Horoscopes as a set of archetypes

[Athenian200]

Horoscopes themselves are obviously not always valid, yet they still fascinate us. I believe it's partially because they represent a set of archetypes that we use to identify ourselves and others. Consider:

Aries probably seems to represent the typical rash teenager, or old-western cowboy.

Taurus might be the typical businessman or member of the noblity.

Gemini could be the diplomat, lawyer, or socialite.

Cancer seems like a reclusive artist, or a very sensitive person with a lot of unexpressed dreams.

Leo could be a knight, or the visionary and exacting leader.

Virgo could be the dedicated, practical mother.

Libra might be an arbitrator or a philosopher.

Scorpio might be any fierce competitor.

Sagittarius could be an activist, possibly a hippie.

Capricorn might be the self-made wealthy individual.

Aquarius could be a scientist or researcher.

Pisces could be a typical melancholy dreamer.

So, the point is, I think people were partially attracted to these ideas as ways of creating archetypes by which to compare people. Perhaps it's even similar to what causes people to study psychology today. One thing I think we can gather from horoscopes, however, is a more holistic set of archetypes that explain how our minds natually categorize and set expectations for people. Does this make any sense?

 

[Totenkindly]

Sagittarius could be an activist, possibly a hippie...

:yim_phbbbbt: I am NOT a hippie.

So, the point is, I think people were partially attracted to these ideas as ways of creating archetypes by which to compare people. Perhaps it's even similar to what causes people to study psychology today. One thing I think we can gather from horoscopes, however, is a more holistic set of archetypes that explain how our minds naturally categorize and set expectations for people. Does this make any sense?

Oh, well, it's possible. Astrology was tied into Greek and roman myth, obviously, to start with, which is full of archetypes. And the Greeks produced the "humor" system of personality -- basically a more generalized archetype system. And if you look at modern-day Enneagram theory, that's basically a nine-archetype system rather than a system with personas derived from a combination of foundational functions.

(I.e., in MBTI, the functions are the foundation. In Enneagram, the nine archetypes are the foundations... which is why they are considered archetypical.)

So when did the subject of astrology as we basically know it today arise? What society produced it? If your idea is right, couldn't we trace the twelve assigned archetypes to the typical social structures/expectations of the time, to some degree?

 

[Athenian200]

:yim_phbbbbt: I am NOT a hippie.

I meant that that was one of the personalities you could infer from the description of Sagittarius, and not that the system used to assign them was valid. For goodness sake, remember that I'm an Aries.

Oh, well, it's possible. Astrology was tied into Greek and roman myth, obviously, to start with, which is full of archetypes. And the Greeks produced the "humor" system of personality -- basically a more generalized archetype system. And if you look at modern-day Enneagram theory, that's basically a nine-archetype system rather than a system with personas derived from a combination of foundational functions.

Yes. I was just wondering what sort of inferences and observations we could make based on this particular set of archetypes, and how they are different/similar to several archetypes we have today.

So when did the subject of astrology as we basically know it today arise? What society produced it? If your idea is right, couldn't we trace the twelve assigned archetypes to the typical social structures/expectations of the time, to some degree?

Yes, we could. The fact that so many of these archetypes can be applied or seen in modern culture implies that despite centuries of changes, the influence of Greco-Roman social systems still permeates our culture. It could even show that the human mind has several unconscious archetypes. If we wish to see which, however, perhaps I should look at the Chinese zodiac as well?

 

[Prototype]

Sagittarius could be an activist, possibly a hippie...

Although I'm a Scorpio, this seems more like me!

 

[RenaiReborn]

Cancer seems like a reclusive artist, or a very sensitive person with a lot of unexpressed dreams.

Hehe. Sensitive you say, dear?

 

[Kingfisher]

i like this idea of seeing the zodiac signs as archetypes!
to me the MBTI types seem somewhat like archetypes as well, and i think that people generally respond very well and are attracted to archetypes. and it seems like people are attracted to the archetypal nature of the zodiac, doesn't it? it is more the idea of planetary influences that turn some people off of the zodiac. so i guess that in modern times many people like when archetypes can stand on their own? when they are forces of nature, rather than characters defined by their enviroment. such as with the MBTI and enneagram, where the types are not nessecarily detemined by outside forces and stimulus (planets, etc.).

