Still slowly working my way through "Sex, Ecology, and Spirituality" by Wilber (of course), so as to feel truly learned on the subject.
Before he starts into part 2 of the book, at one point he goes over the ideas of Archetypes associated with people like Jung and Joseph Campbell. Before i discovered Wilber both of these individuals were very informative for me. I appreciate there idea of the deep layers of subconscious where archetypes arise, and the ways in which we are constituted by/interact with and how those are a gateway to the divine.
As per normal, i'm not incredibly educated on the subject, but no worries i fully intend to talk about it anyway, in the true american style. :)
Wilber says that our connection with the archetypal figures is something that occurs on the mythic stage of development, and while at that point it was the collective vision of the divine, is not actually connected to the transpersonal. I can see what Wilber is saying here, but this is one point i don't completely agree with. Of course, one tends to feel kinda foolish even debating a point of Wilbers, just because of his extreme erudition, so if anyone understands why i'm wrong please let me know.
It think perhaps the structure of the tibetan pantheon integrated into their tantric practices would serve as a good example of why i disagree. It seems to me that while Wilbur is correct in his assessment that those archetypes exist down on mythic level, they are a form, however deluded, of the transpersonal and thus can serve as a gateway into the transpersonal. Perhaps this is analogous to the way that dancing can induce ecstatic states.
In tantric practice one takes the ideal form of a diety and projects that into existence and then attempts to embody those ideals. Of course alot of those monks have the literal belief in the deities mythic existence as well. So via there belief in the ideal they are able to transcend themselves.
Wilber may very well account for that, and he's simply stating that connecting to these archetypes is not THE way to transpersonal, but after reading it over, i couldn't get past what seemed like a dismissal of this ideas importance.