Clarifying Archetypes for Scaling

Archetypes can only be roughly circumscribed at best. Their living meaning comes out more from their presentation as a whole than from a single formulation. Every attempt to focus them more sharply is immediately punished by the intangible core of meaning losing its luminosity. No archetype can be reduced to a simple formula. It is a vessel which we can never empty, and never fill. It has a potential existence only, and when it takes shape in matter it is no longer what it was. It persists throughout the ages and requires interpreting ever anew. The archetypes are the imperishable elements of the unconscious, but they change their shape continually.

The Archetypes as Modes of Apprehension, Organizers of Images and Ideas; Imaginal and Ideational Phenomenology of the Eidos; Eidos Imparts Reality of Being and Power of Knowing.

The contents of the collective unconscious, the archetypes, Jung maintains, are numinous; that is, they possess a specific energy which enables them to attract the contents of consciousness to themselves; it is thus that they:

are thus responsible for arranging the contents of consciousness; they do this specifically in the form of images and ideas. Archetypes are, by definition, factors and motifs that

Arrange the psychic elements into certain images. The unconscious supplies as it were the archetypal form which is in itself empty and irrepresentable. Consciousness immediately fills it with related or similar representational material so that it can be perceived. For this reason archetypal ideas are locally, temporally, and

individually conditioned. But the ground plan of these images is universal and must be assumed to be pre-existent, since it can be demonstrated in the dreams of small children or uneducated persons who could not possibly have been influenced by tradition.

The pre-existent pattern is irrepresentable

In both cases the investigator comes back to the individual, for what he is all the time concerned with are certain complex thought forms, the archetypes, which must be conjectured as the unconscious organizers of our ideas."

CW8:453, "Archetypes are typical forms of behaviour which, once they become conscious naturally present themselves as ideas and images, like everything else that becomes a content of consciousness."

CW6:791, "It thus proves to be an archetypal ideas or equivalence.

Jung says of the symbols of the dilemma of one and three1 and their reference to the psychic totality of the individual that, They indicate the presence of an archetype of like nature. . . But since this totality exceeds the individual's consciousness to an indefinite and indeterminable extent, it invariably includes the unconscious in its orbit and hence the totality of all archetypes. But the archetypes are complementary equivalents of the 'outside world 1 and 18 therefore possess a "cosmic" character.

This explains their numinosity and godlikeness.

In his article, Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle, Jung, citing the discontinuities of modern physics, notes that the classic scientific triad of space, time, and causality has come more and more into question. Such phenomena as radio-active decay or "half-life" appear to be causeless effects. Jung quotes Sir James Jeans3 ("Radio active breakup appeared to be an effect without a cause and suggested that the ultimate laws of nature were not even causal."), in support of his contention that this phe- nomenon belongs to the field of acausal orderedness, a conception which also includes his concept of synchronicity.synchronicity is to the other three principles as the one dimensionality of time is to the three dimension- ality of space . . . Just as the introduction of time as the fourth dimension in modern physics postulates an irrepre- sentable space-time continuum, so the idea of synchronicity with its inherent quality of meaning produces a picture of the world so irrepresentable as to be completely baffling. The advantage, however, of adding this concept is that it makes possible a view which includes the psychoid in our description and knowledge of nature

Boundless Circles and The Mandala (Dimensionless States)

It is Eternal and Surpasses All Bounds Of Space and Time which means they’d be beyond their infinities as well by definition.

Here are the Scans Of Transfinite Arithmetic Being Products and Agents Of The Archetypes, The Mind and The Unconscious

Archetypes are Beyond All Categories Of Numbers, Space, Time and Space-Time

Jung’s Own Philosophy and Workings Of “Numbers” are Completely different and beyond the original and mathematical workings

“In the evening after dinner, we somehow got onto the subject of numbers which, C.G. said, had a life of their own. ~E.A. Bennet, Meetings with Jung, Page 158

There is no reason why whole numbers possess certain meanings or qualities, and no reason why elephants or men should exist. These arrangements are simply there as given facts, like the crystalline systems or the discontinuities of physics, even as the whole of creation is a “just-so story.” ~Carl Jung, Letters Vol. II, Page 355.

I have got stuck, on the one hand, in the acausality (or “synchronicity”) of certain phenomena of unconscious provenance and, on the other hand, in the qualitative statements of numbers, for here I set foot on territories where I cannot advance without the help and understanding of the other disciplines. ~Carl Jung, Letters Vol. II, Pages 351-352.

Like all the inner foundations of judgment, numbers are archetypal by nature and consequently partake of the psychic qualities of the archetype. ~Carl Jung, Letters Vol. II, Pages 327-329.

It would be a worthy task for a mathematician to collect all the known properties of numbers and also all their “inescapable” statements which should be quite possible up to 10-and in this way project a biological picture of whole numbers. ~Carl Jung, Letters Vol. II, Pages 327-329.

From this it appears that whole numbers are individuals, and that they Possess properties which cannot be explained on the assumption that they are multiple units. ~Carl Jung, Letters Vol. II, Pages 327-329.

The idea that numbers were invented for counting is obviously untenable, since they are not only pre-existent to judgment but possess properties which were discovered only in the course of the centuries, and presumably possess a number of others which will be brought to light only by the future development of mathematics. ~Carl Jung, Letters Vol. II, Pages 327-329.

The fact is that the numbers pre-existing in nature are presumably the most fundamental archetypes, being the very matrix of all others. ~Carl Jung, Letters Vol. II, Pages 325-327.

Archetypes are not mere concepts but are entities, exactly like whole numbers, which are not merely aids to counting but possess irrational qualities that do not result from the concept of counting, as for instance the prime numbers and their behaviour. ~Carl Jung, Letters Vol. II, Page 22.

Hence the mathematician Kronecker could say: Man created mathematics, but God created whole numbers. ~Carl Jung, Letters Vol. II, Page 23.

Where numbers indicate a measure we move into the material. A concrete image is a manifestation requiring space in which the spirit clothes itself in the material in order to draw to man. ~Carl Jung, Jung-Ostrowski, Page 60.

Images and numbers are doors through which the spiritual can reach man. ~Carl Jung, Jung-Ostrowski, Page 60.

It is characteristic of the transcendent that it can be pictured and described by numbers; the passage of time, quantity, and identity, are spiritual substances. ~Carl Jung, Jung-Ostrowski, Page 60.

The character of the image is not determined by numbers. Pure spiritual substance is eternal. An image as such needs neither time nor space. ~Carl Jung, Jung-Ostrowski, Page 60.

I should like to study the theory of numbers. What is a number, an entity, a sequence, an archetype? We think we can perceive and grasp a number logically and suddenly it behaves quite differently from the way we expected. ~Carl Jung, Jung-Ostrowski, Page 55

It is a fundamental phenomenon of mathematics that numbers are not just mathematical entities but individualities. ~Carl Jung, Jung-Ostrowski, Page 55

We believe we are playing with equations and suddenly it transpires that certain equations express the laws of electric currents. God played and formulated currents. ~Carl Jung, Jung-Ostrowski, Page 55.

It is characteristic of the transcendent that it can be pictured and described by numbers; the passage of time, quantity, and identity, are spiritual substances. ~Carl Jung, Jung-Ostrowski, Page 60.

Numbers are autonomous. They had their life, their significance before men used them as instruments. The mathematicians continue to use them as instruments, so in that instant they become dry. Before they had their proper significance. C. G. Jung, Emma Jung and Toni Wolff – A Collection of Remembrances; Pages 51-70.

The very numbers you use in counting are more than you take them for. They are at the same time mythological entities (for the Pythagoreans they were even divine), but you are certainly unaware of this when you use numbers for a practical purpose. ~Carl Jung, CW 18, Para 461 “ - Carl Jung on “Numbers” – Anthology

There’s even more insight on this. Jung Numbers >>>> Actual Numbers, things that predated us and the Eternal before their usage. numbers in Jungian Philosophy include the very passage of time, quantity, and identity. Divine Symbols, Agents Of Archetypes working onto the Unconscious Usually through the Self.

“ For our purposes in this essay, we focus on Jung’s usage and his definitions, and he defined number as: “peculiar entities with irreducible properties,”[9] “not only concepts but something more—autonomous entities which somehow contain more than just quantities…”,[10] entities that have “existed from eternity and occur ... “

https://jungiancenter.org/jung-on-numbers/#%3A~%3Atext%3DFor%20our%20purposes%20in%20this%2Cexisted%20from%20eternity%20and%20occur%C2%A0

Jung hated math. He once told Barbara Hannah that mathematics ruined the experience of school for him.[5] Given this distaste, one might expect that Jung would have ignored or dismissed numbers and anything linked to the subject. But not so! Jung had great respect for numbers, and told Marie Louise von Franz that he would have pursued an in-depth study of numbers if he were younger.[6] She eventually picked up the topic and wrote Number and Time: Reflections Leading toward a Unification of Depth Psychology and Physics.[7] How might such a unification be possible? What was it, according to Jung, that made numbers so significant? We will address these questions by first defining “number,” and particularly Jung’s definition of “number,” and then discuss the features and functions of numbers. Finally we will consider how numbers might foster a unifying of psychology and physics.

