We are talking about this, or should be:

'Individualism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that stresses "the moral worth of the individual".[1] Individualists promote the exercise of one's goals and desires and so value independence and self-reliance[2] while opposing external interference upon one's own interests by society or institutions such as the government.[2]''

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism

In some of the more recent astrological literature Aquarians have been associated with a Humanist mentality which is broadly speaking part of this ''Individualist'' stance.

I think Kirk is suggesting that in the last 100 yrs or so Aquarians are seen as more egocentric than folks like Houlding and Greene feel ought to be the case, as the Sun is in detriment there.

However as I understand Individualism this is more consistent with the Houlding/Greene take on this sign than perhaps Kirk and others have picked up on? Although it may be Kirk isn't a fan of Houlding either. I do note in the Aquarius article, I think Mark brought in, a shocking erroneous 60's cookbookism, in an otherwise pretty solid and uncontentious psychological approach to this sign (a lot of Psychological Astrology in our Deb's posts/articles, which is a bit ironic).

Here is the offending item ''Uranus sits comfortably within the theme of Aquarius in issues of detachment and mental separation, but the intrinsically destructive nature of that planet undermines the fact that Aquarius is regarded as a fortunate sign that rarely offers hostile conditions unless the planets within it are afflicted and heavily debilitated''.

I think it may have been seen as destructive by quite a few in 1960 but by 1980 this notion would have been seen as idiotic, so what is going on here then?

That's a good point. I had considered the possibility that I was making an incorrect assumption. However, my guess is that he is well known in Britain due to the English language and the close American/British contact in astrology. Perhaps he isn't as well known on the Continent. But Forrest has been a big-name astrologer for about 30 years, speaking at the big American astrology conferences which draw an international crowd. So I feel secure in saying he has been a major influence.

I suppose it comes down to who we are talking about in terms of being influenced. My only written encounter I can recall with Forrest was his delineation in - Under One Sky, which was from memory on the surface 20th century psychological astrology with a bit of ??past life?? stuff thrown in. It was readable, but I wouldn?t have thought it would interest people all that much who are more involved in Astrology. An equivalent may be John Frawley who writes for the lay audience interested in Traditional astrology, i.e. it?s not the kind of output that those involved with the intellectualisation of astrology currently are going to rub their hands towards and imagine they may learn something useful here or anticipate being influenced by the thinking?s. But many will be who like their astrology lighter or less demanding.

I think these are the folks you are concerning yourself with. These types of astrologers no doubt have useful things to say and are worth paying attention to on occasions but I at least probably wouldn?t approach their texts or talks with a notebook open which I would do if Rob Hand or Liz Greene were on the podium. Your mileage may vary of course.............

Nixx wrote: Where we may be misconnecting a little Kirk is in relation to your perception of Forrest as being a ?mainstream? and influential figure, at least in Europe, Here he would be seen as peripheral, a touch heretical and a bit non mainstream, i.e. it?s not Psychological Astrology which tends to be the dominant model/philosophy in Europe as far as I can see.

I agree with Donna regarding defining one's terms. If you mean by Psychological Astrology the CPA inspired astrology, then I think I'd disagree with you. Whilst I'm not doubting that the CPA approach to psychological astrology isn't a popular model in Europe, I would argue that really this model overlaps with several other philosophies. In other words I don't believe that astrologers or students of astrology necessarily define their astrology books by who published them and whether or not they came from the CPA or not. I would argue that any astrology which deals in some way with the psyche/character/personality of the native is the popular model in Europe, or at least the UK, and then say that within that model the CPA inspired astrology is popular to be true, but that's not to say that THE popular model is CPA. For example Sue Tompkins, Melanie Reinhart etc. are also very popular but not directly linked with the CPA.

In addition we have people like Jan Spiller and so on who are also very popular. You mention Robert Hand but again, as far as I'm aware, he is not of the CPA and so is also not a 'Psychological Astrologer'. Then we have the Huber approach which is another psychological approach.

