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

Now, I will attempt to refute his argument. 1. My opponent begins to refute my idea of 'past life times; which I tried to convey as the idea of 'Reincarnation', in terms of a person's 'soul' is 'transferred' to another body. My opponent, as he states "For the purposes of this debate", defines a 'past life' as environmental influence. Which I disagree with, though I understand. But, I will attempt to break his use of a theoretical situation, that he uses to refute my theory, in which 'Life A' goes through life, and then dies. After which, Life B is born; with a different structural build and a different set of "memories, experiences, and thoughts". 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. 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 (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). 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. ). This, could be a small contribution to the idea of the existence of our collective consciousness and reincarnation. 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. 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. "Jungian archetypes (similar to Freud's archaic remnants) are not 'you are one or the other' they are all expressions of the unconscious"- 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. "His [Jung], frankly stupid, obsession with dreams and myths gave him the idea that the unconscious had 'personality' or common thematic structure. He proclaimed to want to make Psychology scientific - but he was really just spewing ideas with little basis except on whatever mystical interpretation he found exciting for that year - including modifications and contradictions. " -Besides the ad hominem (however understandable it may be), he might be misinformed as to Jung's purpose. Jung did want to make Psychology scientific, but he also believed in the balance of theory and concrete evidence. He believed being too encompassed with one aspect, would distort an individual's perception and judgment. "Apart or combined, we see they [Archetypes] really don't work at all. If archetypes are the deposits of repeated human experience, then they would reflect human experience - cultures, apart from the modern age of communication have been relatively isolated - experiences then, as per evolutionary traits, are influenced by geographic location and isolation - in other words we should expect to see distinct archetypes evolve - this is distinct from presence i. e. a genetic 'early' component of archetypes and a difference in trait expression. "- Refer back to my detailing of Campbell's ideas.