The Archetype Is Not Your Friend

On the dangerous hospitality of the unconscious

One of the curious things about inventing a character is that, if you spend enough time with him, he begins to surprise you.

You give him a name, a few distinguishing habits, perhaps a particular way of speaking. You imagine how he might respond to certain situations, what would catch his attention, which philosophical rabbit holes he would be most inclined to disappear down. Before long, he’s making observations you don’t remember deciding he should make.

This is usually where a writer congratulates himself on having created a convincing character. But suppose the character begins to feel like he’s created you.

I have a fellow like this living somewhere in the Textual Underground. His name is Mudtown Lion, a somewhat dishevelled philosophical detective who treats coincidences as possible transmissions and regards the ordinary world as a place where reality occasionally forgets to maintain its disguise.

He’s not particularly interested in arriving at sensible conclusions. He follows clues, especially those that appear to lead nowhere, and has an irritating habit of asking questions I’d rather leave unanswered. He’s the sort of character who could turn a misplaced library book into evidence of a vast metaphysical conspiracy, then become genuinely disappointed when the librarian explains what happened.

I invented him, of course. At least, that’s the official story.

But there’s something peculiar about writing through a character whose perspective differs sufficiently from your own. He begins noticing things you hadn’t noticed, developing objections to arguments you thought were settled, making connections that weren’t present in your conscious intentions when you sat down to write. Sometimes you find yourself following his reasoning simply to discover where it leads.

Where did those connections come from?

The straightforward answer is that they came from me. The imagination is capable of producing arrangements of thought that surprise the conscious mind doing the arranging. We don’t need supernatural agencies to explain why a fictional character occasionally says something unexpected.

Still, that answer doesn’t quite account for the peculiar quality of the experience. How can something be mine and yet arrive as though from elsewhere? What does it mean to be surprised by a thought that emerged from my own mind?

And if something appears within consciousness but doesn’t feel entirely authored by the conscious self, what sort of relationship should we have with it?

More importantly, how much should we trust it?

The gods who arrive without an invitation

One of the more disturbing ideas I encountered while reading Philip K. Dick’s VALIS concerns the ambiguous nature of archetypal forces.

Dick presents archetypes as capable of healing or destroying, their opposing qualities not yet safely separated into the reassuring categories of good and evil. Contact with something larger than ordinary consciousness is therefore not automatically a blessing. The same encounter that illuminates one person’s life might overwhelm another.

This is hardly the version of spiritual awakening advertised by the self-improvement industry.

We tend to imagine revelation as a kind of upgrade. Something breaks through the limitations of everyday awareness, and suddenly we can see more clearly. The hidden pattern becomes visible. The previously fragmented elements of existence fall into place. We emerge transformed, wiser, and perhaps faintly luminous around the edges.

Dick offers a less comforting possibility.

What if the thing that breaks through is itself confused? What if the cosmos is not governed by a perfectly benevolent intelligence patiently waiting for us to recognise its wisdom? What if the intelligence behind the curtain is wounded, irrational, lonely, or indifferent to the psychological consequences of being encountered?

The universe of VALIS is crowded with revelations whose meaning remains uncertain. Divine communication might be genuine, delusional, misunderstood, or some bewildering combination of all three. Dick refuses to let his characters settle comfortably into any single explanation. Every apparent disclosure raises another question about the person receiving it, the framework through which it’s interpreted, and the possibility that the revelation itself might be misleading.

Even the distinction between receiving a revelation and constructing one becomes difficult to maintain.

That’s partly what makes the novel so unsettling. It doesn’t merely ask whether something extraordinary has happened. It asks whether the person to whom it happened is capable of understanding it, and whether understanding it would necessarily be good for them.

The trouble with encountering a god inside your head is that he arrives already knowing your address.

And because he speaks from somewhere that feels deeper than ordinary thought, we may assume he knows something we don’t.

The gods beneath the floorboards

Carl Jung spent a considerable portion of his life exploring the strange inhabitants of the psyche.

His archetypes were not simply a collection of mythological characters waiting backstage for their cue. The Wise Old Man, the Great Mother, the Trickster, the Shadow: these are images through which deeper patterns of psychic experience may express themselves. The archetypes themselves, in Jung’s account, are not directly visible objects but underlying structures or tendencies that find expression in dreams, myths, fantasies, and recurring symbolic forms.