So whilst a focus on the psyche, in some way, is probably the popular model, that is not to imply that the CPA style is necessarily the most popular.

Of course, as I've said countless time, this is part of the problem of using a term like Psychological Astrology without fully defining it.

As for Steven Forrest, I do think he's had some influence here in the UK as well. I do not know how mainstream he is in the US to properly juxtapose and compare but certainly there are many many astrologers and students of astrology in the UK who have been influenced by Forrest's work, particularly books like The Soul's Journey and his book on Pluto. Again, these works are interspersed within the astrology community's 'mass consciousness' as it were.

delete

. . .

. . .

Paul wrote: Of course, as I've said countless time, this is part of the problem of using a term like Psychological Astrology without fully defining it.

I woud have said it has been fairly well defined over the years. Here are a load of quotes which might shed more light on the modus operandi for you and others:


?What is within surrounds US?(Rilke)

?A man?s life is characteristic of itself? (Jung)

Astrology is an event in consciousness not an event in nature (Hand)

?Can provide a surgical scalpel which cuts through to the underlying motives,

complexes and family inheritance which lie behind the manifest problems and

difficulties which the individual faces. It can also provide a lens through which can

be viewed the teleology and purpose of our conflicts in the context of the overall

meaning of the individual?s journey?. (CPA Prospectus)

?If you do not know yourself you live in poverty and you are that poverty.??(Hand)

??In the 'Ennead', noted alchemist Plotinus relates that astrological influence is based on a principle of cosmic unity. Everything manifests itself from a Divine Source, all things are interconnected with one another and as such are 'signifiers' (archetypes) of each other within a divinely regulated plan or system.

This same hermetic cosmology underlies Ficino's 'natural magic', a system based largly on the adepts inner action with the operative components of the psyche as revealed thru astrological symbolism, its timing and structure. This inner-active 'opus' was achieved through what was later defined by analytical psychology as, 'active imagination'. The imagination allowed access to a meaningful (in both the subjective and objective sense) inner image and allowed for a co-operative inner action with the image itself. This inner image was a bridge which sympathetically connected the adept to the underlying collective astrological archetype in order to achieve a harmonious expression of the collective archetype within the sphere of the adepts physical reality. This system of 'natural magic' became a means to provide an inner active access to the components of the personal and collective unconscious and which also provided a structure and timing for the psyche based on the astological archetypal model??. (Boyd)

''. Overlapping with, but fundamentally different from, astrology as divination are the more philosophically inclined Neoplatonic and Hermetic approaches, which can encompass such complex spheres as astral magic and theurgy ? even more emphasised in medieval Kabbalistic astrology ? but which tend, above all, to view astrological configurations as symbols of a unified cosmos rather than either mechanical causes or representatives of a plurality of celestial powers. The idea of correspondences or ?sympathies? can be found in both divinatory and Neoplatonic/Hermetic approaches, but the latter tend to be more ?inward? and what we might now understand as psychological in the broadest sense. (Greene)

"Ficino's anima mundi bears a strong relationship with the 'objective psyche' as Jung calls it, the indefinable world-stuff which stretches across the boundaries between psyche and body, between spirit and substance, which belongs to both and to neither, and which is accessible to us through the images of our dreams and fantasies. Work on this stuff in accordance with one's natal pattern , suggests Ficino, and one builds the connecting link (or participates in a link which is already existent but unexperienced) between God and his creations, between Ideas and corporeal reality, between archetype and instinct, between freedom and fate."(Greene)

"As far as I could see, the tradition that might have connected gnosis with the present seemed to have been severed, and for a long time it proved impossible to find any bridge that led from gnosticism - or neo-Platonism - to the contemporary world. But when I began to understand alchemy, I realized that it represented the historical link with gnosticism, and that a continuity therefore existed between past and present ... This was of course a momentous discovery. I had stumbled upon the historical counterpart of my psychology of the unconscious. The possibility of a comparison with alchemy and the uninterrupted intellectual chain back to gnosticism gave substance to my psychology (Jung).

