Atoms, Angels and Archetypes

Like it or not, the human psychic landscape is populated with – and often dominated by – non-physical beings: from Jesus Christ to Harvey the rabbit, as a species we just can’t seem to help developing relationships with imaginary friends. Mythical creatures such as fairies and fauns, celestial beings like angels and even our fascination with celebrities suggest either a collective depth of imagination or a pathological inability to deal with reality. Or perhaps both. Considering how widespread this phenomenon is, it would be helpful to determine how valid it is and to distinguish between its healthy and unhealthy manifestations and I believe that an understanding of life energy can point the way.

Although these figures we’re examining could all be defined quite accurately as imaginary friends, almost anyone who has one would undoubtedly object to this description because of its implication that such a friend is nothing more than a mental construct, a subjective concoction with no objective basis in reality. While this may or may not be true, it is not necessarily so. One of the most extreme and – one would think, easiest to dismiss – cases of "seeing things" occurs with schizophrenia. Schizophrenics often see people and things that aren’t "really" there, but it has been suggested that the nature of this disease is that it simply blurs the distinction between conscious and subconscious modes of perception, rather than arbitrarily cooking up phantasms with no basis in reality. The reality that schizophrenics draw upon is simply one that for most of us is limited to our dreams and our unconscious projections, but which is also channeled through our myths and cultural and psychological archetypes.

Some might feel that the legitimacy of this faculty is determined by its content: i.e., Jesus Christ is "real" or "true" whereas Harvey (from the play and movie of the same name) is truly imaginary or "untrue". Undoubtedly anyone who enjoys a personal relationship with Jesus would bridle at the suggestion that there could be any comparison with Elwood P. Dowd’s friendship with an invisible six foot three and a half inch tall rabbit. They would argue that their Saviour is real because he once existed as a flesh and blood man whose influence has been transmitted through the ages via the church and Bible; however, the fact is that none of them have ever met that man and their relationship is with a figure who lives entirely in their hearts and minds. The wide variety of interpretations that have been attached to this ostensibly real person can only undermine the sense that his reality is entirely non-subjective. And even so, it’s not the physical existence of Jesus that makes him what he is but his archetypal reality, his meaning as a saviour and an intermediary between the realms of God and man. Meaning is one factor that all imaginary friends have in common. They exist for a reason.

Whether one believes in any religious or mythical creatures at all, everyone deals with imaginary characters within themselves. We all host an internal round table at which sit a variety of personality fragments and psychological projections, all of which are "real" in that they are part of our experience and we consider ourselves to be real, but are at the same time "unreal" because they don’t have an independent physical existence.

One way to sort through this morass is to view all these phenomena – mythical and archetypal figures, angels, psychological projections and personality fragments – as patterns of energy. This is not too much of a stretch, since quantum physics and Taoism share the insight that all reality is energetically based anyway. Indeed, it is generally accepted that the quantum building blocks are largely metaphorical, and that atoms don’t actually consist of tiny bits of matter orbiting other bits of matter like so many planets and moons. It is more accurate to view physical reality as a web of intersecting waves of probability, so in a way an atom is no more real than an angel. They are both archetypes.

In between atoms and angels is where we find ourselves. The difference being that we are each personal and unique, whereas archetypes are generic and universal, although their expressions can be personalized through us. We participate in them and they influence us, but it is we who have the capacity for free will and to derive meaning from experience. It is this capacity that should guide us in determining how real any aspect of our experience is, rather than some appeal to external authorities. "What does this mean?" is more helpful than "is this real"? Does it serve our highest good, guide us towards growth and greater connection, or does it serve to protect us from these cosmic responsibilities? As Elwood P. Dowd says of his imaginary friend: "Science has overcome time and space. But Harvey, he’s overcome time and space and all the objections."