Sun vs. Dominant Function


#1

I had these thoughts late last night, so hopefully they are still coherent.

I’ve been thinking about the relationship between the sun in your astrological chart vs. your dominant function. I know Blake often uses the metaphor of “clothes” to describe the astrology while your Myers-Briggs type is the actual “person.” But I think one time (I don’t remember where and don’t feel like digging for it right now), he said the astrology is like the role you’re supposed to play or the fate you have, and Myers-Briggs are the hands you’re dealt.

I think there’s something to that “role” analogy. Like, I’ve been getting the impression that the sun represents what your ego wants to be, whereas the dominant is what your ego actually is. Or maybe…this is really going on a limb here…the sun is your conscious ego (and therefore needs to built up) while the dominant is closer to the Self. And your life to is to reconcile the two.

Ok, let me talk about something more specific to illustrate. I started noticing this with @batshitty in her typing post and that whole “debate” over whether she is INTP. It does seem like her ego has a desire towards Ti and would rather that be dominant, but it is her actual dominant Fi that still shines through. At best, she can make Ti into an Fi value that is indirectly reached via auxiliary Ne. She said that Fi-dom feels comfortable, like it would fit right, but for whatever she doesn’t want it.

I realized last night that I might feel something similar towards being Ni-dom. Like, when I engage in Ni activities, it feels very natural, but somehow my conscious ego doesn’t quite want it that much. I’m thinking, for example, that a lot of INFJs I know went into academia, and although some part of me feels like that would be a natural fit for me, to be engaged primarily with abstract ideas for the rest of my life, I don’t want it. There’s a drive to go out into the world and do something that hasn’t been done before that overrides it, that I’m pretty sure is related to my Aries sun. Like my ego wants to be more Ne, but alas it is actually Ni. (Although at least those two are more compatible than Fi and Ti.)

Or if you look at @LifeExamined, he seems to value Ti more than Ne. But lucky for him, since he’s ENTP, this just makes him more likely to use his auxiliary and therefore be a healthy ENTP. Or @schlopadoo seems to have some struggle with wanting to be Te oriented (even going into science!)

I’m also thinking about my boyfriend, who is INTJ Scorpio and definitely values Fi which makes him more susceptible to Ni-Fi loops (but also softer in some ways than typical INTJ).

That being said, the sun is still subjugated to the dominant. Like, I think I value Ne more than the typical INFJ, but only towards purposes sanctioned by Ni. Like, it has to be meaningful Ne or something. Ne for it’s own sake I still can’t tolerate for that long. And I imagine it would be the same in these other cases.

Blake says the sun sign modifies the expression of the dominant, but I wonder if it’s more than that. You have to reconcile the two, figure out how to express your sun sign via your dominant. The inclination is to try and do the function indicated by your sun sign directly, but that often doesn’t work unless it’s already a function your personality type uses well. You have to figure out how to do it via the dominant way. So I need to figure out how to be Aries via Ni, express Ne in an Ni way. (I think I have that in the right order.)

Wait scratch that last part, it’s not about expression (that’s auxiliary/rising sign). It’s about embodiment. Your sun sign is what you want to embody in this life, but your (psychic) body is your dominant function which may be easier or harder to fit into that. If you have one of the harder ones and can do that though, then I think that’s when lots of interesting things can happen. Reconciling the discrepancies between your astrology and your personality type makes for a far more dynamic and interesting person than a more harmonious one.

Ok, I’m getting a little lost myself now. Would welcome other thoughts. @Blake @Stewart @batshitty @Ignas


Blake on the auxiliary
#2

If this is true, and if it is true that I am an INFP, then I am screwed. I’m supposed to play Te Libra sun with a dealt Fi-ego. Oh my, Ne save me!


#3

Um, did you read the rest of my post? It’s not that hopeless. :stuck_out_tongue:


#4

It could be worse, you could have a Gemini or latter Aquarian sun instead.


