25
Ox wrote:It seems to make sense on paper, but perhaps Jung defined his Types outside the boundaries of 'just astrology', and had more of a shamanic 'ideal' in mind when it came aligning polarities.
Two questions:

What, in your opinion, is "just astrology"?

Do you really feel Jung only worked on "paper"?

Two comments:

Jung based his psychology theories on a life-time of empirical interaction with people of all types.

Any form of astrology is an expression of an underlying psychology.
~ Alex from Astrological Repair Manual

26
Fair enough,

Instead of repeating myself twice, let me rephrase the statement.

Your inferences from Carl Jung's vast body of eclectic work may be right on some level, however, because Jung drew from so many eclectic resources you could also be wrong on many other levels.

I have one question for you now,

Do you see yourself being 'absolutely' right on this?

27
amzolt wrote: Jung based his psychology theories on a life-time of empirical interaction with people of all types.
But are they correct?
amzolt wrote: Any form of astrology is an expression of an underlying psychology.
Why?
Gabe

28
Jung based his psychology theories on a life-time of empirical interaction with people of all types
I see two things here.

First, I don?t see in anything in Jung?s work that would validate the assumption that his theory is empirical oriented. His is a very A-priori theory if there is one!

Of course he applied his theory. But Hipocrates also did it.

Second, I don?t see exactly why a theory based on empirical interaction is, in any way, better than any kind of theory. There are a huge amount of empirical theory that is completely worthless

If you want a empirical theory of types, you would have to look for something like Big 5 or maybe PF 16. Empirical psychologists don?t like neither Jung or the MBTI.
Meu blog de astrologia (em portugues) http://yuzuru.wordpress.com
My blog of astrology (in english) http://episthemologie.wordpress.com

29
GR wrote:
amzolt wrote: Jung based his psychology theories on a life-time of empirical interaction with people of all types.
But are they correct?
amzolt wrote: Any form of astrology is an expression of an underlying psychology.
Why?
Since this thread seems to be becoming rather disputatious, I think I'll leave the answers of those questions to you. You might start looking for answers within yourself if the information I've offered disagrees with your personal theories...
~ Alex from Astrological Repair Manual

30
yuzuru wrote:
Jung based his psychology theories on a life-time of empirical interaction with people of all types
First, I don?t see in anything in Jung?s work that would validate the assumption that his theory is empirical oriented.
Have you read deeply about his work with clients?
~ Alex from Astrological Repair Manual

31
amzolt wrote: Since this thread seems to be becoming rather disputatious
It has, and you haven't been helping, as you've taken a rather authoritarian approach in your replies.
amzolt wrote: You might start looking for answers within yourself if the information I've offered disagrees with your personal theories...
Personal theories, as opposed to what? Your Universal(TM) ones?
Gabe

32
I remember reading Psychology and alchemy, Psychological types, and his work on schizofreny, I don?t recall the name, and some others works by him and other followers like Whitmont.

Yes, amzolt, sometimes the threads get a little too disputatious. But, with all do respect, do you have noticed that maybe you have a role in it?

I have noticed in this or other threads that you either answer that you are being attacked, or that you have 40 years of experience, or you will just not answer at all.

Notice that, for instance, when I didn?t agree with a simple statement about the empirical research of Jung, rather than explain to me your point, you thought that questioning if I ever read deeply Jung was a better answer.

So, sorry, I don?t know you, but your internet persona express to me pretty much the opposite of what you are obviously trying to communicate.

Maybe you should reflect on your own questions:
"Do you see yourself being 'absolutely' right on this?"
"I think I'll leave the answers of those questions to you"

Best regards
Meu blog de astrologia (em portugues) http://yuzuru.wordpress.com
My blog of astrology (in english) http://episthemologie.wordpress.com

33
GR wrote:
amzolt wrote: Since this thread seems to be becoming rather disputatious
It has, and you haven't been helping, as you've taken a rather authoritarian approach in your replies.
amzolt wrote: You might start looking for answers within yourself if the information I've offered disagrees with your personal theories...
Personal theories, as opposed to what? Your Universal(TM) ones?
I'm sorry you see my posts here in such a light. I've tried to offer information for consideration but you seem to think I'm demanding people believe me.
~ Alex from Astrological Repair Manual

34
As someone who's taught Jung's Psychological Types theory I ought to know what i'm on about and Amzolt is presenting a very creative interpretation here.

As far as I'm aware it has no support from either the text in question or subsequent interpretations by the ''Post Jungians''. The few Psychological Astrologers around who have also used this mental model to explore the 'systems' relationship to the astrological mandala would also be a bit bemused.

I see for some mysterious reason my gentle sardonic approach was deleted earlier. What's going on here? Is there a rule against exposing nonsense?

35
yuzuru wrote:I remember reading Psychology and alchemy, Psychological types, and his work on schizofreny, I don?t recall the name, and some others works by him and other followers like Whitmont.

Yes, amzolt, sometimes the threads get a little too disputatious. But, with all do respect, do you have noticed that maybe you have a role in it?

I have noticed in this or other threads that you either answer that you are being attacked, or that you have 40 years of experience, or you will just not answer at all.

Notice that, for instance, when I didn?t agree with a simple statement about the empirical research of Jung, rather than explain to me your point, you thought that questioning if I ever read deeply Jung was a better answer.

So, sorry, I don?t know you, but your internet persona express to me pretty much the opposite of what you are obviously trying to communicate.

Maybe you should reflect on your own questions:
"Do you see yourself being 'absolutely' right on this?"
"I think I'll leave the answers of those questions to you"

Best regards
Well, two negative reviews in one day...

If my knowledge is seen as disputatious and authoritarian I think I should leave this forum.
~ Alex from Astrological Repair Manual