[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: VMs: Jung and Modern/Traditional Astrology?
Yes, it seems you have stated my thoughts on this
Nice to have you around! Chip in any time.
--- Adam <adampack2001@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I think perhaps it seems to some that the idea that
> Jungian psychology is being read back to his
> sources, which while valid to some extent, can be
> taken too far, in the same way that one could read
> back genetic theory into Darwin or QED into Newton,
> if you see what I mean.
> I don't know whether that's applicable here though,
> and the exchange is very interresting to me at
> Pamela Richards <spirlhelix@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi, CW
> I fear you have missed the point of the thread, at
> least the portion I am responsible for. To the
> 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
> as "too modern?"
> If so, which sources are not "too modern", since
> relied on most of the well-known historical sources
> a greater or lesser degree?
> Thank you for the lucid analogy you have provided.
> make use of it for a moment, if nuclear physicists
> used lead and gold in their experiments, ought we to
> eliminate lead and gold as substances "too modern"
> have been mentioned in the VMs? Which substances
> can we include?
> If you find nothing of interest in this topic,
> you would care to initiate some topics of your own
> the list to comment on.
> You might find a few people who share common
> 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
> subject line). Rene described this technique
> yesterday, and I wholeheartedly endorse it. I use it
> a lot with technical posts about cryptology, which
> 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
> confronted with a variety of ideas.
> Wishing the best of all that's good to you!
> --- CWLee wrote:
> > While probably "interesting" to some on the list,
> > find
> > this discussion about Jung and various
> > approaches harder and harder to connect to the
> > Voynich
> > Manuscript (VM), and to potential methods to solve
> > it.
> > I believe 20th Century nuclear physicists
> > demonstrated very
> > expensive ways to change small amounts of lead
> > gold - a
> > long held goal of medieval alchemists. Perhaps the
> > VM
> > discusses some then-contemporary approaches to
> > task. I
> > don't believe, however, that we would advance our
> > understanding of the VM by comparing and
> > various
> > methodologies associated with the lead-to-gold
> > attempts over
> > the centuries since its probable creation.
> > Best regards to all.
> > ===========================
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Pamela Richards"
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 8:56 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: VMs: Modern Astrology vs.
> > Traditional
> > Astrology
> > > Hi, Nick!
> > >
> > > Now you've gone and done it. . . I'm usually
> > quite
> > > cautious about reading very many modern
> > so
> > > I won't become too biased to modern thinking.
> > now
> > > I have become curious about the ideas behind
> > Jung's
> > > development of "psychological astrology."
> > >
> > > I found this article shed an interesting light,
> > you
> > > don't object to looking at it from my point of
> > view
> > > for a moment.
> > >
> > > Let's say it's my contention that Ficino was not
> > the
> > > originator of "modern psychological" astrology
> > except
> > > by Jung's own hand; that Ficino himself had
> > > antecedents which were known to Jung, and used
> > him;
> > > and that the reason "modern psychological"
> > astrology
> > > fits so well with certain conceptual themes of
> > Ficino
> > > is that Jung pretty much modelled his work on
> > of
> > > Ficino, Plato, neoplatonists, gnostic tradition,
> > > alchemy, etc. And that Ficino was not the
> > of
> > > Jung's school, but rather that Jung was indebted
> > to
> > > Ficino, as well as others.
> > >
> > > So if it were not for Jung and his openness to
> > these
> > > themes, you would not have a Ficinian basis of
> > "modern
> > > psychological" astrology.
> > > And as several of Ficino's acknowledged
> > antecedants
> > > were consciously utilized by Jung as well,
> > is
> > > 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
> > conceptually(apart
> > > from the problem of intention, technique, and
> > > application) Ficino was an antecedent or
> > of
> > > "modern psychological" astrology, right along
> > > Plato, Hermes Trismegistus (I know he is perhaps
> > not a
=== 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!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying: