I have problems with this statement, nowhere:
</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
speaking directly to the subject of God, the archtype has existed for millenia, as early as the oldest known cave paintings, and probably earlier than that still...

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
in that it seems to imply that the archtype is the same as the "object" being typified. What I think/believe about a thing is not the same as the actual thing I'm thinking/believing about. The type "woman" has existed for the same length of time as that of "god" but the type is not the thing, itself and doesn't define or even prove the existance of the object. "Love" exists but you can't prove it anymore than you can prove "God" exists and yet some people know about Love but not God and others claim to know about God but do not know about Love. That "God is Love" is not a very helpful statement if you don't know what God is or what Love is. The archtype of God the Father is not very helpful if your own "father" was an abuser or otherwise fell very far short of being the man he "should" have been. I'm not sure that archtypes are always helpful in "explaining" or showing or proving the existance of other archtypes or "objects"/concepts but they're pretty much all we have. But sometimes they can be dangerous unless the "object" itself can be part of an actual personal experience that changes one's knowledge. I'm looking for experiences of the Object rather than its "shadow" archtype.