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

Temperament & Psychological Types [Revisited]...
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
GR



Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 451
Location: USA

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
yuzuru



Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 1392

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I remember reading Psychology and alchemy, Psychological types, and his work on schizofreny, I donīt 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 didnīt 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 donīt 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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
amzolt



Joined: 16 Apr 2009
Posts: 41
Location: Kettering, Ohio, USA

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 8:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
trevor
Guest





Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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?
Back to top
amzolt



Joined: 16 Apr 2009
Posts: 41
Location: Kettering, Ohio, USA

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yuzuru wrote:
I remember reading Psychology and alchemy, Psychological types, and his work on schizofreny, I donīt 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 didnīt 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 donīt 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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why not just abandon this thread? I've noticed that some of your other threads have generated more productive discussion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
amzolt



Joined: 16 Apr 2009
Posts: 41
Location: Kettering, Ohio, USA

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 10:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deb wrote:
Why not just abandon this thread? I've noticed that some of your other threads have generated more productive discussion.


Naw... I'm outa here...
_________________
~ Alex from Astrological Repair Manual
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Ox



Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Posts: 10

Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

trevor wrote:
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?



It requires immense courage to post a 'creative interpretation' and none whatsoever to tote a party line.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ox



Joined: 24 Apr 2009
Posts: 10

Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 7:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm sorry for that last post Trevor, methinks I'm overtired.

Good luck on the book amzolt.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
trevor
Guest





Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 11:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ox wrote:
I'm sorry for that last post Trevor, methinks I'm overtired.

Good luck on the book amzolt.


I don't think we are discussing 'rocket science' here. When I was at school I offered all sorts of 'creative' interpretations of texts. Usually, and rightly so, the teacher(s) put a big red line through it saying you can say anything you want but it must be 'supported' by, or in some cases have some relationship to, what the author has actually written.

Amzolt declined to, or was unable to, discuss this notion intelligently or seriously by refusing to cite what section of the text(s) he was referring to.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Philosophy & Science All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
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