During my recent Book Club meeting on ‘The Other Goddess’ and at an interview, I was reminded of the Goddesses that I discussed in the first part of my book. So far, I was so focused on Mary Magalene and the Goddesses that I associate with her, such as Ninmah, Inanna, Isis, Kali and Sundari that I forgot about the Greek Goddess with which my fasciation with archetypes originally began. There are archetypes of the feminine that I embraced in ancient Greek mythology and they are: Artemis, Aphrodite and Athena. When reading about them, as a young girl, I could not make up my mind which of these archetypes I wanted to embody. I will give you examples, Athena seemed a natural choice as she represented Knowledge on which altar I spent many years of my life; Artemis represented a fierce freedom and adventure to me and that is something I still love; however without Aphrodite something was missing – the sweetness of the erotic high that neither and the two previous Goddesses seem to know anything about! So, I made a radical choice that would make all Jungian analysts shiver in horror – I decided to embody all three of them and create a new archetype for myself: the wise woman (Athena) who makes independent choices about her life and travels (Artemis) and who explores the secret mysteries of Eros (Aphrodite). Soon, I realised through my research, that these were an alteration of earlier Goddess archetypes who, forgive me this boldness, had much more depth and carried much more mystery and secret knowledge, such as Inanna or Isis or Tantric Goddesses, such as Kali or Sundari. When I was writing and talking about them, I saw eyebrows being raised as archetypes are generally considered ‘eternal’ and therefore unchangeable. Well, my dear friends, they might be eternal, but they evolve. They evolve because we evolve and because everything evolves. Refusing this evolution to our archetypes is like refusing to evolve and hold on to an outdated Dreams of Ourselves. This does not serve us. I sometimes hear that this is feminist revisionism and my answer to this is, ‘No, it is a natural evolution,’ not mentioning that those archetypes were appropriated in the past, not once and not twice and often for the sole purpose of making us smaller. The same is true about male archetypes (although they suffer less submission) but who on earth wants to be a Sisyphus? I think that the old archetypes were also the warnings of our psyche that if we do not grow we will be caught in the loop of the same behaviours which, ultimately, limit us. More so, those who made a dent in our limitations did not embody the archetypes slavishly – they appropriate them! Theaphano, Temistoclea, Thargelia of Miletus, Diotima, Mary Magdalene who were both ‘beautiful and wise’ but also vilified as ‘prostitutes’ because they did not conform to the old archetypes set for them by others. So this is my conclusion, we are not here to serve archetypes. We are here to embody them, and we are here to evolve them so they open the doors of evolution for us as much as we do for them and trough this we change the dominating narratives. And this way, we make the real change that world needs now.
Jung agrees that we are here to evolve the archetypes..This was excellent. Thank you.