So, what you have said might be stated as such: anger is Mars-Moon hard aspects (conjunction, opposition and square), pride (or narcissism in modern times) is Sun-Moon (where did you get shame?), depression is Saturn-Moon and so on...
Shame is not something we are born with, it is a learnt emotion. In Psychological Astrology the Moon is compared to the Id and the Sun the Ego. (Freudian meaning). Shame is the 'consciousness of something dishonourable' which is related to what our familial-social environment imposes upon us, i.e. the child being told to do this not that, as the this is unacceptable. So it's not a more unconscious emotion, 'beneath' the Ego.
In this model Shame would be delineated in reference to Jupiter and Saturn more directly, as these two planets talk about the sub-cultural milieu and the social mores the child encounters.
You see, the Moon is actually the significator of emotions. The behaviour is signified by Mercury, as significator of manners (Lilly's third volume of Christian Astrology). The behaviour is not dictated by emotions (unless you refuse to think for yourself), but by mind.
I don't follow your thinking or language here. I would suggest more of our behaviour, including thinking, is driven by emotions than something like 'robotic thought'. (Someone with the lights in Aquarius may beg to differ)
You contemplate this sort of stuff, aren't you? When I have delineated the Bundy's chart, I didn't pay that much attention to emotions. If you read it again, you'll see I have said something else. I didn't brainstorm when I delineated his chart. I analyzed so it can be understood from a traditional viewpoint, but you hijacked the topic to psychology.
I read your delineation as more of a psychological profile, albeit through the lens of traditional astrology, than you may have done. Traditional delineations seem to be largely, if not primarily, focused on psychology from what I can see. As soon as you mention what someone does with their life, or talk about mind, mood, etc this is psychology. For example, ''deceitful father figure'', ''looking a bit childish in other people's eyes''. I also would not suggest you were more focused on his overt than covert behaviour. It's true I am comparing this in my mind to Psychological theory, but then this is somewhat inevitable today, particularly if you are more familiar with this field.
Whether or not this vitalistic soul ought to be understood as overt or covert behaviour is an interesting one, bit of both presumably. Although if it is immaterial we may have a problem in even thinking about this coherently.
Again, why do you never delineate a chart, if you are so passionate about psychological astrology? [
Because that would be bad manners here.
By and large the aim for astrologers when looking at traditional techniques, previously unknown to them, (and this applies to those who are more lock, stock and barrel smitten by older schemas as well), is to seperate the wheat form the chaff and see which of these ideas has a utility today. I do the same with any astrological material regardless as to when it was produced, i.e. is this relevant to my life today. So my interest in say 'generosity', 'almuten figuris' , just a couple of older conceptions/techniques you happened to mention, is firstly understanding the rationale behind them and then applying this to my 'working' schema to see if they can be integrated, made useful or not as the case may be. Or even if they threaten the backbone of the schema, as you may know this has happened in some cases and folks then re-invent their approach using 'older' modelling tools. Robert Hand is perhaps the most high profile, or respected chap to have attended to this. He realises the need to also use Psychological Theory, to the extent he is able, to bring the Horoscope alive, or enable it to make sense, to the modern world.
Pretty standard attitude, if not bordering on common sense, thus your question could be construed as a strange one. ? I am conscious of the possibility we may have a bit of a language barrier here which may not be helping.
Robert Zoller summaries this reality succinctly on his site, a la Mr Hand:
6.Can Medieval Astrology be used in conjunction with Psychological Astrology?
??Yes, there is no conflict. They complement each other. This is because Medieval Astrology, while it does have something to say about the native's character, has nothing to compare with the sophisticated theories of personality and psychological development which are features of contemporary psychological astrology. Medieval Astrology's character analysis, while it offers penetrating insights, is crude, practical and ad hoc.??
http://new-library.com/zoller/faq/#6
I wonder if Robert Hand has really melted "to study" and "to practise" together in this wrong way as you quote him. [By the way it is not really academic to quote without giving the source completely.]
It is a bit cobbled here
.
http://www.astrologyguild.com/2011/09/0 ... -rob-hand/
He has said much the same elsewhere, the 'Post Modern' talk recently discussed here, I forget if this is at CURA or Astrodienst or both.
I think it would be fine to have this astrological thread here with but short non-astrological annotations together with references to a parallel-thread where this - inevitable and necessary - critique is detailed.
Because we can be confident another person has exactly, or almost, the same chart as Bundy and not had a life resembling his, overtly anyway, it is hard to and maybe not that sensible to ignore data which has found a relationship between abuse and psychopathy, and discussed why this is. Assuming we want to, or think a Horoscope can, get to the bottom of his ''4th house''.