Seeing What Is
When I begin an inquiry into a system, I do my best to ignore the origin texts in order to get a clear sense of the mythology's consequences before becoming familiar with the assertions behind the interpretations that resulted in systemic choices. In other words, as a mythology is built on abstractions (archetypal ideas), while the sources are vital anchors for inquiry, what imagination does with them through people is what matters most, first, and last. Put another way, Germanic Loyalism is a fascinating idea that lead to wonders of coordination and industry. The fact that it was subsumed by its parent idea, Militarized Nationalism, which continually leads in the modern context to industrial genocide, cannot be separated from the mythology.
Individualizing the idea for the sake of clarity, what I/we say is of immense interest but what I actually do (revealing what I believe) is the place to begin and end when finding the constantly reforming truth in a mytho-psychological system. So, for instance, when I want to know about the mythology which most commonly goes by the name "Integral," I do not read Ken Wilbur first. First I get the audio recordings of the Integral Theory Conferences (2008, 2010) to see what happens as a result of "Integral." Then I create an associative resonance image. Then I compare it to direct evidence of behavior generally referred to using the term "Integral," in order to refine my sense of the system. Then I read Wilber (or read him again, or more extensively, with more careful attention) to connect foundational scripture with its interpretive consequences.
This is archetypal because it presupposes formative patterns "behind" behavior but does not presume to wrench them from their context and control their meaning. It follows a roundabout and circuitous path through the terrain the ideas have made, as in the way an archtypal psychotherapist receives the dreaming experience, before learning the names and habits of the mythology's origin ideas which become sensible, in part.