#5

I did read your post, I was mostly just playing around! :grinning:

Still, having your inferior as your astrological ego seems particularly challenging. As I recall Blake said somewhere, the inferior is like lightning, so this particular setup feels like trying to capture lightning in a bottle. Every. Single. Day.

I have an Aquarius moon too, so throw that on the pile! :fearful:


#6

Huh, I feel like that would actually be more challenging than the Libra sun…


#7

I suppose that’s probably true. Either way, I do feel like a lot of my “difficulties” are trying to navigate the Feeling-Thinking divide. I have some seriously mismatched “clothes” and am not sure exactly what I am supposed to do with them…

I’m still not entirely sure I have a handle on how astrology is supposed to fit in with MBTI.

I like this a lot, but the idea that the difficulty results in a more “interesting” person strikes me as cold comfort. Especially today when so much seems geared toward hyper-specialization. Have a role, know your role, execute your role, and so on.


#8

This is close but not quite right. The meaning I intended is that the INFP archetype feels close to right and like it should fit based on superficial anecdotal associations, though there are some outlying anecdotal factors. The outlying factors (to me) seem partially related to Fi but I don’t want to get into that here. The archetype is what is cozy and that is the feeling I get from INFPs I know. I would love to crawl inside it but wearing it generally feels too constricting and ultimately dangerous despite many benefits. I think this is because Fi the function, especially as a dominant, feels like a death sentence even though the INFP archetype feels like a get out of jail free card. I’ve both directly stated and insinuated that Fi feels like drowning or quicksand. I can’t breathe. I want out or I become lost in the swamp. Looming potential of self-annahlation is why I don’t want it, not any trivial reason.

Much of what people have defined as my Fi I would label as a mixture of other functions, at least in my intentions. Like you seeing Fi in my free speech arguments. You saw the underpinning of my arguments as moral where I saw them as practical. Feelings are an integral part of human nature and can’t just be ignored for the sake of pure logic (I believe I stated my personal morals side with LifeE). It is not my value to protect people’s feelings simply because I feel it is right, but that it is a necessary consideration for optimal results even if it ideologically less desirable. Sounds like Te to me. This could be a matter of perception and me not understanding how terms are used here. Hence my typing thread, an attempt to understand how those definitions apply to me. I don’t agree with all the reasoning, but it’s cohesive and consistent enough for me to accept it especially within the larger constraints of this “whole typing” system.

I’m not challenging my typing, I can see the logic that makes it fit and find it acceptable. Just attempting to explain some of the nuance implicated in my experience, defined here as a sun-dom square.


#9

Yes, that has been my main analogy for the difference between a person’s MB type and their natal birth chart - the person themselves vs. the clothes that person has been given to wear irrespective of how good or bad those clothes fit.

No, the astrological birth chart is both those things; fate and the hand you been dealt. After all, the hand you’ve been dealt (as in a card game) is not something you ostensibly get to choose. So, you play the cards you been dealt as best you can. Or, if you’re an INFJ, you play them badly to show everyone what a lousy lot you’ve been dealt. And because you don’t believe in games anyway. :wink:

I’m being half-facetious there, but I think that’s actually true to some extent. You’re temperament (MB) might tell you your general attitude to card games and having to play the game when you may or may not even want to play this game in the first motherfucking place!

Also, since there was recently a INFJ vs. ENTP thread, I’d say this is one of the cardinal differences between them - INFJs don’t like playing games, they don’t like treating life like some fucking game, because "It’s serious business, mister!

ENTPs, on the other hand, treat all of life like it’s some game and they want to win and figure it out, or at least, reveal how the whole thing works. Because it’s fun! Even if the whole thing is one big clusterfucking mess, at least it’s interesting to look at and piece through.

ENTP likes games and revels in trying to excel in it. Or figure the whole thing out and be like “O well, when you really get down to it, no one really knows anything, do they?”

