Billy wrote:I thought of Joni Mitchell as a good example of the modern water-feeling- type.

born November 7, 1943 at 10:00 PM in Fort Macleod (Canada)
Sun in 14?53 Scorpio, AS in 19?52 Cancer,
Moon in 24?36 Pisces, MC in 22?27 Pisces

Putting her through the Greenbaum Temperament system she comes out as :
5-choleric
4-phlegmatic
2-melancholic?

Hi Billy,

where do you get that much choler for Mitchell? I have the chart in front of me and what I see is:
- Cancer rising: 2 points for phlegmatic
- The ruler of Cancer the Moon: 2 points for phlegmatic (I don't use almuten here as Greenbaum does because I don't believe in the validity of "5 points to the domicile ruler, 4 points to the exaltation ruler, etc." system, but give both 2 points to the Asc ruler)
- The Sun in Scorpio, the melancholic quarter of the year: 2 points for melancholic
- The Moon in Pisces: 2 points for phlegmatic
- The ruler of the Moon Jupiter in Leo: 1 point for choleric
- The II lunar phase: 1 point for sanguine (I'm convinced that Ptolemy's system of lunar phases - I phlegmatic; II sanguine; III choleric; IV melancholic - works better than the renaissance system that Greenbaum uses).

We have:
- 1 for sanguine
- 1 for choleric
- 2 for melancholic
- 6 for phlegmatic = a predominantly phlegmatic type.
The points in the Greenbaum system should always make a total of 10.

Gjiada wrote:Phlegmatic temperament, at least as I know it's the most detached one, if there is empathy it's just for himself

This is a bit exaggerated, but the detachment part is unfortunately true. Sanguine people are the warm and social ones. Phlegmatics are cool and prefer to be left alone.

What possible difference could it make if Culpeper's definitions are the same as Jung's?

They aren't going to be the same as Jung's for a number of reasons. In the same way if this type of Personality assessment is retained in 200yrs time Jung is probably going to seem quite antiquated, redundant and need some translating. After all Jung's ideas have gone in many directions, been modified and refined over the last 50 or years or so.

My aim here is to find out if the words in their original meaning(s) correspond to the current types both astrological and psychological.

If they don't then various possibilities arise. The most obvious one is that 'Psychology' is very young (150yrs or so)and perhaps traditonal astrologers, effectively the then psychologists, didn't have the skills to determine these temperaments/types all that precisely. Shakespear may have been an astute observer of human behaviour but he didn't have access to the experimental methodology of modern psychology nor had he done a 6 yr Child Psychotherapy course. If he reappeared today his next play may contain some very different characters.

Or, perhaps they did have some quite advanced skills and in some way peoples temperaments have changed. This may seem a bit far fetched but why should a Piscean in 08CE closely resemble a 2008 example?

Greenbaum states that Greene goes against temperamental principles when she writes that air and water are opposite types, as are earth and fire: since air is hot and wet and water is cold and wet, they are not true opposites.

I once tried to correlate the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) assessment with traditional temperament theory (dominant function, auxiliary function). It fell flat: worthy of consideration, but ultimately incorrect. I have had lots of ideas that are worthy of consideration, but which prove wrong nonetheless.

There are plenty of examples of new models being developed for perfectly good reasons but which nonetheless prove to be not quite as robust as their predecessors. Greene et al. have misunderstood temperament theory and ought to abandon their inadequate ideas. They do not need to uphold ideas that are incompatible with traditional astrological theory. They can admit their mistakes and revise their views. It's not as if they're infallible.

The most obvious one is that 'Psychology' is very young (150 yrs or so)and perhaps traditional astrologers, effectively the then psychologists, didn't have the skills to determine these temperaments/types all that precisely. Shakespeare may have been an astute observer of human behavior but he didn't have access to the experimental methodology of modern psychology nor had he done a 6 yr Child Psychotherapy course.

Uh-huh. I have a graduate degree in developmental psychology and was trained to design and implement personality inventories and intelligence tests. What do they measure? They measure whatever they're designed to measure. That's it. How well they measure is another matter entirely.

Modern psychology is not the ipse dixit of human existence. There are many competing models and theories. I find traditional temperament theory capable of delivering far more insight into human behavior that any modern theory of human typology. I don't reject the observations of behavioral psychology nor do I think Jung is irrelevant (though I do think some of his ideas have been misrepresented or misinterpreted by some of his latter-day disciples). But I do think that some traditional insights into human nature have far more merit than has been generally afforded them.

It is not that people's temperaments have changed over time, it is that our understanding of what constitutes temperament has become so incredibly impoverished over the past few centuries.

We want to mix apples with oranges: it can't be done. Sign rulership is not based on affinity, though this is what every modern astrologer seems to believe. Temperament theory is not derived from the insights of analytical psychology, but some of the insights of analytical psychology have been derived from traditional temperament theory, and usually bowdlerized in the process. Hello, Jungian astrologers! They're wrong. Just wrong. They should admit it and write some new books, or revise some old ones. The failure to recognize one's mistakes suggests a dogmatic stance, an investment in a fixed idea, which most modern ("new age") astrologers claim to find repugnant (ironically).

You might wish to check this out:

http://www.personality-project.org/perp ... n/home.htm

As a follow-up to what I've written above, asteroid aficionados usually assign earth to Ceres, air to Pallas, water to Juno, and fire to Vesta.

Well, sanguines are talkative, lively, vivacious, and congenial; cholerics are confident, positive, self-reliant, inventive, and aggressive; melancholics are pensive, analytical, profound, faithful, and orderly; phlegmatics are serene, content, peaceful, and detached.

If you read the descriptions of the alleged influence of these asteroids, you will find that Pallas comes across as hot and dry, i.e., fire (choleric), whereas Juno comes across as hot and moist, i.e., air (sanguine). Ceres comes across as cold and wet, i.e., water (phlegmatic), whereas Vesta comes across as cold and dry, i.e., earth (melancholic). This is just another example of the disconnect between traditional temperament theory and modern astrological typology.

Greenbaum states that Greene goes against temperamental principles when she writes that air and water are opposite types, as are earth and fire: since air is hot and wet and water is cold and wet, they are not true opposites.

Andrew gets it. Greene does not.

Tom

Tom wrote:

Greenbaum states that Greene goes against temperamental principles when she writes that air and water are opposite types, as are earth and fire: since air is hot and wet and water is cold and wet, they are not true opposites.

Andrew gets it. Greene does not.

Tom

Hello Tom,
it seems to remember that Jung did this in Psichological types. Greene just follows her teacher.
I should search that book, I should have it somewhere - in the basement maybe someone could check more easily than me.

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

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.

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.

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

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-?-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.

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"?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.