Comparisons between the Astrology, Zodiac, Socionics, MBTI, Alchemy, Numerology and Taoism

[consentingadult]

I have been doing an in depth study on how socionics relates to the Zodiac. Now, I am not specifically talking about the zodiac and astrology, but more like in the terms of alchemy. There seems to be some rather startling comparisons. Anybody else study into this?

Yeah, let us hear those startling comparisons. I'm sure that after that, the mainstream psychological community will finally come to their senses and will start studying Socionics.

My apologies for the sarcasm.

[FDG]

Well, let's hear about it.

[Hitta]

Tropical astrology is pretty terrible, as it doesn't even correlate to the planetary positions. Now vedic astrology based on Lahiri Ayanamsa or KP is usually pretty accurate.

[Angel von Himmel]

Yeah, let us hear those startling comparisons. I'm sure that after that, the mainstream psychological community will finally come to their senses and will start studying Socionics.

My apologies for the sarcasm.

Well, considering that the mainstream psychological community would rather piddle around with several complex theories that make little sense with a zillion different theories that say the same exact thing, as opposed to using the one base theory that rules all other theories, that would never happen. This is even more ironic in that modern psychology had its founding in the Zodiac, as well as Carl Jung's theories being based on the Zodiac. In fact, there would probably be no socionics even if it were not for the Zodiac with the Aristotelian influence and all.

So, the assumption [therefore your sarcasm] that the mainstream psychological community would not accept anything associated with the Zodiac is valid, but not in a very helpful way. Rather, it shows a great amount of ignorance on the part of modern psychology and might say a few things about you as well. I'll let whatever statements made speak for themselves.

Plus, why does it matter that socionics becomes some "text book" study at a university, so long as it helps people. Why in the world would it help people if it just can only be found in a textbook? I'd rather see it evolve into a system that helps people get wealthy and healthy or something positive. That is what I want to accomplish with socionics anyhow.

[consentingadult]

This is even more ironic in that modern psychology had its founding in the Zodiac

Yes, but the essence of science is that it corrects itself.This is how proto-science (that of Freud and Jung) turns into real science. Hanginging on to proto-science in the face of newer and better understandings and explanation, will result in pseudo-science. 500 years ago people believe the Earth was flat, but fortunately, most of us have moved beyond that. Perhaps that in the future, new methods of looking at reality will develop and we will no longer consider the Earth a globe...

Plus, why does it matter that socionics becomes some "text book" study at a university, so long as it helps people.

Ask many psychologists, and they say any kind of alteration in your behavior might work, e.g. going for a mountain climbing trip. To me, the question here is not of Socionics helps people, but if it is a model that explains and predicts phenomena. The zodiac predicts nothing and everything (because it's Forer effect), Socionics, although not perfect, actually does quite a good job. This makes perfect sense, as (and I've stated this before) Socionics is not fundamentally in conflict with mainstream personality psychology. We use different wording to describe the same phenomena. ETA: this makes Socionics quite a decent proto-science, where to Zodiac hasn't changed in 2000 years, which should be enough evidence that it is pseudo-science.

[Angel von Himmel]

Yes, but the essence of science is that it corrects itself.This is how proto-science (that of Freud and Jung) turns into real science. Hanginging on to proto-science in the face of newer and better understandings and explanation, will result in pseudo-science. 500 years ago people believe the Earth was flat, but fortunately, most of us have moved beyond that. Perhaps that in the future, new methods of looking at reality will develop and we will no longer consider the Earth a globe...

Yes, humanity may not look at the earth like it is a circle in the near future, but not before humanity stops treating the earth like it is a triangle. Even more ironically, that is what the Zodiac is about; man perceiving the world through the means of a triangle, but in a circular way.
So, until humanity begins to start acting like the earth is a circle, humanity may never learn to know any different. It is that little thing called "evolution" ...

Ask many psychologists, and they say any kind of alteration in your behavior might work, e.g. going for a mountain climbing trip. To me, the question here is not of Socionics helps people, but if it is a model that explains and predicts phenomena. The zodiac predicts nothing and everything (because it's Forer effect)

You are right and wrong here about the Zodiac, because there are more than just the applications of the Zodiac than just astrology. Astrology takes the Zodiac, makes a few generalizations using the various laws from the various signs in the zodiac and assumes that simply because someone was born during a certain season and sign, that person takes characteristics of that season. Now, there may or may not be truth to this. Either way that is not at all what I am talking about by bringing up the zodiac in comparison to socionics, rather I am speaking of the zodiac in terms of alchemy and that is somewhat different [it is more practical] than how it is used in astrology, and therefore is not under the Forer effect.

