Cliche and Archetype

[Mole]

First we need a cliche, then we need an archetype.

A cliche is - I know it so well, I know it like the back of my hand.

And another cliche is - I know it so well, I know it inside out.

But where of where are the archetypes?

Well, they are staring us in the face, for the first cliche - I know it so well, I know it like the back of my hand - is an Austalian cliche, and - I know it so well, I know it inside out - is an American cliche.

And so we have our archetypes. The first archetype is an Australian, and the second is an American. Yes, an Australian or an American is an archetype.

But what do our cliches tell us about our archetypes?

 

[Mole]

Well - I know it so well, I know it like the back of my hand - is a visual cliche, for we look at the back of our hand. So the Australian archetype is visual.

While - I know it so well, I know it inside out - is an kinetic cliche, a cliche of the proprioceptive sense, a cliche we find externally in dance and internally in visceral feeling. So the American archetype is kinetic. We see this in American Jazz and dance, and we see it in American felt authenticity.

So what is the relationship between the Australian archetype and the American archetype?

 

[Mole]

So we have the visual Australian archetype looking at the American archetype; and we have the American archetype moving around and inside the Australian archetype.

And it is the sheer energy of the American archetype that first strikes the Australian archetype, and then it is the demand for visceral authenticity that next strikes the Australian archetype; while the American archetype can't quite see what the Australian archetype is looking at.

 

[Cellmold]

This always reminds me...how often DO people look at the back of their hands?

 

[Mole]

Strine and Fancy

Of course there are other archetypes and cliches. For instance the Russian cliche is - I know it so well, I know it like the palm of my hand - and this is a tactile cliche. And so the Russian archetype is tactile, an archetype of touch.

The Japanese cliche is - I know it so well, I know it from top to bottom, from the top of the head to the soles of the feet. And so the Japanese cliche is one of interval, a cliche of space between, very much a Zen cliche. So the Japanese archetype is one of the empty space between.

The German cliche is - I know it so well, I know it like the inside of my pocket - I am baffled by this cliche as one might expect from a visual Australian archetype, but still it fascinates me, possibly because I can't see inside my pocket. And gosh, I wonder what is the German archetype doing inside their pocket - it is hidden from me.

No wonder the archetypes don't understand one another. And no wonder we try to get the other archetypes to perceive the world as we do.

Of course the Australian archetype believes everyone is born speaking Strine, but then learn a foreign language. But some tell me this is fanciful.

 

[greenfairy]

This always reminds me...how often DO people look at the back of their hands?

Only enough to be able to pick them out of a group, probably- but I would guess S's would know the backs of their hands better than N's.

 

[Mole]

Not all about me

What could be more appropriate on Typology Central than to discuss Archetypes. Archetypes are of course just another type.

But Archetypes are not personal types. Archetypes are not about the individual. Archetypes are not about me. So after all, I discover it is not all about me.

And I discover the very language I use is not all about me - for I speak in cliches - words that have been in millions of mouths.

When I first joined Central, I didn't speak in cliches but I wasn't understood, and I found the only way I could be understood was to speak in cliches. So once again I discovered it is not all about me.

 

[skylights]

I'm an American and I've heard "know it like the back of my hand" more than "know it inside out".

Just a curiosity.

 

[Mole]

Not wanting to be a sock

I'm an American and I've heard "know it like the back of my hand" more than "know it inside out".

Just a curiosity.

You know what will happen if you persist with your curiosity - you will ruin my argument.

Of course you might like to talk to your confessor or even your therapist to find out why, when you know something so well, you don't, like all good Americans, know it inside out. Perhaps you have a phobia of turning things inside out - perhaps you feel panic when you see someone turning a sock inside out - perhaps you feel a sense of vertigo on the very thought of turning yourself inside out like a sock. I am not a sock, you will tell your therapist, I am a person. Of course, says your therapist, this is a perfectly normal feeling, not wanting to be a sock, and indeed we call it sock phobia.

 

[skylights]

I am terrified of seeing my insides. Aren't we all?

 

[Xann]

While social cliche may perhaps be a genetic root of the archetypical process formation, what we humans think of as cliche in our everyday life are perhaps not quite meaningful enough concepts to have much connection with jungian archetypes that can actually affect our psyche. I would think of today's cliche as perhaps the seed of an archetype a million years down the road? maybe, interesting to think about.

 

[Mole]

I am terrified of seeing my insides. Aren't we all?

Naturally we never see our insides, rather we feel them with our proprioceptive sense; we don't see them with our visual sense.

So you are quite right, most of us are terrified of seeing our insides because we don't see them, we feel them.

 

[skylights]

Indeed. Seriously, I saw my insides once. I had to get a "punch biopsy" done on my leg tissue. They pretty much take a hole puncher and punch a hole in your flesh. And then pull it out. And then there's a gaping hole. I almost passed out. You're not supposed to see your insides.

More interesting to me is our focus on how well we know something. Why does it become cliche? Because we need to emphasize how fully we know something, but it is hard to demonstrate the extent and/or depth of knowledge completely. Hence cliche?

 

[sprinkles]

Bob's your uncle. I have to see a man about a horse.

 

[Mole]

While social cliche may perhaps be a genetic root of the archetypical process formation, what we humans think of as cliche in our everyday life are perhaps not quite meaningful enough concepts to have much connection with jungian archetypes that can actually affect our psyche. I would think of today's cliche as perhaps the seed of an archetype a million years down the road? maybe, interesting to think about.

Yes, cliches and archetypes are interesting to think about, so do let us know what you are thinking.

 

[Mole]

More interesting to me is our focus on how well we know something. Why does it become cliche? Because we need to emphasize how fully we know something, but it is hard to demonstrate the extent and/or depth of knowledge completely. Hence cliche?

A cliche is a saying that has been in a million mouths.

But worse there is a cliched way of speaking that looks cool but limits our ability to think and feel with each other.

So we speak in a cliched way in order to belong, to conform, to be cool, to control and limit ourselves and each other.

And mbti is an extreme way of speaking cliched.

 

[INTP]

Yes, an Australian or an American is an archetype.

no

 

[Mole]

no

There are about 20 million Australians. So it is obvious that an Australian is an archetype for 20 million people.

 

[INTP]

There are about 20 million Australians. So it is obvious that an Australian is an archetype for 20 million people.

being an australian can give you an cultural identity(and work as an part of persona) and guide your actions that way, but it doesent fit the definition of an archetype.

 

[Mole]

We have reached our nadir

being an australian can give you an cultural identity(and work as an part of persona) and guide your actions that way, but it doesent fit the definition of an archetype.

We know our argument has reached its nadir when we start arguing definitions. However 'archetype' comes from the Ancient Greek 'archétypon' meaning a 'mold'. And so 'Australian' is the 'mold' for 21.5 million people.