Mary Includes Her Archetypes
Wed, 13 Mar 1996 10:31:23 -0500
Content-ID: <>
Content-type: text/plain

attach file.
Content-ID: <>
Content-type: text/plain;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I am really saying two things. They are not
contradictory. First, I am presenting a
methodology for determining whether a
person adds up simple abstractions (traits,
archetypes, etc.) in the determination of
the experience of a construct like Self.
Mathematically, those variables that are
created by synthesizing other variables are
more complex. Simple plus simple equals
more complex. When we elicit a construct
such as Mary-like and trait like abstractions
that are elicited to be characteristic of Mary,
then the traits should add up to Mary. The
experience of Mary is partly determined =

by the synthesis of the simpler constructs. =

The archetypes that make up some of Marys
being are not more inclusive of Mary's being
than is Mary. The archetype may be more
inclusive of certain parts of people than is
Mary. She may not share certain archetypes =

with other people, but she certainly has more
implicit archetypes than any archetype
contains implicit archetypes.
The fact that mathematically Mary should be
more complex than her characteristic traits
does not mean that there is not a hierarchy
of causes within the archetypes. Nor does it mean
that the person completing the grid does not
reduce Mary-like to a simple abstraction. =

Mary-like could be just a label for "pretty". If so,
mathematically, this degenerate version of
Mary-like could be a simple component of a
larger trait like construct, for example,
"beautiful". In this case Beautiful=3D Mary-like
(pretty)+ universal features+poise+etc. The
person making up this grid would see herself
as a subset of the construct Beautiful. Now this
may be true in a very narrow sense. She may
be one of the many women who, all else aside,
are beautiful. But alot is being ignored in such
construction of Mary-like. =

This brings us to my second message. =

Following Jung's individuation model, the
equation for Mary would be psychologically
healthier if it read:
Mary-like=3D beautiful+etc. =

beautiful=3Dpretty+universal features+poise+ etc.
My second message is prescriptive. And, =

although it is consistent with mathematics,
we have seen that humans can create
degenerate models of the self. The math
will reveal this but I do not take the =

disclosure of deindividuated psyches as
proof against the math.
Your points concerning modern philosophy
versus Aristotle are interesting. Classification =

systems may be used to reduce the reality of
a person to an abstraction- such as Mary is
nothing but a slave- but I personally see such
"deconstruction" of the person to an abstraction
as violence to both the person and to reality.
Many modern philosophers seem to advocate
relativism as a kind of method for tearing apart
reductionistic classification systems. But I think
the cure of relativism is as bad as the disease.
Of course I may be wrong about this. I haven't
read the deconstructivist literature. Maybe they
just don't like reducing people to abstractions? =

But this really is a different thing than saying
the person contains many abstractions (simple
essences), but is fundamentally the person. I =

suppose this shows my existentialist leanings
but I insist that this does not make me a =

relativist. We can create real things. But =

because of our throwness, we can not just
whip up anything from anything. Thus we do see
the potential of Mary flower into Mary. We are
just not limited to Aristotle's views of potential.
I do see a place for abstractions. There is
much that we can learn from a nomothetic
perspective. I just don't believe such
knowledge should be used by poorly
educated and unintelligent people working in
psychology. I do not like being reduced to a =

diagnosis and I do not blame others who resent
it either. This is not to say that we can not
learn much about disease processes from
diagnosis. Just diagnose the disease, not
the person. =

Concerning creativity and superordination. I
see the formal causal effect as the superordinate
=2E The child contains the parent, the sexually
mature adult may or may not have a child.
The child is superordinate because its very
existence comes from the act of inclusion.
The parents genetic material is contained in
the child. The child is more than simply the
parents' separate genetic materials. The child
is the being who integrates the parents genes.
Until the child exists, their is no integration.
The child is the inclusion. Once the child
exists, its parents genetic material is only
part of the child. The higher order of being;
the child, is form by inclusion.In other words,
we must account for the + (plus) sign in our
equation y=3DX1+X2. The child is inclusion =

by the + operation.
Perhaps this form by inclusion has relevance
to Aritotle's notion of final cause, although
with an existential bent. The purpose of the
child is to be the child and the child is the
child by the child's own being of itself. The
child is not simply a clumping together for the =

sake of some abstraction. Nor is the child,
nor is Maryness, merely a social convention.
We might clump ribbon color and introversion,
agreeing socially that we have synthesized =

personality, but this form of postmodern =

syncretism can hardly be compared with the
synthesis that is a child called Mary.
Should the child come to see herself
as the synthesis of that which is natually
given and that which creatively developes,
then the child is healthy. It would certainly
help if social convention agreed with her,
but if it does not, she may still be truer to
herself than are they. =

Correct me if I am wrong. We are getting away
from the exclusively mathematical and I may
start saying things I do not know for sure.