skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

The Temperament
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Billy



Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Posts: 25

Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 10:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Papretis.

You’re right I had the wrong chart for Mitchell. Lazy of me as I had seen this chart before and thought it looked odd. I was using Pisces rising before. No idea what happened with Kepler something to do with wartime I think?

I obtained this system from an Internet site a while ago;
Greenbaum
· Ascendant sign element – (2 points)
· Ascendant ruler intrinsic quality – (1 point)
· Ascendant almuten (defined as planet with most essential dignities in a given degree) intrinsic quality – Mars and Saturn are tied, so Choleric and Melancholic (1 point each) – we’ll pay attention to these if there is need for a tiebreaker.
· Moon sign element – (2 points)
· Moon ruler by sign – (1 point)
· Moon phase (using Lilly’s method here) – (1 point)
· Season of birth – (2 points)
So now for Mitchell:
Phlegmatic-2
Phlegmatic-1
Choleric –2 (Jupiter?)
Phlegmatic-2
Phlegmatic 1
Choleric-1
Melancholic-2

Do you know her music/life to any extent, if so do you see a phlegmatic temperament?

If you use this ‘speculative’ Modern points system she is roughly:
Feeling-35
Sensation/Perception - 9
Intuition – 8
Thinking - 2
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Billy



Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Posts: 25

Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

HI ANDREW

You'll have to explain to me why seeing a person through a’ type’ lens is more fixed than through a ‘traditional’ temperament lens. I think I made the point earlier that a Psychological Astrologer wouldn’t be likely to expend much time working out someone’s type before any consultation as they go from the person to the chart, not vice-versa. So in practical terms today I think it’s somewhat academic.

In any event the only way of resolving which model 'fits' people more precisely is to somehow operationalise a series of experiments. Has this been done to your knowledge?

From the reference you provided, I thought this addresses the problem quite well.

''The term temperament is a rubric; an umbrella that covers more specific concepts. Temperament, although often used synonymously, should not be confused with psychological type. Type is a term invented by C. G. Jung to identify the preferred mental activity involved in perceiving which are sensing or intuition and the preferred mental activities involved in judging which are thinking and feeling and which are demonstrated in either an extraverted or introverted attitude. Psychological type represents the patterns of how people perceive and make judgements. It is a predisposition to certain ways of thinking, wanting, and emoting and which give rise to constancies in behavior (temperament) of the time (Kocinski, 1984; Jung, 1921; Golay; 1982; Holtzman, 1988). ''

The issue of opposites is another aspect of the problem. Again we can only speculate as to whether Jung was aware of the traditional ‘hot, cold, wet, dry. If so in terms of ‘functioning’, he has clearly seen water and air and earth and fire as opposites. I think one problem is that as far as I’m aware Traditional Astrology didn’t get into Psychological Dynamics, how could it, they weren’t really invented until the end of the 19th century. So in some ways Jung was at liberty to manipulate the astrological language in ways, which he felt fitted people’s psyches from his experience. Presumably Psychological Astrologers feel the same way, i.e. they regard early temperament theory as going along the right lines but until the advent of Depth Psychology, spending time closely engaged with people, they weren’t sure which aspects of it had validity and which didn’t. I profoundly disagree with Tom by the way, in my experience Psychological Astrologers are very reverent towards the tradition!

One last thing how do you get these words
Phlegmatics are serene, content, peaceful, and detached.
From Cancer, Scorpio and Pisces?

Earlier I used these:
‘’REASONABLE, HIGH-PRINCIPLED, CONTROLLED, PERSISTENT, STEADFAST, CALM’’

And Tom said this:
‘’Phlegmatic is the water temperament and is ruled by the Moon. This is the most difficult temperament to work with. More on that below. If you have an acquaintance that is relatively unmotivated until he or she “feels like it,” they are probably strongly phlegmatic. They are often voted the most likely to end up alcoholic or drug addicted and if they don’t go to that extreme, they won’t be far from it. This represents the desire nature, i.e. a person motivated usually be desire and not by self improvement or responsibility’’.