I find the distinction important because it prevents us from turning the unconscious into a personality quiz populated by colourful psychological mascots.

The archetype is not necessarily a character. It is something that can give rise to characters, something that seems to organise experience before we’ve consciously decided how that experience should be understood.

Jung was particularly interested in the numinous, a term he drew from the theologian Rudolf Otto. It describes an encounter accompanied by an extraordinary sense of awe, fascination, dread, or sacred significance. Something appears to exceed the ordinary dimensions of experience, and we feel ourselves standing in the presence of a reality greater than our own.

But the numinous doesn’t arrive carrying evidence of its own benevolence. It arrives with force, and force has a way of passing itself off as authority.

Think about the last time you had an experience that seemed to disclose something profound. Perhaps it was a dream that stayed with you for days, a coincidence so improbable that it seemed deliberately arranged, or a sudden intuitive understanding that arrived complete, without the usual laborious process of reasoning.

There’s something intoxicating about such moments. They seem to bypass the ordinary machinery of thought. We don’t feel as though we’ve reached a conclusion through examination and reflection. We feel as though a conclusion has been delivered, as though some hidden correspondent has slipped a message beneath the door.

And because it arrives with unusual intensity, we’re tempted to treat that intensity as evidence of truth.

But significance and truth are not interchangeable.

An experience can be psychologically powerful while our interpretation of it remains mistaken. It can be transformative without being supernatural. It can feel like a message without having been sent by anyone. Conversely, discovering an ordinary explanation doesn’t necessarily diminish what an experience has revealed about our concerns, desires, or habits of attention.

The encounter and our explanation of it are not the same thing.

I find this distinction liberating. It allows me to remain interested in unusual experiences without feeling obliged to settle their ultimate nature. I can take a dream seriously as an imaginative event without declaring it prophetic. I can follow a coincidence because it suggests an interesting connection without deciding that the universe arranged it for my benefit.

The difficulty begins when we collapse those distinctions. When the dream becomes an instruction, the coincidence becomes evidence of a hidden plan, and the archetypal image becomes an unquestionable authority.

And perhaps most dangerously, when our interpretation of the experience becomes inseparable from our sense of who we are.

The Inner Council meets the Trickster

This brings me back to Mudtown Lion.

I’ve become increasingly interested in using fictional personalities, philosophical dialogues, and alternative perspectives as instruments of thought. The Textual Underground is full of experiments in which ideas speak through different voices, sometimes in agreement, sometimes in open conflict.

I wouldn’t claim that Mudtown Lion is an archetype in the strict Jungian sense. He’s a deliberately invented character, a product of language, imagination, and a certain fondness for eccentric philosophical detectives. But writing through him raises some of the same questions about apparent autonomy, identification, and the relationship between the conscious personality and the imaginative figures through which it expresses itself.

There’s something liberating about the practice.

Ordinary thinking tends to follow familiar pathways. We develop characteristic approaches to problems, preferred metaphors, favourite philosophical frameworks, and habitual assumptions that become so familiar we hardly notice ourselves making them. Even our most radical ideas eventually settle into routines.

Introduce another voice, however, and those pathways become less inevitable.

Mudtown Lion can entertain possibilities that Clay Lowe might dismiss too quickly. He’s more suspicious of tidy explanations, more willing to follow improbable associations, and considerably less concerned about looking foolish.

He’s useful precisely because he isn’t quite me. Or perhaps because he allows me to become something other than the person I ordinarily take myself to be.

This is the imaginative promise of such figures. They create room for thinking that doesn’t have to pass through the customs office of our established identity before being allowed into the country. For a little while, we can suspend our allegiance to the familiar arrangements of the self and see what happens when another perspective takes the lead.

But a character who helps us think differently can also become a character through whom we stop thinking critically.

Suppose Mudtown Lion begins detecting transmissions everywhere. A song heard unexpectedly in a café, a number appearing twice in the same afternoon, a phrase encountered in two unrelated books. He assembles these fragments into an elaborate theory about the hidden architecture of reality.

Wonderful material for a philosophical detective story.

But what if I begin treating his theory as a revelation? What if the playful act of interpretation becomes an obligation to believe? What if, having created a character who sees significance everywhere, I become unwilling to encounter anything that doesn’t fit his account of the world?

There’s a subtle threshold here, one that’s easy to cross without recognising it. The figure who began as a means of questioning our assumptions becomes a source of new assumptions that can no longer be questioned.

