Re: Dichotomisations (e.g. vertical/horizontal, Astrology et al)

Chris Lofting (
Sun, 2 May 1999 02:21:16 +1000

From: "Chris Lofting" <>
To: <>
Subject: Re: Dichotomisations (e.g. vertical/horizontal, Astrology et al)
Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 02:21:16 +1000

-----Original Message-----
From: <>
To: <>
Date: Saturday, 1 May 1999 2:59
Subject: Re: Dichotomisations (e.g. vertical/horizontal, Astrology et al)

>In a message dated 4/30/99 4:36:00 AM Central Daylight Time,
> writes:
>>> In general, it is not the Astrology/whatever that causes 'problems' it
> the object/relationship patterns and so you can 'give up' on Astrology and
> find something else and get the SAME problems since that 'somethingelse'
> causes the SAME resonance in the pool of emotions.<<
>That may be, and for the sake of this point I will accept it (though it
>remains otherwise an interesting tentative). But are all "somethingelses"
>equally the same problem as the person who has "given up" on astrology
>see Astrology to be? I can't imagine that all somethingelses are equal for
>whatever function that astrology was employed to fulfill (assumably mating
>decisions) before it was given up.

Let us say I switch from using Astrology to something supposedly closer to
social psychology, the MBTI. Is there a difference? Supposedly yes, the MBTI
is more 'acceptable' to the establishment but in fact - no. There is NO

See the two diagrams in "The Logic of the Esoteric"
( ) One showing Astrology
over the object/relationships template and the other showing the MBTI. The
WORDS are different but the underlying emotion-based patterns are not.

For example, when you analyse the characteristics of NF temperaments in the
MBTI you find that they correlate with Earth sign characteristics. NTs 'map'
to Fire sign characteristics and so on. It is the invarient emotion-based
patterns that the words point to that allow us to make these links. A person
well trained in Astrology can create an analysis of an individual that will
say the SAME things as done by a person well trained in the MBTI. The words
are the only difference, BOTH systems can create the SAME overall feelings.

The 'problem' with Astrology is that it has been taken too literally; it is
in fact metaphor and a very good categorisation system but you dont find all
Aries born in April, but there ARE Aries-like characters.

IF you read in detail the categorisations and associated characteristics of
Astrology you will (a) find that you reflect characteristics across the
whole set BUT there is a bias to one or two and (b) when then reading all of
the MBTI categorisations you will find the SAME thing, one or two will 'ring
bells' and aspects of the others will also seem to be relavent at certain

What is happening? All of these categorisation systems are metaphors for the
ONE system -- object/relationships. This ONE system is an archetype and so
'gene'-like in that CONTEXT then forces a particular expression, phenotype.

The one system is the "Structure of Personality" this is the 'gene', the
genotype. Context (and this includes hormone variations and wiring problems
as well as external environmental pressures) then leads to the selection of
a particular 'thread'. Feedback then gets you to favour that thread (one of
the prices of specialisation in education has led to a slight social
'ineptness' and so lots of 'self-help' books to give you experience with
other 'threads')

When we then analyse individuals so we see these variations on a theme. You
can tell when you are in a context that favours an 'undeveloped' thread when
you feel awkward/self-conscious.

There are MANY (billions?) of potential persona categorisation systems but
they will ALL be reducable to object/relationship mappings. We need these
variations on the one since the one is too general, too colourless/single
context -- we naturally seek to analyse harmonics and so the different
systems aid in this. Once you realise that they ALL point to the same
pattern you can in fact use one to help draw-out undeveloped areas of the

>>Obviously if, as you say, mathematics was established as "meaningful" by
>same resonant type of dichotomizations which established astrology as
>"meaningful", not all such meaningful things are equal in function.

:-) you would be surprised how many are. The problem is that to appreciate
it you would have to learn the lexicon of Astrology or Psychoanalysis or
Neurology etc etc The template can aid you in this as well as 'develop'
those disciplines that are 'unrefined' when compared to others.



This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)