Yes, archetype is a great concept I'm using too. Yet, I have problems to explain to others particular archetypes, especially in brief. Also, I often find myself in difficulties to understand others' explanations on what they refer to.

I saw many women having preferences to something like "Mother Goddess", "Mother Earth", "Gaya" etc. They often even chose nicknames as such. But every time it happened to stumble upon it, I was puzzled about it, having / feeling no connection to this archetype at all (in a sense of "stranger", "unkown" or "not-understandable").

It's said that image is worth of many words (thousands or other number; doesn't matter ). But when you look at it, you see only your own mental associations, brought forth in one moment. If the author's ones are similar to yours, you look at the same thing. If not, you're looking at something else what he or she created.

Images are similar to archetypes. I think the main problem with archetypes is that if you have no personal experiences about some specific archetype, you're probably unable to understand it, no matter how much explanation others provide to you.

So in brief, it seems that archetypes are not a perfect mean for communication, when too many differences exist (and this is where communication is mostly needed).