[UA] archetype rarity?

[Edward Parsons]

Personally, I'm inclined towards the variety of rarity for archetypes. Some
are common because they appear a lot in life (remember: A lot of followers
of archetypes are unaware of the occult world). There are obviously a lot
more "Mothers" than "Mystic Hemaphrodites" simply because its a lot more
common for someone to embody the characteristics of one than the other.
Think how many low level "Mothers" their must be in the UA world, without
even realising it....

Using the MH as an example of a bloody difficult path to get on to, it is
also difficult to maintain. Say you slip, or go through a change which
removes the paradox from your life. No more avatar.
On the other hand, if you are the type of person that is drawn to a
particular archtype without knowing, you are unlikely to fall of the path,
and may even ascend. Its just acting as you would anyway.


Out of "artifical" archetypes (i.e. Occultists trying to ascend
deliberately), I'd say the same difference is true. When first introduced to
the concept of avatars etc. you naturally think of all the simple ones:
Healer, Hunter, King, Mother...common cultural ideas. The MH is a good
example of something that is not obvious, thus less people are going to
decide to follow it. Its a big commitment, and people are unlikely to chase
it unless they seriously think they have a shot at big power. It stands to
reason that "King" is going to be a symbol of humanity, but Hemaphrodite?
Then you've got all the upkeep problems as well...Everyone knows how kings
act, but what about the Two Faced Man? The demands of the archetype (that of
never revealing your true beliefs) are great indeed, and most people would
have trouble followng them, unless it was thier normal nature.


_______________________________________________
UA mailing list
UA at lists.uchicago.edu
http://lists.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/ua