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

"The problem with this situation, is that it does not include this unknown concept of our 'soul'. Which comes back to the collective consciousness. Our past is encoded into us spiritually, possibly genetically." A concept if unknown is not a concept - being that an internally recognised definition is a requirement of its discussion. Collective unconscious for Jung was not the soul - in his spiritual argument it was a component discrete from the individual and part of the universe at large "... the sediment of all the experience of the universe of all time" (Jung 1922). Genetic argument fails - one cannot "encode memory" into DNA. DNA produces proteins - not conceptual structures. Let alone recoding one's own genetic makeup as a process of basic life experience simply can't occur. In terms of brain structure a 'genetic heritage' has to do with such things as speed and quantity of myelination. A non physical entity has no capacity to store, record, contain, hold, and transmit a physical component of which an individual is. Simply saying it can is not an argument. "Although this is very much a theory, it can be observed through many cases, in which individuals will experience a dream or 'flashback', in which an event not physically experienced, is relived." Contradiction. If it has never been experienced it cannot be relived. Non apparent familiarity with a dream image does not equal a past memory. Dreams are constructs of held concepts. "(Jung experienced one himself, in which he traveled back through the ages of his past 'reincarnations'; the ages being represented by the different levels in his house, going from Roman times, to that of a 'primitive' culture, in a cave with broken pottery)." Begging the question. "Also a strong example for the collective consciousness, can be seen by Joseph Campbell's 'The Masks of God'. A series of volumes, that explore the very many similarities between myths of cultures, thousands of miles apart. Extremely similar stories and themes, of the Hero's Journey of life,exploration,leaving of the conscious world,death, and rebirth, can be observed in cultures, great distances apart (i.e. Greece's King Minos, to Jesus, to Buddha, etc.)." Myths are anthropomorphised fantasy constructions e.g. pantheons generally follow a family hierarchy. It does not demonstrate a shared underlying common influence outside of people wrote about what they knew. Let's put your argument into a syllogism so you can see how it is a non sequitur. 1.Myths are constructed 2.Some myths have a common theme 3.Ergo there is a common basis. Basic common human experience accounts for archetypal imagery, across disparate populations. Take for example the 'old man' - associated with wisdom. In patriarchal societies men are the store houses of tribal history and myth. An old man then, is of venerable wisdom. That's not some universal archetype that makes him so. It is a basic facet of his existence - shared amongst those of his family and larger community. "If Life B is a descendant of Life A, then it is possible that they contain the same 'soul', and their 'soul' contains all of the past reincarnated lives' experiences." No. Ones genetic makeup is of both parents. Is a soul in the sperm now? Or lodges in a woman's ovaries? How does it get there? How does it choose? How can one be a 'descendant' of one's self given one can only genetically impart ï¿½ of one's genetic makeup to a zygote - and each generation the dilution is compounded. It's nonsensical and doesn't solve how non physical can retain physical at all. "This may be, and very much could be, an appeal to ignorance. Though, since this debate is largely based on theory, this theory may be accepted." Appeals to ignorance are never a valid argument. Doing the proverbial 'because I say so' is not an argument. "I disagree with this, as my understanding of archetypes, is that they are the dominance of a possible expression of unconscious. Which comes back to my idea of Tabula Rasa, being the blank slate that is inscribed upon, by the individual's personal experiences, having an effect on which archetype becomes dominant." If one inherits a past one is not a blank slate. It's as basic as that. An inheritance of past, of preference, of recorded experience is not 'blank.' A is A. If archetypes are present and dormant it is still not blank. "He believed being too encompassed with one aspect, would distort an individual's perception and judgment." Evidence is evidence. Validity is validity. Whatever his views on what they were, were; that does not change the nature of what evidence is nor what validity of theory is. He fails on both accounts. "Refer back to my detailing of Campbell's ideas" Which doesn't dispute principles of variance in the least. If it's genetic it will obey genetic principles - which the theory doesn't. It doesn't follow population variance - which imagery does. If imagery is constructed in shared cultural concepts it will follow as such - and it does.