Origins of psychological astrology?

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...

Zarathu said:

Other than me? Glen Perry, PhD. But then, I'M NOT A CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST, I'm a counseling psychologist....I have a Masters in Counseling Psychology....

Click to expand...

Unfortunatey,....in clinical practice a conflict of perspective exists between ones 'religious beliefs and commitments' and the 'scientific and professional objectives of contemporary psychology'......it even goes so far, as to undermine the credibility of a practicing clinical psychologist.

I know from personal, first hand experience that qualified practioners in the field of psychology have huge difficulties surviving in practice, if they are vocal about their beliefs.....religious or otherwise.

This might explain the lack of practicing psychologists / astrologers.

Great post, Therese.

I think that either modern psychological astrology needs to drop its pretenses to being psychological, or else astrologers should get the academic qualifications to come by the term honestly and credibly. For sure-- we could use more people with a B. S. (B. Sc.) in psychology and a Master's degree in psychology, counseling, or a closely allied field.

It didn't help that Liz Greene got her first "Ph. D." from a now-defunct diploma mill in LA (not UCLA or USC) with a "dissertation" topic only loosely affiliated with psychology. Apparently that was sufficient for her to hang out her shingle as a practising psychologist in the UK in 1971. http://www.astroamerica.com/greenebio2.html

It's OK to bash the academics or to praise the early psychological astrologers like Greene for their contributions to astrology. It's good for us to keep apprised of recent developments in psychology in lay-person's terms. But these are different issues than borrowing a term to which few of us can legitimately lay claim. It just makes us look like a bunch of dummies to claim something without evidence to support us.

Zarathu is one with rights to the term. Therese? How many others?

Astrology can legitimately lay claim to a much older delineation of personality: temperament.

*No, I am not a psychologist, we shared courses within the framework of an interdisciplinary doctoral program in the human sciences. And no, I don't have my phd yet, either. absolutorium done, thesis overdue, lol.

waybread said:

Will the real psychology please stand up? Astrologers don't get to define what it is. Credentialed psychologists do.

Click to expand...

Really? The Online Etymology Dictionary offers this: "psychology (n.): 1650s, "study of the soul," from Modern Latin psychologia, probably coined mid-16c. in Germany by Melanchthon from Latinized form of Greek psykhe- "breath, spirit, soul" (see psyche) + logia "study of" (see -logy). Meaning "study of the mind" first recorded 1748, from Christian Wolff's "Psychologia empirica" (1732); main modern behavioral sense is from early 1890s." As for the current sense of the word, putting "psychology: definition" in the google search field yields: "the scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behavior in a given context; the mental characteristics or attitude of a person or group; the mental and emotional factors governing a situation or activity."

Academic psychologists didn't create the word psychology, nor has it been patented so as to forbid all usages not certified by them. Rather, they use it in the title of their disciplines as a descriptive indicator of what they do. People who use the word in that context understand that the word is being used in a more specialized manner than its general sense, one which includes "the study of" as an antecedent and the means of study as a further specification. Psychology doesn't even mean the same thing, in terms of its fully specified meaning and context, in every academic discipline that includes it in its title. The subject matter (and means of study) of developmental psychology, cognitive psychology, evolutionary psychology, educational psychology, personality psychology, etc. are not coextensive. Each studies certain aspects of the mind from a particular perspective. Developmental psychology, for instance, is interested in those mental processes that develop over time. Cognitive psychology studies the mind from an information-processing perspective. Psychological astrology is the study of time-based mental processes, with "time-based" referring more specifically to planetary periods. It's obviously not as advanced in the understanding of its subject matter as any of the established academic psychology disciplines are of theirs, but that doesn't mean psychological astrologers shouldn't be allowed to use a word with a generally understood referent (i.e., the mind) to suggest what they do. Psychology in all of the contexts just mentioned is being used as a tag, like the title of a book, one that hints at or implies what's inside. The fully detailed specification of the contents can only be gotten at by reading the book, on the one hand, or mastering the discipline on the other.

Psychology, like any discipline, moves forward. It builds upon the work of its Great Ones, but it also sometimes critiques and disavows earlier work that proved to be unsustainable. Freud's fabricated research "results" would be a major example. But surely you know this? I'd like to see "psychological astrologers" cite current work in psychology.

