I hope I am not one of the three, but another voice. I think Joseph Campbell caries the archetypal, narrative platonic ideal in his work very well, but I wonder if he would have diverged had he had access to 'the Red Book." Jung definite diverged, or as perhaps Paul said in his song, 'while my guitar gently weeps,' "was perverted, too..." Philemon doesn't strike me as an archetype. He is spirit guide. He is a companion, but more than that. Is there archetypal information in the Red Book, yeah- and simultaneously it seems to me to transcend that limitation. Is it a limitation of semantics? The inability to reduce ineffable qualities to personas and symbols and language?

So, interestingly, I was writing today about this Curt Leo podcast- I doubt I understand it well, or even this essay well, but reading this feels like synchronicity. If consciousness is infinite, and at the same time the only limit because it contains all the subsets of realities and there can be nothing outside of the totality of singularity, then there is room for the Platonic ideals, or blueprints, or archetypes, just by being contained within totality? But, does that necessarily translate into human experience of the same? Clearly humans fall into a domain somewhere, and just because we can see the horizon, or imagine a horizon, doesn't necessarily mean I 'channel' the horizon in it's perfect 360 degree planar, or the spherical horizon if you assume the perspective of the planet, anymore than the archetype being played out in my head is the absolute, but is instead an adulterated version that allows me to hold it.

Perhaps an easier way to say this, it’s not that the world is corrupted, but rather my language I use fails to capture reality because the word is corrupted? Even my archetype is necessarily lesser than the ideal, and is a character in its own right. Perhaps I would be better spoken if I were a guitar, gently weeping.