This free online astrology quiz helps users discover their Tarot card match and identify the Major or Minor Arcana card that corresponds with their zodiac sign. The major arcana in a Tarot deck is comprised of 22 numbered cards that represent significant lessons, influences, and archetypal themes within a person’s life. Each card has distinct elements, and the quiz uses your zodiac sign, color, and element to match you with a Tarot personality.
The quiz analyzes your personality and provides the most accurate answer for you. It also helps you identify which Tarot court character you embody and how it applies to different areas of your life. The quiz features the first half of the major arcana, sorted into archetypal personalities.
The quiz is designed to help users identify their Tarot card match and determine whether they are a hopeful, cynical, introspective, or action-oriented individual. The quiz features questions that guide users through a series of questions to uncover their Tarot card match.
In addition to the major arcana, the quiz also includes questions about the archetypes of characters in fantasy novels, such as fairy, dragon, siren, mermaid, vampire, or phoenix. To use this archetype system with numerology, users must understand Roman Numerals. A quick-guide chart is provided to help navigate the process.
In summary, this free online astrology quiz helps users discover their Tarot card match and identify their archetypes. By understanding the principles of the Tarot system and the importance of understanding Roman Numerals, users can better navigate their Tarot card match.
📹 Which FEMININE ARCHETYPE are you? 👁 PICK A CARD 🦋 Tarot Reading | Detailed 💝
PICK A CARD Which FEMININE ARCHETYPE are you? Tarot Reading | Detailed Share! Like! Comment! SUBSCRIBE!
📹 Jordan Peterson: Jungian Archetypes etc.
We are participants in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a …
What I love about Jordan Peterson’s work is that it encompasses many different areas. There a historical element, a evolutionary psychology element and there’s a way of connecting that to the social and psychological elements of the human experience today. I think writers would gain a lot from looking at his work.
This is useful stuff. I hope he isn’t pushing himself too hard and that he’s getting enough sleep. I find myself expecting him to show how different ordering structures interact. He’d be wise to avoid that kind of meta-analysis. It would demand an understanding of the scaffoldings in many levels of resolution. There’s a good chance that kind of complexity might alienate some viewers. Jordan reminds me of one of my favorite questions in this clip. “How can we adjudicate between competing world views?” The answer always posits another world view for scrutiny. Internal consistency as a measure only goes so far. Consistent systems need not correspond to what people usually call reality.
I love this! I was reading about this in Plato’s Republic and Bruno Bettelheim’s Use of enchantment. Story’s play a role in shaping people and that’s so OP! Dude i was wondering would i be able to use a clip from this article in my upcoming article on story telling? Thanks again for uploading this. Peace bro!
so at about 2:30 you mention there being some basic archetypal thing idk exactly how to put it but what would it specifically be the originating motif or archetype of the recent outcry in the lgbtq movement im not supporting either view im just curious as to what fundamental idea (which i assume is based on, some level, good intentions) as a community causes all this insistennce on attention over an actually really old issue and topic tbh
Ideologies give meaning. Like religion. There is a reason to live for. ( Nietzsche New World Theory) Only one side of the medal is fullfilled with it. Yes this is true. Therefore it will never work out. And on the other hand ideologies might not fit my narratives. Since I am a different charakter or archetype. There is a urgent need for different archetypes in society.
Just keep in mind: Archetypes are not real. They are an unprovable postulate. They are not universal. They don’t exist. They are “made up”. Like every story someone wrote they appeal to us because we see something attractive in them or recognize something our culture, parents, media etc. have already taught us. They are like tools, ideals or paths a society creates because it wants us to aspire to them, ultimately because it stabilizes society, not because we actually can or even have to be them. A rather obvious example is the hero/knight of ancient and medieval European literature. He never existed outside the imagination, there was no room for “nobility” in the brutal reality. Another sure sign is the widespread lack of negative archetypes like the aggressor, the destroyer, the selfdestroyer, the envious, the hoarder/collector, not even the trickster usually makes it. As a final exercise consider what wisdom lies in divining “mother” and “father” as archetypes of our “collective subconscious” and if then birds, dogs, cats etc. are supposed to also website their “collective subconscious”.