Click to expand...

Astrology, too, moves forward and builds upon the work of its Great Ones, albeit at a glacial pace due to not having yet crossed what might be termed the empirical threshold. A major impediment to crossing that threshold is astrologers' characteristic (mis)use of words. Virtually all treat a given word as if it belonged to a particular planet. (Your treating the word psychology as if it belonged to a particular discipline is a comparably erroneous usage.) It would be a major advance if a sufficient number of astrologers realized that a particular word, like ambition, doesn't go with Saturn regardless of meaning. Rather, it's an observed meaning or effect that recurs at Saturn intervals, of which one of the senses of ambition, something along the lines of a desire to succeed at a profession, is an example, that goes with Saturn. In the short run this would give astrologers less to say, because they would no longer be able to make a given chart (even an erroneous one) fit a given event (even an erroneous one). But in the long run it would give us far more to say, because over time we'd be able to say more, and with more accuracy, about what predictably coincides with a given configuration, as well as which configurations and kinds of configurations (not all!) even have terrestrial correspondents. And what we'd be able to say would be largely psychological, because I believe astrological effects are psychological (albeit not coextensive with the psychological effects any given academic discipline studies). That's why, although I have no problem with psychological astrologers using the word psychology to indicate that astrology as they practice it has to do with the mind rather than external events, I don't use that term to describe myself. To me it's redundant, the equivalent of saying wet water.

I take your point that astrology is theoretically weakly developed. But this doesn't mean it is sensible or wise for non-credentialed people to identify their branch of the field as psychological astrology. It just shows our ignorance.

Click to expand...

Actually, I think your argument demonstrates ignorance of the relationship between observations, words, meanings, and legitimate usage, an ignorance characteristic of astrologers.

Exactly, Spock. We don't live in the Days of Yore, the last I looked.

From Lewis Carroll:

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

Yeah, well. We know what happened to HD in the children's nursery rhyme.

Spock, howbeit you take your ideas to your nearest Department of Psychology (or Behavioural Science) and interact with those people about your ideas? Alternatively, phone up a respected clinical psychologist in your area. Declare a Take a Psychologist to Lunch Day.

My post indicates no ignorance on this point. Too bad you've resorted to personal insults. Of course I'm aware that the term "psychology" has non-academic common usages. Big Duh-Uh on that one, Spock. But if you read "modern psychological astrologers" like Liz Greene, Richard Idemon, or Howard Sasportas, this generic meaning isn't their usage. (Greene, for example, got deeply into archetypes, which seemingly owes more to literature scholar Joseph Campbell than to Carl Jung.) But is either yesterday's "humanistic psychology for lay people" or a loose popular definition truly the direction in which 21st astrology should be heading? You seem, moreover, to have a strong anti-academic streak, which is unhelpful.

As the discipline of psychology moves more into behavioural science and even neuroscience, I believe that it will have many insights to offer astrologers-- provided we're not too timid to move beyond our apparent early 20th century humanities comfort zone. (See, for example, Leonard Mlodinow, Subliminal: How your unconscious mind rules your behaviour.)

I really disagree with your stereotyping astrologers as equating single planets with specific concepts. Saturn=ambition is too simplistic by half. In a horoscope, quintiles are one indicator of ambition; placements of Mars, the sun, and the MC can be others. Are you familiar with Rex E. Bills, The Rulership Book; or the modern-trad debate re: whether modern planets are sufficiently distinguished from traditional ones? The moon and Neptune, for example, currently share significant areas of overlap.

I wonder what you make of traditional western astrology's work on temperament. (See Dorian Greenbaum, Temperament, Astrology's Forgotten Key.)

The problem with "psychological" is that it can mean anything from articles in teen magazines through Jungian depth psychology, from mysticism to cognitive behaviour therapy and beyond.

It's like "philosophy". I rarely say anymore that I am in philosophy, I just say the current name of my program (Human Sciences) and rarely specify which department. Everyone has their own idea about what philosophy is, and it is actually something very different in Anglo-Saxon countries than in Europe etc... and then there are all those multinational companies who start their "who we are" sections with "the philosophy of our company is..." the what? I stopped using the word "philosophy" altogether except when I'm in an academic context.

