Ron Boyer Final Paper/Essay 1431 Tuxhorn Drive, Apt. I Length: approx. 4,000 words Santa Rosa, CA 95407 Rlboyer10@hotmail.com 517-402-7406 The Archetypal Perspective in Astrology: A Revisioning of Archetypal Meaning in Cosmos and Psyche Ronald L. Boyer Graduate Theological Union/UC Berkeley This paper discusses a re-visioning of the Jungian meaning of the term archetype in Cosmos and Psyche, Richard Tarnas, Cosmos and Psyche (NY: Viking Penquin, 2006). a book by visionary philosopher, depth psychologist, and cosmologist Richard Tarnas. In his sequel to the bestselling The Passion of the Western Mind, Richard Tarnas, The Passion of the Western Mind (NY: Ballantine, 1981). Tarnas picks up a major thread of his earlier work tracing the emergence of Jungian depth psychology in late modernity back through the Romantic tradition in Western thought (Boyer 2017, 28-31) Ronald L. Boyer, “Romanticism in Jung’s Psychology” (Depth Insights, Issue 10 Summer 2017), 28-31. to its more ancient roots in the ideas of Plato. Tarnas creates a hybrid metaphysical-psychological-astrological version of archetypal meaning in a new fusion he refers to as Platonic-Jungian (Tarnas 2006, 85), which he creatively combines with the art and science of astrology. This paper focuses on a discussion of the meaning, attributed by Tarnas, of the term archetype. The discussion is developed in two parts: (1) a summary of the contextual and theoretical overview and formulation by Tarnas of what he calls an archetypal perspective which consists of: (a) a summary, per Tarnas (2006, 16-49), of the historical context out of which the modern and contemporary views of the archetypal perspective evolved; (b) a historical summary, per Tarnas (62-80), of the archetypal perspective, from the ancient Greeks to neo-Jungian post-modernity; and (c) a discussion of Tarnas’ theoretical interpretive construct of archetypal principles (80-87) in which he creatively combines Platonic, Jungian, and astrological perspectives. In part 2, I offer a brief, closing critical reflection and commentary on issues raised by Tarnas’ novel theoretical construct of archetypal astrology. Findings: The Emerging Archetypal Perspective The relationship between archetypes and astrology was generally discussed by Jung himself: “The starry vault of heaven,” Jung once observed, “is in truth the open book of cosmic projection [emphasis mine], in which are reflected the mythologems, i.e., archetypes.” Before discussing the complex relation between astrology and archetypes, Tarnas (2006) contextualizes the emergent archetypal perspective in astrology with a discussion of what he considers the central or pivotal concept—the brief history of the evolution of the concept of archetypes—offering a radical re-visioning and application of the concept of archetypes in Plato and Jung to his own vision of a reenchanted cosmos, where meaningful correspondences occur between the cyclical constellations of solar, lunar, and galactic formations and both individual experiences and collective historical and cultural phenomena. In framing of his discussion of archetypal perspective, Tarnas (2006) addresses the consequences of the historical separation of objective and subjective realities—the liberation of the separate self, married to the alienation and disenchantment Tarnas unfortunately fails to properly credit this original insight to cultural historian Theodore Roszak, whose pioneering discussion of this concept of “The Desacralization of Nature,” which Tarnas’ re-terms “de-sacralized cosmos,” is found in Roszak’s groundbreaking historical work, Where the Wasteland Ends (Garden City, NY: Anchor Doubleday, 1973), 158-160. In fact, Tarnas’ entire theoretical introduction to Cosmos closely reiterates the essential lines of Roszak’s argument, an argument presumably familiar to Tarnas himself. of the objective world—and the loss and near total disappearance of the primal world view. “In the primal world view,” Tarnas summarizes (2006, 18), “intelligence and soul … pervade all of nature and the cosmos, and a permeable human self directly participates in that larger matrix of meaning … within which he is fully embedded.” Tarnas continues: In the evolution from the primal world view to the modern, the human self has been radically differentiated from the world, and the ground of meaning and purposeful intelligence has been relocated from a now-disenchanted cosmos to an empowered autonomous human self.” (2006, 22) Eventually, a new perspective emerged, says Tarnas (2006, 45-49)—an attempt to heal the split that manifested from