So, the point is, I think people were partially attracted to these ideas as ways of creating archetypes by which to compare people. Perhaps it's even similar to what causes people to study psychology today. One thing I think we can gather from horoscopes, however, is a more holistic set of archetypes that explain how our minds natually categorize and set expectations for people. Does this make any sense?

it seems like the archetypes of the zodiac are easier to see in other people. whereas the MBTI is more about internal processes, and is not as apparent in the external behaviors of people. is this what you mean?

 

["?"]

Liz Greene is a Jungian Psychologist with a astrological website (astro.com). She equates the four elements with the four cognitive functions (Air/Thinking, Earth/Sensing, Water/Feeling and Fire/Intuition. That makes sense to me.

 

[Kingfisher]

i did not know that astro.com was run by a jungian psychologist? it has always seemed like a very good astrology website to me. i am naturally skeptical of astrology, and that website managed to win me over somewhat, haha!

 

[CrystalViolet]

Liz Greene is a Jungian Psychologist with a astrological website (astro.com). She equates the four elements with the four cognitive functions (Air/Thinking, Earth/Sensing, Water/Feeling and Fire/Intuition. That makes sense to me.

Intuition =fire, and Thinking=air....Hmm, I'm connecting dots here.

I'm ducking for cover now

 

[Athenian200]

Liz Greene is a Jungian Psychologist with a astrological website (astro.com). She equates the four elements with the four cognitive functions (Air/Thinking, Earth/Sensing, Water/Feeling and Fire/Intuition. That makes sense to me.

If Intuition is Fire, then my Aries sun sign actually makes sense, especially if one considers that my Libra moon sign conflicts with it.

 

[entropie]

Leo could be a knight, or the visionary and exacting leader.

Exactly !

If Intuition is Fire, then my Aries sun sign actually makes sense, especially if one considers that my Libra moon sign conflicts with it.

Hey I have got the same combo, except for the Aries sign. Dont really like them much tho, they can be tense

 

[Asterion]

I think most of astrology is destroyed by things like this:

CANCER:
Very high sex appeal, Great in bed, Love is one of a kind, Very romantic, Most caring person you will ever meet, Entirely creative, Extremely random and proud of it, Freak in bed, Spontaneous, Great telling stories, Not a Fighter, But will Knock your lights out if it comes down to it, Someone you should hold on to ..

I mean, WTF!!!

... Ok, maybe I can actually see the telling stories, not being a fighter, being random and proud of it, but that could have been any other trait and I would probably consider that I might be good at it, as long as I'm feeling vain enough

 

[entropie]

... Ok, maybe I can actually see the telling stories, not being a fighter, being random and proud of it, but that could have been any other trait and I would probably consider that I might be good at it, as long as I'm feeling vain enough

Yeah and phrases like "god in bed" everyone can identify with :hi:

 

[phthalocyanine]

So, the point is, I think people were partially attracted to these ideas as ways of creating archetypes by which to compare people. Perhaps it's even similar to what causes people to study psychology today. One thing I think we can gather from horoscopes, however, is a more holistic set of archetypes that explain how our minds natually categorize and set expectations for people. Does this make any sense?

yes! - i think it's easiest to see in terms of what roles each type or sign might take in a typical myth or fairy tale..

aries - the hero(/ine) on a journey, the 'self'

taurus - the merchant, the dancer/sensualist, the amorous lad/maiden

gemini - the messenger/linguist, the seeker, the androgyne, the adolescent

cancer - the mother, the infant, the goddess of creation

leo - the father, the child, the emperor/monarch

virgo - the knowledgeable, the humble, the service person/healer

libra - the socialite, the peacemaker/diplomat, the iron fist with a velvet glove

scorpio - the mysterious foreigner, the dark silent one, the sorcerer(/ess)

sagittarius - the wanderer, the philosopher

capricorn - the elder, the timekeeper/historian

aquarius - the theorist/inventor/scientist, the iconoclast/revolutionary

pisces - the mystic/medium, the spiritualist

further, breaking up the 12 signs into 6 pairs of "opposite" signs, we see common fixations with different expressions...representing two sides of a coin, or a 'push-pull' scenario between character roles..

