User talk:Quiddity/Human archetype systems

Love this! Don't give up on it. :) Ijon (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous thoughts

Not sure where these should be added—many of the “ancient” systems have a great deal in common with the “two-factor” systems, some of which indeed appear to be descendants of traditional typing.

Seven planetary qualities (with common terms showing the penetration of these notions into popular consciousness, similar to choleric-phlegmatic-sanguine-melancholy, although some are less applicable to personality per se): Luna (lunatic, also to moon after/over someone), Mercury (mercurial), Venus (venereal, aphrodisiac), Sol (sunny), Mars (martial), Jupiter (jovial), Saturn (saturnine).

Modern astrology has invented both further types to correspond with telescopic solar-system objects and hypothetical bodies to represent ‘missing’ types.

Astrological “quadruplicities” (four elements, related to the humours) and “triplicities” (three modes, related to the alchemical principles sulphur, mercury, & salt)—an analysis of the twelve zodiac signs, not very ancient AFAICT. The Tarot has likewise been analysed in a multi-factorial or combinatorial manner.

The I Ching, like astrology, was supposed to cover much more than personality. Systems integrating the trigrams & hexagrams with the astrological/chronological system of ten “celestial stems” & twelve “earthly branches“ (AKA Chinese zodiac) were developed, but overall there seems to be relatively little focus on personal qualities, instead description of the environment and circumstances to which one must adapt.

Overall, unless intended to be a list article it needs sources that take a large view of these systems in relation to each other. Otherwise I don’t see how to organize the material without a whole lot of OR. Then there’s the whole question of application and evaluation, beyond abstract symbolism: to what extent they make testable predictions, whether they’ve indeed been tested, with what results, and how well they correlate in practice. I would hope such sources can be found in at least some of the individual articles.—Odysseus 1479 19:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]