Kirk, sure, but I am sorry to tell you that if you think I accepted the general meaning of the planets on blind faith you are at a wrong address.

I was referring to accepting without much questioning, without much personal critical involvement, rather than accepting in blind faith. We simply take some things as they are presented to us as probably true and applicable. This is what I meant by ?Critical thinking is less effectively practiced than we care to believe?. We accept the tradition.

Of course I can't say whether or not you have carefully thought through the meanings passed down to us for all the planets and signs. You may well have carefully investigated and made changes more acceptable to you for the descriptions and functions of the cardinal, fixed and mutable modes. You may have rejected aspect theory after a lot of thought and investigation. Or, you have accepted the basic structure offered by the tradition. My point is that we can too easily take pride in, or talk about, critical thinking that we didn't, or barely did, even use.

Came back from the ER and thought: gee, maybe I should have checked the transits, you know, to be more careful next time. ... Kirk, should I stretch it, or should I better concentrate on a 3 deg quincunx Mars / Mars to help me understand the meaning of this (bodily) injury?

Why ask me? I'm the one who wrote:

This thread shows the passive position so often (usually?) taken with astrology ... Do we really want to focus on astrological techniques and factors solely as indicators of what will happen to us? Perhaps that always was the focus of astrology, but it makes more sense and seems more encouraging to use astrology to point out the best times to act.

I was referring to using the chart actively for matching activities and actions with the best times for undertaking them rather than for seeking explanations for events that happen to us. That is the stretching I was referring to, like walking in order to stretch legs that have been trapped in a chair for too long. It's just as you wrote: "Gentlemen, stretching is a healthy exercise, I am all for it". The natal chart likes a good workout ? the chart as a guide to the person as process rather than the person as a defined and delimited object.

Oh, I indeed have no doubt she will elicit a thousand unique narratives out of thin air. But it?s not about this. What I have a problem with is: she explained a person?s extremely common adolescent qualities by a rather unique chart condition. You really do not see any problem with this? It?s like you sneeze and a doctor says it means you have swine flu, period.
OK, suppose she does ?need to get to know the person to find out the context? for the thousand unique narratives grounded in the position of natal Mars. You think you would not be able to do it? Somehow I think anyone could tell stories about people they know. Then please explain why do you need a chart to do it? To bind mars to your story of person?s uniqueness? Indeed, unique.

Firstly your mis-representing what I said earlier. The 'unique' narrative is generated from the entire chart in conjunction with finding out about the individual's circumstances. It's crucial in relation to the way psychological astrology is conceptualised to find out more about the persons familial life as the 'model' is profoundly influenced by psychodynamic theory. The chart will tell you something about this but it's only through the dialogue with the person that you?ll see, in theory, what's un/conscious.

If the persons 'assertion' seems to be something that requires a more pressing focus then the Mars placement will symbolise something about the dynamics fuelling the more 'overt' behaviour. But on it's own it will reveal little as the astrologer needs to synthesise the psychological logic of the horoscope/zodiac in order to unravel exactly what is going on for this particular individual at this moment in time. However I use 'exactly' loosely as it's never going to be this ?biologically? ? precise.

Of course it's not difficult to generate a creative and simplistically persuasive narrative once you know the symbols but the reason (some) people feel astrology has a place (however bewilderingly) is that the narrative which their chart lends it to is more persuasive in persuading them their horoscope says something about their teleology and/or circumstances. If you find that your sun sign description doesn?t resonate for you more than the other 11 then why bother looking into it, I suspect I wouldn?t have done! (although had I been born in 1300?).

As to your shoulder, a psychological astrologer would explore the circumstances as to how you did it, perhaps look at your Mars and they may speculate as to the role of the unconscious in the chain of events. However they might say well just use your common sense next time or you were just unlucky. It all depends!

Freud said 'All behaviour is meaningful' what he should have said is 'All behaviour is meaningful, but its not always deep and meaningful'. We are (probably) just clever monkey?s trying to get through each day.

