Therese
Well-known member
I think we should avoid using words like "psychological" unless we mean "belonging to the academic field of psychology". we can invent our own terms to specify our orientation...
When I was at university, we had frequent debate seminars with psychology students on the clinical "track", and sometimes we also exchanged courses. I even spent a semester visiting the daytime hospital with them (treating schizophrenic patients). Their coursework was about the patients, and mine was about how psychology informed and influenced the way they perceived and interacted with them. How using a professional, symptom-oriented vocabulary and adopting a pre-defined professional attitude changes the way we perceive another person. There was a debate at the end of the semester and it was very interesting for all of us to exchange our impressions and viewpoints.
Before psychology laid claim to the psyche, it was in everything, it participated in and manifested through the whole world. Today, we would convey the same idea by saying that "the world of experience is produced by the man who experiences it" (Neisser). It is possible to know ourselves through various ways, through art, philosophy, etc. Psychology is not the one and only "legitimate" discourse on the human psyche.
and I don't think that astrology should adopt the "glasses" through which psychology views the human being, the field does its job pretty well without the help of astrology. I think that astrology should go on developing its own, unique view of the psyche, and in the meantime interact with psychology, philosophy, art, religion, etc.
It can bring so much more if psychologists/artists/etc combine these disciplines in their own, unique way (that's what Zarathu is doing, for example), rather than study some pre-set "psychological/artistic/etc astrology". When philosophy, art, astrology and psychology (and other fields) challenge and/or complete each other, it helps us develop the flexibility of perspective that is a must if we want to grow in understanding...
When I was at university, we had frequent debate seminars with psychology students on the clinical "track", and sometimes we also exchanged courses. I even spent a semester visiting the daytime hospital with them (treating schizophrenic patients). Their coursework was about the patients, and mine was about how psychology informed and influenced the way they perceived and interacted with them. How using a professional, symptom-oriented vocabulary and adopting a pre-defined professional attitude changes the way we perceive another person. There was a debate at the end of the semester and it was very interesting for all of us to exchange our impressions and viewpoints.
Before psychology laid claim to the psyche, it was in everything, it participated in and manifested through the whole world. Today, we would convey the same idea by saying that "the world of experience is produced by the man who experiences it" (Neisser). It is possible to know ourselves through various ways, through art, philosophy, etc. Psychology is not the one and only "legitimate" discourse on the human psyche.
and I don't think that astrology should adopt the "glasses" through which psychology views the human being, the field does its job pretty well without the help of astrology. I think that astrology should go on developing its own, unique view of the psyche, and in the meantime interact with psychology, philosophy, art, religion, etc.
It can bring so much more if psychologists/artists/etc combine these disciplines in their own, unique way (that's what Zarathu is doing, for example), rather than study some pre-set "psychological/artistic/etc astrology". When philosophy, art, astrology and psychology (and other fields) challenge and/or complete each other, it helps us develop the flexibility of perspective that is a must if we want to grow in understanding...