Archetypes are not part of science; that is not their domain. This could be why they are inherently vague and unclear! They belong more to the art of story/contemplation. But I think Archetypes are not as vague as the phenomenon of synchronicity. Jung was a hero archetype! Since, he was ruled by the Sun. The original archetypes are the 12 signs of the zodiac. By which he was heavily inspired. It is my suspicion that he had to reconfigure and hide Astrology in fear of being ridiculed Anton Mesmer style. Or persecuted witch-inquisition style. Didn’t Psychology try to gain respect by desperately accommodating to science? When Science is for objective natural world and not for human subjectivity. The funny thing is that Psychology is profoundly incomplete without Astrology. I have found more insight and answers in reading my own astral chart, then I have ever done with multiple psychologists. Don’t get me wrong I appreciate/admire Jordan Peterson’s intelligence. He has developed his Gemini Sun, Mercury functions well, by being an eloquent student/teacher/speaker. I also understand that psychology is incomplete without Astrology. Jung himself used astral charts to better assist patients. Currently no psychologist can do that and that is to my estimate moronic! Since, mysteriously so, the information is there. Although obscured by years of religious/Scientific persecution. At the end of the day… According to Saturn, challenges are part of life it takes time and effort to overcome.
Wow, listening to a smart person step out of their skill set and fuck this up is painful. So much nothing being expounded. This is what teaching looks like when you have no idea what you’re talking about. Throw big words around and hope people can fill in the gaps enough to feel like they weren’t cheated. This is like reading a blog. It’s pure masturbation.
Metaphysical Hierarchy: Mystic… beautiful dreaming Magical… harmony Musical… language of music Artistic… pictures/metaphors Poetic… language of words Numerical…we are here Mystics create the most joy (smart). Accountants create the least joy (ignorant). Ever notice that beings who speak in the language of music can energize thousands of beings to celebrate and dance? Ever notice that corpses who speak with brain numbing, soul sucking numbers do the exact opposite? Sanction, starve, torture, murder and bomb (wheeeee)! Ignorance (hate) is bliss for vampires (greed). But not much fun for the humans who they are sucking the joy out of. The clever coyote (greed) is always trying to catch the roadrunner (love). But never does. Because something that is not real (absence of love) can never catch that which is real (love). That coyote is a crazy clown… The legendary roadrunner (love) is the state bird of the Land of Enchantment. The land of enlightenment. The land of magic (love).
The so called archetypes are simply a compilation from literature and history of the various roles played by humans and positions taken – philosophical, political, personal – which comprise the possible range of human behavioural potential, as is known so far. Many are a function of the type of government or moral strictures forced on human societies, as in, “the saint”. Some represent personal choices and actions undertaken to oppose enforced behaviour. For instance, the evil or malicious witch “other” is a construct mainly of Christendom: witches existed before that era but were perceived as benign in nature. We are no more born with archetypes imprinted on the brain than our ability to talk can predict what we will say, although all coherent speech follows certain rules. Archetypes represent past choices which are partially free and partially ordained by society. But it is simply as silly, trite, redundant, self evident, to cite all possible character types and claim they are “natural” as to say that walking upright is a human trait. An upright stance is a positive and natural attribute: patriarchy’s “strong men” treachery and harmfulness, becoming more evident every day, may be “natural, but is far from functionally optimal or inevitable.
Jung have had own problem with religion and God..therefore idea of collective unconsc. was solution to find his lost satisfaction..power and narcistic balance. Totall wrong approach, archetypes no exist and power wise oldman no exist..Jung had own infantile phantasies and blind mind about facts, he thought he was rationalist but nothing more than oscure myctic. Jung as his name is myth and many persons see him as divine person..Jung was ordinary man and romantic mind with high level of overactive imagination. He is pure contradiction.. just read his books and note it how it possible to change thougts and direction many times. Jung is mystic and oscure person with huge narcidstic wish to be poeta, philosofer, teologist, mistic, esotheric, propheta, psychologist, doctor, biologist, antropologist..etc. He had complex of power in his term and lack of rational approach in domain psychology. Only cheatings and empty words.