And yuzuru said this
‘’To say a little good things about phleugmatics (as Tom thrashed them )
they are more "dramatic", have strong emotions, have a need to avoid conflict, are caring, passionate and compassionate with others’’.

So I’m wondering what Jung may have read to develop his idea that Feeling=Phlegmatic and how in his mind these modern water words:
‘Protective, Shrewd, Clinging, Intense, Reserved, Compassionate, Impractical, Gullible’
fitted the old phlegmatic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3452
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2008 12:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

How did Saturn, and particularly Mars get tied for the ASC almuten in Cancer? Mars is in fall in Cancer and in no way is almuten and Saturn is in detriment? What system gives this? The almuten is the Moon and that makes her even more phlegmatic.

Although Mitchell (about whom I know next to nothing) does come out definitely phlegmatic using Dorian's system, she has a significant melancholic streak as well and she is missing any sanguine.

Frawley's method also makes her phelgmatic, but somewhat less so. She comes out very cold and moist with a fairly strong melancholic streak and a little bit of sanguine, but no choler. Like I said I don't know much about her. What I do recall is seeing her on TV back in the sixties with this dopey look on her face as though she were strung out - a phlegmatic tendency. What little I've heard of her music definitely lacks fire. I'm no fan or foe for that matter. She just never interested me.

Wikipedia gives a little glimpse into her early life, but spends the bulk of the entry on her career successes. I also found a news item about an attempted suicide in the 1970s.


Quote:
As a teenager, Joni taught herself ukulele and, later, guitar. She began performing at parties, which eventually led to busking and gigs playing in coffeehouses and other venues in Saskatoon. After finishing high school at Aden Bowman Collegiate in Saskatoon, she attended the Alberta College of Art and Design in Calgary for a year, but then left, telling her mother: “I'm going to Toronto to be a folksinger.”

And so, after leaving art college in June 1964, Mitchell left her home in Saskatoon to relocate to Toronto. Joni also found out that she was pregnant by her college ex-boyfriend, and in February 1965 she gave birth to a baby girl. A few weeks after the birth, Joni Anderson married folk-singer Chuck Mitchell, and took his surname. He promised to help take responsibility for the child but something changed, and a few weeks later Joni gave her daughter, Kelly Dale Anderson, up for adoption.


She also reportedly tried to commit suicide over a romantic breakup

This is phlegmatic behavior: Bounces from school to school, gets pregnant, marries (I think - the article isn't clear) someone other than the child's father, and gives the child up for adoption. Then there is the suicide attempt. I'm not trying to be cruel, but losing a lover, trying to kill yourself over it, then writing songs about it seems like the desires are running the show, rather than being controlled. Her artistic talents give her some kind of outlet that helps her handle the behavior, but an untalented phlegmatic would have more difficulty directing the life with this much water in the make up. Granted there may be much more to these stories, and these anecdotes don't prove anything, but the behavior pattern in the anecdotes seems like pure phlegm.


Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Andrew



Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 360

Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2008 3:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
You'll have to explain to me why seeing a person through a’ type’ lens is more fixed than through a ‘traditional’ temperament lens.


Huh? My remark vis-à-vis "an investment in a fixed idea" was made with regard to the tenacity with which "late modern" astrologers defend ideas that are actually misinterpretations of traditional astrological concepts. No matter what Jung or Greene et al. state to the contrary, air and water are not opposite types, any more than earth and fire are. One would have to invent an entirely new system of astrology, completely disconnected from its predecessors, in order to make such an argument. And this is precisely what modern astrologers have done: they have invented an entirely new system of astrology, one in which air and water are opposites, and one in which sign rulership is based on affinity. This system has no consistent symbolic or theoretical underpinnings other than the preferences and wishes of its designers.

Quote:
I think I made the point earlier that a Psychological Astrologer wouldn’t be likely to expend much time working out someone’s type before any consultation as they go from the person to the chart, not vice-versa. So in practical terms today I think it’s somewhat academic.


I'm not sure what this means. Moreover, I find the term "psychological astrologer" imprecise at best. "Psychological" in what sense? Freudian? Jungian? Adlerian? Kleinian? Rogerian? Maslowian? Skinnerian? Elliserian? Laingian? Reichian? Lacanian ? Existential? Phenomenological? Relational? Interpersonal? "Psychological astrology" might mean anything, and might, therefore, mean nothing.

Also, are the practitioners of "psychological astrology" certified clinicians whose credentials are recognized by an accredited institution? Or are they simply enthusiasts who have read a few books on pop psychology and taken a few classes from a self-described "psychological astrologer"?

Quote:
In any event the only way of resolving which model 'fits' people more precisely is to somehow operationalise a series of experiments. Has this been done to your knowledge?


Again, I think this mixes apples with oranges, and is another result of the disconnect between traditional and modernist understandings of astrology. Traditional astrological delineations are normative, not descriptive: they are not intended to tell you what you are really "like," but what you should really "be." They offer a language script rather than a data description.

Quote:
From the reference you provided, I thought this addresses the problem quite well.


If temperament is not to be confused with type, then why employ the terminology of temperament to develop a theory of type? It is imprecise and it breeds confusion. It seems to be an exercise in code-switching: incorporating loan-words from one conceptual language into another.

Quote:
The issue of opposites is another aspect of the problem. Again we can only speculate as to whether Jung was aware of the traditional ‘hot, cold, wet, dry.’ If so in terms of ‘functioning’, he has clearly seen water and air and earth and fire as opposites. I think one problem is that as far as I’m aware Traditional Astrology didn’t get into Psychological Dynamics, how could it, they weren’t really invented until the end of the 19th century. So in some ways Jung was at liberty to manipulate the astrological language in ways, which he felt fitted people’s psyches from his experience.


No, no, no. The problem lies in the misinterpretation of temperament theory and the abortive appropriation of its language into modern type theory. Psychological dynamics, like the poor, are with us always; the terms of reference have changed and, in the case of modern astrology, been misunderstood.


Quote:
I profoundly disagree with Tom by the way, in my experience Psychological Astrologers are very reverent towards the tradition!


How can one be reverent toward a tradition one is not even aware of, let alone understands?

Quote:
One last thing how do you get these words

Phlegmatics are serene, content, peaceful, and detached.

From Cancer, Scorpio and Pisces?


Again, apples and oranges. Cancer, Scorpio, and Pisces are signs of the zodiac, not qualities of temperament. You start from the wrong position and depart from the wrong place.

I've met Joni Mitchell, briefly, locally. Does her temperament assessment suggest she is phlegmatic and melancholic? If so, then it accords with who she seems to be. She has an interest in alternative healing modalities, and I wouldn't be surprised if she also has an interest in astrology.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
woodwater



Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Posts: 151
Location: lisbon

Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

so:
gemini rising: sanguine 2
rising ruler mercury in aquarius :sanguine 2
Moon pisces: phlegmatic 2
ruler Neptune in Scorpio: phlegmatic 1
second ruler Jupiter in Aquarius : sanguine 1
Sun capricorn: melancholic 1
venua-mars caricorn : melancholic 1+1=2
Saturn aquarius: sanguine 1
How do i calculate almuten?
i know that on 6 january it was new moon

born 9 jan 1962 at 14.15

thanks
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Billy



Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Posts: 25

Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tom,
Ignore the Mars and Saturn this was just me cutting and pasting the original Greenbaum article.

We all seem to be getting different results using this system?
I had the ascendent almuten as Jupiter, (triplicity and term,) why the moon? Doesn’t this already get 2 points for being in its sign? I admit ascendent threw me, as she then says planet with most essential dignities?

Perhaps you could talk me through your understanding of this system in relation to this chart.

It's interesting to me how you use the word 'desire' here. (I link this word to Venus, here conjunct Neptune so a tendency to lose herself in relationships and this will engender more compassion, sensitivity and passivity, Reinforcing the Piscean mutable watery meandering quality of this chart). In terms of type she would be seen as someone for whom her 'feelings' are running the show, the show being her life.

