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.

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.

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.

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

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 ? 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/featu ... igel.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.

"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:

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.

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).

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.

(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

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 ??

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.

First of all it?s not clear to me, at this stage that any misinterpretations have been made here.
The humors go back to Hippocrates/Aristotle. At this time all sorts of ideas were feeding into the Hellenistic mindset. One thing to bear in mind about Psychological Astrology is that to some extent it bypasses astrology post Ptolemy. It seems to me they are often arguing that by the time Ptolemy, Valens, Dorotheus..., etc started writing some of the essence as to what astrology was designed to do had been lost and misunderstood. We will have to wait for all these translations to be finished for a fuller picture. R Hand gave a fascinating talk about this available at You Tube, called ?Astrology, Morality and Ethics?.

If we explore the hot/cold/wet/ dry idea then earth/air and fire/water have less in common, in a more overt behavioural sense. I was looking at this temperament/type issue in relation to the Thema Mundi:

Earth and Air// Water and Fire are in 30/90/150 degree rels?s = One hard aspect
Earth and Fire // Air and Water are in 30/90/150 degree rel's = One hard aspect
Earth and Water // Fire and Air are in 60/180 degree rel?s = One hard and one easy aspect.

So the geometry suggests earth/water and air/fire have the most in common, the Jung/Greene view, or at least get along better and it doesn?t say whether water should be opposite fire or air.

What Jung and co are saying is when you are functioning in a certain way then something else becomes unconscious.
?If I consciously function as a ?feeling? type, and handle the world on the basis of emotional judgements, the unconscious will compensate through a masculine soul image which is rational. As a woman my animus will then be highly logical and it will appear in dreams as a man or as an image of male logos, such as an eagle. Alternatively it will be projected onto the outer world and be carried either by men I fall in love with, or by intellectual vehicles to which I am strongly attracted?. (Maggie Hyde -Jung and Astrology, 92).

Hyde is overall quite dubious as to whether Jung?s model can be superimposed onto the chart, and not just the ?types?. She quotes Hand from ?Horoscope symbols?:
??one example among many of astrologers trying to make a one-to ?one translation from one symbol system (Jungian psychology) to another (astrology). Often this is done in order to legitimise astrology, but this is unfortunate, because psychology understood as a system of psychology in its own right has a symbolic framework much more powerful than any in orthodox psychology?.

So the response to this from a psychologist would be where?s the evidence for this ?powerful? and the response from a psychological astrologer, of whom Hand is a big fan (these days at least), is they don?t superimpose. Greene was trying to deepen and expand temperament theory and bring it into the modern world. Tom demonstrates this in his thoughts on Mitchell and desire. Here you can see the genesis of ideas as to the modern ?feeling? type. Hyde says Greene ? does not seek definite correspondences. In practice her approach is better termed the showing of the psyche, rather than ?the map?.

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

All of these potentially, plus others. The idea is to use a model or perspective that elucidates something on the chart. Look at what Greene does, sometimes she will talk about Klein, sometimes Freud, sometimes Adler, etc. What I think psychological astrology lacks is enough understanding of academic psychology. But I don?t know if this is a lack of knowledge or a sense that some of these ideas lack relevance. One dictum of Psychological astrology is to see someone who can understand your chart better than another person. So if you have a load of Scorpio see a Freudian, Leo see a Jungian and so on. Also if you are very watery (or phlegmatic) see an astrologer who has some personal knowledge of this themselves.

As to qualifications, astrology is unregulated.

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

One of the things I have noticed on this thread is the idea has been postulated that 'temperament ' doesn?t always work. However 'type' always works, if Jung is right, since this is hard-wired into someone?s brain. (At least this is how I understand it, Jung was nothing if not ambivalent on a whole range of things including Astrology). So if psychological astrologers are right about a horoscope being able to say something about this then in theory we won't have any exceptions to the rule. I can?t see why this can?t be assessed. It?s been a while since I was involved in experimental design but I think I could knock something up in a few days. The problem is getting the subjects and I think we would need very young children here and lots of them! Plus we would need some talented Psychological astrologers and I doubt at this time there would be many more than 20-50 in the world, maybe less, and this 'group' as far as I?m aware aren?t interested in this sort of test.

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

How do you know what Greene knows about the tradition, have you spoken to her? I assume from Tom?s posts that he is unfamiliar with psychological astrology but I?m not certain of this I?m just drawing various inferences from what he writes and what he doesn?t. He says he has read some Greene but found it verbose and meandering, has he enough understanding of psychological models to be able to make much sense of it? I think you are assuming way to much here, the reason I said reverence is that Greene often goes back to the source whether this is myth, Plato, the Thema Mundi whatever, she notoriously changed the 'modern' idea of the IC as mother saying it was always father or parents in the tradition and this is what she found with her clients. People seem to assume she won?t start using for example, Hellenistic timing techniques tomorrow, why?

