Debates surrounding Jung's archetype theory could be characterized as tacit attempts to contend with the concept's dual function as referring to something known to psychologists (sign) and standing for something that is fundamentally unknowable (symbol). This essay considers implications of the term “archetype,” outlines and critiques some of the conundrums of categorization and scientific credibility posed by Jung's formulation of the theory, and prompts locating the archetypal “human quality” of being human in imaginaries of typical patterning of the experiential realm.