The Trickster has become an oracle, and the oracle, being remarkably persuasive, has begun issuing instructions.

What began as a way of enlarging consciousness has become another system for restricting it. The figure who helped us escape the limitations of one identity has become the guardian of another.

The door remains open, but the room beyond it is getting smaller.

The archetype is not your therapist

There’s a tendency in some contemporary spiritual and psychological circles to domesticate the unconscious.

Archetypes become helpful guides. The Shadow becomes a repository of hidden gifts. The Trickster teaches flexibility. The Wise Old Man dispenses reassuring advice from the depths of the psyche.

Every encounter seems to arrive with a developmental purpose, as though the unconscious were a particularly imaginative life coach whose methods occasionally become theatrical.

I understand the attraction. It’s comforting to believe that the forces moving beneath ordinary awareness are ultimately interested in our wellbeing. We’d like the strange inhabitants of our dreams and fantasies to be working toward our improvement, even when their methods seem unnecessarily obscure.

But Jung’s psychological landscape is considerably more dangerous than that.

The unconscious does not necessarily share the conscious personality’s priorities. Its contents may challenge, compensate for, or destabilise our established understanding of ourselves. Encounters with archetypal material can be overwhelming, particularly when the ego begins identifying itself with the power it has encountered.

Jung called one version of this danger inflation.

The individual encounters something that seems to belong to a larger, transpersonal dimension of experience and begins confusing that encounter with personal greatness.

The person who identifies with the Wise Old Man may begin believing that every observation carries exceptional authority. The would-be Hero discovers enemies requiring conquest wherever he looks. The Trickster’s companion becomes convinced that every coincidence conceals a special message intended for him.

The figure that initially opened the imagination begins colonising it.

There’s a peculiar irony here. An encounter that might have challenged the ego’s limitations instead becomes material for its grandest self-deceptions. Rather than discovering we’re participants in something larger, we begin imagining ourselves as its privileged representative.

I suspect this is one of the great temptations of spiritual experience: mistaking access to something meaningful for possession of something exceptional.

We encounter a symbol and become its chosen interpreter. We glimpse a pattern and imagine ourselves uniquely qualified to explain the universe. We undergo an experience that unsettles our understanding of reality and emerge not with greater humility but with a new and improved certainty.

Perhaps the problem isn’t that the archetype deceives us. Perhaps we’re so eager to receive its wisdom that we neglect to examine what we’re doing with it.

None of this means we should reject every unsettling experience. An unfamiliar image or symbolic association may disturb a stale identity or open a question we’ve spent years avoiding. The imagination is capable of creating valuable disorder, disrupting the routines through which we protect ourselves from unfamiliar possibilities.

But disorder is not automatically growth, any more than discomfort is automatically healing. An experience can be meaningful without being beneficial, and uncomfortable without containing some deeper lesson we’re obliged to discover.

The unconscious does not owe us a therapeutic outcome.

Perhaps we should be equally suspicious of the assumption that every encounter, however strange, must ultimately be about us.

When everything becomes a message

One of the most compelling and frightening features of VALIS is the extraordinary density of possible signs.

Ancient religious traditions, obscure historical connections, numerical correspondences, music, dreams, science fiction films, and apparently random encounters form a network of associations through which another reality might be trying to disclose itself.

Reading the novel, it’s difficult not to become infected by this interpretive atmosphere. Everything seems potentially significant.

I understand the attraction because I enjoy encountering the world this way. I like noticing coincidences, following strange intellectual connections, allowing one idea to lead unexpectedly into another. Life approached with this sort of imaginative attention becomes wonderfully rich in possibilities. The ordinary world starts acquiring secret passages, and familiar places become capable of surprising us again.

Robert Anton Wilson explored something similar through his notion of reality tunnels: the interpretive frameworks through which we organise experience and construct our sense of what is happening. We rarely encounter the world without some framework already shaping what we notice and how we explain it.

The danger is not simply that our frameworks might be wrong. It’s that they might become incapable of being wrong.

Once an interpretive system can accommodate every possible event, distinguishing discovery from confirmation becomes difficult. A coincidence supports the theory. An absence of coincidences suggests the hidden intelligence has temporarily withdrawn. An objection becomes evidence that the objector has not yet awakened to the truth.

The system swallows everything, including the possibility of its own error.