"...astrological coincidences suggest that the universe can indeed be known by the human mind, because the universe's operative principles are principles with which human experience is directly and intimately familiar from within ~ that is to say, the universe's operative principles are archetypes which are both subjective and objective, simultaneously informing not only human experience but also planetary motions. As Plato affirmed, the categories of the human mind are also categories of a universal mind, the two minds being intimately connected. (Tarnas).

"If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you."(Gnostic gospels)

?Get on with it, get a life and work at it? (Greene).

Kirk wrote: I think it's safe to say that these days the common initial approach to astrology, and the base which is returned to, is as a tool to explore one's inner self.

I don't think this is at all ''safe Kirk, at least it is not my experience. Over 30 yrs I think I can safely count on the fingers of one hand those who on discovering I had an interest in astrology did not ask me if I could tell them something about the future. People tend to be pretty surprised when you reply not in the way you may be thinking.

delete

Nixx wrote:

Paul wrote: Of course, as I've said countless time, this is part of the problem of using a term like Psychological Astrology without fully defining it.

I woud have said it has been fairly well defined over the years. Here are a load of quotes which might shed more light on the modus operandi for you and others:

Unfortunately none of those quotes differentiated psychological astrology from Psychological Astrology. I'm left with the assumption its the CPA kind, in which case I would disagree that it's the dominant model in Europe, or the UK at least. I think work by Robert Hand, Sue Tompkins, Melanie Reinhart, Noel Tyl etc etc would be too prolific to say that the CPA is the most dominant. I would agree that the psychological approach is dominant, of course.

However, in truth, I don't think it's actually what clients who come to astrologers are particularly looking for. With the resurgence of traditional techniques, once lost to us, I expect a big shift in astrology toward incorporating these traditional techniques, even if within a psychological model.

It's very seldom a client comes to an astrologer for counselling etc. it's more likely to come with a problem which they want an answer to or advice on how to fix it. I'm not denying that a psychological approach helps in some matters, but a non-psychological one is equally important in my view. Quesetions about money, career, romance and so on are all very important to people and people come to astrologers for advice or insight on those matters.

varuna2 wrote:
To clarify the source of a couple of quotes (unless the second one is in a different gnostic text and actually in the form stated above):

Thanks for clarifying.

Paul wrote: . Quesetions about money, career, romance and so on are all very important to people and people come to astrologers for advice or insight on those matters.

What question either about these matters or any other which someone might think an astrologer can answer isn't fundamentally psychological?

Nixx wrote:

Paul wrote: . Quesetions about money, career, romance and so on are all very important to people and people come to astrologers for advice or insight on those matters.

What question either about these matters or any other which someone might think an astrologer can answer isn't fundamentally psychological?

The hunger pains in your stomach when you can't afford to buy food cos you lost your job?, the homelessness that occurs when the bank takes over your house, the inability to pay for the university course you had hoped for which may cripple your financial ability in the future etc etc.

It may be nice to say "Will you lose your job? Who cares! The importance is on the psychological effect that might have on you!"

Yes our psychology processes and perhaps deals with our responses to such questions, however most of us acknowledge that there is a psychological component to life as well as a physical component.

If an astrologer deals with times which are important for career, to the native who comes to this astrologer knowing the times which are important for career is more important to them than a lecture on why they want to know in the first place and why and how it impacts the psychology of their being. Such things may also be useful, but aren't necessarily what the client came to hear. However, it's a bit, in my view, patronising to assume that the client needs to ignore their actual question in favour of our proselytising on psychological motivation.

I actually think most people come, or at least return, for information more on what things they can expect in the fields of romance and career, not on their psychological reaction to those things. Will I lose my job, yes or no, not how will losing my job affect my psychology if such a thing were to happen.