I fear you have missed the point of the thread, at
least the portion I am responsible for. To the degree
that this is my doing, I do beg your forgiveness. In
a nutshell, Nick and I looking for common ground to
discuss the astrology of the VMs. At the moment, we
are thrashing out the validity of historic
astrological sources in relation to the VMs. Which
has led to the question:
Can we throw out as valid probable astrological
influences on the VMs the work of any or all of the
historical forerunners of Jung's approach to astrology
as "too modern?"
If so, which sources are not "too modern", since Jung
relied on most of the well-known historical sources to
a greater or lesser degree?
Thank you for the lucid analogy you have provided. To
make use of it for a moment, if nuclear physicists
used lead and g! old in their experiments, ought we to
eliminate lead and gold as substances "too modern" to
have been mentioned in the VMs? Which substances then
can we include?
If you find nothing of interest in this topic, perhaps
you would care to initiate some topics of your own for
the list to comment on.
You might find a few people who share common interests
with you that way. Who knows where it might lead?
Some other suggestions for those whose forbearance
Do some research
Ask some questions
Develop some patience
Skip the posts on subjects which trouble you (see the
subject line). Rene described this technique
yesterday, and I wholeheartedly endorse it. I use it
a lot with technical posts about cryptology, which are
often beyond my scope.
I have found that broad-minded people are very
tolerant folk who, at best, find interest in many
topics. At worst, they make little complaint when
co! nfronted with a variety of ideas.
Wishing the best of all that's good to you!
> While probably "interesting" to some on the list, I
> this discussion about Jung and various astrological
> approaches harder and harder to connect to the
> Manuscript (VM), and to potential methods to solve
> I believe 20th Century nuclear physicists
> demonstrated very
> expensive ways to change small amounts of lead into
> gold - a
> long held goal of medieval alchemists. Perhaps the
> discusses some then-contemporary approaches to that
> task. I
> don't believe, however, that we would advance our
> understanding of the VM by comparing and contrasting
> methodologies associated with the lead-to-gold
> attempts over
> the centuries sinc! e its probable creation.
> Best regards to all.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pamela Richards"
> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 8:56 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: VMs: Modern Astrology vs.
> > Hi, Nick!
> > Now you've gone and done it. . . I'm usually
> > cautious about reading very many modern historians
> > I won't become too biased to modern thinking. But
> > I have become curious about the ideas behind
> > development of "psychological astrology."
> > I found this article shed an interesting light, if
> > don't object to looking at it from my point of
> > for a moment.
&! gt; > Let's say it's my contention that Ficino was not
> > originator of "modern psychological" astrology
> > by Jung's own hand; that Ficino himself had
> > antecedents which were known to Jung, and used by
> > and that the reason "modern psychological"
> > fits so well with certain conceptual themes of
> > is that Jung pretty much modelled his work on that
> > Ficino, Plato, neoplatonists, gnostic tradition,
> > alchemy, etc. And that Ficino was not the founder
> > Jung's school, but rather that Jung was indebted
> > Ficino, as well as others.
> > So if it were not for Jung and his openness to
> > themes, you would not have a Ficinian basis of
> > psychological" astrology.
> > And as several of Ficino's acknowledged
> > were consciously utilized by Jung as well, Ficino
> > actually a questionable founder of "modern
> > psychological" astrology, as far as I can tell.
> > This is apart from the question of technique,
> > intention, and application of astrology.
> > I would have no problem saying that
> > from the problem of intention, technique, and
> > application) Ficino was an antecedent or precursor
> > "modern psychological" astrology, right along with
> > Plato, Hermes Trismegistus (I know he is perhaps
> not a
> > historic figure, but the writings nevertheless are
> > there), and others. . .but to say he founded it,
> > I also disagree with the statement that he
> > "modern psychological astrology", for reasons we> have
> > already discussed. IMHO, it required Jung to found
> > movement. The techniques employed did not exist
> > the twentieth century.
> > I would call attributing "modern psychological"
> > astrology to Ficino reading history backwards from
> > Jung. The problem is, if we keep going backwards,
> > where do we stop? Gnosticism. . . Neoplatonism .
> . .
> > Plato? Please, surely we can agree these guys
> > not "modern psychological astrologers", right?
> > Anyway, I hope you find this interesting!
> > Warmly,
> > Pam
> > Bruce MacLennan
> > III. Connections with Neoplatonism
> > Jung's Debt! to Neoplatonism
> > For our purposes, the important point is that the
> > archetypes are essentially the Platonic Ideas.
> > in itself, is not a new notion, nor is it
> > Indeed, Jung (CW 9, pt. 1, ¶5) says,"'Archetype'
> is an
> > explanatory paraphrase of the Platonic ei]doj,"and
> > cites its use by Philo Judaeus (De opf. mundi,
> > I.69),Irenaeus (Adv. haer., II.7.5), the Corpus
> > Hermeticum (I.8, II.12),and pseudo-Dionysius (De
> > hier., II.4; De div. nom., I.6); theterm is also
> > by Plotinus (e.g., 5.1.4). Indeed Jung (CW 8,¶154)
> > defines archetypes as active living dispositions,
> > ideas in the Platonic sense, that preform and
> > continually influence our thoughts and feelings
> > actions. Certainly Jung seems to have been
> > more directly by Gnosticism than by Neoplatonism,
> > the Gnostics, as Jung(1965, 200) says,had been
> > confronted with the primal world of the
> > and had dealt with its contents, with images that
> > obviously contaminated with the world of instinct.
> > But Gnosticism itself has many connections with
> > Platonism and Neoplatonism. Eventually Jung became
> > interested in alchemy because he saw it as a
> > that led from Gnosticism - or neo-Platonism - to
> > contemporary world" (op. cit., 201). As
> > James Hillman (1975a, 198) remarks,"There are
> > likenesses between the main themes of Neoplatonism
> > archetypal psychology." He notes (Hillman1975b)
> > although Jung cites Neoplato! nists infrequently, he
> > Page 4
> > 4inspired at an early stage of his career by the
> > Neoplatonist scholar Friedrich Creuzer, who later
> > edited the works of Plotinus, Proclus,and
> > Olympiodorus. Jung (1965, 162) says that he "read
> > mad"Creuzer's Symbolik und Mythologie der alten
> > Völker, and "worked with feverish interest"
> > this Neoplatonic analysis ofmythology. Hillman
> > refrains from claiming a direct dependence of Jung
> > Plotinus via Creuzer, but he does want to suggest,
=== message truncated ===
"I'd rather learn from one bird how to sing, than to teach ten thousand stars how not to dance."
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying: