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?

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by athenian200

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

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]

Originally Posted by Jennifer

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]

Originally Posted by Athenian200

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

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

[KristenSnowdeal]

Originally Posted by Athenian200

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.).

Originally Posted by Athenian200

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!

[FireyPheonix]

Originally Posted by "?"

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]

Originally Posted by "?"

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.