Hi - I stumbled upon this article by Ross Blaine and felt it was worth sharing. I can relate to what he's saying:

By now many people have heard of the prophetic date of 12-21-12. This date has slipped into the consciousness of enough people now to be considered archetypal. What is the archetype? Unfortunately it is a prophetic "end of days" type archetype. I say unfortunately because it is consciousness and mass consciousness particularly that 2012 is really about, and if the archetype is of some sort of Armageddon-ish scenario, then it is more likely that such a scenario will be created.

My thoughts at present. 2012 is not an event or a date for a specific event. It is merely a marker in time and according to the Maya, the end of time. There are many prophetic correspondences to these times although not 2012 specifically in most cases that I am aware of. In any event, if something is happening it is already happening right now and will likely continue to happen beyond 12-21-12. But is this unusual? Aren't things always "happening" or isn't there an ongoing evolution regardless? What makes these times and 2012 special?

Part of what distinguishes the 2012 phenomenon is the phenomenon itself. The more attention given to it and the more energy fed to it, the more 2012 becomes something. Otherwise it is just a date on a calendar and an ending date on another.

Is 2012 any different than the many prophetic times preceding it? Like we can easily remember Y2K, for example. What was that all about? Not too much really.

I believe the significance placed on 2012 is only significant by the act of intent or attention. It has power when we give it power. There is no cosmic deadline or destiny set in stone. There may be probabilities of destiny, but there is a randomness to it that cannot be accounted for- at least not by me.

Meanwhile it certainly feels like something's got to give. When I look at the world I see growing chaos primarily driven by unsustainability. I don't have to mention anything specific because this is plainly evident- just watch the evening news.

If we want to make these times and 2012 something positive, here is my simple, pragmatic advice. Do not cop to fear. There are ample things to be afraid of and sure to be more, but we always have a choice about how we react to any situation. So do not choose fear regardless of what is happening. Look instead for love. Love is always present and can always be accessed. You cannot have darkness without light for it is only by contrasting one by the other that dark and light is created. Same is true with fear and love.

As for the 2012 phenomenon itself, be mindful of what kind of energy you feed it. There are many people writing, speaking, and promoting various ideas about 2012, many of them fear based. This kind of thing may help people sell books, or conferences, or products, or even their ideas, but is that any different than a political party using fear to scare themselves into being elected into office? No not really. It is pandering and propaganda. Some of the oldest tricks in the book. Develop your own personal love/fear meter and be ever aware. Then choose love. If enough of us do this, we will have a great 2012.

Ross Blaine has studied with Alberto Villoldo and The Four Winds Society and is a graduate of the Healing the Light Body School. Ross is a mesa carrier in the lineage of the Andean Shamans and practices Energy Medicine through Soulpaths, LC, in Kansas City, Missouri. You can reach him at www.soulpaths.com.

Quote Bird/Ross Blaine:
"This date has slipped into the consciousness of enough people now to be considered archetypal."
No. The clue of an archetype is just that it is NOT caused or fed by something of the present lifetime, but is something (a story, a symbol) which is shared by many, if not all people independently of their present lives' experiences. At least according to Jung.

Spooky

An archetype is pretty much a concept shared by all, yes...though I'm not sure it's as complex as believing "in the bodily return of Jesus"...more like "risen God".  The bogeyman could be considered an archetype, as could the Mother Goddess...not a lot of detail, as far as I understand it.

Each person or groups definition of *their* version of the archetype can be complicated, but the archetype itself seems to be just above the instinctual level - a gut thing, almost.

Archetypical figures in myth and legend may stray considerably from the basics, but there's that one core thing that qualifies them.

Or not -  my studies of the subject have been intermittant and not necessarily scholarly... 

I suppose that egregore might have an effect, too?  The notion that if enough people believe in something (as far as I know, usually an entity, but maybe not only that), it will become real.

Jung seems to have come up with archetype (as used in this context, anyway), and goes farther with the idea of the collective unconcious.

The collective unconsious was his name for the "everything" of all our minds tied together, "The collective subconscious is also known as "a reservoir of the experiences of our species."*

Sounds kinda relevant to this board, now that I think on it... 


*Jung, Carl. The Development of Personality