During my recent talk, "An Unfinished Revolution: A discussion on Freedom and Responsibility at America's Pluto Return," for Acyuta-bhava's Nightlight Astrology school, there was an interesting discussion in the chat.

It was after I had shared this image from Liz Greene's "Astrology of Fate":

What someone writes in the chat is, "Liz was talking in archetypal imagery." After someone says, "Archetypal or not, that passage is damaging." To which the reply from OP is, "myth and archetypes can see [sic] that way but is not personal in any way."

Once countered a bit more, they counter with, "I can get equally upset about imagery used re; women - but where will that actually get me? They finish, after more pushback with, "learning astrology helps us to understand the forces in play...and these forces are not personal..."

"....unless you want to make them thus." I'm mentioning all of this because I've encountered this point of view during my own journey with astrology. I think for a time I might have even generally shared that sentiment. I don't any longer.

The reason is that the Jungian or modern view of archetypes is not really the classic idea of Platonic archetypes, just to make a simple distinction. And that's okay. But the classic notion of archetypes was not viewed as derived by human minds.

Yet the modern notion of archetypes seems to be an odd vision of both human and beyond human. And that's what's weird to me, like the example above. I am not an archetype. A Black man as a wolf or a predator is not an archetype. That's racism.

Similarly, some extend this notion of cultural formation of an archetype to many things that might be offensive to some. To a devotee of Kali, she's not YOUR archetype. She's somebody's real and meaningful goddess. She does not function in the realm of cultural imagination.

She is not a product of the collective unconscious. She is not a figment of someone's subconscious. She's a goddess. Now, if you're an atheist and you don't believe in gods or goddesses, then it makes sense to frame it all this way, whether it's true or not.

But it reflects a certain lack of sensitivity and awareness to be so reductionist and imperialistic to frame flesh & blood experiences OR somebody's personal and cultural connection to divinity as an "archetype." Archetypal imagery doesn't necessarily exist like Plato's vision.

For Plato, it exists, usually as a thing, that is the template for all things like it, like an archetypal horse. But it's odd that so few in astrology look at the modern notion of archetype as if it's something devoid of a cultural configuration.

So much like this person who seemed blind to it during my talk. And it's fucking annoying. It annoyed someone else during my talk so much that they felt unsafe and left to listen to the replay, which is here for a limited time only: https://nightlightastrology.com/events/ 

I'm glad I didn't see it in real time then. I know I would've said something. That's why I'm saying something now.