posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 08:30 PM
reply to post by Chamberf=6
There now, was that really so painful?
If you look up 'usage' in that dictionary/encyclopaedia of yours you will understand why 'coined the usage' is exactly correct.
I shan't belabour the Bertrand Russell point, but shall simply quote this:
The strong emotional reactions after the assassination or death of a public figure, such as a president or king, movie star or religious figure,
show that for many persons the particular figure carried an archetypal projection.
of that quote is
Jungian Dream Interpretation: A Handbook of Theory and Practice
by J.A. Hall, one of a series of psychology textbooks written by Jungian
analysts. And yes, it was Jung who invented (coined) the usage 'archetype of the collective unconscious'. Before he came along, 'archetype' just
meant model or pattern. Which is meaningless in the context of this discussion.
My objection is to the woowoo idea that archetypes have some kind of independent paraphysical existence — an idea articulated by so many on this
thread. Interpreted so, the 'old man' (or any other archetype) is no different from a ghost, spirit, demon, alien or similar imaginary being — a
revenant from the prehistory of thought. The Jungian concept of the archetype is a way of explaining these visitations within the framework of
psychological analysis. I'm not saying it's correct (Jung was a bit woowoo himself) but it's a lot better than believing in old men in the sky who
leave crescent-shaped marks between people's shoulder-blades when they're not looking.
Or don't you think so?