INFJ doesn’t like games and resents that they even have to play one, even with the best of hands.

This can lead to massive uncaring in both cases, but for very different reasons.

It leads to an inability to take anything seriously for ENTP. It’s the very problem of absolute ironic detachment.

For INFJ, it leads to existential crisis. “How can I even exist in such a charade?”

ENTP accepts that it is a game, instinctively. It’s more that the game is pretty easy to figure out and leads to great boredom and consequent search for stimulation, to make it funner and more fantastic. It’s too easy in a sense. But, they don’t feel connected to ANYTHING. Everything in life is just sorta random and arbitrary. And absurd. They can game it but so what? They aren’t here anyway. Nothing is real.

And as John Lennon said “Nothing to get hung about”.

INFJ just resents the whole thing at the outset, instinctively. They want life to be serious, not just a game. People will speak to them of their advantages (their cards), but the whole thing is all wrong. Why should life be a game. Is that all it is, a fucking game. And they could easily win the game. But, they don’t want to.

They’d rather tear the game down via negative motivation.

“This shit isn’t a game. It’s terrifying and it hurts.”

“This is real.”

Or, they may be a more positive INFJ and work towards discovering and revealing great hidden inner truths about human nature, civilization and culture.

But, it’s not a game. It’s the truth. And it’s serious and it matters.

To ENTP, it hath none of that gravity. It’s funny, if anything. One can only stand back and laugh at the whole clusterfuck charade. Why take it seriously? No one else is. Why not make the most out of it?

Bill Hicks was basically espousing this ENTP perspective when he said that life is “just a ride”. In other words, your life is like a ride in an amusement park. It’s not anything to get that uptight over. He was saying something more serious too and he was also commenting on the seriousness of everyday people. It’s just a ride. So, enjoy it.

Or play those wildcards!

I think @LifeExamined said it best when he said something like “INFJ wants to do the same thing as ENTP but they try too hard. So, don’t try.” Something like that. That captures in a word a very fundamental difference between them.

Here’s Hicks


ENTP vs. INFJ or similar:
#10

@Blake I was going to mention Hicks as an ENTP model in the ENFP - ENTP thread but saw you mentioned him elsewhere and didn’t want to be that trite. But you’re right. Fight. Bite. Light. Kite. Might. Sight. Height. …


#11

I actually agree with this @batshitty and didn’t agree with @nirdre when she said it but let it go. Glad you didn’t because I wanted this to be said. Also, I can’t hurt my sweet @nirdre. I’ll stop this ploy now btw, I’m starting to annoy myself with it.


#12

Well, @batshitty will have to play a hand that she might not know what to do with given her natural propensities as a player. That’s certainly one interpretation of having a Ti Gemini Sun when the player has an Fi dominant outlook.

The basic thing I would pay attention to in this whole thing that @nirdre brought up is that I have made the analogy of the Sun to the Dominant function.

What does that mean?

Well, I think it’s open to interpretation, similar to the factors in an astrology chart or the definitions of the cognitive functions in Myers-Briggs.

I think the implications might become clear once people that are capable of doing so start attuning their intuition to the symbol of the sun (in this case). What does the Sun represent?

What is the difference between the way this symbol would manifest in a Myers-Briggs temperament (ostensibly as their dominant function) vs. the way it manifests in a person born with the Sun in one of the 12 signs?

I’ve alluded to one difference - the person vs. the clothes. I try to keep it basic and simple because I really don’t know the nitty-gritty. I feel comfortable in saying that basic analogy is more or less correct. Which means that the birth chart positions in any respect are never more essential than the implied Myers-Briggs positions.

This is all generally speaking. How the sun interacts with the dominant function of a type is open to more research and observation.

There are a lot of factors that are unsettled in my mind for one thing. For example, I’m not even at all sure subtypes are determined at all by the astrological birth chart, where a few months back I was still holding to that view.

