This page will list examples of things that are incomprehensible except when two 'archetype trends' are combined.
1) The 'knot' is an important archetype that is difficult to understand because most examples are not simple.
One interesting subject discussed a lot on this website involves tribal vs melting pot worldviews, and an example of the 'knot' archetype which involves that is the shift in awareness in people regarding a 'complete' understanding of that which a person can understand.
When a person is born they must accept everything in their environment as being a component of 'the complete world', in other words their future worldview has 'potential' which they will eventually trade for something else.
As they age there are more and more things that must be excluded in order to end up with a complete understanding of the world.
Finally when a person dies they have a complete understanding of the world.
Along this route some people get a more complete understanding at a longer interval before their death, but these individuals must sacrifice more of the potential referred to at the first step.
Here is an example of somebody who has come up with an unusually complete 'final worldview', but is oblivious to the fact that no worldview is universal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leES6Lgz4o8
In order to arrive where he is he had to have started with more 'potential', but by promoting his 'complete' worldview he, or those who promote his view to outsiders, is trying to extend his sacrifice to others.
It is sort of a microcosm of how melting potters are motivated to 'help' tribals by 'teaching' them whatever 'truths' melting potters have found, and of course the rest of society i.e., economy, military, religion etc are recruited in the campaign to 'help' tribals.
That video shows somebody who has managed to go from one side of that specific knot to the other while still not near dead, and the fact that he still has a fair amount of energy left means he might be able to tidy up the unfortunate part of his solution, in other words by recognizing that his 'completed' worldview is only valid for people within his economically/militarily/etc melting pot.
The proper solution is important in the long term because a melting pot always needs food, and the global melting pot has been eliminating that food source at an unsustainable rate.
Worse are shifts within the melting pot, such as the European, or 'UK', shift to Australia, which will necessitate those European Australians eliminating the remaining indigenous population regardless what any European Australians pretend.
At 1 hour 4 minutes 20 seconds in the above video https://youtu.be/leES6Lgz4o8?t=3860 somebody gives an analogous example of children, as opposed to tribals. Another way to look at it is that all animals have different collections of senses and live in very different worlds and the same applies to a lesser degree in tribes.
If 'tribal survival' had existed at the time of Neanderthals etc then today the 'melting pot' would be advancing in sciences much more quickly, and the other human tribal groups such as Neanderthal, modern human, etc as well.
Because that opportunity was missed today the range is much narrower, perhaps 30,000 years of evolution between differing tribal groups, and the most valuable tribes are the least likely to survive, for example indigenous non European Australian tribes and furthest east mew world tribes.
People imagine that things like mathematics and physics are universal sciences whose laws apply to all life, but that is simply not true. Notice at about 54:46 https://youtu.be/leES6Lgz4o8?t=3286 he summarizes by using phrases from his local worldview which are archetypally equivalent to the issue of it were framed in the way this page considers proper. So he was born with the 'potential' to cross the knot or 'untie' it which he did, and now he is again at the same place, or what could be called 'a new version of the old knot' and he decides to cash out or 'consolidate' instead of expanding/growing.
These edifices being constructed to the melting pot, these non universal sciences and worldviews, require the consumption of tribal worldviews or sciences, and until that is done in a sustainable way it means exterminating tribes to grow the sciences of the melting pot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_time_of_extinction
An alternative, an extension of diplomacy from the Middle ages, is strong military defenses for tribal groups and sciences evolve locally rather than through what amounts to government sponsored sacrifice of tribes for a fictional 'greater good'.
In Progress.
~
2) This involves a change in perception that will have enormous consequences, but faces an extreme danger which, although predictable, is invisible to the types of people who are likely to have the most influence in the shift.
Start with this important article
https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/the-two-empires-and-three-domains-of-14432998/
and notice the paragraph
In the twentieth century, scientists devised new imaging methods like electron microscopy, which can be used to view tiny particles that are much smaller than cells, to detect a second fundamental form of biological organization: the viruses. Viruses are obligate intracellular parasites. These selfish genetic elements typically encode some proteins essential for viral replication, but they never contain the full complement of genes for the proteins and RNAs required for translation, membrane function, or metabolism. Therefore, viruses exploit cells to produce their components.
Notice the language and tone involving viruses. It is clearly charged sentiment which indicates that the author of that article, an expert far beyond most, is leaving some coal in a specific spot which can be converted to something more useful.
Obviously at the level to which that author refers the word 'selfish' is silly so that person is implying, consciously or not, that there is a symbiotic relationship between viruses and other branches.
Why the couched language though? That person recognizes a danger in human nature, and is inserting a safety mechanism that is usually widely ignored by most people.
Here is a more sociable scientist giving a similar warning, though in the opposite way, using gushing happiness instead of scorn.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhF5G2k45vY
And a partial step past that though still avoiding big steps.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LdmcFoYQtU
And then finally the language reverts to the early paragraph copied above.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJvxOO2WVzg
Between the first view above and the last there is a strong shift away from the obvious of examining male vs female evolutionary roots, but why?
A second relevant factor involves the 'consciousness' of groups, something often considered a religious topic, such as Christian and other references to 'beasts'.
In this video a vast amount of space is opened up between the first and last videos above.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9_RUwR3RFU
The specific shift both of those scientists see wraps up a lot of scientific loose ends, and the changes in perception that result will probably allow most people to perceive the actual value in 'different' or 'tribal' worldviews, which would necessarily slow their extermination.
The very big step that is missing seems to be "the science of neoteny" which doesn't exist yet, but would allow people to see bigger patterns.
In Progress
~
3) Neanderthal diet is one small part of human diet over a much longer timeframe, but if a person looks back far enough some deductions can be made by looking at early human origins and genetic clues in prion diseases.
Saying that a particular thing is 'evolution in action' is a way of avoiding investigating.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urlnWsUczd4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meYnivLLl-A
https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/cannibalism-and-evolution
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2735511/
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18172-gene-change-in-cannibals-reveals-evolution-in-action/
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2215600119
Obviously the earliest ancestors of humans were not cannibalistic, and of course the specific types of foods available evolved dramatically.
A completely separate concept, neotany, has several very different definitions.
https://www.google.com/search?q=neoteny
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0900544106
In Progress