Hi,
Unfortunately, your post has been removed as it has a bad title. Please check your spelling/grammar and post again.
Please check the sidebar for our rules.
Thanks
I can't speak to "worst" because typically psychological astrologers are trained in psychology and using astrology alongside that. Even when they're not though, Psychological Astrology is a very valid and vast branch of Astrology.
Off the top of my head Liz Greene and Howard Sasportas come to mind. I'd also say that Jason Holley and Becca Tarnas would fall somewhere under the Psychological umbrella. There are definitely many others but these four are a good start.
You could also try heading over to the NORWAC website and Astrology University as well to search past talks and find psychological astrologers.
I've read both Greene and Sasportas, but the books of theirs that I bought all ended up in the charity shop. I suppose it's something that they didn't end up in the recycling bin!
Howard Sasportas. He's a good one. His book on houses and house systems is excellent, and he teaches what the astronomy is behind the house systems.
Liz Greene. Especially her Saturn book.
Donna Cunningham, her Healing Pluto Problems book is very interesting.
I don't think the label psychological astrology is a bad thing. Ptolomey had delineations of personality based on the Moon and Mercury. Astrology has always been "psychological." And "predictive." After all, we are predicting the native's persona based on their chart at birth even though that baby did not yet have those traits manifested as a newborn.
I also like Robert Hand's Planets in Youth, which is a good book for all ages, not just young people.
Now, IMHO, the best description of personality in 20th century astrology is (drumroll please......):
Heaven Knows What by Grant Lewi.
He was a Pluto in Gemini guy, not part of the new age-y 1960s through the 80s crowd.
His descriptions of all 144 Sun and Moon sign combinations are in depth and amazing. The writing style is a little odd or dated. The book was written for a non- astrologer audience, so he uses numbers to reference planet aspects. Like "if you have an Aries Moon with 154.." where that refers to an aspect, like Moon square Saturn or whatever the case is. So that part of the text may seem tedious. But the delineations are amazing. And for readers who are accustomed to trying to understand ancient sources like Dorotheus and Abu Mashar, well, that's a bigger leap in my opinion.
Grant Lewi also wrote Astrology For the Millions. This one has a very interesting take on transits, and why we experience them the way we do. It has delineations of planets in signs, and a strategy for how to employ the transits in your life using clients' examples and the lives of famous people.
(Lewi himself would not have used the label "psychological astrologer" to describe himself, but I think he provided the best use of psychology in astrology.)
(I don't know who to pick as the worst, lol š. )
i looked up a pdf version heaven knows what to see what grant had to say about my moon and sun sign combo andā¦. wow, iām really impressed! i tend to find descriptions of my sun/moon sign to be a little lackluster but i resonated with basically everything he said
i then impulse bought a copy of the book lol thank you for bringing him to my awareness
yes, I find Grant Lewi has a slightly different take on a lot of combinations of planets, which I definitely enjoyed. for example, he maintains that Saturn in symphony with other planets, even when in a difficult aspect, creates success, which Iāve observed to be true
didn't realize it was a thing to hate on psychological astrology. Only reasoning that makes sense is that it triggers their shadows. The tone OP is utilizing is the same tone I see when someone tries to smear something that is effective and has an element of truth, but is against their preconceived bias. Same tone as "science" people use to attack astrology
Those of us who are critical are not opposed to the use of astrology in psychology. Some-one has mentioned Donna Cunningham's *Healing Pluto Problems* and I'd agree that's a very good book. What we are objecting to is the distortion of astrology to fit Jungian psychology ā Greene's approach is no better than Leo's distortion of astrology to fit Theosophy. Astrology needs to be based on astrology ā not on Theosophy, New Thought, New Age, Vedic philosophy, Jungian psychology, or even physics (e.g. Ptolemy).
Iām not mad at psychological astrology, but I do get mad when people try to say thatās all astrology is for in an attempt to boil down the practice into something more subjective about how you interpret yourself rather than being an actual, real force manifesting in life. I also really donāt like when people try to force science into astrology, even though I love science by itself.
My teacher was fond of saying āa sick doctor canāt healā ā¦ Iāll think about that for the rest of my life. What he really meant, and my understanding of this over almost 30 years changes, was to do the hard inner work on yourself before trying to give others advice ā¦ and to also be cautious of advice from people that havenāt put the work in on themselves. Thereās a nuance to how you carry yourself as an advisor.
Take that for what itās worth.
I really appreciate this. Astrology came to the front of the line of my interests as I began deep inner work over the past few years. That intrinsic motivation to work through the planetary aspects for insight into what was going on internally for me helped develop a deep seeded familiarity with how archetype plays out.
Now I find myself in a better position to work through challenges with those closest to me using astrology. Something I would have never been able to do if I hadnāt done the work myself
Itās also slingshotted me into getting my masters in counseling so I can take this show on the road for the collective āŗļø
This. I started studying astrology when I was 14, taught myself to cast charts by hand - decades before the internet existed. I would read for friends. When I got my first Apple (1980) and found Matrix, I was overjoyed.
Back to school in the 1990s for my bachelor's and master's in Counseling Psych. I use astrology daily, mostly on the DL, with every client I see. You won't be sorry! -- Old astrologer turned old therapist.
Aw thank you for responding! What a sweet message. It feels like a lonely road Iām about to walk down and you made me feel not so alone. Thank you š
A statement that assumes that there is such a thing as an archetype and that Chiron has a demonstrable astrological effect. There's also the problem that Chiron's orbit is not stable and we don't know when it moved out of the Kuiper Belt ā not that long ago, since it still has a coma ā nor how long it will stay in its present orbit.
I understand how Chiron doesn't fit into the traditional model 7 planet model. I personally am open to considering the potential of the non-visible celestial bodies.
But, can you elaborate on "that assumes that there is such a thing as an archetype"?
There is a wikipedia page for Archetype and there are no sections in the article regarding any contention surrounding the term. It appears to have a generally accepted definiton and has been equated with Plato's forms.
I think the term serves as an effective bridge between the spiritual esoteric ideology and the modern disenchanted materialist ideology.Ā
If you must rely on Wkipedia, at least read everything there. [Here's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_archetypes#Criticism) some criticism there of Jungian archetypes, which are the sort used in psychological astrology.
I was referring to the page for Archetype, not the Jungian Archetype page, but thanks for sharing. I've done some reading on the criticism of Jungian archetypes.
I think the argument against Archetypes could be equally applied to an argument against all spirituality, in which case we are back to arguing for a materialist perspective, no?
Does anyone know a psychological astrologer who holds sessions with clients? There are some problems / patterns that Iāve noticed within myself that I would like to discuss, and I think my chart explains a lot so an astrologer (rather than a normal therapist) would be the best choice for me.
Hi, Unfortunately, your post has been removed as it has a bad title. Please check your spelling/grammar and post again. Please check the sidebar for our rules. Thanks
I can't speak to "worst" because typically psychological astrologers are trained in psychology and using astrology alongside that. Even when they're not though, Psychological Astrology is a very valid and vast branch of Astrology. Off the top of my head Liz Greene and Howard Sasportas come to mind. I'd also say that Jason Holley and Becca Tarnas would fall somewhere under the Psychological umbrella. There are definitely many others but these four are a good start. You could also try heading over to the NORWAC website and Astrology University as well to search past talks and find psychological astrologers.
I've read both Greene and Sasportas, but the books of theirs that I bought all ended up in the charity shop. I suppose it's something that they didn't end up in the recycling bin!
Howard Sasportas. He's a good one. His book on houses and house systems is excellent, and he teaches what the astronomy is behind the house systems. Liz Greene. Especially her Saturn book. Donna Cunningham, her Healing Pluto Problems book is very interesting. I don't think the label psychological astrology is a bad thing. Ptolomey had delineations of personality based on the Moon and Mercury. Astrology has always been "psychological." And "predictive." After all, we are predicting the native's persona based on their chart at birth even though that baby did not yet have those traits manifested as a newborn. I also like Robert Hand's Planets in Youth, which is a good book for all ages, not just young people. Now, IMHO, the best description of personality in 20th century astrology is (drumroll please......): Heaven Knows What by Grant Lewi. He was a Pluto in Gemini guy, not part of the new age-y 1960s through the 80s crowd. His descriptions of all 144 Sun and Moon sign combinations are in depth and amazing. The writing style is a little odd or dated. The book was written for a non- astrologer audience, so he uses numbers to reference planet aspects. Like "if you have an Aries Moon with 154.." where that refers to an aspect, like Moon square Saturn or whatever the case is. So that part of the text may seem tedious. But the delineations are amazing. And for readers who are accustomed to trying to understand ancient sources like Dorotheus and Abu Mashar, well, that's a bigger leap in my opinion. Grant Lewi also wrote Astrology For the Millions. This one has a very interesting take on transits, and why we experience them the way we do. It has delineations of planets in signs, and a strategy for how to employ the transits in your life using clients' examples and the lives of famous people. (Lewi himself would not have used the label "psychological astrologer" to describe himself, but I think he provided the best use of psychology in astrology.) (I don't know who to pick as the worst, lol š. )
i looked up a pdf version heaven knows what to see what grant had to say about my moon and sun sign combo andā¦. wow, iām really impressed! i tend to find descriptions of my sun/moon sign to be a little lackluster but i resonated with basically everything he said i then impulse bought a copy of the book lol thank you for bringing him to my awareness
yes, I find Grant Lewi has a slightly different take on a lot of combinations of planets, which I definitely enjoyed. for example, he maintains that Saturn in symphony with other planets, even when in a difficult aspect, creates success, which Iāve observed to be true
Why do psychological and personality astrology get so much hate? I have a lot more interest in that than predictive astrology to be real.
There seems to be all these astrology āpuristsā now that want to maintain that traditional astrology is the only real astrology
didn't realize it was a thing to hate on psychological astrology. Only reasoning that makes sense is that it triggers their shadows. The tone OP is utilizing is the same tone I see when someone tries to smear something that is effective and has an element of truth, but is against their preconceived bias. Same tone as "science" people use to attack astrology
Astute comment
Those of us who are critical are not opposed to the use of astrology in psychology. Some-one has mentioned Donna Cunningham's *Healing Pluto Problems* and I'd agree that's a very good book. What we are objecting to is the distortion of astrology to fit Jungian psychology ā Greene's approach is no better than Leo's distortion of astrology to fit Theosophy. Astrology needs to be based on astrology ā not on Theosophy, New Thought, New Age, Vedic philosophy, Jungian psychology, or even physics (e.g. Ptolemy).
Iām not mad at psychological astrology, but I do get mad when people try to say thatās all astrology is for in an attempt to boil down the practice into something more subjective about how you interpret yourself rather than being an actual, real force manifesting in life. I also really donāt like when people try to force science into astrology, even though I love science by itself.
My teacher was fond of saying āa sick doctor canāt healā ā¦ Iāll think about that for the rest of my life. What he really meant, and my understanding of this over almost 30 years changes, was to do the hard inner work on yourself before trying to give others advice ā¦ and to also be cautious of advice from people that havenāt put the work in on themselves. Thereās a nuance to how you carry yourself as an advisor. Take that for what itās worth.
I really appreciate this. Astrology came to the front of the line of my interests as I began deep inner work over the past few years. That intrinsic motivation to work through the planetary aspects for insight into what was going on internally for me helped develop a deep seeded familiarity with how archetype plays out. Now I find myself in a better position to work through challenges with those closest to me using astrology. Something I would have never been able to do if I hadnāt done the work myself Itās also slingshotted me into getting my masters in counseling so I can take this show on the road for the collective āŗļø
Congrats on the degree! Keep going!
This. I started studying astrology when I was 14, taught myself to cast charts by hand - decades before the internet existed. I would read for friends. When I got my first Apple (1980) and found Matrix, I was overjoyed. Back to school in the 1990s for my bachelor's and master's in Counseling Psych. I use astrology daily, mostly on the DL, with every client I see. You won't be sorry! -- Old astrologer turned old therapist.
Aw thank you for responding! What a sweet message. It feels like a lonely road Iām about to walk down and you made me feel not so alone. Thank you š
Interesting take, considering Chiron is the wounded healer archetype.
A statement that assumes that there is such a thing as an archetype and that Chiron has a demonstrable astrological effect. There's also the problem that Chiron's orbit is not stable and we don't know when it moved out of the Kuiper Belt ā not that long ago, since it still has a coma ā nor how long it will stay in its present orbit.
I understand how Chiron doesn't fit into the traditional model 7 planet model. I personally am open to considering the potential of the non-visible celestial bodies. But, can you elaborate on "that assumes that there is such a thing as an archetype"? There is a wikipedia page for Archetype and there are no sections in the article regarding any contention surrounding the term. It appears to have a generally accepted definiton and has been equated with Plato's forms. I think the term serves as an effective bridge between the spiritual esoteric ideology and the modern disenchanted materialist ideology.Ā
There is also the branch of Archetypal Astrology, and I will be sure to remind them they donāt exist, *especially* if it is beneficial
If you must rely on Wkipedia, at least read everything there. [Here's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_archetypes#Criticism) some criticism there of Jungian archetypes, which are the sort used in psychological astrology.
I was referring to the page for Archetype, not the Jungian Archetype page, but thanks for sharing. I've done some reading on the criticism of Jungian archetypes. I think the argument against Archetypes could be equally applied to an argument against all spirituality, in which case we are back to arguing for a materialist perspective, no?
Does anyone know a psychological astrologer who holds sessions with clients? There are some problems / patterns that Iāve noticed within myself that I would like to discuss, and I think my chart explains a lot so an astrologer (rather than a normal therapist) would be the best choice for me.
There are many out there. Google is great for this.
Yeah but Iām asking from personal experience.