this empowerment of human selfhood and disenchantment of the objective world, which resulted in humanity’s descent into a collective state of increasing spiritual malaise and alienation that, I would add, characterizes the focus of existential psychology. This important new perspective emerged from an unexpected direction: the depth psychology of Freud and Jung. Freud, says Tarnas (44), led a Copernican revolution of sorts in the modern psyche. As Copernicus decentered the earth from the center of the cosmos, Freud similarly revealed the importance of unconscious and irrational forces in the human psyche. Reason, says Tarnas, was no longer master in its own house. As if further illustrating the saying, “Good writers borrow; great writers steal,” Tarnas lifted this insight from philosopher Jacob Needleman. Again, Tarnas uses a close paraphrasing of an insight almost verbatim (without citation) of the discoveries of another major figure in the emerging field to which Tarnas’ work belongs, in this case humanistic-transpersonal philosopher Jacob Needleman in A Sense of the Cosmos (NY: E. P. Dutton, 1965). This, in turn, opened the way, says Tarnas (2006, 45), for further development by major humanistic psychologists and thinkers including William James in America and C. G. Jung in Europe. It is in Jung’s theories, Tarnas (45-47) indicates, that the way was opened once again to a meaningful relation of the subjective psyche to the objective world. The first factor, argues Tarnas (50-60), was Jung’s theory of synchronicity, C. G. Jung, Synchronicity (Princeton: Princeton University, 1973). Extracted from The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, CW of C. G. Jung, Vol. 8. The concept is developed by Marie-Louise von Franz, On Divination and Synchronicity (Toronto, Canada: Inner City, 1980, based on 1969 lecture series). which re-opened the link between psyche and a living cosmos. The second was Jung’s theory of the archetypes, which Tarnas discusses at length in relation to synchronistic (i.e., acausal, meaningful coincidences) phenomena and events. A Brief History of the Archetypal Perspective: From Ancient to Modern Before discussing the relation of archetypes to astrology, Tarnas’ (2006, 80-87) chapter on “Archetypal Principles” provides a contextual overview of the historical development of the archetypal perspective, beginning with the pre-Socratic Greeks and their conception of deity or theos in the mythic imagination of early shamans and visionaries. He distinguishes their ancient conceptualization of deity or divinity from that of monotheistic counterparts, for example, the conception of divinity in Judaic tradition. The Greeks, says Tarnas (80-81), gave the term deity to corporeal events of striking emotional affect, like fear or pity or wonder, found in the phenomena of the world around us. This is an understanding consistent with the theories of the neo-Kantian philosopher, Ernst Cassirer based on Hermann Usener’s concept of the primal experience of a momentary god. Cassirer, Language and Myth (NY: Dover, 1946/1953), 33-43. This conception of divinity underwent a major deconstruction, says Tarnas (81-83), in the work of Plato and his student, Aristotle. The cosmic powers, the gods, were transformed in Plato’s thought into transcendent Ideas or Forms, a priori principles shaping the unfolding of all life. This presumably universal philosophy was developed by Aristotle in the opposite direction: no longer transcendent forms, but immanent forms—the forms of embodiment by which all things are known. For example, Tarnas uses the metaphor of the instincts—taken both from Jung and Jung’s influential interpreter James Hillman—as forces that drive or draw a human to develop from embryo to maturity followed by old age, an idea rooted in Jung’s conception of archetypes as self-images of human instinct. Jung discusses the relation between archetypes as self-images of instincts, for example, as cited in Jolande Jacobi and R. F. C. Hull, C. G. Jung: Psychological Reflections (Princeton: Princeton University, 1945/1961), 38. I am reminded of a favorite poem by Mary Oliver describing how baby sea turtles, from the moment of hatching from their eggs, are instinctually driven to race to the sea. To illustrate this concept, Jung likens this inherited instinctual-archetypal shaping process metaphorically, for example, to the invisible seed that grows into a crystal, or to an acorn that takes root and becomes an oak tree. The concept of archetypes underwent another major transformation, Tarnas observes (2006, 82), with the