Liz Greens Astrology Psychology

Mn=24 Sag Ur=17Leo

Click to expand...

Yes, it looks wide indeed but only because Moon is outgoing. If Moon is ingoing I do allow bigger orbs as well. Normally 7 degrees is OK with Moon and Sun (ingoing). Liz apparently goes up till 8 or maybe even larger degrees. I take a Maximum of 10° only for oppositions from Sun and Moon, all others 7°. Starlink.

Oh, btw. I have a Mars-Venus conjunction of 6 degrees and it is very prominent in my chart. I feel it constantly!

I don't know in which book she discusses anal fixations or transcribes the reactions to her ideas. I would hope that it does not all boil down to the equation that if the client disagrees with her on any point at all, then ipso facto they must be maladjusted. That would certainly still smack of an unequal power relationship to me.

The square given for the chart of a woman with autism was of Mercury at 6 degrees, Saturn at 26 of the fixed signs. I should think that with orbs of 6 degrees, 8 or whatever, there is planty of room for debate over whether an aspect is operative or not though, admittedly.

As said, I should think that any mother of a child with autism nowadays might be less than happy with the position adopted by Greene in The Astrology of Fate. I have often wondered what one or two autobiographers with autism might make of some of the other insights she had to make abou the condition in that book, however.

I lost all respect for Liz Greene after I stumbled upon this particularly disturbing comment:

"Recognising that erotic feelings may be shared between parent and child does not constitute an excuse for child sexual abuse. Nor does it imply an "abnormal" relationship. But children can be very seductive, in a childlike way. They are "trying on" their sexuality. They neither want nor expect an adult sexual response, but they need to discover their own physical and emotional identity through expressing it to the parent."

and

"They are not pathological; they are human, and intrinsically healthy."

I don't agree that children are in any way sexual, and wonder about the character of someone who does.

http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_triangle_e.htm

Holly, for heaven's sake, of course children are sexual-among the cells to first differentiate in the development of the foetus are sexual. Foetus' are awash at different times with sex hormones and are born with a gender. Granted, they are, or should be, totally "innocent", but our sexuality is an inherent trait or bundle of traits,maybe. This doesn't mean they should be preyed upon by warped adults, it just means they're people.

Re: Liz Greene, her "Saturn, a new look at an old devil", is great. I just bought two copies, one for myself and one for a highly Saturnian friend. At the time Greene was getting her education, I suspect maternal abandonment and the many devastating problems it causes was confused with autism sometimes. At any rate, Bruno B. and other leaders in the field were convinced that the child withdrew because of a massive lack of nurturing. Today we know the causes are usually physical, but this was unknown at the time.
A friend in Australia told me she got her degree from some notorious American rightwing Christian diploma mill, and I didn't much like to hear THAT, but I still think the work I have seen is very very good. Overall, her work seems quite brilliant.

No, I still disagree. Children don't make sexual advances at adults, as Liz Greene suggests. Children don't even know what sex is!

Since this topic talks about Liz Greene and her supposedly reluctance to disclose her own natal chart, does anyone have any idea if the information shown here is correct?

http://www.astrotheme.fr/en/portraits/qn3V8kEpKg6y.htm

I wonder if this is simply made up, invented, or information distributed that is wrong, on purpose?

Gaer

Hi Shiny! Interesting read, especially for me because I have not one book of Liz Green in my library! For some inexplicable reason I just never choose one of her books to read. I still dont feel like getting one, even after reading several articles about her and finding them most interesting. Wonder why.....? I cant love or hate her for anything (yet) Maybe I should buy one.
Cheers, Starlink

deleted post.

deleted post.

Here is another article where Liz Greene's views on homosexuality, was challenged in her book relating and the chapter on Sex life of the psyche. This person was not too happy with her thoughts on the subject as well as other astrologers views on homosexuality in the natal chart. It is hard to talk about these subjects without a strong reaction from somebody.


Article on Homosexuality and Astrology

I read that article a while ago. I did not think it betrayed a strong reaction necessarily, it seemed quite a fair critique to me, rather than one where the writer's buttons have been unduly pushed.

