Astrology cannot be taken seriously, and yet I cannot entirely escape my daily sentence (aka "horoscope") in the newspaper.
But I'm not the only one with mixed feelings about it. At times, for example, Jung scoffed:
Astrology is a naively projected psychology in which the different attitudes and temperaments of man are represented as gods and identified with planets and zodiacal constellations.
But at other times, Jung admitted he found something in it:
Astrology is of particular interest to the psychologist, since it contains a sort of psychological experience which we call projected – this means that we find the psychological facts as it were in the constellations. This originally gave rise to the idea that these factors derive from the stars, whereas they are merely in a relation of synchronicity with them. I admit that this is a very curious fact which throws a peculiar light on the structure of the human mind. …. Carl G. Jung in 1947 in a letter to prof. B.V. Raman
Characteristically he had looked into the archetypes expressed by the constellations, and considered them in the light of his own typology, and, one might say, thought it through.
This is not true with a super-casual reader of the horoscope in the newspaper such as me, who experiences astrology purely as an introduction of randomness into one's life.
The Romans adored the fortune as a goddess; perhaps the newspaper horoscope is our culture's little nod to Fortuna.
Regardless – I often like the nod! The universe seems to be speaking to me, with intimacy and complete unpredictability. It's smarmy and yet flattering too.
Here was my sign (Sag) for today:
Balancing solitude and sociability is tricky because people keep asking you to do things with them, and you keep saying yes. Schedule solitude on the books.
Who else in my life would ask me to plan for solitude?
Kit Stolz 