Good question. Basically this goes back to Plato and Aristotle. Both of them understood the manifest world to be an expression of the world of archetypes—of living, creative Ideas or Forms. For Plato, these Archetypes existed in another world altogether. All that has come into being in the physical world is the shadow cast by these Archetypes, or their projection (his allegory of the cave gives a good expression to this). The true, full reality lives only in the spiritual world, and the pale reflection is down here in the mundane world. Aristotle did not see things this way. For him, every sense perceptible phenomenon had its ideal form or Archetype dwelling within it. The Archetype was “immanent”, it was the germ which actively brought the sense perceptible reality into manifestation in the course of its unfolding. To a certain degree, Aristotle saw the archetype and its manifest reality as co-creating each other, unfolding intertwined together. Plato’s point of view is more related to the Hermetic Axiom “As Above, So Below”, but it is also more akin to the image of a Creator God above and his creation below. On the other hand, Aristotle’s point of view is very similar to the Goethean picture of archetypes, and perhaps more related to an evolutionary/emergent picture of creation.
This contrast between the Platonic viewpoint and the Aristotelian was there right from the start of our work with the Suit of Coins. I saw the Ace of Coins as an “immanent” archetype, with the plants emerging directly out of the giant coin, whereas Phillip saw the Ace as a “transcendent” archetype—he thought perhaps that the plants were united with a being “underneath” the coin, that the coin was the transcendent ideal form radiating down and creating the plant “below” it. Later on in our work with the Coins we began to come much more into this realm of simultaneity—that it is not necessarily an “either-or” when it comes to the relationship of Archetypes to the manifest world, but sometimes a “both-and.” We began to feel that the original place of the Archetypes was in the center of all things—this would be the “One Thing” of Hermes Trismegistus—but that at some point it became split into two, with part of it rising above and becoming Transcendent, and the other going below and becoming immanent. We might think of Angelic Hierarchies vs Elemental Beings from an anthroposophical perspective—two sides of the same coin….a realm of the Father above and the Mother below, two realms which once were one in the center and which must someday be reunited again.
From your Notes on Queen of Coins its referred that you see some cards are also more Immanent some more trancendent, sounds to me like many female figured cards are more immanent and someone like Emperor more trancendent type. Are some cards like Lover or Tower also more trancendent types too…
The Unknown Friends 
What is difference with trancendent and imminent Architypes?
LikeLike
Hey Natalia,
Good question. Basically this goes back to Plato and Aristotle. Both of them understood the manifest world to be an expression of the world of archetypes—of living, creative Ideas or Forms. For Plato, these Archetypes existed in another world altogether. All that has come into being in the physical world is the shadow cast by these Archetypes, or their projection (his allegory of the cave gives a good expression to this). The true, full reality lives only in the spiritual world, and the pale reflection is down here in the mundane world. Aristotle did not see things this way. For him, every sense perceptible phenomenon had its ideal form or Archetype dwelling within it. The Archetype was “immanent”, it was the germ which actively brought the sense perceptible reality into manifestation in the course of its unfolding. To a certain degree, Aristotle saw the archetype and its manifest reality as co-creating each other, unfolding intertwined together. Plato’s point of view is more related to the Hermetic Axiom “As Above, So Below”, but it is also more akin to the image of a Creator God above and his creation below. On the other hand, Aristotle’s point of view is very similar to the Goethean picture of archetypes, and perhaps more related to an evolutionary/emergent picture of creation.
This contrast between the Platonic viewpoint and the Aristotelian was there right from the start of our work with the Suit of Coins. I saw the Ace of Coins as an “immanent” archetype, with the plants emerging directly out of the giant coin, whereas Phillip saw the Ace as a “transcendent” archetype—he thought perhaps that the plants were united with a being “underneath” the coin, that the coin was the transcendent ideal form radiating down and creating the plant “below” it. Later on in our work with the Coins we began to come much more into this realm of simultaneity—that it is not necessarily an “either-or” when it comes to the relationship of Archetypes to the manifest world, but sometimes a “both-and.” We began to feel that the original place of the Archetypes was in the center of all things—this would be the “One Thing” of Hermes Trismegistus—but that at some point it became split into two, with part of it rising above and becoming Transcendent, and the other going below and becoming immanent. We might think of Angelic Hierarchies vs Elemental Beings from an anthroposophical perspective—two sides of the same coin….a realm of the Father above and the Mother below, two realms which once were one in the center and which must someday be reunited again.
LikeLike
Thank you, that helped.
LikeLike
From your Notes on Queen of Coins its referred that you see some cards are also more Immanent some more trancendent, sounds to me like many female figured cards are more immanent and someone like Emperor more trancendent type. Are some cards like Lover or Tower also more trancendent types too…
LikeLike