I don't think psychologists can or want to claim ownership over the human psyche, the ones I met were quite happy to participate in interdisciplinary conferences with philosophers, artists, priests, teachers, etc.

What they have a problem with is when somebody puts their theories into practice without the necessary training and qualifications. Every human interaction carries responsibility for both parties, but in our contemporary society, certain labels like "psychologist", "doctor", "teacher", "priest" etc create an inequality where the "patient", "client", "student" etc gives up some of their power to the other person, they become vulnerable. The student trusts the teacher when they are told that the past tense of "swim" is "swam" and will use the word accordingly; the patient trusts that the doctor is correct when they are told to take some paracatemol and go home; the client trusts that the psychologist will help them through a crisis and they will be themselves again, and so on.

There's nothing wrong with discussing "psychology" with others and having our own theories as long as we are all equal. But it is something entirely different and very dangerous to try and apply our own version of "psychology" to another person's specific situation, especially if they are in a crisis, for example. by doing so, we assume some responsibility for the other person's actions.

So then, what is the proposed solution for this problem we are experiencing? What should "psychological" astrology call itself? Do you (anyone) feel like individuals who practice "psychological" astrology without being certified or educated in psychology are basically scamming people by claiming or implying they have credentials they don't actually have?

waybread said:

Astrology can legitimately lay claim to a much older delineation of personality: temperament.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Temperaments evolved through the theory of Hippocratic medicine and were later sort of codified by Galen. Because it was basically a medical condition it, like all medial conditions, had an expression in astrology that could be used to ascertain and treat it.

Therese said:

The problem with "psychological" is that it can mean anything
from articles in teen magazines
through Jungian depth psychology,
from mysticism to cognitive behaviour therapy
and beyond.

Click to expand...

Not to mention for example
that there are multiple areas in the broad general field of PSYCHOLOGY
and so
holding qualifications/degrees/diplomas as a CHILD PSYCHOLOGIST
does not automatically allow the holder of that qualification
to practice as an ADULT PSYCHOLOGIST
nor to practice
as a FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGIST
nor as an EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST
and so on ad infinitum.......

each area of PSYCHOLOGY has its specialists
and
PSYCHOLOGICAL ASTROLOGY is a somewhat grey area
because
any person qualified from ANY of the many areas of PSYCHOLOGY
may categorise themselves as a PSYCHOLOGICAL ASTROLOGER
but
that person is qualified in only ONE field of psychological study

Therese said:

It's like "philosophy". I rarely say anymore that I am in philosophy, I just say the current name of my program (Human Sciences) and rarely specify which department. Everyone has their own idea about what philosophy is, and it is actually something very different in Anglo-Saxon countries than in Europe etc... and then there are all those multinational companies who start their "who we are" sections with "the philosophy of our company is..." the what? I stopped using the word "philosophy" altogether except when I'm in an academic context.

I don't think psychologists can or want to claim ownership over the human psyche, the ones I met were quite happy to participate in interdisciplinary conferences with philosophers, artists, priests, teachers, etc.

What they have a problem with is when somebody puts their theories into practice without the necessary training and qualifications. Every human interaction carries responsibility for both parties, but in our contemporary society, certain labels like "psychologist", "doctor", "teacher", "priest" etc create an inequality where the "patient", "client", "student" etc gives up some of their power to the other person, they become vulnerable. The student trusts the teacher when they are told that the past tense of "swim" is "swam" and will use the word accordingly; the patient trusts that the doctor is correct when they are told to take some paracatemol and go home; the client trusts that the psychologist will help them through a crisis and they will be themselves again, and so on.

There's nothing wrong with discussing "psychology" with others
and having our own theories as long as we are all equal.
But it is something entirely different and very dangerous to try and apply our own version of "psychology"
to another person's specific situation,
especially if they are in a crisis, for example.
by doing so, we assume some responsibility for the other person's actions.

Click to expand...

Therese wrote:

I don't think psychologists can or want to claim ownership over the human psyche, the ones I met were quite happy to participate in interdisciplinary conferences with philosophers, artists, priests, teachers, etc.

Click to expand...

This is correct, and shame on us if we define psychology so extensively as to mean anything and everything to do with the mind. Psychology focuses on human behaviour, and is often called a behavioural science. Obviously the humanities and fine arts have something to say about the mind, as well, but I wouldn't confuse great works of art or literature with psychology.