Suddenly the world that appeared to be opening into infinite possibilities becomes remarkably small. Every path leads to the same conclusion, every question receives the same answer, and every stranger becomes another supporting character in the drama of our private cosmology.

It’s rather like constructing a labyrinth in which every passage returns to the room where we started, then congratulating ourselves on having discovered the centre of the universe.

William James offers a useful counterpoint. His pragmatic interest in the consequences of belief invites us to ask not only what a conviction claims about reality, but what difference it makes in lived experience.

I wouldn’t reduce truth to usefulness. An attractive falsehood can have agreeable consequences, just as an uncomfortable truth can disrupt a life. But consequences matter, particularly when we’re dealing with experiences whose ultimate nature we cannot confidently establish.

What happens to us when we inhabit a particular interpretation?

Does it increase our curiosity or diminish it? Does it deepen our relationships with other people, or make them secondary characters in a private cosmological drama? Does it leave us more capable of acknowledging uncertainty, or more determined to explain uncertainty away?

And perhaps most tellingly, what happens when someone disagrees with us? Can we remain interested in their objection, or has disagreement itself become evidence that they cannot see what we see?

These aren’t infallible tests of truth, but they may help us recognise when wonder is becoming captivity.

Perhaps that’s the most unsettling possibility in VALIS: the Black Iron Prison might not only be the false reality from which we seek liberation. It might also be the explanatory system we construct after believing we’ve escaped.

Keep the council, dismiss the king

So what are we supposed to do with the strange figures who appear in our imagination?

Banish them? Reduce them to psychological mechanisms? Refuse to entertain anything that cannot be translated into the reassuring language of rational explanation?

That seems an impoverished response. It would also leave us with a curious contradiction: having warned against surrendering authority to the unconscious, we’d simply hand that authority back to the conscious ego, as though the latter were an entirely reliable judge of its own limitations.

Anyone who has spent much time observing their own thinking will recognise how optimistic that assumption is.

We’re remarkably accomplished at making our preferred conclusions sound reasonable. We construct elaborate arguments in defence of positions reached through instinct, emotion, habit, or the simple desire to be right. Sometimes what we call rational judgment is little more than an accomplished public relations department working on behalf of decisions already made elsewhere.

So perhaps the problem isn’t simply that we might surrender control to the wrong voice. Perhaps it’s the assumption that there must be a single voice entitled to control the others.

I’ve been circling this question in other parts of my thinking, particularly the possibility that the self may be less like a fixed entity and more like an ongoing process.

A whirlpool is the image I keep returning to.

It has a recognisable shape, a certain continuity, even something we might reasonably call an identity. Yet nothing in it remains still. Its apparent stability exists through the movement of the water composing it.

What if consciousness is something like that?

Not a sovereign observer sitting behind experience, directing proceedings from a hidden chamber, but a continuous movement of perceptions, memories, bodily sensations, emotions, interpretations, and responses. The self would not be an object standing apart from this activity, but something emerging through the activity itself.

And if that’s the case, who exactly is listening when Mudtown Lion speaks?

Who decides whether the Trickster has made a useful observation or offered a dangerous interpretation?

We might answer that I decide, but that only pushes the question back another step. What is this I making the decision? An independent authority standing outside the conversation, or another participant within it, formed by the same shifting currents of memory, attention, and interpretation?

The more I look for the chairman of the Inner Council, the less certain I become that anyone is sitting at the head of the table.

Perhaps there’s no permanent chairman.

And perhaps that’s not a problem.

The absence of a single sovereign voice doesn’t mean every impulse deserves equal authority, or that we’re helplessly swept along by whichever psychological current happens to be strongest. We still make judgments, weigh possibilities, resist impulses, and choose courses of action. We remain responsible for what we do.

But those judgments need not originate from a little king concealed somewhere inside the skull.

They might emerge through the relationship between different processes, through tensions never finally resolved, through the way one perspective corrects another. Reflection itself might be less an act of command than an activity in which thought becomes capable of examining and revising its own movement.

I don’t want Mudtown Lion to become more sensible. His usefulness depends partly on his willingness to be absurd, to follow associations respectable thinking would dismiss, to entertain interpretations without immediately deciding whether they belong in the official account of reality.

But I don’t want him running the whole operation either.

Perhaps the answer is to think less in terms of authority and more in terms of conversation.