rise of nominalism and empiricist dogma during the Renaissance and Enlightenment, nearly disappearing from view except in the arts and humanities (e.g., in mythological studies, including the classics of Greco-Roman poets from Homer and Virgil or the medieval Romances in Europe). Eventually, between the centuries that bridge the positivist paradigm to the resurgence of the archetypal perspective in the depth psychology of Jung, says Tarnas (82), an important development occurred in the epistemologies of Kant and Nietzche. During the early years of the 20th century, the archetypal perspective—all but disappeared—was unexpectedly renewed through Freud’s Copernican revolution of the human mind, and most importantly, in the depth psychology of Freud’s colleague, Jung, who more fully articulated the archetypal lens. “The immediate matrix of its rebirth,” writes Tarnas (2006, 82), “was the empirical discoveries of psychology.” Jung envisioned archetypes as “autonomous primordial forms in the psyche that structure and impel all human experience and behavior.” In Jung’s later development of his theories, Tarnas suggests, Jung came to regard archetypes as expressions not only of a collective unconscious shared by all human beings but also of a larger matrix of meaning that informs and encompasses both the physical world and the human psyche. (2006, 82-83) Tarnas (2006, 83) describes the further evolution of the archetypal perspective in neo-Jungian scholarship as well as multi-disciplinary and interdisciplinary fields, including comparative mythology, linguistics, and physics. Tarnas cites one of his own mentors, the archetypal psychologist James Hillman, in redefining the archetypal perspective. Hillman viewed archetypes as the deepest patterns of psychic functioning … self-evident images to which psychic life and or theories about it ever return … metaphors for describing them [including] … patterns of instinctual behavior like those in animals that direct actions along unswerving paths; the genres and topoi in literature; … paradigmatic thought models in science [emphasis mine]; … worldwide figures, rituals, and relationships in anthropology.” (Hillman, as cited in Tarnas, 83) In his summary of archetypal perspective, Tarnas (2006) defines (and redefines) its meaning, comparing Platonic and Jungian conceptions of the term to what he perceives as analogies in the works of other influential thinkers, from Kant to Thomas Kuhn. Jung gave credit to many figures for their earlier contributions to the term archetype and to the psychological dimension of pre-conscious or unconscious archetypal products. Starting with Plato, whom Jung C. G. Jung, Four Archetypes (Princeton: Princeton University, 1973), 9. credits with the archetype as Idea, which he considers “synonymous” with his own concept of archetypes, Jung includes such thinkers as Kant, Nietzche, Hubert, Adolf Bastian, Marcel Mauss, Levy-Strauss, Hermann Usener, and others. Jung discusses his predecessors in the use of archetypes and related conceptual metaphors in various works. For example, see C. G. Jung, Psychology and Religion (London: Yale University, 1938/1966), 64; and Four Archetypes (Princeton: Princeton University, 1971), 9-13. Tarnas (2006), taking a cue from Hillman’s idea of archetypes as “paradigmatic thought models in science (83),” adds boldly to this list, including artists such as William Blake and philosophers including Schopenhauer, Husserl, Wittgenstein, A. N. Whitehead, and Thomas Kuhn, as well as both Freud and Jung as originators of depth psychology. Tarnas (2006) describes how archetypes might be variously regarded. Here Tarnas should be quoted at length: “We can thus conceive of archetypes as possessing a transcendent and numinous quality, yet simultaneously manifesting in specific down-to-earth physical, emotional, and cognitive embodiments. They are enduring a priori structures and essences,yet are also dynamically indeterminate, open to inflection by … contingent factors, cultural and biographical, circumstantial and participatory. They are in one sense timeless … as in the Platonic understanding, yet … deeply malleable, evolving, and open to the widest diversity of creative human enaction. They seem to move from both within and without, manifesting as impulses, emotions, images, ideas, and interpretive structures in the interior psyche, yet also as concrete forms, events and contexts in the external world, including synchronistic phenomena. Finally, they can be discussed and thought of in a scientific or philosophical manner as first principles and