterns of the mother. It can even be argued that their nervous systems are being imprinted by the mothers bio-electrical field. With the new science of epigenetics even the hormonal changes of the mother and the bonds they create to her genes would alter and imprint the offspring, as would the father and the epigenetic editing of his contribution to conception. Even if you take a purely materialistic view, the archetypes will be inherited by everyone.

So you could imprint a loving relationship and they would carry that with them? You can imprint a loving relationship yes, as well as insecurities, or intellectualism.

Now even from day one of human consciousness, they are like a blank book recording all the ideas and drama around them. The abstract and at the time mostly unintelligible sensory impressions are still imprinting themselves on the infants nervous system.

I’ve noticed that even with my pets. If you are always stressed then the dog seems to bark more and be more of the guard dog. Exactly. Animals will respond, and it has been shown that animals do seem to have identifiable “object/images” in their dreams also.

Do the archetypes cut across all planes of existence or do we pick them up like baggage when we incarnate here? All planes of existence. The energies cross states and parallel each other. This is why when you have a paranormal experience your brain has the ability to symbolize what should in theory be unintelligible, because the same information that creates the imagery of our artists is inherent in the subjects that inspire them. The purpose for the research of a scientist is inherent in the force or matter they are examining. We don’t create purpose, we apprehend/comprehend it.

What you said before about recording the ideas around them, is that putting the labels to the already existing archetypes they know? Yes. Sort of a transliteration of the quantum impulses that were behind the initiation and gestation of the new human life in the first place. The common belief is that there is still no human-like consciousness outside of human brains. That’s a half truth at best, and not really even a half truth. In fact, all of material reality is one intelligible/conscious field of energy.

Ok, so I’m hearing that it’s a process where multiple potentials are collapsed into one. Multiple potential labels an archetype may have for you personally is collapsed down to one idea as we absorb the information around us at incarnation? Indeed, and create our own impression on it. An awakening spark of human consciousness creates what in a hologram would be an interference signal, translating the energy into organized parts.

Hence the religions of the world are alike, but not. Same archetypes, but labels are different from how people impact them? Yes, and also according to the ecological conditions of the places these people dwell. In one place a serpent seems wise, in another it seems threatening, but no actual element of human choice acts on this code initially. People don’t and really can’t “make these things up.”

Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.

Travis Saunders
Dragon Intuitive

If you enjoyed this page:
Keep Reading »

Leave Your Insight