Talk:Psychological astrology

Update

This article appears to be in serious need of editing. Suggestions and help with citations would be welcome. Robert Currey talk 17:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thales

Although it's clear to me how the origins of psychological astrology are rooted in the works of Plato and Aristotle, I'm not so sure Thales is relevant to the psychological factors of astrology (astrology itself, without doubt, as the main source of influence upon Pythagoras). Can this be substantiated by a reference? If not, it might be best to drop his name and leave Plato and Aristotle who were uncontroversially significant to matters related to the soul, or 'psyche' -- Zac Δ ^talk! 10:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Acausal

The text reads:

Accordingly, astrological claims of correlations between the position of heavenly bodies at the time of birth and an individual's development were defined by Jung as being acausal and not directly caused by the planets.

I think the general reader should have some explanation of what the word "acausal" means. A wiki-link on that word would go to this page: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Acausal - but I am not sure that gives an appropriate definition for the use of the word in this context. If not, could something be added to that page to offer a definition that relates to the use of the word in this article? Alternatively, a footnote could be added to the word here to give a outline definition that is more appropriate. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 10:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - that acausal link disambiguates to anticausal. The ideal solution would be to create a new page explaining the term acausal as used by Jung (and many others since) so it can be referenced by several other pages that also use the term. Alternatively, a short-term solution would be a footnote explanation. Robert Currey talk 00:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Disagree with identification of the problem itself, as well as the proposed "ideal" solution. I believe Jung might have made that statement (maybe multiple times) in German. It's reasonable, as such a statement appears in the monograph, "Synchronizitat als ein Prinzip akausaler Zusammenhange," which was part of the volume Naturerklarung und Psyche (Studien aus dem C. G.

Jung-lnstitut, IV; Zurich, 1952, that while the original German word "akausaler" might have linguistic parallels to the word "acausal" in English, it's obscure enough that a different translation is justified. However, since "acausal" means pretty much the same as the following phrase "not directly caused... (by the planets)", I think a footnote is overkill, even as a "short-term solution". A better one, if not ideal, might be to simply delete "acausal" and simply leave "not directly caused by the planets", since the meaning of the sentence would remain unchanged. Note anyone looking up Jung's works as mentioned in citations, is going to find the word "Acausal" in much of Jung's translated writings, even the titles of his papers. I'm answering these issues nearly nine years later, because I think Wikipedia editors were a little too optimistic, perhaps even naive, as to how well specific words, and even entire entered articles, would be edited. Unfortunately I see a need to be more conservative, and not unnecessarily edit word choices, or provide links to explain everything in plain English. Therefore "acausal" stands. Cuvtixo (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Origins of Astro-Psychology UPDATE NEEDED

In the Origins section of the article

The first sentence reads:

The origins of psychological astrology can be traced to the writings of ancient Greek philosophers such as Thales, Plato, and Aristotle (especially his De Anima treatise).[2]

It Should Read:

The origins of psychological astrology can be traced to Clasicall African Civilization, Kemet (Ancient Egypt)and the writings of ancient Greek philosophers such as Thales, Plato, and Aristotle (especially his De Anima treatise).[2]

-bold just use to highlight update and should not be bolded in your update.

One source can be found in the last sentance of the Origins section: Jung wrote "Astrology represents the sum of all the psychological knowledge of antiquity".

Jung studied Kemet and was aware that the first Astrological chart in recorded history is found there. He also learned about Asto-Psychological Archetypes from reading metu neter (Kametic litierature) i.e. Heru (Sun) Auset (moon - the water personality) Het Heru (venus) Heru Khuti (Mars) etc. From Hyroglyphics Jung came to understand the four Major Kemetic personality types Earth, Air, Fire and Water and how they worked in Kemetic Astro-psychology.

For additional information Dr. Amen and his books Metu Neter vol 1 to 8 and original source meteral like the Uchau Metu (Judgenment sene), and other parts of the Pyramid text will provide ample refs.

Aunk (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

References

True, astrology as a practice originated in Mesopotamia and was later adopted by Egyptians under the pharaos. But thing is, before the Greeks, astrology was not about personality or psychology, but rather about trying to predict historical events and natural disasters. It were the Greeks who first turned astrology into an internally self-consistent model of personality traits. Personal birth charts were close to non-existent prior to the Greek city states, also because it were the Greeks who coined the concepts of houses and the resulting significance of the ascendant. Without houses and the related, specifically adapted notion of the ascendant, psychological astrology as it has existed since Hellenism is close to impossible. There were no "water personalities" prior to Aristotle's alignment of all 12 signs with the four elements. Finally, I'd trust Jung about as far as I can throw him. He's about as accurate about ancient mythology as Crowley, plus, by turning everything on its head, fails to realize that mythology is only a set of metaphors at best. What little of his understanding of astrology is sound and has made it into the MBTI are just concepts such as introversion and extroversion that he didn't invent but only gave new names to. --2003:EF:170B:F985:E107:1DF:9F05:8882 (talk) 07:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Maslow's hierarchy of needs

Why is Maslow's hierarchy of needs down there in the "See also" section? I cannot really see what Maslow's hierarchy has to do with astrology. Vorbee (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

No methodologically sound scientific studies exist that show a benefit or detriment in using psychological astrology.

Some wag entered this at the bottom of the introductory paragraph without a citation. I've seen countless {cite}s added throughout Wikipedia and it doesn't seem to actually encourage the finding of citations, some have been up for a decade at this point with neither a citation found or removal of the un-cited statements. This particular statement also suffers from begging to prove a negative. Of course there are no "methodologically sound scientific studies" for lots of things, and the qualification of "methodologically sound" is fairly arbitrary. Who determines what is "methodologically sound"? Is it "peer reviewed publication"? Then it should to be changed to "no peer-reviewed study", because even such can always be challenged as not "methodologically sound" And there's the chance that a study has been done, simply the editors just haven't found the study and will not for many years after it's been done! This also invites ontological debate- an astrological adherent might challenge that an unflattering study was done at a time when "mercury retrograde" influenced the results. I expect Wikipedia might have standards laying out what scientific findings are acceptable or not for citation, but as far as I can see, this simply has caused a proliferation of "citation needed" tags without the actual follow up of either deletion or finding of citations needed. And I personally choose not to add yet another "citation needed" because I'm not sure I will be able to follow up with a deletion at the appropriate time. Wikipedia should probably assign specific people (editors) with the task of systematically cleaning up {cite}s. If others want to label the "no methodologically sound scientific studies" with a citation needed, please do. It's a kind of a "meta-" problem where a statement complaining of a lack of studies needs to be verified to the same standards it complains about. Cuvtixo (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)