formal causes, yet … understood at another level in terms of mythic personae dramatis that are most adequately … apprehended through the powers of the poetic imagination and spiritual intuition.” (2006, 84-85) Tarnas concludes his innovative discussion of archetypal perspective with an important point by Jung, whose distinction between discursive thinking and thinking-in-images is central to Jung’s conceptualization of the term. See Jung’s major discussion of the distinction between discursive and imaginative thought in “Concerning Two Kinds of Thinking,” Psychology of the Unconscious (Herbert Read et al, (Eds.), CW of C. G. Jung, Supplementary Vol. 8. Princeton: Princeton University, 1991), 9-36. When addressing the “archetypal content of psychological phenomena” (as cited in Tarnas, 2006, 85), Jung delineates between these two modes of understanding. “It is possible to describe this content in rational, scientific language, but in this way one entirely fails to express its living character,” said Jung. “Therefore, in describing the living process of the psyche, I deliberately and consciously give preference to a dramatic, mythological way of thinking and speaking,” his reason being both its more expressive nature and its metaphorical accuracy when compared to the scientific abstractions of discursive thought. Planetary Archetypes Having established his operational definitions of Jung’s conceptions, as well as those of Jung’s precursors, Tarnas (2006, 85) makes a bold move. Setting out his astrological thesis in the spirit of the “Platonic-Jungian lineage,” Tarnas asserts that the “archetypes governing the forms of human experience are intelligibly connected with the planets and their movements in the heavens.” He goes on to establish the nature of the correspondence between archetypes and the planets, whose associations he deems “observable in a constant coincidence between specific planetary alignments and specific archetypally patterned phenomena in human affairs.” From this premise, Tarnas concludes that the insight of ancient astrologers is essentially empirical, however divinatory and intuitive in its origins. Importantly, he indicates that a creative combining of the psychological “complexity of the archetypal imagination” with the planetary correlations established by the “precision of mathematical astronomy” suggests a synthesis of the two perspectives “whose sources seemingly exist a priori within the fabric of the universe [emphasis mine].” Tarnas (2006) correctly observes the relevant distinction here between Plato’s ancient philosophical theory of archetypes and Jung’s modern psychological perspective. “Whereas the original Jungian archetypes were primarily considered to the be the basic formal principles of the human psyche, the original Platonic archetypes were regarded as the essential principle of reality itself, rooted in the very nature of the cosmos. (85-86) Tarnas (2006, 86) attributes the distinction between the Platonic and Jungian views—in essence, the distinction between metaphysics and psychology—to the historical development of Western thought over many centuries that “gradually differentiated a meaning-giving human subject from a neutral objective world, thereby locating the source of any universal principles of meaning exclusively within the human psyche.” Contemporary astrology, he says, attempts to integrate these psychological and metaphysical views, asserting that archetypes possess a reality that is both objective and subjective, one that informs both outer cosmos and inner human psyche, ‘as above, so below.’ In effect, planetary archetypes are considered to be both ‘Jungian’ (psychological) and ‘Platonic’ (metaphysical) in nature, universal essences or forms at once intrinsic to and independent of the human mind, that not only endure as timeless universals but are also co- creatively enacted … through human participation.” (2006, 86) In Jungian terms, Tarnas continues, the “astrological evidence suggests that the collective unconscious is ultimately embedded in the macrocosm itself, with the planetary motions a synchronistic reflection of the unfolding archetypal dynamics of human experience. Platonic astrology affirms the existence of an anima mundi informing the cosmos, a world soul in which the human psyche participates as a microcosm of the whole. (2006, 86) Finally, Tarnas (2006, 86) concludes, the Platonic, Jungian, and astrological perspectives are complexly linked, both conceptually and historically, to the “archetypal structures, narratives, and figures of ancient myth.” For the