I thought that I may have observed that the sign rising in the chart determined the subtype (qualifying, emending type) of the main type (Myers-Briggs type). I have since abandoned that as it has not held up to observation.

I have at one time thought of the entire birth chart as one big rising sign to the Sun of the Myers-Briggs type such that a person’s basic Myers-Briggs type was akin to a solar (ego, I-am principle) placement and that the birth chart in toto was an earth placement ie determining the particularization of your more abstract solarized generalized type.

Here is what I am virtually certain of at this point:

  • The Sun is to the astrological birth chart as the dominant function is to the Myers-Briggs temperament.
  • The Ascendant is to the astrological birth chart as the auxiliary function is to the Myers-Briggs temperament.

These two I used to have switched around (for years until relatively recently) such that I had correlated the astrological symbol of the Sun to the auxiliary function of a Myers-Briggs temperament and the Ascendant (rising sign) to the dominant function of a Myers-Briggs temperament.

And because I had them as such for years I’ve had plenty of time to realize…I’m wrong.

It’s a bit confusing because the Ascendant (rising sign) is a solar factor and as such partakes of solar (sun) symbolism.

The ascendant is where the sun rose that day…but…in relation to the earth’s horizon.

So, all in all, the ascendant symbolizes earth. But, in reference to the sun. Everything is in reference to the sun. Because we live in a solar system. And the sun is the heart of that system. Without the sun none of this would be happening.

So, the sun is mucho fucking important! Both physically, and by extension, in the symbolic sense that astrology looks at these same physical factors of cosmic bodies.

And so, ironically perhaps, popular astrology ain’t too far off when they just take the sun position of a person into account and write newspaper predictions for all the people that were born in one month of time when the sun was in that sign.

The reason I think that many people don’t experience this to work is because of the obvious reason that “how can all people born in the same month period or so have the same fucking personality and fate and everything?”

Right, obviously.

Because it ain’t that simple, for one thing. As astrologers like to say nowadays and in the recent past “Well, o yes, that’s true, but you have to look at the WHOLE CHART because the sun is just one of many positions. There are also house placements and aspects between all these planets and so on.”

However, I don’t agree with these astrologers either. I think that is a way of just copping out. The sun should mean something, no? I mean, if we’re gonna ask people “what’s your sign?”, that should have some meaning. Especially when people basically do reduce themselves to one sign as a form of identification astrologically speaking, even astrologers.

It’s the same thing with this Myers-Briggs 16 types business. Which type are you? You have one answer.

Which is not to say there aren’t all manner of other kinds of influences from the other 15 types to the point where a person could say “Well, I can see pieces of myself in all the types”.

Same is true of the zodiac signs. People can see whatever they like, ya know. And it’s all true to some extent.

BUT, what is the one type (or one sign) that all other factors in a person’s nature must in obeisance to?

What is the dominating type?

Even if this dominating type is obscured in all kinds of ways (which is often is). But, what is it?

And that’s what I do, in a nutshell. I find it. That’s what I’m looking for. And that’s what I’m most interested in. The one type.

The Sun is one. The Sol. The solo. El solorito.

Everything else is just dead chunks of rock rotating around that. Without the sun, there is no system at all.

And all is “mere anarchy”.

Ha, waxing poetic am I again.

Do you know what the sun is now?

This is a “stellar” maze.


#13

BUT…

As EVERYTHING in an astrological birth chart is measured…FROM EARTH (Geocentrically) and a birth chart is a measurement of where things were at (like the sun) at the moment of birth onto earth, then it becomes clear what the birth chart signifies — earth.

So, the Sun in a birth chart is seen through the lens of earth and your existence as a physical being on this earth.

But, where were you before you were born?

What is the sun in itself?

The birth chart does not measure the sun in itself. Nor anything else. It measures these symbols (realities) from the reference point of physical existence, and by extension, such things as time and space.

