cloakofsnow
New member
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2007
- Messages
- 152
- MBTI Type
- INFx
I think the astrological types ARE based on the same psychological /archetypal ideas than MBTI typology. The other way you could see it, is kinda like Roscharc (spelling???) test with text instead of ink. The mistake of astrology was to make it about stars and planets.
I very much agree.
For instance, I often find Pisces -- and sometimes Cancer and Aquarius -- profiles to describe me so accurately that it's uncanny. Almost creepy.
Except I'm neither a Pisces nor a Cancer nor an Aquarius. But I use to read the profiles for water and air signs anyway because they provide a lot of insights into myself.
And, by the way, that common defence argument that I've often heard about astrology being complex and consisting of more than sun signs (i.e. there are moon signs, aspects, houses, etc.) doesn't explain my case either. I don't have Pisces/Cancer/Aquarius as the moon or mercury or ascendant or north node or aspects with Rahu or Saturn trine Neptune, in the 12th house, etc., etc.
Of course, if one looks carefully enough at my birth chart -- and looks long enough -- I am absolutely certain that a Piscean/Cancerian/Aquarian-related pattern will be found.
Because the truth is that, far from being simple sun sign horoscopes, astrology is actually so complex that there are zillions of different ways to interpret a single birth chart. There are so many aspects and elements and things to consider -- if you wish to read into them. It's quite possible to piece together the puzzle of a birth chart in whatever way that fits any conclusion that you already have in mind, provided that you're imaginative enough. And most astrology enthusiasts are (in my experience). Reading birth charts is like projecting mythological characters onto star constellations -- or finding pictures in the clouds.
And therefore it's absolutely fascinating to me.