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

38
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.

40
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.