So, it is likely that the difference between the dominant function (which I equate to the sun) and the sun in your birth chart is that the sun in your birth chart is the sun as it bears on your physical existence in time and space (astrology puts a meaning on all that) and that the sun of your temperament (dominant function) is something inborn and existing prior to physical manifestation in this world.

And I feel comfortable saying that — the Myers-Briggs temperament is inborn and exists prior to birth into physical incarnation.

Obviously, the influences of your astrological birth chart (the sun being the most important of these, yes) do not exist prior to birth by definition.

So, where does that leave us?

Well, assuming that you accept what I said about these things as true, or at least, plausible, then it leaves you open to interpret any particular cases or instances however you like. Isn’t that how all this stuff works?

You have a few basic rules or premises. Some symbolism. Some positions where this symbolism may inhabit. Which correlates to some human thing. And then you can have a field day with deciding on what this means.

See, this is the beautiful thing about symbols. They are beyond static definition.

If you want a mathematical definition, I’d say the sun is one. It is the qualitative meaning of one thing.

Dominant function is innate, Sun is acquired. The sun position in your birth chart may or may not fit with your innate ego orientation.

What are you to do then?

If you’re an Aries Sun, like you are, I’d say that you’d have a strong dominant function for one thing, as the Sun is exalted in Aries. That’s another way I tend to look at the actual astrological positions — to tell me how strong the implied astrological position is, in this case, Ni, which correlates to first half of Sagittarius (or Leo as a whole).

And as you mentioned, there are also Ne implications, as I have assigned Aries to Ne because it is a cardinal (extraverted) fire (intuitive) sign. Simple logic there. I don’t know if it born out from experience, that is, I don’t know that an INFJ (or any type) would have stronger Ne than normal because they have Sun in Aries.

I’d say what I’ve noticed for you is that you have very strong Ni (that’s what I meant when I told you that you have "first-rate intuition). And if it’s true that having a strong sun in the birth chart strengthens the dominant function of the type, then this would follow.

However, @schlopadoo is an INFJ born with a Libra Sun, which is where the Sun is at it’s weakest by sign, yet, I consider her to have some of the best Ni I have seen anywhere.

So, what any of this means is still open to inquiry. And study.

But, if you take it at face value, then I think it’s obvious what it means. Like you said for @batshitty if she’s an INFP (Fi dominant) born with Sun in a Ti sign (first half of Gemini), then there’s the implications of an elemental square (Fi to Ti), which is maybe the hardest relationship that functions can have, similar to what is implicated by the astrological zodical square between signs, except in the case of an elemental square, perhaps more fundamental to the essential nature of the type.

And I think you have to keep in mind, that I came up with all this shit. You have to make a lot of assumptions that the assignments I’m making are correct.

But, I think if you can be on the relative same page with me, then it’s pretty obvious interpretively what would be the result if you combined them in different ways, like you just did with Batshitty’s ostensible Fi (temperament Sun) to her Ti (astrological Sun) type deal.

At the very least, I think you could say it’s gonna be problematic or difficult rather than a walk in the park.

Now, as to if that is actually true in reality rather than just in combining symbols and synthesizing an interpreted meaning from them needs more research.


#14

I don’t know how to respond to everything you’ve written (or even sure if I understand it all), but these parts stood out and resonated. In fact, now I’m remembering that at one point, I had conceptualized Myers-Briggs as your innate personality and Astrology as the path you are supposed to walk in life, which are aligned with both of the concepts above.

So you study astrology to understand your circumstances, and Myers-Briggs for how to utilize yourself to deal with them. Or at least that’s how I’ve found the two systems to be most helpful.

I have lots of thoughts here. To be honest, I’m not entirely sure that the functions and the signs exactly correlate (not saying you are saying that either). There is more to the archetype of each sign than the functions, in my opinion. Or at least they diverge at a certain point. But I can also see what you mean through the analogy, for example, that Ni is like Leo and the first half of Sagittarius. There is something about INxJs and actual Leo suns of other types that I do find similar. (Yes, I know you assign INFJs to Sagittarius instead, but I don’t know as many people to compare to for that.)