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.

Are you arguing here that Hippocrates or whoever developed this theory without reference to then current thinking as to the relationship between elements, cycles and seasons. I don?t follow you here.

In terms of a time line, discussion about elements started between 500-600BCE. Once the early horoscopes started being created and this elemental theory was assimilated into it, the signs/constellations already had certain meanings projected into them.

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

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.

You would need to define 'modern' astrology. Psychological astrology is almost the opposite of what you see 'modern' astrology as being. Firstly, with a nod to Jung, Alchemy often crops up. Secondly it is often seen as very dark. See Greene's 'Dark of the soul?. Here she explores serial killers, psychopaths, Third Reich, scapegoating and so on.

I don?t mean to make fun of your thinking but you can?t be anything until you become something and what you are like is who you are. Psychological astrology intends to be ?remedial? and transformative this is its raison d?etre. Its central premise is if you don?t know what?s generating your behaviour then you are likely to just repeat them.

Tom demonstrates, with his analysis of Mitchell?s chart on the other thread, how his lens explores the surface of Mitchell?s psyche. He is an astrological cognitive-behaviourist.
The question is do these unconscious drives, motivations and complexes, the focus of depth psychology, exist and can a horoscope say something about them? If you think they don?t then you really have no need for Psychological astrology and can just carry on seeing people in these more simplistic terms.

The goals of Psychological Astrology can be summed up as:

? Know thyself

? As above so below
To achieve the miracle of the one thing

? Turn lead (unconscious) into gold (conscious)


What Psychological Astrology books have you read Andrew?

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.

Yes, thank you Tom, that's the gist of what I meant. Do we transcend or do we transform? These are perspectives that have influenced virtually every religion throughout history. The normative Judao-Christian-Islamic take on this is that we transform: the body is transfigured into spirit, incorporated into spirit, resurrected. It is not abandoned, not left behind.

Dualistic philosophies say: we transcend the body. The body is but a shell to be left behind. Foster Bailey, on the death of his wife Alice, wrote: "Mrs. Bailey gained her release from the limitations of the physical vehicle." This perfectly expresses the Theosophical attitude toward matter: matter is a vehicle from which we seek release; transcendence, not transfiguration.

So the geometry suggests earth/water and air/fire have the most in common, the Jung/Greene view, or at least get along better and it doesn?t say whether water should be opposite fire or air.

Jung writes about the four functions: typology. Greenbaum writes about the four humors: temperament. Again, apples and oranges. And again, in temperament theory, the qualities of hot and dry (which generate fire) are not opposed to the qualities of hot and moist (which generate air).

As to qualifications, astrology is unregulated.

But psychology isn't unregulated. If someone claims to counsel others from a psychological perspective, using various therapeutic modalities, but lacks the requisite training and certification, he or she is misrepresenting his or her qualifications. This is at best unethical, and at worst, illegal.

Plus we would need some talented Psychological astrologers and I doubt at this time there would be many more than 20-50 in the world, maybe less, and this 'group' as far as I?m aware aren?t interested in this sort of test.

And what would be your criteria for identifying whether a psychological astrologer is "talented"? Would there be any independent verification of such claims?

How do you know what Greene knows about the tradition, have you spoken to her?

I wasn't referring to Greene in particular but to "psychological astrologers" in general.

See, for example:

http://horoscopicastrologyblog.com/2008 ... astrology/

I don?t mean to make fun of your thinking but you can?t be anything until you become something and what you are like is who you are.

And you know this how, precisely?

Its central premise is if you don?t know what?s generating your behaviour then you are likely to just repeat them.

Is the central premise sound? While there may be some merit to this, it is hardly a guarantee of anything. I've known individuals (including a few practitioners) who've been in therapy for years, who continue to repeat their behavior, regardless of the amount of insight they have into it. Insight alone doesn't seem to resolve much of anything.

He is an astrological cognitive-behaviourist.

Solely on the basis of his postings on this forum, you've been able to determine his therapeutic perspective. C'est incroyable!

What Psychological Astrology books have you read Andrew?

Greene, Sasportas, all the rage in the 1980s. I don't dislike Greene: her book The Astrology of Fate is one of my favorites. But, sorry to say, fire and air are not opposites. That's where she's wrong.