i dont really understand what you are trying to say on half of the words and other half i dont agree with and you dont have anything than your opinion to back it up, while i gave you quotes from jung which say that archetypes isnt an Ni thing. all i see is weird rationalizations about your opinion and nothing to back it up :/ .this is the work of Ni. to aggregate and update the conditions of possibility for meaningful communication. to revise the operating system, the paradigm, the conditions of being (rather than simply the rules of acting). which is to say the central tags, the symbols that regroup the organizational boundaries of objects as we refer to them socio-linguistically, consciously (in jung's parlance), through circuits of cultural meaning that circulate through us but are not stable internally within our own minds or externally as objects themselves. the orbits of meaning scaled to their own levels of descriptive usefulness spanning further and further outward into the "universe" are simply ways of ordering the self-organization process, a recursive hierarchy, the process of perception that binds emergent organizational intelligence to the particulars of process.
jung's distinction of creatura and pleroma showcases this fundamental split between j and p thinking. seeing the world as symbols (universal meanings) vs as objects (concrete particulars). the N difference (for both Ni and Ne) is simply a third eye difference. it is an analogical recontextualization process that allows neither side of the equation, internal or external context, to be seen as first and de facto and determining of the other. so we can revise our understanding of the conditions of possibility abductively based on the attempted reconciliation possibilities rather than by privileging either side of the mind/body creatura/pleroma distinction. even if our own modes of rendering the world do start on one side of this equation (as our lateralization bias has shaped our developmental process).
i mean, put another way, the collective unconscious is semiotic territorialization. the potentiation of meaning, of ways of guessing at what things are based on orders of self-referential description. eg what is the difference between this and the idea of this that has been programmed as the idea through which difference is calculated? which is the conditions of perception imposed by a perceiver, a recursive hierarchy that is the ongoing, three-part process of emergent organizational intelligence that weaves together the order of the universe. sign, object, interpretant. the skill of N is in the awareness of the full triangulation of this process. Ni is the circularity whereas Ne is the linearity, which simply have to do with being in synchronic or diachronic time, using semantic or episodic memory. this is also why archetypes, when viewed as objects, are seen as historical constructs. but why, when seen as meanings, are essentialistic, ahistorical, universals that have no grounding in anything (but in the abstract auto-association networks and the emerging algorithms that have shaped the very infrastructure of thought in unconscious ways).
i don't mean to obscure this unnecessarily. but the underlying information structure of cognition is necessary to consider because we cannot simply identify with a randomly selected boundedness such as "human mind" when the psychological processes themselves are contingent on so much that cannot be easily accounted for when we recognize that in all spaces our differentiations (both typological and purely descriptive/historical/processual) will render the world in nearly unfathomably different ways. in other words, we cannot have foundation. we cannot have stability or certainty. we must be aggregating from the top-down as well as recognizing the uniqueness of all things from the bottom up. top-down is space-making and bottom-up is moving through it in time. endlessly subsuming each other, oscillating at all levels of bifurcation, blinking in and out of existence (depending on level of description, mode of analysis, orientation within the larger process of rendering). top down creates the shapes and the surface areas that potentiate interactive possibilities that probabilize degrees of boundedness whereas bottom up stays with the particular details of experience, stays present in the interaction itself.we are all identifying with but parts of the total process of rendering reality. reality as totality, whether rendered as singularity or multiplicity, in the words of jung, "has from the beginning been infinite and ungraspable."