As for my own personal case, I wonder if it seems like I have “very strong Ni” (I assume you mean even in comparison to the average INxJ) is not necessarily just because of the quality of it, but because I externalize it more. I remember @Stewart said something similar, that he thought having his sun in latter Sagittarius made him more likely to externalize his internal Ni thoughts than the typical INFJ. I find I can definitely override the reluctance to speak unless one’s thoughts are perfect that a few INFJs here have mentioned struggling with (that is when I’m in my ego and not Fi-id-ing). If I’m not too emotionally invested, I find I can also openly disagree with others more than the average INFJ as well.

(And for @schlopadoo, having Sun in Libra and Aquarius rising, it would also make sense for her to want to externalize her thoughts more than INFJs who have more water/earth emphasis. But I do find that she writes has more of a T-influence. That’s what I and everyone else notice about her, her very strong Ti. However, I don’t really see her musing with ideas openly the way that @Stewart does with his astrology posts or that I’m doing here right now, which I associate with more with Ni. Her posts tend to be rather analytical.)

So it’s like all the characteristics of a Sun in Aries, I do exhibit to some extent. I am kind of impulsive and competitive, have a tendency to start lots of new things, and take risks and explore. But as I still do it as an INFJ, so it comes out in an INFJ way. And if I do use more Ne, it’s because some of these things do involve having to use Ne, but I still use it more in a 5th function way than like someone who actually values Ne.

I find also that @Stewart is the lightest presenting INFJ here. Some of this maybe his age and the influence of his ENTP partner, but I can also see it being because of Sagittarius sun. When I’m in ego mode, I think I’m also lighter and more extroverted than most INFJs. However thanks the the heavy Plutonian/Scoripo/8th house emphasis in my chart, this can often be covered up by that.

Ok, I think I’m starting to understand more what you mean by the “astrological chart modifies the Myers-Briggs type.” At least my Ni can see a general pattern now. Trying to actually articulate it is a bit more difficult.

This shit is complex!

I’m pretty sure I was in some perfect realm of collective archetypes, platonic ideals, and sublime beauty. I know this is completely unprovable, but one of my earliest memories (I was probably 3 or 4) is thinking that this world is so mundane, flawed, and meaningless. That the only way to bear it was to escape into the imagination (via Art) to find the actual worthwhile stuff.

So, I think this feeling has always been in me (and probably every INFJ), although as I’ve grown older, I now think that the more meaningful stuff is also here. It just has to be discovered and uncovered and revealed. As you said earlier, Blake. Life ain’t a game. It has to mean nothing or else it’s for naught.

(I actually like playing games recreationally – like board games or video games and the like – but precisely because it gives me a break from my ordinary state of being.)

Hey @LifeExamined you said you wanted to know how INFJs view the world? Here’s your answer! Well, at least from one of us, but I would bet most INFJs feel something similar.


#15

I’ll let you guys go on with all this wonderful discussion.

Personally I just don’t find it worthwhile overthinking one’s birth chart and what it all means. At the end of the day, to me, it looks like one’s birth chart only loosely correlates with one’s actual personality. I think if one learns their basic astrology shit, it’s just best if one interprets however he or she wants it. I don’t know. My feeling is that it works better that way. Leave it to the person himself who knows himself best or a strong Ni-user who can somehow (through Ni-magic, the power to perceive people and their inside secrets) make a resonant interpretation (whichever way they choose) out of all these arbitrary symbols.

At the end of the day, I don’t give a shit what cards I’ve been given. I prefer to just play the game my own way. Willful ignorance? Perhaps. I don’t know, this astrology and MBTI stuff is madhouse.


#16

@schlopadoo Why did you delete your post?! I thought it was a good example of what I mean when I say you are more drawn to Ti/Te than Ni.

Come play my Sabian Symbols game! It’ll be good relief from all that Saturn superego Te in your chart.


#17

Not sure why I deleted. I’m quite quiet about my actual ideas I guess. :slight_smile:

I’d love to play the game, but I’m completely pressed by a deadline. :upside_down_face:

For the record, it’s not that I don’t give credence to this astrology stuff. Just that I don’t know how good it will be to overthink all of this.


#18

Yeah, that’s more or less the way I see it.

They do not exactly correlate, no, and I don’t think I’m saying that, which is why I sorta don’t come out with my own chart explicitly stating those correspondences. I can only say they do and don’t correlate. I think part of the misunderstanding (or potential misunderstanding) arises from conflating planes of existence. Any astrological factor present in a birth chart (planet, sign, house, aspect etc) is an earth measurement. It is seen and defined through the realm of physical existence.

So, if we are looking at the fire signs, for example, which I associate to the intuition function, we have to remember that they are all in the context of earth, or the sensation function, perhaps, and as such I don’t think these fire signs manifest in a purely intuitive way.

Absolutely. I think part of this has to with a sort of acquired earth history that the signs have. The functions are more abstract.

If you want my honest opinion (which being an Aries you probaly do), the four basic functions correlate to the four basic planes of existence that are known throughout various occult literature.

We have bodies in each of these planes just as we have a physical body in the earth plane.

Our astrology is only measuring the influences effecting our physical existence as determined by our moment of birth into this realm.

For example, each of these four planes of existence is likely to have it’s own astrology.

So, you can’t correlate a fire sign in the earth zodiac as an exact representation of the plane of fire (causal plane would be one name for this plane), but there is some correlation.

And I tend to want to be careful about what I say in this regard because I know how easy it is to distort this sort of information via a game of human nature playing telephone.

And as you already know, there is a difference even in astrology itself (without any Jungian typology or Myers-Briggs terms) between the four elements and the zodiac signs that are composed of one of these four elements in addition to other things.

For example, as we were yakking about back in the comment section of my Myers-Briggs is Astrology article, there is a difference between elemental oppositions and zodiacal oppositions.

So, earth and fire are opposites and water and air are opposites per astrological tradition. And per my assignments of the four basic Jungian functions to the four elements of astrology these opposites accord with what Jung considered to be opposites in his system (which he probaly derived from the four elements of astrology in the first place).

An element is not a sign. Or rather, a sign is more (and probaly less too in some sense) than the sum of it’s parts. So, we can speak of a zodiacal sign as one of the three members of the astrological element to which it belongs, but there is obviously so much more acquired meaning to a sign besides it basic defining factors (element, mode, sequence in zodiac, gender, rulerships).

I tend to think that these acquired meanings come from earth history and Jung said something to that effect about astrology, that it is nothing more than the sum total of human history in codified form.

The cognitive functions are referring to other planes of existence besides earth (well, except sensation function) and as such they don’t correlate to the signs of the earth zodiac in the simple way that many people would probaly like to make those one-to-one associations. But, I still think that there is some correlation, it’s just one must not be too simplistic about it. Or else there is gonna be all kinds of errors made.

There is a reason this knowledge used to be only for initiates. There was a reason it was occulted.

And I was just about to quote what @schlopadoo said, but she deleted, because, again, I couldn’t agree with her more about what she said about interpreting astrology charts.

The only person that can interpret their astrology chart is themselves. Which is why I don’t offer chart interpretations.

And overthinking your chart or your type is bad business baby.


#19

Are you willing to explain more about why you correlate the ascendant to the auxiliary?

I follow you through most of this. The planes of existence thing is the issue I’m coming up against while playing with creating ‘natal chart’ for each type. When working on it I keep thinking about how astrology and MB exist in different but overlapping universes (metaphorical), so an MB natal chart needs to follow different rules. But the rules of that universe are very wiggly and idk if they can be charted out. It’s what I meant by trying to pin down something too ethereal, but it’s fun to tinker with. ‘Implied’ aspects and associations are easier to work with and don’t make necessarily make things too complicated (though this crazy Gemini wants to abuse the fuck out of those associations).