Socionics, although not perfect, actually does quite a good job. This makes perfect sense, as (and I've stated this before) Socionics is not fundamentally in conflict with mainstream personality psychology. We use different wording to describe the same phenomena. ETA: this makes Socionics quite a decent proto-science, where to Zodiac hasn't changed in 2000 years.

Other than what Astrology has tried to do with the Zodiac, adding new planets and such you are correct is has not changed, but why fix something that is not broke? There have been whole countries and powers and governments and businesses and wars built purely on the workings of the Zodiac with lasting efficiency. It has absolutely no need to change whatsoever, as it works the same as it always has and has always helped people succeed who know its true secrets. That is the difference between the changing and the unchanging ... it just is and it is not all at the same time.

[consentingadult]

Yes, humanity may not look at the earth like it is a circle in the near future, but not before humanity stops treating the earth like it is a triangle. Even more ironically, that is what the Zodiac is about; man perceiving the world through the means of a triangle, but in a circular way.
So, until humanity begins to start acting like the earth is a circle, humanity may never learn to know any different. It is that little thing called "evolution" ...





You are right and wrong here about the Zodiac, because there are more than just the applications of the Zodiac than just astrology. Astrology takes the Zodiac, makes a few generalizations using the various laws from the various signs in the zodiac and assumes that simply because someone was born during a certain season and sign, that person takes characteristics of that season. Now, there may or may not be truth to this. Either way that is not at all what I am talking about by bringing up the zodiac in comparison to socionics, rather I am speaking of the zodiac in terms of alchemy and that is somewhat different [it is more practical] than how it is used in astrology, and therefore is not under the Forer effect.



Other than what Astrology has tried to do with the Zodiac, adding new planets and such you are correct is has not changed, but why fix something that is not broke? There have been whole countries and powers and governments and businesses and wars built purely on the workings of the Zodiac with lasting efficiency. It has absolutely no need to change whatsoever, as it works the same as it always has and has always helped people succeed who know its true secrets. That is the difference between the changing and the unchanging ... it just is and it is not all at the same time.

Your logic is very funny. Well, you have had your say, I've had mine, and I hope this gives people who are in doubt something to choose from.

[Angel von Himmel]

Your logic is very funny. Well, you have had your say, I've had mine, and I hope this gives people who are in doubt something to choose from.

The hierarchy of needs by Abraham Maslow is a triangle ... why is it a triangle and why is it a hierarchy? Where did Abraham Maslow get the idea to put survival at the bottom and actualization at the top, when the zodiac is structured the same exact way ... ? Could it be that humanity has built all existing perceptions upon a triangle, dominance and subjugation and has failed to see the true picture? Gee ... I wonder ... especially since the Zodiac depicts the world as a triangle within a circle ... it is like it blinds people from seeing the circle within the circle.

Alright, something to think about ...

[Lobo]

Well, apparently my findings could end world hunger, free slaves, end domination of world resources by a few individuals, make the world a more loving and happier place. The same knowledge also was use by the few powerful people who founded countries such as Babylon, Rome, Egypt, China, etc.

Basically what I have been uncovering is an ancient science of mystic psychology that is based on 'cosmic laws', that are applied much like modern day physics would be applied. Basically this has to do with various levels of vibrations [7 of them] and the law of cause and effect. You can counter various vibrations and get a different result.

Plus, why does it matter that socionics becomes some "text book" study at a university, so long as it helps people. Why in the world would it help people if it just can only be found in a textbook? I'd rather see it evolve into a system that helps people get wealthy and healthy or something positive. That is what I want to accomplish with socionics anyhow.

You are right and wrong here about the Zodiac, because there are more than just the applications of the Zodiac than just astrology. Astrology takes the Zodiac, makes a few generalizations using the various laws from the various signs in the zodiac and assumes that simply because someone was born during a certain season and sign, that person takes characteristics of that season. Now, there may or may not be truth to this. Either way that is not at all what I am talking about by bringing up the zodiac in comparison to socionics, rather I am speaking of the zodiac in terms of alchemy and that is somewhat different [it is more practical] than how it is used in astrology, and therefore is not under the Forer effect.