What is meant by “number”?

The dictionary offers nearly a dozen meanings for “number:” “a word or symbol used in counting,” “the amount of units,” “a quantity,” “a collection or company,” “a means of identifying a place” (e.g. the number of an apartment), “a single part of a program,” “a song or piece of music,” “a single issue f a periodical,” “any thing or person viewed apart or thought of as standing apart from a collection or company,” “the property or words that indicates whether they refer to one or more than one” (as in grammar, singular or plural), and “the regularity or beat or measure in verse or music; rhythm.”[8] We use the word “number” in a wide variety of contexts.

For our purposes in this essay, we focus on Jung’s usage and his definitions, and he defined number as: “peculiar entities with irreducible properties,”[9] “not only concepts but something more—autonomous entities which somehow contain more than just quantities…”,[10] entities that have “existed from eternity and occur regularly.”[11] Jung regarded numbers as “archetypes of order,”[12] and “mythological entities,”[13] and, as such, numbers “… are not inventions of the conscious mind but are spontaneous products of the unconscious, as has been sufficiently shown by experience.”[14] Experience is the touchstone of truth for the empiricist,[15] and in this, as in so many ways in his work, Jung came to his definitions and ideas about numbers from his personal observations in his work with patients and their dreams.

Jung also recognized that numbers are “symbols of the Self’s coming to consciousness…,”[16] with the first four numbers in particular symbolizing different “phases of the journey of the Self, different expressions of its transformation.”[17] The number 3 “… denotes the surface or flatness, whereas 4 means height or depth….”

18] The numbers 1, 2 and 3 “characterize or produce incorporeal intelligences…”.[19] Two is associated with opposites, e.g. right and left, favorable and unfavorable, good and bad.[20]

Jung drew on “old tradition”[21] for some number symbolism, e.g. that “… the number 6 means creation and evolution, since it is a coniunctio of 2 and 3 (even and odd =female and male). Philo Judaeus therefore calls the senarius (6) the “… ‘number most suited to generation’…”.[22] Jung regarded 8 as “… a double quaternity [i.e. two 4’s] and… an individuation symbol in mandalas….”[23] Jung found other specific number symbolism in esoteric traditions like Cabalism: the cabalists saw 1 as symbolic of the spirit of the Living God; 2, as spirit from spirit; 3, water from spirit; 4, fire from water; 5, height; 6, depth, 7, East; 8, West; 9, South, and 10, North.[24] Clearly over millennia of time, and many different cultures, numbers have had a variety of meanings and significance. Significance and meaning are just two of numbers’ features. What are some others?

Jung thought of numbers as archetypes[25] and, as such, they were “pre-existent to consciousness.”[26] That is, they were not something humans invented, but were more something we “found or discovered.”[27] In a footnote in an essay “On the Nature of the Psyche,” Jung noted that “A mathematician once remarked that everything in science was man-made except numbers, which had been created by God himself.”[28]

Archetypes are autonomous and “condition consciousness,”[29] i.e. they spontaneously give rise to certain behaviors or reactions, independent of our ego desires, and they can pattern daily living. Hypothesizing that numbers are archetypes, Jung ventured to suggest that numbers, like other archetypes, are “spontaneously produced by the unconscious,”[30] and “show a tendency to behave in a special way.”[31]

Continuing the theme of number-as-archetype, Jung felt numbers “… possess numinosity and mystery… and all numbers from 1 to 9 are sacred,…”[32] By saying numbers have numinosity, Jung implied that numbers can link us to something larger than ourselves: the Divine, the Universe, cosmic reality. Being mysterious symbols, numbers can never be fully understood or boxed up with a simple definition.[33] Number will always elude the complete grasp of our logical minds

Like other types of archetypes, numbers “… have existed from eternity,”[34] and “belong to both worlds, the real and the imaginary; it [number] is visible as well as invisible, quantitative as well as qualitative.”[35] While we in modern culture tend to think of numbers as simple devices to quantify reality, calculate budgets, balance the checkbook and perform various engineering and scientific endeavors, or as a way to label the days of the week, month and year, Jung saw numbers very differently: as “peculiar entities with irreducible properties.”[36] These entities have functions that go far beyond our common uses of numbers.

My goat carl jung