As a clinical psychologist, I observe stereotyped formulas of behavior in action every day in the consulting room, despite differences in age, race, or culture; they present themselves as codified rules or typical modes of behavior in archetypical situations. Such circumstances coincide with what C.G. Jung defended: the existence of archetypes stored in an inherited/phylogenetic repository, which he called the collective unconscious – somewhat similar to the notion of an ethogram, as shown by ethology. Psychologists can use a perspective to facilitate understanding the phenomenon: the code biology perspective (Barbieri 2014). This approach can help us recognize how these phenomenological events have an ontological reality based not only on the existence of organic information but also on the existence of organic meaning.

We are not a tabula rasa (Wilson 2000): despite the explosive diversification of the brain and the emergence of conscience and intentionality, we observe the conservation of basic instincts and emotions (Ekman 2004; Damasio 2010) not only in humans but in all mammals and other living beings; we refer to the neural activity on which the discrimination behavior is based, i.e., the neural codes. The conservation of these fundamental set-of-rules or conventions suggests that one or more neural codes have been highly conserved and serves as an interpretive basis for what happens to the living being who owns them (Barbieri 2003). Thus, archetypes’ phenomenological reality can be understood not as something metaphorical but as an ontological (phylogenetic) fact (Goodwyn 2019).

Furthermore, epigenetic regulation theories present the possibility that the biomolecular process incorporates elements of the context where it takes place; something fundamental to understand our concept – the archetype presents itself as the mnesic remnant of the behavioral history of individuals who preceded us on the evolutionary scale. In short: brains are optimized for processing ethologically relevant sensory signals (Clemens et al., 2015).

From the perspective of the corporeal mind (Searle 2002), in this paper, we will show the parallels between code biology and the concept of the archetype, as Jung defended it and as it appears in clinical practice.

作为一名临床心理学家，尽管年龄、种族或文化存在差异，但我每天都会在诊室观察到刻板的行为模式；它们将自己呈现为典型情况下的编纂规则或典型行为模式。这种情况与 CG Jung 所捍卫的相吻合：存储在遗传/系统发育库中的原型的存在，他称之为集体无意识——有点类似于ethogram的概念，如 ethology 所示。心理学家可以使用一种视角来促进理解这一现象：密码生物学观点（Barbieri 2014）。这种方法可以帮助我们认识到这些现象学事件如何不仅基于有机信息的存在而且基于有机意义的存在而具有本体论现实。

我们不是白纸（Wilson 2000）：尽管大脑的爆炸性多样化以及良心和意向的出现，我们观察到基本本能和情绪的守恒（Ekman 2004; Damasio 2010）不仅在人类中，而且在所有哺乳动物中和其他生物；我们指的是辨别行为所依据的神经活动，即神经代码。这些基本规则或约定的守恒表明，一个或多个神经代码已经高度守恒，并作为拥有它们的生物发生的事情的解释基础（Barbieri 2003）。因此，原型的现象学现实不能被理解为某种隐喻，而是一种本体论（系统发育）事实（Goodwyn 2019）。

此外，表观遗传调控理论提出了生物分子过程包含其发生环境元素的可能性。理解我们的概念的基本要素——原型呈现为在进化规模上先于我们的个体行为历史的记忆残余。简而言之：大脑针对处理与行为学相关的感觉信号进行了优化（Clemens et al., 2015）。

从肉体心智的角度来看（Searle 2002），在本文中，我们将展示代码生物学与原型概念之间的相似之处，正如荣格所捍卫的那样，正如它在临床实践中出现的那样。