I feel much more comfortable in calling a lot of what passes for "modern psychological astrology" as simply "modern astrology." Some of the older more explicitly psychological material by Greene et al. seems to stem from the "blame Mom" tropes that were popular in the mid-20th century. Some of their work on archetypes comes from Joseph Campbell, who was a professor of literature.

KnS, are you familiar with Dorian Greenbaum's book on temperament? Also it is clear that many mental health problems have "medical" or physical/biochemical causes. A huge example today is PTSD.

waybread said:

KnS, are you familiar with Dorian Greenbaum's book on temperament? Also it is clear that many mental health problems have "medical" or physical/biochemical causes. A huge example today is PTSD.

Click to expand...

Yes, I am familiar with that text.

Zarathu said:

Yeah.... we definitely don't tell people that we are also practicing astrologers. I never told a soul.

Click to expand...

I know, but you are in the minority.

Here is a recently published paper on the religious beliefs of US academics professors in American universities. The results show that amoung all the different disciplines at a university, it is psychologists that are the least likely to believe in god. And I would rephrase that, saying that it is psychologists that are the least likely to admit in a belief...god, or otherwise....

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/epiphenom/2009/05/psychologists-are-least-religious-of.html

An article by the American Psychological Assoc. in 2010 states: "that some psychologists have characterized religious beliefs as pathological, seeing religion as a malignant social force that encourages irrational thoughts and ritualistic behaviors."
The APA discusses religious beliefs here, but astrology comes under a similar heading for them...

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/12/believe.aspx

waybread said:

Also it is clear that many mental health problems have "medical" or physical/biochemical causes. A huge example today is PTSD.

Click to expand...

I don't think that it is proven that mental health problems have physical/biochemical causes, what we know is that mental health issues and physical problems and/or biochemical imbalances go hand in hand. It's a very intricate topic, and the "anatomy" of "research" itself is just as complex.

PTSD is particularly interesting because

"Specifically, PTSD differs from other neuropsychiatric disorders in that it is the only chronic mental disorder in which the experience of an environmentally induced event (i.e., the trauma) is critical to its diagnosis and development. That the development of PTSD is not genetically or biologically inevitable allows examination of the biological consequences of a psychological phenomenon." /In: J. Vasterling and C. Brewin (2005) Neuropsychology of PTSD: Biological, Cognitive, and Clinical Perspectives , pp.x/

Zarathu said:

This is not necessarily true.
Many of these titles are not separate titles
but specialties within a broad range of skills,
and depend on the work environment that that the professional is asked to perform in,
as well as the licensing and certification requirements of agencies
and the governmental bodies where they work.
Just like astrology, its not this simple.

Click to expand...

Clearly all are agreed that Psychologists study behaviour, motivations, thoughts and feelings
for the purpose of helping people overcome or control their problems.


Obviously excellent communication and listening skills are a necessary part of the work


Different countries have different qualification requirements

ASPPB is the association of psychology licensing boards in the United States and Canada
formed in 1961 to serve the psychology boards in the two countries.
ASPPB created and maintains a standardized written exam, the Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology (EPPP),
which is used by licensing boards to assess candidates for licensure and certification http://www.asppb.net/

'.....ASPPB advocates for the advancement of mobility
by offering several mobility programs to assist in licensure of psychologists.
Committed to serving as a voice for those responsible for the regulation of the practice of psychology
ASPPB has drafted a Model Act, Model Regulations, a Code of Conduct and guidelines
for the use and/or adoption by state, territorial and provincial psychology boards.....'



AUSTRALIAN PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIETY http://www.psychology.org.au/studentHQ/studying/

'.....It's important when choosing a psychology degree
to ensure that the course is accredited by the Australian Psychology Accreditation Council (APAC),
as only graduates of APAC-accredited and Psychology Board of Australia-approved courses
are eligible to register to practise as a psychologist.....' Read more about choosing a degree here.