I enjoy Liz Greene's books, still enjoy them and will probably read more and can see that she may well have great insights to offer her clients. However, my point with the piece I raised on autism is that however deeply perceptive and insightful she might be, she might well still on occasion be wrong, make mistakes and not incapable of having buttons and prejudices along with some of these insights occasionally herself.

I have no doubt that children are extemely sexual, over mother's milk, poo and beyond, though I would also question whether or not a 6-year-old, for example, is really capable of coming onto an adult.

Venus-Pluto asptects in the natal chart, Mars-Pluto or any other Pluto combination - I could admire Liz Greene too for going where angels most certainly would fear to tread in looking at the implications for Fate in such a child's chart, but ultimately, can there still be any justification for saying that such a child in any way 'wanted' to be abused?

I am not saying that Liz Greene is making that conclusion, but I think this is still a heading in a direction that maybe quite a few more people might be unwilling to tread. It is only recently that the law changed regarding the victims of rape in court in not assuming that their word might in any way be unreliable.

It is also worth bearing that she did change her mind on one or two things. In her book Relating, she was very much Jung's disciple, not just in his more Hermetic insights, but in possibly some of his more old-fashioned views too, particularly on women. I remember once coming across a Jungian lecturer who liked Greene who, when I tried to quiz her on one or two things, tried to suggest to me that all this stuff must be totally beyond my feeble comprehension! As far as she was concerned (excluding herself, of course), as a woman, as I could only be a 'feeling' type and therefore not especially bright, or rigidly animus possessed!

In her Uranus book, however, Greene is a lot more critical of Jung's atitude in this direction. Time or trends in thought can be a great decider in how you 'choose' to categorise someone's issues or problems.

deleted post.

deleted post.

This was my question:

gaer said:

Since this topic talks about Liz Greene and her supposedly reluctance to disclose her own natal chart, does anyone have any idea if the information shown here is correct?

http://www.astrotheme.fr/en/portraits/qn3V8kEpKg6y.htm

I wonder if this is simply made up, invented, or information distributed that is wrong, on purpose?

Gaer

Click to expand...

Was my question totally ignroed because it was boring, because it did not seem to be part of the topic, or because for some reason my questions and thoughts are no longer considered important enough to comment on??????????????????????????

Gaer

No, not boring at all.

Someone who went to a lot of workshops in London showed me a copy of her chart, it looks a lot like the illicit one he showed me.

Sun on Midheaven came as no surprise to me somehow, nor did the Moon Uranus opposition, though it is a relatively wide one.

Boy, this thread has convinced me to go get a Greene psych chart done. I had no idea she had written on the range of subjects you are all citing. Yummy. After Christmas when I'm not broke, it's the bookstore for me.

I don't mean to imply that children (healthy children)go around seducing adults, but I think children approaching puberty often "try on" their sexuality by flirting with adults, even unconciously. This doesn't excuse any adult that responds, of course. It is our job to help children mature, not to exploit their immature behavior.To do so is criminal.

It is also a common phenomenom that when we first are exposed to an astrologer, or school of psychology, that has strong personal and intellectual meaning for us, that we sometimes casually assign this or that label to others. It's human nature, like when medical students get convinced that they or someone close has a disease they are studying. Liz Greene is one of those that should be read with gusto and applied with caution, I think. When I get my Greene psych chart done, I'll report back.

G, I assume no one had an answer, I'm sure no one meant to slight.

Nexus7 said:

No, not boring at all.
Someone who went to a lot of workshops in London showed me a copy of her chart, it looks a lot like the illicit one he showed me.

Click to expand...

I see. By illicit I assume you mean not okayed by Liz Greene. I suppose we'll never know then.

Moondance said:

I don't mean to imply that children (healthy children)go around seducing adults, but I think children approaching puberty often "try on" their sexuality by flirting with adults, even unconciously. This doesn't excuse any adult that responds, of course. It is our job to help children mature, not to exploit their immature behavior.To do so is criminal.

Click to expand...

There is a fine line between understand what sex is, which I don't believe small children do, and enjoying sexual feelings (genitals), which small children most definitely DO do—often to the embarassment of adults who don't quite know how to handle it.

G, I assume no one had an answer, I'm sure no one meant to slight.

Click to expand...

I assume at this point that the site I linked to is, at best, questionable.

Gaer