Back to my initial question. I have trouble with the aux/asc association that I can’t reconcile. I understand sun/moon/rising are the most powerful features of a birth chart so you’ve assigned them to dom/aux/id, but when you start to compare them functionality it goes off. The ascendant has no actual substance. It’s more of a projection/persona thing. How people see you, often far more than an individual realizes. The asc is hard to manipulate purposefully and can’t be turned on and off like the aux. Its presentation can be superseded by the sun or moon (or any other strong planet in the chart) but has no agency of its own.

I was excited to see you thought this

I thought that I may have observed that the sign rising in the chart determined the subtype (qualifying, emending type) of the main type (Myers-Briggs type).

because I agree that ASC should be associated with subtype. I also agree that there is no direct correlation between a person’s natal chart and inborn MBTI type; any seeming overlap would be a happy accident (different universes). But the idea that a person’s MB subtype should be considered their MB ‘ascendant’ does make sense to me. It’s highly personal, situational and can’t really be used. For example, Christine and the Queens has an INTP subtype, so her MB asc would fall in Ti Aquarius or Gemini. The reasons behind a person’s subtype seem hard to determine. I have a hunch that the types of a person’s parent’s/primary caregivers may play a role in subtype but no evidence to back that up.

My inclination is to associate the aux with Venus. That whole particular magic/gift to the world thing. Venus is artful expression along with love. She unites the communication of Mercury with the desire of Mars. And she can turn on and off as she pleases. I would then assign Mars to the id along with the Moon, as he is more related to desire/drive. I see the current associations with the id as too feminine; makes more sense to me for the masculine/feminine to both have representation within the id. Plus using the id as drive makes sense if you can activate the trine formed by Mars/Venus in id/aux placement (implicit creativity). I haven’t yet checked this last bit across each type stack tho and some of the sign associations for the aux function would need to be changed (ie. Fe Pisces to Fe Cancer for INFJ aux), very much a theory.

Obviously you’ve been studying both MB and astrology far longer than I have with massive amounts of consult data to back up your associations. I’m not trying to come across as contrarian and almost left out my specific issues with the associations, but I think they help clarify my question. I’m hoping I don’t come across too foolish but I’m willing to sacrifice myself on the alter of knowledge. I’d be very grateful to hear your thoughts. The correlation of MB and astrology is fascinating to me.

So, earth and fire are opposites and water and air are opposites per astrological tradition.

Also can you explain this more? I thought this is how opposites are set up in MB (N/S-fire/earth and F/T-water/air). Oppositions in astrology are along a gendered spectrum (earth/water and fire/air) and my colloquial knowledge tells me elemental opposites (not the same as astrological oppositions) are water/fire and air/earth.

And overthinking your chart or your type is bad business baby.

Don’t tell me this. Overthinking is the game I live for (dramatic mock death scene including maniacal laughter).

The only person that can interpret their astrology chart is themselves.

But I do agree with this. Which is why I prefer chart readings to be conversations. I’m grateful for every reading I’ve had as it’s opened my eyes to things I couldn’t see myself, but ultimately I am the one who sees my chart most accurately.

I have thoughts on how to read the association between type and natal chart in respect to type evolution but I have to stop.


#20

It’s similar to dream analysis. Jung himself used to say, that one cannot analyze one’s dreams to their full potential, because there’s always a blindspot. So he always had others to look at his dreams.

So, I’m very grateful for batshitty that she agreed to analyze my chart, even though there’s a certainty deep inside, that only I can figure out what my personal myth (astrology) is. When I know how to do that :slight_smile:

Just wanted to say that and will go on observing this discussion with the utmost attention.