In the UK

Psychologists need to complete a three-year degree in psychology,
followed by a three-year postgraduate qualification which relates to their chosen specialism
and only then is one qualified to specialise in ONE of the following areas:

EDUCATIONAL psychology - helping children and young people to overcome difficulties and further their educational and psychological development
OCCUPATIONAL psychology– helping businesses improve their performance and increase employee job satisfaction
HEALTH psychology – promoting healthy attitudes and behaviour, and helping patients and their families to cope with illness
COUNSELLING psychology – helping people resolve their problems and make decisions, particularly at stressful times in their lives
NEUROPSYCHOLOGY – helping patients with brain injuries and diseases to recover or improve their quality of life
FORENSIC OR CRIMINAL psychology – using psychological theory to help investigate crimes, rehabilitate offenders and support prison staff
CLINICAL psychology – working with people to help them deal with conditions ranging from anxiety and stress to depression and mental illness
SPORTS AND EXERCISE psychology – working with individuals, teams and organisations to improve motivation and performance in coaching, training and competition.


ALL of those afore-mentioned areas are potentially encountered by astrologers
for example in Horary astrology questions
as well as when studying basic natal chart questions


and so

the question arises

as to when astrology was ever NOT somehow connected to 'psychology'


Regarding BEHAVIORAL INFLUENCES there's interesting info for example
on the effects that a certain well-known beverage has on the human body
during the first hour of imbibing it http://lookbetternakedblog.com/2014/10/04/what-happens-to-your-body-the-hour-after-drinking-a-coke/

and so

the question arises

as to when astrology was ever NOT somehow connected to 'psychology'


Regarding BEHAVIORAL INFLUENCES

Click to expand...

There was an article I read recently that discussed astrology's status as a pseudo-science. This was one of the paper's major points. Astrology is pseudo-scientific because the different branches of psychology have replaced it as the most likely cause or influence on human behavior. The advent and invention of a pure psychological astrology really just makes it seem like astrologers are trying to get in bed with the enemy, wouldn't you say?

Zarathu said:

The problem with me is that I have always considered studying astrology to be studying the LANGUAGE OF GOD.

Click to expand...

Everyone is entitled to their own individual opinion


ASTROLOGY's dictionary definition is:

A. the study of the motions and relative positions of the planets, sun, and moon,
interpreted in terms of human characteristics and activities

B. the study that assumes and attempts to interpret the influence of the heavenly bodies on human affairs.


the primitive study of celestial bodies, which formed the basis of astronomy
from Old French astrologie,
from Latin astrologia,
from Greek, from astrologos (originally: astronomer)


Greek = astḗr star
Greek = lógos a word, speech, discourse, proportion, ratio, n.
derivative of légein to choose, gather, speak;

but "logos" is such a fascinating word, it is not just any kind of "word", "speech", etc.

for example, Heidegger writes in Being and Time, under the paragraph on the concept of Logos (§32):

"Logos is "translated,", and that always means intepreted, as reason, judgement, concept, definition, ground, relation. [...] Logos does not mean judgement [...] Rather, logos as speech really means deloun, to make manifest "what is being talked about" in speech." (in Joan Stambaugh's translation)

And he goes on to say that in logos, "the entities of which one is talking must be taken out of their hiddenness and must let them be seen as something unhidden", (as opposed to 'covering up"). (in Macquarrie's and Robinson's translation)

so, what is it about/within the stars that astrology uncovers?

Therese said:

but "logos" is such a fascinating word, it is not just any kind of "word", "speech", etc.

for example, Heidegger writes in Being and Time, under the paragraph on the concept of Logos (§32):

"Logos is "translated,", and that always means intepreted, as reason, judgement, concept, definition, ground, relation. [...] Logos does not mean judgement [...] Rather, logos as speech really means deloun, to make manifest "what is being talked about" in speech." (in Joan Stambaugh's translation)

And he goes on to say that in logos, "the entities of which one is talking must be taken out of their hiddenness and must let them be seen as something unhidden", (as opposed to 'covering up"). (in Macquarrie's and Robinson's translation)

so, what is it about/within the stars that astrology uncovers?

Click to expand...

BEING AND TIME is Heidegger's opinion

meaning is frequently 'lost in translation'

Certainly 'logos' is an interesting word

sorry about the off-topic

Given that the OP is seeking to discover the origins
of specifically PSYCHOLOGICAL astrology
then
a definition of the word 'psychological'
forms an essential part of this thread

Therese said:

sorry about the off-topic

Click to expand...