Classical Embodiment
Embodiment in classical times involved the perception that numerous gods, or other divinities, could help individual specialisms. And that a person could match their career/interest with specific divinities in order to reach greater levels of achievement.
They would attempt to embody the spirit of those divinities, and that this was regarded that a key part of that was the specific relationship with that understanding of themselves and the divine.
Patron gods and archetypes
In Greek and Roman religion, many deities had clear domains (craft, war, love, healing), and people associated professions and life roles with particular gods, sometimes treating one as a personal patron.
I see this as having a strong parallel with the theories of Carl Jung, specifically, individuation. Jung explicitly framed “the gods” as personifications of archetypes in the collective unconscious – the patterns of instinct, thought-flow, and meaning that pre‑exist individuals and shape the process of individuation.
Embodiment as mutual individuation
In Jungian terms, a deep, embodied relationship with a deity‑image could be seen as conscious Ego and archetype entering into dialogue: the human becomes more uniquely themselves while the archetype gains a more differentiated, personal expression.
That aligns with the idea of embodiment as both parties “getting to know themselves” well enough to speak, and of an oracle as a person whose psyche is especially transparent to a particular archetypal current.
As I see it, the deeper the level of embodiment, the more personalised the interface to that symbolised energy/thought becomes, and this explains how Jung’s process of embodiment is a journey that lasts a lifetime, and becomes increasingly life changing in the process.
Therefore, I suggest, that those divinities of the past, were, to some degree, connected to us via our Genetic lineage, and that the process of embodiment therefore is reflective of both parties developing a relationship of mutual understanding, through life-long practice.
Genetic Archetypes
However, I do not see these as entirely external forces. My thinking is that we have direct genetic links to what we might also call archetypes: the first cell, for example, holds a label as the archetype for all cells, and that creates a connection between all cellular beings whose genetics, to this day, continue to use and reuse that particular building block.
That building block, as we know, is in itself, a unique code that connects us all, possibly via quantum entanglement, as some branches of the science are suggesting.
Quantum and biological metaphors
There is ongoing speculative work linking Jung’s ideas with quantum theory and biology, including suggestions that DNA and cellular processes might instantiate or reflect archetypal patterns, though this remains metaphorical rather than experimentally established.
Some theologians use quantum entanglement as a metaphor for a deep, pervasive connectedness between life, consciousness, and the divine, arguing for an “entangled” creation in which everything participates in shared patterns across time.
The “first cell” hypothesis
Mainstream biology recognises a Last universal common ancestor (LUCA) as a population of early cells whose descendants include all known life, so there is a literal lineage connecting every cell in every organism.
Framing LUCA or a “first cell” as an archetype of all cells, and then imagining a kind of informational or even quantum entanglement running through that lineage, fits well as a symbolic model and resonates with some Panentheistic and depth‑psychological interpretations, but present science does not confirm a usable, language‑like information channel of this kind.
That first cell/cellular process has influence over all cells, certainly in terms of direct physical structure and processes. But there is also the idea that this distant ancestor could also be a source for a thought-form or thinking process that may be a real internal part that any of us can connect to.
DNA-based System Memories?
Those DNA based system memories, they may well have been compressed to into unrecognisable abstraction. This could mean, that if we sense that they are there, what we see will be a significant distortion of the original fully formed thought-form based Genetic memory – we only remember what is needed, when it comes to genetics, I believe.
But, imagine that we do have this quantum connection, could that embodiment process include activation all those connections? Could those connections form an eternal flow of information through time, greater than the retained memories of any new part in that self-labelling, all connected system?
Progressive self-actualisation?
If there is a real, deep connectivity in and through life, the embodiment process could be imagined as progressively activating those connections, so that an individual becomes a conscious interface for a much larger pattern than their personal memory span.
This notion then strays onto Carl Rogers‘ actualising tendency, and also, Abraham Maslow‘s concept of self-actualisation. Here we also see a gradual process of Self-embodiment, enabled and sustained by the satisfaction of natural needs that underpin this personal growth.
Whether this is described as gods, parts, thought-forms, archetypes, or entangled biological heritage, the idea of an “eternal flow of information through time” can be grounded as a powerful metaphor and experiential reality for some people, but it also helps us tie together several understandings into a more cohesive picture.
0 Comments