Other than what Astrology has tried to do with the Zodiac, adding new planets and such you are correct is has not changed, but why fix something that is not broke? There have been whole countries and powers and governments and businesses and wars built purely on the workings of the Zodiac with lasting efficiency. It has absolutely no need to change whatsoever, as it works the same as it always has and has always helped people succeed who know its true secrets. That is the difference between the changing and the unchanging ... it just is and it is not all at the same time.

I know you have reason to believe that the theory you are proposing has validity. However, I will point out that the desire of acquiring "power and success," occultism, or the use of magic/alchemy, ultimately find its tangibility in Satanism. Just reading this thread gives me some really bad vibes...

[consentingadult]

Just reading this thread gives me some really bad vibes...

There is no need for that, because what we are seeing here, in essence, is not a lust for power of self-justification through occult thinking (which might indeed lead to sadistic tendencies), but rather an obvious example of schizotypal thinking. Based on the videos I've seen of McNew, I think he's quite a harmless person. A solitary shell. I mean this with a sense of compassion, not disdain.

[Angel von Himmel]

There is no need for that, because what we are seeing here, in essence, is not a lust for power of self-justification through occult thinking (which might indeed lead to sadistic tendencies), but rather an obvious example of schizotypal thinking. Based on the videos I've seen of McNew, I think he's quite a harmless person. A solitary shell. I mean this with a sense of compassion, not disdain.

I appreciate the fact you said I am harmless, but something I have to address here.

I have to be honest with you, I would challenge the notion that I am skitzotypal. I have already seen several psychologists specifically concerning the possibility of being skitzotypal and none of them felt that it was really appropriate to categorize me as such. The reason being that they only really categorize people as skitzotypal when there is a problem with social norms and when someone can not function in society. I have friends and for the most part I stay social. I belong to clubs at university and come off as normal in public. The fact that I have personal beliefs that you do not accept as valid also does not count as a basis for claiming I am skitzotypal, and for the most part you should stop doing that. It is rude and you really don't have the credentials to claim any of that anyways.

[Angel von Himmel]

I know you have reason to believe that the theory you are proposing has validity. However, I will point out that the desire of acquiring "power and success," occultism, or the use of magic/alchemy, ultimately find its tangibility in Satanism. Just reading this thread gives me some really bad vibes...

Then I would have you know that there has been no organization that has been free of its grasp, even the church [in the case of those in power knowingly] have followed the things that it has condemned, claiming the right was the sole possession of the church or in the case of knowledge that would free people from the churches grasp of power, has intentionally hidden the knowledge. If what you are claiming is true, then all organizations, business structures, and any group that has a hierarchy had a satanic beginning. Would it be fair and right to condemn all beginnings? Are there any exceptions?

If you feel uncomfortable, then there are yet some challenges you must face. There is something about yourself that you have not accepted. You may even fear these things. Someday you may come to terms with that. Everyone does at some stage or another.

[Lobo]

Then I would have you know that there has been no organization that has been free of its grasp, even the church [in the case of those in power knowingly] have followed the things that it has condemned, claiming the right was the sole possession of the church or in the case of knowledge that would free people from the churches grasp of power, has intentionally hidden the knowledge. If what you are claiming is true, then all organizations, business structures, and any group that has a hierarchy had a satanic beginning. Would it be fair and right to condemn all beginnings? Are there any exceptions?

If you feel uncomfortable, then there are yet some challenges you must face. There is something about yourself that you have not accepted. You may even fear these things. Someday you may come to terms with that. Everyone does at some stage or another.

Yes, no organization of great influence is free from its grasp, but it acts more as a plague than an actual goal for institutions such as the Catholic Church, through scandal and confusion of believers, corruption of the authority figures, judgmental attitudes, etc, tactics that have resulted effective in rejecting Catholicism in favor of so called "light magic" and a more occultist and pagan understanding of the universe, or simply rejecting spirituality altogether. It is no surprise that an influence that goes against the Church will try to make it as unnappealing as possible, by appealing to our emotions, such as anger, resentment, disgust, coldness, and even boringness.

What is it that I have yet to face that I have not accepted? That I have been influenced in this way as well? Well, indeed I have, otherwise I would not be human. But there is a difference in willingly accepting and being susceptible to the influence. My conscience tells me that delving into the things that you have mentioned in this thread are not favorable, and that's why I get a bad feeling.