May 13,
2009
I'm feeling
a little testy today. I was just reading an article about the "psychological
70s" and
how those years had somehow threatened to dilute astrology. According
to article, astrologers then had to back up in order to learn more "genuine" astrology,
learn more techniques of astrology, and learn the history of astrology.
The diatribe
continued on (okay... maybe it wasn't exactly a diatribe)... that
back in the 70s astrologers ran the risk of forgetting that "psychology
is the subset of astrology and not the other way around."
What
a load of sanctimonious horse manure!
Every
astrologer from time immemorial has come from somewhere (philosophically
speaking)..., and every astrologer (consciously or unconsciously)
should hopefully be about establishing for him/herself a philosophical
and/or metaphysical foundation that will ultimately determine how
they go
about doing
their astrology.
It was
(in large part) my philosophical foundation based on studies of
Dr Carl G Jung's writings that eventually led to my current interest
and
expertise
in
Western Tropical Astrology.
Over time,
through years of intensive study, I'd discovered that the
Swiss psychiatrist Carl G Jung had been fascinated with
the paranormal in general,
conducted
and published Western Tropical astrological experiments, constantly
made referrals to astrological symbolism in his elucidation of archetypal
material
and
the psyche, on more than one occasion arranged to have the astrological
charts of his patients calculated, and finally that he devoted an
entire
volume
of his Collected
Works, Aion, to the deeper meaning behind of the astrological
Age of Aquarius...
By the
time I encountered astrology - I was already
thoroughly "Jungian" in thought and had developed an established
and well thought out philosophical foundation for living my life
that was, among other things, steeped in
the Western Esoteric interpretation
of symbols. I'm not about to abandon my philosophical foundation
in order to make this egotistic jerk happy.
As for
the article... there was likely a certain amount
of truth to it... and that was probably part of what ticked me off.
And I suppose
I may be the exception to the rule, rather than the rule... however,
I still say it was the underlying "spirit" and "attitude" of
the article toward psychological astrology that ticked me off.
One
thing I have learned in this life is that whenever you
get a group of people together for practically any purpose
(say like astrologers)... some of
those
people
are going to be grappling for power and jockeying to be
in control so that they can be part of the "in group" and
make the rules for everyone else to follow.
It's one
reason why I don't tend to join a lot of groups... I can't stand herd
mentality...
Back
To The Astrology and Jung Index
Home