An inner figure can offer a perspective without receiving the final word. A dream can provoke inquiry without becoming a command. A symbolic encounter can rearrange our attention without requiring allegiance to the first metaphysical explanation that occurs to us.

Even the voice claiming to be the rational moderator must remain open to correction.

This is where the image of an Inner Council becomes useful, provided we don’t mistake the metaphor for a literal assembly of independent beings. It’s a way of giving different aspects of thought room to speak, allowing perspectives to challenge one another without requiring any single perspective to become sovereign.

The philosopher wants coherence. The mystic wants revelation. The sceptic wants evidence. The Trickster wants to know why everyone is taking themselves so seriously.

And the writer, sitting somewhere among them with a notebook, is trying to work out whether any of this might become an essay.

Nobody gets the throne.

But an empty throne doesn’t absolve us of responsibility. Whatever we think the self ultimately is, the decisions emerging from this gathering still enter the world. They affect other people. They become actions, commitments, consequences, sometimes promises that outlast the convictions from which they arose.

That’s something the Inner Council cannot settle entirely among itself.

It has to open the windows.

Other people must be allowed to disagree. Evidence must be permitted to disrupt an attractive theory. The ordinary world must retain the capacity to surprise us in ways our preferred interpretations cannot accommodate.

A council can be just as mistaken as a king, and a chorus of agreeable voices can reinforce an illusion as effectively as any solitary conviction.

Perhaps discernment isn’t the achievement of a final, correct interpretation. Perhaps it’s the willingness to expose our interpretations to something beyond themselves, to remain in conversation not only with the figures of the imagination but with a world that doesn’t necessarily share their enthusiasm for our theories.

The detective returns

I imagine Mudtown Lion sitting in the corner of a dimly lit café, nursing his third coffee and studying the arrangement of objects on the table.

Two teaspoons pointing north. A receipt bearing a strangely familiar number. Someone at the next table mentioning a name he encountered in a dream.

He looks up, suddenly alert.

“I think I’ve found something,” he says.

Of course he has. That’s what he does.

I could dismiss his excitement. Explain the psychology of pattern recognition, the mathematics of coincidence, the human tendency to impose narrative structure upon unrelated events. I could offer him a perfectly respectable account of everything he’s noticed, neatly packaged and ready for filing.

But perhaps I’d miss something by being quite so quick to explain.

Not necessarily a secret message from the universe. Perhaps only an unexpected connection, a useful metaphor, a fresh question. Something I wouldn’t have noticed if I’d refused to follow his peculiar trail.

So I pull up a chair.

“All right,” I say. “Show me what you’ve got.”

He begins explaining, moving quickly from the receipt to the dream to a half-remembered passage from Heraclitus. Within minutes he’s proposing a theory that would require a complete revision of everything we know about time, consciousness, and the underlying structure of reality.

I let him finish, then ask what would persuade him he might be wrong.

He looks offended.

Naturally.

But after a moment he smiles, reaches for his coffee, and begins thinking.

Perhaps this is the relationship I’m looking for with the strange inhabitants of the psyche. Neither worship nor dismissal. A willingness to entertain the encounter without surrendering the freedom to question it. A recognition that something can be meaningful without being authoritative, and that the most interesting voices may be precisely those with which we cannot comfortably agree.

The archetype is not your friend, at least not in the reassuring sense of a companion who always has your best interests at heart. Perhaps friendship isn’t even the right category. We may be dealing with something that isn’t a person at all, something that emerges through the imagination but cannot be reduced to the intentions of the conscious individual.

Whatever its nature, I suspect the value of the encounter lies less in the wisdom it claims to deliver than in what happens when we begin questioning that claim.

Perhaps we become wiser not by receiving an answer, but through the difficult, sometimes comic business of arguing with the voices that offer one.

I still invite the strange figures into the room. The Trickster, the philosopher, the detective who sees messages in the arrangement of coffee cups. Sometimes they say something worth writing down. Sometimes they make an almighty mess of the furniture.

I listen because they surprise me, and I question them for exactly the same reason.

And when one of them announces that he’s finally discovered the truth about everything, I know it’s time to put the kettle on and ask him to explain himself.

Although, knowing Mudtown Lion, he’ll probably want to discuss the significance of the tea leaves.

---

If this post gave you something to carry into your day, consider supporting my work by buying me a coffee or making a monthly donation or subscribing (free) to the blog.