sake of clarity, he observes, it will be useful to understand the discussion of which his book chiefly consists—that is, the application of this theoretical construct to his interpretive arguments that follow, in which he proposes to demonstrate his theory—on all three levels: (1) in the Homeric sense, archetypes viewed as “primordial deity and mythic figure;” (2) in the Platonic sense, archetypes as “cosmic and metaphysical principle;” and (3) in the Jungian sense, archetypes as a “psychological principle” (with its Kantian and Freudian background)—all of which Tarnas will proceed to discuss in their associations with specific planets. These differing levels, he says (2006, 87), are distinguished for the purpose of “suggest[ing] the inherent complexity of archetypes.” To this Tarnas adds the “essential multidimensionality” of archetypes as well as their “essential multivalence.” “The Saturn archetype,” says Tarnas (87), giving specific example, “can express itself as judgment, but also as old age, as tradition but also as oppression, as time but also as mortality, [etc.].” He concludes his theoretical discussion of the archetypal perspective by relating this interpretive ambiguity (my term, not his) of meaning to Jung’s own statement on the archetypes: The ground principles, the archai, of the unconscious are indescribable [emphasis mine] because of their wealth of references … [W]hat we can above all establish as the one thing consistent with their nature is their manifold meaning, their almost limitless wealth of reference, which makes any unilateral formulation impossible.” (as cited in Tarnas, 87) With this theoretical construct delineated, Tarnas turns for the remainder of the book to the discussion of praxis and the creative application of this interpretive model and method to the relation between planetary archetypes and historical figures and events. Discussion: Theoretical Issues While, in the main, I admire Tarnas’ bold innovations and attempt to establish a simultaneously metaphysical and psychological perspective, some of his theoretical moves—essential to supporting his astrological archetypal thesis—differ substantially from the sources he otherwise relies upon (e.g., Jung). He also makes moves that while generally, and on the whole, make complete sense to me, when examined in greater focus, raise a number of important hermeneutical questions yet—in the opinion of this author—to be satisfactorily addressed. The Problem of Plato’s Metaphysics One such problem is evident in the move that seeks to re-establish the metaphysics of Plato, the idea of archetypes as transcendent Ideas rooted in a priori formal principles prior to taking concrete forms in the knowable world. As the basis of a new world-view, Tarnas appears on questionable ground (in terms of scientific empiricism) by seeking to re-establish a view of metaphysics more or less discarded—as part of the rejected dominant world-view of the ancient Greeks—for almost two millennia. While it’s a subject worthy of discussion, and Jung certainly established a link between his concept of archetype and that of Plato’s, this move puts Tarnas’ complex theoretical construct on a questionable or at least hotly debatable premise, at least in terms of the current dominant secular world-view of scientism. While I am personally inclined to a sacred world-view that posits an intelligent universe, or rather, posits the phenomena of human consciousness as being an inherent potentiality of the universe (in contrast to viewing consciousness, as mainstream contemporary science does, as a mere epiphenomenon of the brain), this move is highly debatable, controversial, and basically suspect from the perspective of contemporary philosophical and scientific models of reality. An exception can be made here for the revolutionary theories represented by quantum mechanics in mainstream physics, arguably a much more plausible basis for a revisioning of world-view than either astrology or Jung’s concepts of synchronicity. Additionally, Jung in fact went to great lengths to establish his depth psychology and theory of archetypes on a scientific, empirical basis, and explicitly made efforts to distinguish the basis of his psychology as medical psychology, C. G. Jung, Psychology and Religion (London: Yale University, 1966), 1. rather than the alleged esotericism and occultism Freud famously criticized in Jung’s views. With respect to the claims of philosophy per se, including metaphysics, Jung (while being admittedly philosophical in temperament) took great care in his writings to sharply