Tabula Rasa and Jungian archetypes can be intertwined into a single idea.

"Who is to say this isn't what he believes to be the essence of our 'soul'? It could be our connected 'soul's that comprises the collective consciousness." Because he said otherwise. "The collective unconscious is a part of the psyche which can be negatively distinguished from a personal unconscious by the fact that it does not, like the latter, owe its existence to personal experience and consequently *is not a personal acquisition.* ... and therefore have never been individually acquired, but owe their existence *exclusively to heredity.*" "If the Collective Consciousness and memory is genetically, not spiritually, transfered ( though I don't see it as genetic), then how can you say that it cannot transfer memories of past lives?" Memories are constructions of neurons, not a component of DNA - the information that is hereditary. "DNA transfers physical and mental attributes like physical aptitude, intelligence" Intelligence no. Read R2 as to what DNA relates in terms of intelligence, essentially myelin formation, which is not intelligence, it simply elevates the potential for a higher level of. "What's to say it [DNA] cannot withhold information from the previous ancestors?" Withhold? "All a memory is, is the bonds of neurons, from a genetic perspective." No from a neuronal, cognitive aspect - genetic only as in the base capacity to form neurons that can relate to a memory. Not to 'store' a memory by changing the DNA code - which is what would have to occur. Memory occurs after the zygote. "It could very well be transfered from parent to child with all of the other attributes in our 46 (23 pairs) chromosomes." No. Read above; you are talking about actually taking the formation pattern of neurons (which is distinct from DNA) and then somehow changing ones genetic structure to 'encode' that pattern. It can't happen. There is a reason why DNA forensics is done - one's DNA does not change. "As to the latter quote. Again we are dealing with something that can only be speculated and observed from personal experience, analysis of dreams (i.e. Interpretation of Dreams ,Sigmund Freud) etc." Sole personal experience is not a valid basis for theory. "It's not a contradiction when you take into account my entire argument." Yes it is. If it's not been directly experienced there is no referent for it being relived. It's that simple. "Persecution of fallacy is wrong. I was simply naming an example from Jung. http://www.nizkor.org....... I did not assign Jung as the authority and final verdict on the argument." Eh no. Past lives are true, Jung experienced past lives, therefore past lives are true. Begging the question. "It is less of a 'blank slate', than more of a nature (Archetype, in this case) vs nurture (environmental effects) combination. Yes, this contradicts my exact wording in my resolution, but arguments evolve, and may deviate from the original theme in order to convey what is the importance. Nurturing (environmental effects), directly affects what archetype is prevalent and dominant in the individual." Well deviating in debate is a no no. The resolution is what you are debating obviously - arguments may evolve, the resolution cannot. Nurture is irrelevant to the actual debate of Tabula Rasa - obviously individuals engage in an environment - once a blank slate is gone it is gone. Tabula Rasa is an epistemological position - it relates to knowledge - in particular lack of a priori. An archetype is the collective psyche of the past containing motif/images. Images are concepts, a form of knowledge - a violation of Tabula Rasa dormant or not. Blank slate is a blanks slate. A is A. It does not matter if part is hidden. "This has some merit, when dealing with a patriarchal society. Though, how does one explain situations of heroines? In a patriarchal society, how does a female hero emerge? In this type of society, a myth should only include women as the temptress, or the one who pulls the hero from the other world, back into the normal world." Says who? Heroines, non deified, are a lot rarer to begin with, why is there suddenly rules on what form they should be expressed in? In most myth females (and males) were the tools to tell the audience a certain message - normally instructional and warning in nature - it's why myths rarely have happy endings e.g. Medea, Brunhilde. "one cannot look at the collective consciousness/archetypes as something that you can physically see, it's something philosophical, which is only up to debate if one is to let go of their complete need for 'proof' in front of them." This is a rubbish claim to hide that your argument has null validity. The brain is not some magical unexplored component of the body. Philosophy is not some dreamy process of introspection. You are forgetting Philosophies main divisions are logic, metaphysics, and epistemology. Psychology is based on the scientific method. "Of course Con will respond to this, with "He offers no concrete evidence, therefore his resolution should be thrown out", or something of the sort. And this wouldn't be totally wrong; the problem is, when dealing with Jung, a well known combiner of Philosophy, Theology, and Mythology into his Analytical Psychology, you have to be able to comprehend 'evidence', through personal testimonies, and far fetched leaps of 'faith' into the realm of the unknown." Which is just speak for no reason to think it is right at all. Reality doesn't work differently just because Jung wished it. You have failed to show how memory can be hereditary. Your argument is flawed, like Jung, in steeped notions of Lamarckian hereditary. You have failed to argue for a valid notion of Jung's spiritual argument. Or of how the physical can be retained, and transferred through the non physical. Regards, Puck.