Did ‘desire’ (in a 16th century dictionary) equate to today’s watery types of emotions (confusion, guilt, loneliness, compassion, homesickness, suffering). From memory she didn’t have much luck, or at least stability, with men until later in her life. Can traditional temperament say anything about this or would Trad astrologers focus on Mars conjunct Saturn here initially?

I've read a couple of biographies of her and am a big fan of her music, the period 71-78 is seen as quite extraordinary. What seems to have happened to her is after some tribulations in her late teens, she somehow managed to hold it together quite well. Although she kept drifting off to paint and do other things, even at the height of her commercial and critical success periods. By the end of the 70’s she seemed to have lost her interest, talent, inspiration or something else happened. These days she seems to paint most of the time. She initially wanted to go to Art school but her mother discouraged her saying she wouldn’t stick at it!

Which of the temperaments relates to writing skills or did they not cover this? In this chart she has Mars conjunct Saturn in Gemini in the 12th and Venus in Virgo (conjunct Neptune in Libra) in the 3rd. Interestingly her lyrics stand up as well as the music 35 yrs or so later. Mercury is conjunct the sun and square Pluto. Big Scorpio element here suggesting no time for the superficial, which her lyrics suggest.

With Psychological astrology I wouldn’t have thought ‘type’ would be seen as a significant factor in relation to suicide attempts or giving a child up for adoption.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3452
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 12:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I had the ascendant almuten as Jupiter, (triplicity and term,) why the moon?


The most common way to determine almuten is to use the point system;

ASC is 19 Cancer 52 or the 20th degree of Cancer
Moon is domicile ruler = 5 points
Jupiter is exaltation ruler = 4 points
Mars is triplicity ruler in most systems = 3 points
Mercury is Term ruer =2 points
Mercury is Face ruler = 1 point

Moon has the most points. Moon is almuten. I think the terms I cited are Ptolemy's. The Egyptian terms has Jupiter as term ruler so if you use those, he gets two points and then is almuten as his exaltation plus terms gives him 6 points to the Moon's 5. So the final result depends on whose terms the astrologer uses. It doesn't significantly change Greenbaum's result and has no effect at all on Frawley's. With Greenbaum's system it would give Mitchell some fire.


Quote:
It's interesting to me how you use the word 'desire' here. (I link this word to Venus, here conjunct Neptune so a tendency to lose herself in relationships and this will engender more compassion, sensitivity and passivity, Reinforcing the Piscean mutable watery meandering quality of this chart). In terms of type she would be seen as someone for whom her 'feelings' are running the show, the show being her life.


I'm referring to the desire nature that is the driving force in the phlegmatic temperament. The desire for instant gratification is one way to look at it. The desire for pleasure is another. Why do today what can be put off until tomorrow? The native is driven to submit to his or her desires and requires outside help directing the life, i.e. usually a strong malefic. Otherwise the ever changing desires ruin the native. Think of water on a table. Try to direct it with your hands. You can't.

What the desires are will vary from native to native, but more often than not it will be a desire of the moment or the simple wish to "feel good." "The sixties aphorism, "If it feels good do it," is pure phlegm. This is what turns people into alcoholics or drug addicts. Call it an escape if you will, but they escape into pleasureable feelings. The examples I cited of Mitchell's early life are an attempt to escape from responsibility. The fact that the father of her child may be equally irresponsible is irrelevant to this discussion. She could have sucked it up. She married a man who promised to raise the child and then she gave the child away. I don't know for sure but I'd wager a good dinner that she saw the child as an impediment to her career or just prevented the good times. She submitted to her desires. That Moon on the MC ruling the ASC is powerful. Moon rules the phlegmatic temperament

Suicide is usually a selfish act. She lost a lover. Oh that's unique. Her desires couldn't be met so she tried to end it all. Again this is how the phlegmatic would think. Not all of them mind you, and perhaps she straightened her life out, but these are examples of the desire nature ruling the life. I tried to find other things in her life online, but all I found were lists of popular songs and awards won, so I couldn't offer other examples.

