Archetypes!

That's the word I've been looking for :)
Archetypes are, according to Swiss psychologist Carl Jung, innate universal psychic dispositions that form the substrate from which the basic themes of human life emerge. Being universal and innate, their influence can be detected in the form of myths, symbols, rituals and instincts of human beings. Archetypes are components of the collective unconscious and serve to organize, direct and inform human thought and behaviour.

S'good that wikipedia :) Mind I'm not completely sure I understand the bit about phsychic dispositions or substrates. But I like the bits about them being universal and innate and being detected in the forms of myth, ritual, symbol and instincts. On the other hand I'd argue a bit about the instinct bit but that's because I take Jung with a pinch of salt. Tasty stuff and appetising but I'm not convinced of his scientific basis.* And I've always understood instincts to be similar to reflexes but in a way that relates to mind instead of body. So, hard-wired into the psyche. And while I can happily accept myths, rituals and symbols being a way to express a commonly understood imagery I'm not prepared to accept that the imagery which we categorise as archetypal is as deeply wired into our psyche as a reflex is into our physiology.**

However, Old Father Thames, winding through the city, is an archetype for me. I'm not sure if one is allowed personal archetypes as well as the ones that belong to the collective unconscious (which I'm not totally convinced exists anyway, though it's a nice and comforting idea) .
But I guess any great river with a settlement along its banks ought to be an archetype? And an emblem both of fear and of security. (Water where predators and prey gather together and there is rarely a truce and equally, water where life can be sustained and survival becomes easy for a while). Such places must be very important in the collective, hand-me-down human memory, at least, and if there were a collective unconscious I bet they'd be there too.

Speaking of a blithe disregard (which I am about to do below) I spent the day sorting through old files, throwing stuff out and diligently editing photos for our canal holiday companions to come and see. Barney insists that I don't show them the full five thousand (I can't think why!).
After which I had a sudden attack of 'who cares if it's perfect as long as it's fun!!!!'
This is a bit of silliness, combining two mismatched and wrongly exposed photos in photoshop. Together with some quite random post processing.
Also there were bees. The thing about bees is they're very easy to see. (Which makes them a good subject for a muttering, peering photographer who's not quite sure what she's doing)
The other thing about bees is they appear and vanish in the blink of an eye. Or indeed the click of a shutter. One instant there's a bee, the next, there isn't. Makes for some interesting photos :)The bee I was trying to photograph vanished as I clicked but coincidentally, this bee flew through the area I was focused on, at the same time :) I really like bees :)
Tomorrow it's back to the filing - Barney thinks it's going to take me at least a day! Ha. He should be so lucky. I suggested a week and he laughed - I think he thought I was joking :)
So now I must stop playing and go to bed.
Good night and have a lovely weekend :)


*This is easy for me to say as I've only ever read popularised versions of Jung's work and certainly have never studied any of the science of any of the old psychologies. But 'it takes one to know one' and I seem to recognise a blithe, inventive and adventurous disregard for dry facts in what little I have read :)
**You may think my interpretation of 'instinct' is a decidedly dicey one which bears very little resemblance to its real meaning. In fact it's quite probable that I am misinterpreting and misrepresenting the good Mr Jung entirely. Do tell me if you know :)