You know, it's funny you mention that, as one of the things that Davis presents in the book that I didn't talk about in my review, because I didn't find it that useful for my purposes, is a 2x2 with two axes: Internal vs External, and Individual vs Collective.
He apparently based this off of something by Ken Wilber, about whom I've absorbed some of JMG's skepticism, since that was the first place I had heard of him, but it's not a bad model necessarily. In terms of the Shadow, this gives us mental manifestations of the Shadow (Individual+Interior), physical symptoms of repressed feelings (Individual+Exterior), cultural expressions of the Shadow (Collective+Interior), and societal/institutional expressions of the Shadow (Collective+Exterior).
He doesn't quite try to fuse this his Personal to Archetypal spectrum, and perhaps wisely, as it might be an awkward fit, but that's at least one example of applying multiple dimensions to this concept. I suppose the merit of a 1-dimensional spectrum is simplification/focus, and more dimensions will allow you to account for/specify more things, but at the cost of complexity and/or over-specification (such as a model that implies combinations not actually possible in reality).
Re: Random thought
He apparently based this off of something by Ken Wilber, about whom I've absorbed some of JMG's skepticism, since that was the first place I had heard of him, but it's not a bad model necessarily. In terms of the Shadow, this gives us mental manifestations of the Shadow (Individual+Interior), physical symptoms of repressed feelings (Individual+Exterior), cultural expressions of the Shadow (Collective+Interior), and societal/institutional expressions of the Shadow (Collective+Exterior).
He doesn't quite try to fuse this his Personal to Archetypal spectrum, and perhaps wisely, as it might be an awkward fit, but that's at least one example of applying multiple dimensions to this concept. I suppose the merit of a 1-dimensional spectrum is simplification/focus, and more dimensions will allow you to account for/specify more things, but at the cost of complexity and/or over-specification (such as a model that implies combinations not actually possible in reality).