Aspects are higher up the chain. They are finishing touches. Temperament is basic. It can be controlled to a certain point, but it is awfully difficult to out and out change it.


Quote:
She initially wanted to go to Art school but her mother discouraged her saying she wouldn’t stick at it!


Her mother was speaking from experience with her. And that experience sounds like at least an early phlegmatic life. Not sticking to things is part of phlegmatic behavior, but cholerics do that too, albeit for different reasons.

Quote:
Which of the temperaments relates to writing skills or did they not cover this?


Sanguine, but again, creative writing skills (Mercury and Venus) are more towards the finishing touches, not the foundation. Temperament is broad brush stuff. It is not fine finish work.

Choleric = warrior or athlete.
Melancholic = the farmer
Sanguine = the scholar
Phlegmatic = the slave (slave to the desires; can't put off gratification)

No one exhibits only the dominant temperament and nothing else. But the dominant temperament is the one that determines how the other stuff will manifest. A phlegmatic with writing skills might write music or romance novels because they make him feel good. A sanguine with writing skills might become a serious novelist or scholar. A choleric with writing skills will tear up a lot of paper. The phlegmatic with writing skills is likely to rush off to paint and abandon the writing for the pursuit of a new pleasure. A phlegmatic with few or no salable skills will end up like Frawley's "anonymous dead junkie." When the native is very successful he or she can get away with flitting about, whereas if she was responsible to support that child, and she flitted about without the enormous bank account, there would be serious problems. Even if she was wealthy and then ignored the child to pursue her pleasures there would be problems, as well. The phlegmatic temperament is the most difficult of all.

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Papretis



Joined: 27 Feb 2005
Posts: 346
Location: Finland

Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 1:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew wrote:
Traditional astrological delineations are normative, not descriptive: they are not intended to tell you what you are really "like," but what you should really "be."

I would like to discuss more about this. I thought it was modern humanistic astrology (Jones / Rudhyar) that stated that your chart shows you the way to the Jungian individuation, your true self, what you should become. And that's why there's no negative delineations in modern astrology: it would be odd to tell someone that she must become a beggar or an alcoholic to manifest her true self.

If I'm predominantly a phlegmatic with a sanguine streak (which I am), should I be a slave to my desires to manifest my true self Confused ? I would rather think that I may have a tendency to be a "slave to my desires" but I can become conscious of that tendency and fight against it. I need not auto-run my horoscope.
I think this is what Robert Zoller suggests in his essay about Valentine Weigel
http://www.new-library.com/zoller/features/rz-article-weigel.shtml .
"This misery and bondage to Fate may be transformed into joy and freedom."

What do you think? I think this is one of the crucial questions in the philosophy of astrology.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew



Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 360

Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 5:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
"This misery and bondage to Fate may be transformed into joy and freedom."

Modern astrology tells you what you are like and what you could become: traditional astrology tells you who you are and what you should be. The destinations may seem similar (transcendence on the one hand, transformation on the other), but the points of departure are very different. The modern approach is pharmaceutical: blitz the organism. The traditional approach is alchemical: turn lead into gold. The modern approach is diagnostic; the traditional approach is remedial.

Sufi tradition says that God created Adam from clay and water: if it were not for water, the clay would hold no shape. The impurities of our existence are what make us human. One cannot dispense with the impurities or overcome the limitations; take away the clay or the water and one is no longer human. Modern astrology seeks to transcend human limitations while traditional astrology seeks to transform them. Modern astrology is dualistic (spirit overcomes matter), while traditional astrology is unitive (spirit incorporates matter). Thus the popularity of "new age" philosophies in modern astrology.

Jung wrote:
Quote:
One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious.

Modern astrology seems obsessed with enlightenment to the detriment of darkness, while traditional astrology first acknowledges the darkness ("you love old, hard-featured women or poor dirty wenches!") and then moves toward transformation (not transcendence) into the light. This, at least, is how I see it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Papretis



Joined: 27 Feb 2005
Posts: 346
Location: Finland

Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew wrote:
Modern astrology seeks to transcend human limitations while traditional astrology seeks to transform them. Modern astrology is dualistic (spirit overcomes matter), while traditional astrology is unitive (spirit incorporates matter).