aries/libra :
aries seeks balance within itself and its personal realm
libra seeks balance outside itself and its social realm

taurus/scorpio :
taurus seeks to possess things, to possess things in themself
scorpio seeks to possess feelings, to possess things in others

gemini/sagittarius :
gemini seeks tangible knowledge, thinking locally
sagittarius seeks esoteric knowledge, thinking globally

cancer/capricorn :
cancer seeks eternity through creation
capricorn seeks eternity through preservation

leo/aquarius :
leo seeks to make impact with personal significance
aquarius seeks to make impact with impersonality

virgo/pisces :
virgo seeks to serve by becoming an instrument of action
pisces seeks serve by becoming a medium of spirit

this is my own interpretation. just thought i'd share.

 

[sunset5678]

lol my scorpio moon must be at work lately...I'm not that competitive in social situations
but i am enjoying that i might show some people up working hard at my goals i'll make th
em eat their words someday that there were things they didnt think i could do.

 

["?"]

If Intuition is Fire, then my Aries sun sign actually makes sense, especially if one considers that my Libra moon sign conflicts with it.

Agreed. I always correlated the ascending sign as meaning something, but we tend to grow out of that at some point and appear more like out sun/moon signs. My sun is Gemini (AIR) and moon is Taurus (EARTH) which makes sense for an ISTP. If you have a strong Aries sun, then it could make sense that the Libra AIR) moon would make for an INFJ since that type does appear more conceputal than the other NF types.

 

["?"]

I think most of astrology is destroyed by things like this:

I mean, WTF!!!

... Ok, maybe I can actually see the telling stories, not being a fighter, being random and proud of it, but that could have been any other trait and I would probably consider that I might be good at it, as long as I'm feeling vain enough

No different than saying ISTPs are mechanically inclined, INTPs are good at math, ESTPs like to party and so on..... Both systems have their stereotypes.

 

[Lark]

I'm not sure if I properly understand how archetype is being used here, I'm on my third or fourth book about Jung at the moment and my view of archetypes is constantly getting updated, for a long time I mistook the subject or content, ie like trickster, shadow, mother, hero, for the thing itself.

Jung was trying to make the point that archetypes where innate/inborn potential traits which where reflected in cultural iconography like the trickster etc. right? Like I say, still reading up on it.

I do think there's something about star signs though, lots of the profiles for Taureans (Western) or Goats (Chinese) which are my signs, are pretty accurate to my personality.

I read a good explanation which suggested that they may not be totally neblus because they where an early/folkish trait theory which reflected how seasonal environment could influence personality trait development.

 

[luvfreedom]

Astrology, as I have said before, is the psychology of the universe. Psychology is the explaination of the human mind. However, the human mind is affected by the elements of the universe, because the same compounds that are found in the cosmos run through our DNA. We are connected to the cosmos, therefore the cosmos has much to tell us about ourselves.

Gemini-Sun(ego)
Aquarius-Moon(emotion)
Gemini-Mars(passion)
Taurus-Mercury(mind)
Cancer-Venus(love)
Rising-Cancer(how others see you)
Saturn-Taurus(the planet of fate)
So on...

Saturn returns about every thirty years, which is a significant point in most people's lives. Most divorces, conceptions, changes in careers and other life adjustments occur during the ages of 27 and 31. See here: Saturn return - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many of your psychologist looked to the planets to obeserve human behavioral patterns. Look here: Psychological astrology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is amazing how many people think we can live underneath such powerful forces and not be affected. WOW!

 

[Walking Tourist]

Arbitrator or philosopher...
Not sure if that's really me...
but it sounds better than the usual Libra indecisive and wishy washy.