Fascinating responses to the Archetype questions.
Fascinating responses to the Archetype questions. It has occurred to me, though I have hardly settled on this theory, that such things as Astrology and Tarot bear the same relationship to Primal Archetyping that man made imitations of Prime Object bear to their original counterparts. For instance, suppose that the original resonators on earth appeared like obelisks, man then made obelisks first to re-capture the power of them and the originals and then forgot the early impulse and considered them interesting decoration. And I would not rule out a the possibility that we have dominant and subdominant archetypes.
So we all might possess different degrees or archetypes, and they might shift. This is only speculation, but I am interested in your thoughts.
So we all might possess different degrees or archetypes, and they might shift. This is only speculation, but I am interested in your thoughts.
In that case, I'd imagine that people like the Researchers have a Primary Archetype, one that tends to showcase itself more than the others.
ReplyDeleteInteresting
ReplyDeletei don't care about archetypes until you free our banned players!
ReplyDeleteHmm - some of your comments are using language similar to what a genetics discussion might use. Are you suggesting an organic component to Archetypes? Perhaps even a theory of governance for them along the lines of organic evolution for DNA phenotypes???
ReplyDeleteIf I remember correctly, a very similar ideation was also been discussed some time ago into Essex.
ReplyDeleteIndeed it would be very sensible to assume the presence of more facets in a "something" so structurally massive as is the human psyche and its natural aptitudes - formed to another not only by nature in the strict sense, but also by the environment in which being human grows and matures, from his life experiences and who and what is around him.
Research on the archetypes has not, I believe, enough instruments to deepen and find definitive answers.
It 'just as the artistic representation of those ideas that, however, transcend the physical and material world, suggested by perceptions that do not know how to explain.
We are not yet able to dig deep enough.
Ive always found it fascinating how Menhirs were often put in place on burial grounds and that they often engraved with Megalithic Art. Take for instance Newgrange in Ireland, which could have been a prehistoric Abaddon chamber or Anomalous Zone. It makes sense that these structures are engraved with forms of glyphs and artifacts so that people could interact with different trans-dimensional layers. In relating to Archetypes though, could these places have existed to focus or strengthen peoples dominant or subdominant archetypes? I would suggest that like a gemstone we all have natural talent, but how we interact with XM/Zones shapes and polishes our various talents. Perhaps even a force can choose to give us a specific Archetype?
ReplyDeleteAlso - the concept of Janus has been very prominent in Niantic connected things - is there a duality to Archetypes?
ReplyDeleteLike shadow archetypes described by jungian psychology?
ReplyDeleteHello Dr.Edgar Allan Wright nice to hear from you again hopefully everything is well!?
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about the fact that there are different degrees and/or archetypes which might shift. This could depend on different reasons, like for example the amount of xm in the area, personal development and also conditions which we don't know exactly yet.
Some questions matured in my mind, if i may ask, what do you think about the Eternal City of Rome with it's 13 Obelisks throughout the City? Could Rome be a prime spot for a Magnus to be formed or possibly the first Location on earth where a Magnus was ever formed in the past?
And if so could there be a secret passage beyond the City's catacombs which might lead to a vault or chamber similar to the ABADN one beneath CERN? Could rather Hank Johnson know more about the Eternal City than he divulged to us in the past?
Please stay safe Doc!!
(Sven W your issue, vortitu's and all of the others, are noted and i think that NIA Ops will take a deep look into this, but please stop spamming on every channel and especially the history section, it's just annoying and it won't speed up any future decisions. Please
ReplyDeletebe patient and thank you for your comprehension!)
Philipp J. Bock niantic is not showing any single sign of communication, so annoying others and hope they join the rebellion is all we can do until niantic hopefully will improve their communication with players. the default "you're banned because tos" message basically says nothing. people dont't know what they did wrong, if they did at all and not just false positively triggering the worst anti cheat protection i have ever seen.
ReplyDeleteSven W Agreed, but sometimes it's not so bad to stay kind and be patient despite of the own frustration.
ReplyDelete(which i definitely understand!)
Philipp J. Bock staying kind didn't work the last 4 years, why should it now? time for an different approach.
ReplyDeleteSven W you were banned. Get over it. Complaining about it everywhere will not cause you to be unbanned; it will on the contrary make more people hope you never play again. Write a petition to NIA Ops then sit in the corner or make a new account and stop crapping all over the game's various discussions.
ReplyDeleteMario Valenzuela II I have not been banned (yet, and I wouldn't know why if) but some of my friends have and don't know why. I wouldn't run this if Niantic would at least respond with an actual reason and not just say "our stupid algorithm says tos violation and we dont care" this is not how to talk with year long customers.
ReplyDeleteEdgar Allan Wright makes a lot of sense considering that most people are not just one thing all the time; we have multiple facets, wear multiple hats, and play different roles depending on the situation. What I wonder if a person's archetype can evolve over time as if it they were skills, so to speak, that could improve over time or wane with neglect. If so, then this might lead to the existance of dual archetypes, should an individual's archetypal resonance be equally matched over various archetypes and would lead to a situation within a Magnus where one or more spots may be "empty" as a result of someone serving multiple functions. If true, this might explain the "empty" pods within the Niantic magnus.
ReplyDeleteSven W regardless of if it was you or your friend my point is still valid. Stop crapping on everything because you are not winning allies or sympathy votes.
ReplyDeleteI think the Myers-Briggs spectrum to personality for comparison to the archetypes posed here creates a tangible parallel. The Jungian shadow also contributes dimension, especially so as Jung theorized with archetypes about the human psyche. It would break from psychological theories in general to suggest anyone was merely one type of something, 100%.
ReplyDeleteAnother draw from psychological research would be to consider these archetypes and our dimensions within them via a biopsychosocial approach. What does our biology contribute to our archetype? Our psychology? Our socializing? And in addition, our spirituality? etc.
There is the additional question of which comes first? Archetype or traits of the archetype? As in temperament vs personality, there is theory that suggests a person is born with a fairly set temperament, but personality nuances develop with biopsychosocial influences. Are we born certain archetypes? Do we develop them based on our influences? Or is it something of both?
I think the possibility of existing within several archetypes complicated by depth within each of those archetypes have contributed to some people's confusion over the placement some Niantic researchers have received within the archetypes.
Edgar Allan Wright The next step, as I see it, is to probe the dynamics of the Magnus group itself. As we get closer to understanding the nature of the archetypes individually, I can't help but begin to see the group as a dynamic system. For example, some pairings seem to immediately conflict: the skeptic and the spiritualist (one doubts and the other believes) or the trickster and the omniscient (one wants to joke, the other already knows the punchline). Others seem natural fits: the explorer and the translater (both are concerned with the exotic) or the patron and the visionary (one has the capital, the other has the idea). With all these types, alliances, and antagonisms, I wonder if a Magnus group can ever be stable over the long term or if they carry the seeds of their calamity with them at the outset.
ReplyDeleteEdgar Allan Wright I agree with you. As I said in my previous comment I do not feel I am one but multiple archetypes. I feel that people have the potential to be many. What we believe is our archetype may in fact change in the eyes of some one else. What we experience may shift our archetypes. I've watched the shards come out and I know some archetypes have been a surprise to many as it was believed some of the researchers fit certain archetypes. I think it's a perfect example that can be fluid and be dependent on the person making the analysis at the time.
ReplyDelete