Skyscript Astrology Forum

O.k. Paul,

Rudhyar talks about the Moon as symbolizing the Animus/Anima in "Astrology and the Modern Psyche." He sees the Moon as hermaphroditic, in a way, and calls her/him Luna/Lunus. The Anima or Animus is representing the personal unconscious which leads on to the collective unconscious which has to do with the outer planets. You may also be able to find something on this online in the Rudhyar Archive.

The identification of the projected Anima/-mus with a significant aspect of the shadow self is general part of the Jungian scheme. And, Waybread, he did consider homosexuality (in a non-derogatory manner). Quote on request.

The attribution of the internal counterpart (which we project on an external partner) to Venus and the Moon, or the Sun and Mars, was made by Hajo Banzhaf in the book "Du bist Alles, was mir fehlt." I think it has a forerunner in Morin.

The question of how the shadow or unconscious self is seen in the chart is a complex one. Besides all that has been mentioned so far, you could also think of planets linked with the IC/4th house, or generally under the horizon, as potentially more unconscious. The moon phase can be conclusive as well. I agree that even traits of the Sun sign may be quite unrecognized by the individual.

Sent from my XYZ IPhone. :-)

Waybread,

My remark was nothing more than a reply to your ironic suggestion that it would be preferable for Meyer to live in a high risk zone. In this regard, it was meant as a persiflage of the idea that there are no preferable conditions to begin with and to this extent in support of your position.

in regards the 2ndary conversation on the concept of projection in astrology - i would say some of the standard ideas i have read can be flipped around - planets on the descendant as opposed to the ascendant are more easily projected. i would say it can work the exact opposite way as well.. i base this on my own personal experience. i don't know that their is any clear cut way to apply this psychological concept astrologically..

James, I think there is, at least in modern astrology. The rule o' thumb is that either:

1. The person expresses a positive manifestation of a horoscopic placement,

2. The person expresses a negative manifestation of a horoscopic placement,

3. or the person denies and suppresses unwanted horoscopic placements. However, the chart must express itself in some fashion, so generally the suppressed planet becomes "shadow material" that the person splits off from her self-image and projects onto other people who seemingly manifest the unwanted character traits. An example would be a girl being taught that she must be feminine, ladylike, and non-threatening at all times. Simultaneously she is taught that (Mars) characteristics of aggression, raw courage, and assertiveness are unsuitable for girls, so these qualities get suppressed, and pasted on the actual or hoped-for men in her life.

4. This can happen in the reverse, where people believe some characteristic is too wonderful to belong to them. (Here I will concede Paul's point about the sun.) This quality (such as solar self-actualization, or Venusian physical beauty) can get processed as hero- or celebrity-worship. This one can operate on a personal or societal level.

The application can get tricky because you don't always know how emotionally mature the person is. Hopefully, either the chart itself or dialogue with him gives you some clue as to what level he's operating at.

The promise of astrology is to suggest ways for the person to manifest the first option.

This theory gets trickier with traditional astrology, but actually I think it should work out. Which planets are stronger or weaker? Which planets support or thwart each other? Is stoicism a more constructive approach to a difficult chart than fussing and moaning about it?

Thanks Michael, I hadn't realised this deviated so significantly from my own thoughts on the matter from reading modern psychological astrologers and some of Jung myself.

james_m wrote:in regards the 2ndary conversation on the concept of projection in astrology - i would say some of the standard ideas i have read can be flipped around - planets on the descendant as opposed to the ascendant are more easily projected. i would say it can work the exact opposite way as well.. i base this on my own personal experience. i don't know that their is any clear cut way to apply this psychological concept astrologically..

I tend to agree - I think that really any planetary placement or aspect etc. can be projected or dis-associated in some way in terms of forming part of our shadow selves - I think there are no placements immune to this. In psychological astrology (at least as I've always understood it, something maybe I should question) the 7th is the house of Other and for me it makes sense that projection would be a 7th house theme. Certainly in my own experience that can often be the case. I agree that there is no clear cut way to apply it astrologically except to simply acknowledge that varying points in our lives we may be prone to projecting any part of our charts onto any suitable hook. I'd go further and add that it's probably not a bad thing - I imagine that most of our emotional reactions, good or bad, are as a result of something we project and all our interactions with one another contain at least some, even if only small, projection on our part.

This may be controversial, but what the heck, in my experience sometimes the planets most likely to be projected, especially when we're younger (less so as we age) are planets in fall. Of course I'm not suggesting that the world is divided into people who are great and lovely and those poor unfortunate individuals with planets in fall who go around projecting everything onto others, but more that any stressed placement is more readily available for distancing our consciousness from and projecting into our shadow self.

This doesn't deny anything Waybread says in her latest reply of course ( Thu Jul 03, 2014 8:23 pm). I'd also add, for what it's worth, that many traditional astrologers hold a similar view - one in which the chart is like a seed and it is (or should be) our goal to manifest the most dignified and beneficial example or instance of that seed. I remember something Zoller says something similar in his course (I have not taken it but got a chance to peruse one or two of the books).

I wanted to update this for two reasons. First there's a new podcast released in which Chris Brennan discusses similar ideas in regards differences between modern and traditional astrology especially with regards difficult placements. The discussion this time is with Mark Jones.

It's definitely worth listening to to hear the concerns and ideas on both sides of the topic:
http://theastrologypodcast.com/2015/02/ ... lacements/

I think this time around the conversation benefitted from not being set in a debate style setting which I think allowed both sides to express their views, in as much as they could in the timeframe, without focusing on defending them.

It got me thinking back to the discussion with Eric Meyers. I was able to have a discussion with him publicly and exchanged some posts privately in hopes to better understand his viewpoint. On reflection I feel that perhaps the podcast didn't best express his views, or that he didn't articulate them as well as he perhaps might have otherwise done, especially in regards to dealing with sensitive subjects such as rape, without perhaps having the necessary time to deal with the matter carefully. In fact I realised that anything taken to an extreme will suffer from this, just as equally a Stoic viewpoint, perhaps espoused by a traditional astrologer, when taken to an extreme viewpoint could be argued to be essentially saying "you were always destined to be raped, deal with it" which isn't any more helpful.

My apologies to Eric for spending more time focusing on nitpicking the words he used in the podcast rather than trying to investigate what he more broadly believes outside of being in a situation which really probably isn't the best one to get a good sense of what kind of astrologer he is or what kind of work he does. Having apologised privately if I have misrepresented him, I wanted to apologise publicly too. Again, my apologies.

With permission I just want to post something Eric has said publicly on this matter:

Eric Meyers wrote: My work comes from a loving place. If I were to suggest any reformations for astrology, it would be to include love (not romantic, but the love called "agape.") It's not something I hear lectured about, or written about, but it's the cornerstone of my work. We can unconditionally accept and love the spiritual situation we, and our clients, find themselves in. We can support them to grow from this foundation, and address the various things which get in the way. This is what I do. To me, self-love is the key, the foundation for greater maturation and awakening into our full self. I find this to be a whole lot more effective than coming from judgments. That is my message. I hope to communicate it more effectively in the future and accept my own fumblings with my message as part of my spiritual curriculum (after all, I have Saturn in Gemini!)

The good news, is that this particular episode of the podcast deals with similar themes but in an environment which I think is more conducive to reasoned discussion - which isn't a dig at either Chris Brennan or Eric Myers, but rather I think that everyone involved in that topic perhaps realises that this isn't the best approach in the long term.

Quite a few podcasts released lately! Keep them coming Chris!