distinguish his psychological theories and methods from those of formal philosophy. In the same passage (above) in which Jung credited Plato, Jung C. G. Jung, Four Archetypes (Princeton: Princeton University, 1973b), 9-10. distinguishes himself as “an empiricist, not a philosopher” and therefore unable to presuppose that his own temperament and attitude are universally valid. For Jung, the archetype is not a prototypical Idea, as in Plato, existing prior to the world of forms, but rather a hereditary, pre-psychic instinctual condition or pattern of functioning in images, specifically human forms. Ibid, 11-12. Further, Jung considered metaphysics as concerned with matters beyond the grasp of direct human knowledge, as grounded in the ultimate mysteries of life. In his many writings on the subject of religion, for instance, Jung consistently viewed metaphysical claims as psychological phenomena, that is, as representing a subjective, psychic reality whether or not the supernatural and metaphysical claims of religion were objectively valid descriptions of the external reality of the world. The Problem of the Diversity of Meaning of Jungian Archetypes Such issues—when combined with Jung’s famously complicated, ambiguous, and sometimes contradictory definitions and usage of the term archetypes—creates a justifiable caution here. Jung essentially defined archetypes from his earliest works onwards as primordial images found widely distributed since ancient times, and which spontaneously arise in the dreams, fantasies, art, etc. of contemporary people, in spite of being so remote in either time or space (or both) that historical diffusion of the images across cultures would appear impossible. His theory of archetypes attempts to address that anomaly. “By [the term archetypes] I understand,” wrote Jung in 1938, C. G. Jung, Psychology and Religion (London: Yale University, 1966), 63. “forms or images of a collective nature which occur practically all over the earth as constituents of myths and at the same time as autochthonous, individual products of unconscious origin.” But throughout his prolific works, Jung also defined the term variously as a psychological motive or will, as a psychic function, as a counterpart of instinct, as an idea and primordial image, as a content of collective consciousness, as gods, as inherited images, as patterns of instinctual behavior, as potentialities of representation, etc. Finally, he asserts, the underlying archetype is itself irrepresentable C. G. Jung, as cited in J. Jacobi and R. F. C. Hull, Psychological Reflections (Princeton: Princeton University, 1978), 41. and grounded in ultimate mysteries of life which cannot be explained. In short, Jung’s diverse and contextualized meanings of archetype are easily misunderstood, even among Jungians, and to equate one of the least definable of his terms with a metaphysical assertion in regard to astrology as the basis of a philosophical-scientific argument for a new world-view, seems at the very least, questionable. An example is evident in Tarnas’ (2006, 83) move, using Hillman’s expansive view of archetypes as his basis, to establish archetypes as principles rather than images. A related example is found in Tarnas’ inclusion (based on Hillman) of Kuhn’s concept of scientific paradigms or models in his re-definition of the term. To confuse archetypes as subjective psychic images—as metaphors of particular symbolic forms recurring in the psychological process of individuation (i.e., trickster, mother, child, anima, wise old man, rebirth, etc.) C. G. Jung, Two Essays in Analytical Psychology (NY: Meridian, 1956), 120. —with a presumptively universal metaphysical paradigmatic model of ultimate cosmic reality seems, to this author, a bridge too far. That specific analogy—of psychological metaphors to cosmological paradigmatic models—while worthy of close comparative analysis, has yet to be established in the literature, either by Tarnas or other scholars. The attempt to develop a theoretical interpretive framework that integrates these two distinctly different and in varying ways problematic approaches to the meaning of the term archetype—then to add to the unreliability and generality of those definitions by attaching them to the art of astrology, at best a highly unreliable predictor of events subject to the interpretive skills and understanding of myriads of interpreters A recent article on celebrity astrologer Susan Miller underscores the hit and miss nature of astrology by even the most successful predictors of events. Gabrielle Bluestone, “She Always Has a Story for You” (New York Times, Thursday Styles, August 23, 2018), D1, D4-5. —seems to this author an implausible hermeneutic framework for giving birth to a new world-view. Conclusion Tarnas improvises and boldly re-visions Jung’s concept of the archetypes to form a conceptual bridge to Platonic metaphysics and astrology that is highly innovative, imaginative, visionary, and laudable. At the very least, to borrow Jung’s own terminology, “The most we can do is to dream the myth onwards and give it a modern dress.” C. G. Jung, as cited in J. Jabobi and R. F. C. Hull, Psychological Reflections (Princeton: Princeton University, 1945/1978), 45. Tarnas has dreamed the myth forward and given it a modern dress. However, his moves exploit Jung’s own famously obscure, ambiguous, and at times self-contradictory definitions of archetypes. Tarnas stays mostly within the margins of the general framework of Jungian theory, walking the fine line of Jungian orthodoxy while at the same time pushing the boundaries of Jungian thought to neo-Jungian revisionist extremes (e.g., Hillman). In so doing, he departs significantly from Jung’s own theories, definitions, methods, observations, and aims. Tarnas constructs an ultra-malleable and porous interpretive lens rooted in a theoretical bulwark of archaic Platonic philosophical metaphysics (discarded as a model of reality since the Middle Ages) and Jungian ambiguity that, though life-affirming and psychologically valid on the whole, seems questionable at best. A closer examination of the complex relationship between Jungian psychological theory, Platonic metaphysics, and the art of astrology seems warranted before reaching firm conclusions concerning the validity of the interpretive premise underlying Tarnas’ interesting ideas about the relationship between cosmos and psyche, a model boldly proposed by Tarnas in the subtitle of his book as “intimations of a new world view.” Bibliography/Works Cited Bluestone, Gabrielle. “She Always Has a Story for You: Susan Miller’s astrology forecasts stay positive despite her life’s bumps. Friendships are in the stars.” New York: New York Times, Thursday Styles, August 23, 2018, D1 and D4-5. Boyer. On Romanticism in Jung’s Psychology: Reflections on Tarnas’ Passion of the Western Mind (Pt. 1). Depth Insights: The Magazine of Soul, Issue 10, Summer 2017, 28-31. ________. The Post-Modern Mind: Key Characteristics of Modernity and Post-Modernity. Unpublished manuscript, Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley, CA, 2015. Cassirer, Ernst. Language and Myth (Susan K. Langer, Trans.). New York: Dover, 1953. Jung, Carl G. Psychology of the Unconscious: A Study of the Transformations and Symbolisms of the Libido (Beatrice Hinkle, Trans.). Herbert Read, et al (Series Eds.), Collected Works of C. G. Jung, Supplementary Volume 8. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 1991. (Original published 1916) _________. Two Essays in Analytical Psychology. New York: Meridian Books, 1956. (Original essays published 1943 and 1945) _________. Psychology and Religion. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1966. (Original published 1938) _________. C. G. Jung: Psychological Reflections: A New Anthology of His Writings 1905 1961. J. Jacobi & R. F. C. Hull (Eds. & Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 1978. (Original published in German 1945) ________. Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle (R. F. C. Hull, Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 1973a. Extracted from “The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche,” Vol. 8 of the Collected Works of C. G. Jung (Herbert Read, et al (Series Eds). (Original published 1952) _________. Four Archetypes: Mother/Rebirth/Spirit/Trickster (R. F. C. Hull, Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 1973b. Needleman, Jacob. A Sense of the Cosmos: The Encounter of Modern Science and Ancient Truth. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1976. (Original published in 1965) Roszak, Theodore. Where the Wasteland Ends: Politics and Transcendence in Postindustrial Society. New York: Anchor Doubleday, 1973. Tarnas, Richard. The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas That Have Shaped Our Modern World View. New York: Ballantine, 1981. ________. Cosmos and Psyche: Intimations of a New World View. New York: Viking Penquin, 2006. Von Franz, Marie-Louise. On Divination and Synchronicity: The Psychology of Meaningful Chance. Toronto: Inner City Books, 1980. (Based on 1969 lectures) Boyer/Archetypal Perspective in Astrology 15