Interesting. Of course I think in similar lines. They say that God gave to man free will so that he could choose to fulfill the will of God. The secret of happiness is to learn to want what you get (while New Agers think that it is to get what you want by visualization and willpower - that you have limitless options if you only want something badly enough).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3452
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 7:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I know the traditional idea of temperament is not the easiest to grasp, and I struggle now and again, but if we are to understand it, we must keep in mind it is broad based. Being Phlegmatic with a sanguine streak is far different than being phlegmatic and almost nothing else. There is some fire with the sanguine to help overcome or put things in perspective or order, i.e. something to direct the life.

Phlegmatic types are not condemned to a life of self indulgence even if we show a chart whose native is self indulgent. It is not formulaic. This is why I prefer Frawley's method to Greenbaum's. John's is more subjective and that is good at this level. He tries to blend the qualities rather than just add them up. Astrology is not A + B always equals C. This is why I get driven up he wall the questions like: I have Mars sextile Jupiter, what does that mean? A: there isn't enough information to answer that question about yourself, and B: it isn't the same for everyone. This is what drove me from modern astrology the sweeping generalities that proved to be incorrect as often as they were spot on.

In fact the next step after we determine temperament is to determine the significator of the manners. This tells us how the temperament is manifested by this native. Sticking with Joni Mitchell she manifests it through (don't hold me to this. I'll check again to be sure) Mars as it is in mutual reception with Mercury, and aspects the Moon, and Venus as she is ruled by Mercury and opposes the Moon. This is quite different than it would be if Jupiter signified the manners or Saturn did with Mercury. If anyone has a copy of Tetrabiblos handy, under Quality of the Soul (Ashmand) or Quality of the Mind (Robbins) read the paragraphs on Venus and Mars and see if it fits Ms Mitchell. If so this tells us how she manifested her mostly phlegmatic temperament.

George Patton comes out melancholic and sanguine. His significator of the manners, not too surprisingly is Mars in Virgo on the 4th cusp. He manifests the melancholic and sanguine through an angular Mars and we was first and foremost a soldier, and a brilliant tactician.

There are successful phlegmatics. It is just more difficult for them than it is for a choleric or sanguine, because heat rises naturally, and water is difficult to direct.

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Andrew



Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 360

Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The secret of happiness is to learn to want what you get (while New Agers think that it is to get what you want by visualization and willpower - that you have limitless options if you only want something badly enough).


Absolutely. As Jung noted, "Free will is the ability to do gladly that which I must do." All the visualizations and affirmations in the world won't change that.

I submit that the New Agers who are "into" Jungian astrology don't really understand either Jung or astrology.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3452
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 10:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
(while New Agers think that it is to get what you want by visualization and willpower - that you have limitless options if you only want something badly enough).

In other words: they are believers - not thinkers.

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 10:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But Andrew, Tom, these are *such* blanket statements. You do realise that whether you accept the label, many of your friends and acquaintances have you pinned down as ‘New agers’ because you are into any kind of astrology at all. I was brought up on the little ditty:
    “The formula to happiness is simple, but it’s true
    It isn’t doing what you like; it's liking what you do…”

I now realise that it is not a simple little ditty at all. It is actually a complex intellectual argument on Stoic philosophy, which perfectly expresses the paradigm and dichotomy of fate and freewill. Is it really about ‘liking what you do’? Or is it better to believe that you like what you do; ... and that if you really want to do it, you will…?
    “The formula to happiness is complex, but it’s probably true
    that you don’t get to do what you want; so you can either believe that this is what you wanted all along; or you can just get on with it …”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3452
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes it is broad, but that doesn't make it inaccurate. I think Andrew's observation of the differences between transformative and transcending are also accurate, but I'm sure they don't apply to 100% of all astrologers.

And yes people will think Andrew and I are new agers because we are astrologers, but they're just wrong. Leery

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Nativities & General Astrology All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 3 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated