These are some of the phrases that people have searched for on Google, and been sent to this website.

 "Under what circumstance can the government limit a person s natural rights?"

When any person or group, including a government, limits a person's natural rights they do it only with some kind of force or intimidation. There is no authority that exists that can actually give any group the right to take away natural rights. But if a group has enough power they can use that power to force people to pretend that the group has more authority than nature. Governments use all kinds of 'apparent' rationales, usually some form of "we need to help you", but the truth always comes down to "We are stronger, we will do as we like  to you".

This page will try to define Archetype for those who aren't satisfied with the dictionary definition.

Looking back at the development of conscious beings, back before cavemen etc, there was some point where the first "concept" existed. Maybe it was a worm that noticed light (probably it was something else, that's just an example).

That first concept had a singular quality for the worm at first. In other words it was aware of nothing else and its worm brain did not contain anything other than that first concept. Then, with time, nature caused it to realize a second concept, the lack of the first concept (or the opposite of it).

Now the worm has two higher things in its little brain, a concept of light and a concept of the lack (or opposite) of light. Those are the first two elements. The third element, whatever it was, initially seemed completely separate from the first two, and eventually the third element had to have an opposite, like the first two.

So now, fast forward to the present. The worm has evolved into the human being (or whatever you learned in school) and the human being has a complex verbal language that is a mixture of many different things. 

Socrates mistrusted books because they could neither ask nor answer questions and were apt to be swallowed whole. He said that readers of books read much and learned nothing, that they appeared full of knowledge, but for the most part were without it, and had the show of wisdom without its reality.

[From Phaedrus by Plato, 360 BC]

Archetypes are the "original language" of the mind.

Archetypes. Humans and other animals each have languages unique to their species. A language they are born with, and which connects them to others of their species across distance and time.

Learned Language. Humans (and some other species) also have socially learned languages (English, etc) which allow an individual to communicate with others locally. Social languages are a "step away" from nature. In other words the accuracy of the symbols (e.g. words) in a social (i.e., learned) language is subject to a sort of decay.

What is archetypal thinking?

The phrase is used a few thousand times on the internet (according to Google), and its use varies a bit. There are perhaps three common uses of the phrase.

a) Thinking that contains the actual content of popular archetypal stories (e.g. legends), including some hallucinations etc. In this case a person's thoughts are not so much "personal" and "local", but rather deal with universal themes.

b) Thinking in which Jungian archetypes clearly stand out. For example a person could be wrapped around Shadow elements, their thoughts revolving around powerful symbols relating to that archetype. The rare person who has an extensive understanding of archetypes can find these archetypal elements in anyone, but here we're refering to cases when it would be obvious to the casual observer. Very often people act with motives that seem mysterious until you realize their thinking is being guided by their need to integrate "something" they are lacking (i.e., an archetype, Shadow, Anima / Animus, etc).

c) Thinking that is at a very "pure" level, timeless, i.e., without the influence of short term motives.

Subcategories

Character archetypes vs Jungian archetypes.

Character archetypes personify qualities that are in every person. They take an aspect of every person's personality and describe it as a character. A hero, a villain, a magician, a king or queen, etc are all characters that we understand to the extent that the character already exists in us as an archetype, a pre-existing form in our mind.

Jungian archetypes are similar to character archetypes except they focus more directly on psychology. Everyone has a shadow, an anima or animus, a self, etc, just as everyone has a hero, a villain, a magician etc within their psychological makeup. But the shadow, anima, animus, etc are best seen as abstractions. When you try to personify these Jungian archetypes, for example by saying a specific being or thing "is" your shadow you are reducing it to a character archetype.

Below are articles about specific archetypes as well as archetype lists from other sites.