On metaphor, archetype, and the language of form

People often ask me whether the metaphors I work with are the same as Jungian archetypes. They’re not.

In some psychological or spiritual circles, the word metaphor is used interchangeably with archetype. I want to be very clear that I do not use these terms synonymously.

When I speak of metaphor, I’m referring to a felt, living presence—an image that carries shape, quality, movement, texture. A metaphoric form might feel soft, angular, upward-moving, heavy, enclosing, or radiant. These forms are not conceptual. They’re non-cognitive structures of being that arise from the deep ground of our psyche and carry their own wisdom and intelligence.

In contrast, the word archetype is typically used to refer to symbolic figures—like “the Hero,” “the Mother,” or “the Fool”—and is tied to myth, narrative, and identity. While Jung originally described archetypes as innate, form-generating patterns beneath consciousness, over time, the word has come to represent fixed roles or characters in a story. That’s not the territory I work in.

The metaphoric forms I midwife are not symbols to be interpreted. They are presences to be felt, trusted, and entered. They don’t operate through analysis or interpretation, but through direct experience. They restructure us from the inside out.

This is why I use the language of metaphor—not to describe something, but to open a doorway into another way of knowing.