archetypal thrust

"If questions of a different kind can be asked, then nature will respond in a new language."--Beverly Rubik, biophysicist

So here's a question --

Since, as is shown in the "higher" martial arts, that "movement within takes shape outside," when the movement within originates from an archetype, would not the external shape of such an action be formed from the power and energy of the archetype, in essence, the archetype acting directly on and in the conventional world?

* * *
But then again, my question may be ill-framed. As it stands, the question indicates the existence of separately discernible archetypes. Jung himself says:

"Although he (the investigator) is forced, for epistemological reasons, to postulate an indefinite number of distinct and separate archetypes, yet he is constantly overcome by doubt as to how far they are really distinguishable from one another. They overlap to such a degree and have such a capacity for combination that all attempts to isolate them conceptually must appear hopeless. In addition the unconscious, in sharpest contrast to consciousness and its contents, has a tendency to personify itself in a uniform way, just as if it possessed only one voice." --Jung on Christianity, 147 (my bold italics)

So, in the martial arts (as a clear and strong example of all relationship arts), the most powerful, effective, and "correct" movements at all moments are movements with one voice, movements that come from the unconscious, the underlying ground of all being.

The initial question can thus be rephrased: Can the movement within which takes shape outside be a movement which arises from the underlying ground of all being, a movement moving with one voice?

What if we humans went through the day, not talking out of our hats, but speaking and moving from the ground of being?