Skyscript Astrology Forum

Posted: **Mon Apr 27, 2009 10:17 pm**

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...

Posted: **Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:41 am**

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.

Posted: **Tue Apr 28, 2009 7:29 am**

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

Good luck on the book amzolt.

Posted: **Tue Apr 28, 2009 11:24 am**

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.

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Temperament & Psychological Types [Revisited]...