"Psychologically you are continually trying to analyze others in order to find their motivation. A natural human researcher, you spend time projecting your interests and in faultfinding."

well, "that just shows t' go ya'", as my daddy used to say...Mercury could have been in my mother's bureau drawer when I was born, but he shore missed the boat on that! I really, truly do NOT concern myself much with other's motivation...unless THEY make it a big issue...and then I cannot judge whether they are being truthful or not. I do not read minds...I do not accuse people of 'intending' anything.

My interest is (mostly)in 'accurate reasoning'...TRUTH and Fact are also nice to have, but are often cloudy or unsure when in dispute. But I CAN usually tell when the defense or explanation or reasoning ABOUT a claim is not justifiable. That involves just applying simple rules which are NOT subjective.

Thus, my 'ignorance' of deeper detail about a topic does not necessarily prevent me from understanding what methodology would be appropriate to explain, defend or analyze it. Thus, labeling me as 'ignorant' of X is irrelevant and a general 'ad hominum' remark,(sorry LH) even though not mean in a mean way. It negates my background in Philosophy and logic, which ARE relevant in noting that Jung's writings outside his field are only 'interesting'...much as Einstein's are outside physics and math.

If Jung 'had a great mind' and did some serious research into the statistical and physical aspects of Astrology, we could then discuss his techniques, reasoning, and data...but all he did was muse about history and people's interest....educational, but not a supporting body of material for the accuracy of a debatable area.

You know, if way back there...750 posts ago, ytou had said something like "I dunno about the FACTUAL basis of this stuff, but it's fun, and I like playing the game and watching the interesting ways it helps me think about character and personality"...(much like many people watch the 'sport' of professional wrestling ☺), I would have just said "fine...amuse yourself". But what I see is claims - both explicit and implict - that the positions of astronomical bodies at my birth has some real, genuine, demonstratable relationship to my personality and character, and therefore my 'potential' (it gets kinda slippery as to exactly what is 'claimed' at various times).

**IF** 'the stars' do not exactly 'determine' or 'influence' who I am and what I do, then calling them 'indicators' is pretty curious....as it raises the question of HOW there can be anything for them to indicate! What can 'happen' at my birth that the positions of astronomical bodies can be related to? Why SHOULD it make any difference if my mother's labor were induced hours or days earlier...or delayed a week? Or if she was travelling on a train across Kansas, and the birth took 9 counties and 5 degrees of longitude to complete?

If all that is claimed is that "we really don't know HOW it all works, but very learned men for many centuries have gathered data and compared millions of charts and people to learn the intricate patterns they present to us as a basic guideline.", then I ask...and how do we know they chose the right examples? What was their basis for using the constellations and planets they did? Were they prejudiced? Were they pressured by kings and rich people to find 'benefical' charts? Who's in charge here, anyway! *grin* What IS the difference between a duck?

Nope...you are right...I certainly have NOT studied all the intricate relationships claimed by Astrology...and that, in a certain circuitous sense makes me 'ignorant' of detail...but not of the relevance of that detail nor of the attempts I see to defend that data and it's analysis with questionable reasoning......that's why I noted a few obvious 'informal fallacies' that I did study, and can apply when I see them.

Professional pride & all that...