The natal chart likes a good workout ? the chart as a guide to the person as process rather than the person as a defined and delimited object.

Kirk, yes, I fully agree. The context of the late discussion here though was about how "universal" some of the modern approaches are. Of course, one needs to work on a chart, but he/she needs to be consistent and as precise as possible.

Of course it's not difficult to generate a creative and simplistically persuasive narrative once you know the symbols but the reason (some) people feel astrology has a place (however bewilderingly) is that the narrative which their chart lends it to is more persuasive in persuading them their horoscope says something about their teleology and/or circumstances. If you find that your sun sign description doesn?t resonate for you more than the other 11 then why bother looking into it, I suspect I wouldn?t have done! (although had I been born in 1300?).

trevor, that has been my point in the past N posts and I have tried to show why I think the (rather typical) examples of "psychological" astrology do not appeal to me and, most likely, would not appeal to any one who would stop and think how "universal" they are even though they are much more sophisticated than the sun-sign descriptions.

Regarding the shoulder business... it's actually a secondary dislocation, the original one was (drum roll...) 12 y ago. Jupiter? Or the profected Asc square Sun (it was actually exact this time)? I don't think any of them were really involved. The first missed this one and both missed the original by a few months in opposite directions. But it would be very tempting to find whatever underlying symbolism. And I can understand how people could buy into it. Which is probably fine, because it gives them an opportunity to think things "away" maybe discovering the real problem in the processes. However, I think it is quite dangerous, because it most probably will lead them away from the real problem. That is why I think we need to be more "precise". Anyway...

trevor, that has been my point in the past N posts and I have tried to show why I think the (rather typical) examples of "psychological" astrology do not appeal to me and, most likely, would not appeal to any one who would stop and think how "universal" they are even though they are much more sophisticated than the sun-sign descriptions.

We aren't really getting anywhere here. Psychological Astrology aims to be precise, this is it's main aim. To some extent it is a reaction against the fuzzy psycho-babble common to Theosophical/New Age thinking. If you're not 'precise' you are asked to leave this arena.

But if you are seeking an astrology that promises concrete 'predictions' and believe this notion has a sound basis in the 'tradition' then yes steer clear of it. It's not a paradigm for you!

trevor wrote: We aren't really getting anywhere here. Psychological Astrology aims to be precise, this is it's main aim. To some extent it is a reaction against the fuzzy psycho-babble common to Theosophical/New Age thinking. If you're not 'precise' you are asked to leave this arena.

But if you are seeking an astrology that promises concrete 'predictions' and believe this notion has a sound basis in the 'tradition' then yes steer clear of it. It's not a paradigm for you!

yes, I agree that all this does not apparently lead anywhere and that was my point a few posts back. I still do not see how you can reconcile what you just said with the problems I have pointed out, like those in the quotes you provided, one of which explained a person?s extremely common qualities by a rather unique chart condition. This is not about "predicting concrete events", this is not about being "fuzzy", this is about what is called complex cause fallacy, in other words, the ability to think straight. I do hope that the people you quoted are not representative of the psychological astrology you are talking about (though I do not know why you quoted them then).
Just my two cents. cheers.

One thing to bear in mind is if you think a Psychological Astrologer would do worse than a more ''traditional one'' in picking the chart from a set of 10 once they are given the biography you might be very surprised.

As I said before it aims to use a 'surgical scalpel'.

But they are often using very different 'techniques' to those employed by folks here. Although a lot are no doubt found in the past if we looked closely. If a 'test' situation ever appears I wouldn't put to much money on the 'old fellows' if I was you!

If some of these older techniques in a lock stock and barrel way were so accurate it's unlikely astrology would have had such a rocky ride. It's not as though the human race forget to use the 'wheel' is it.

Psychologists would say we are very attached to things that make our lives easier. We are lazy monkeys at heart.

If some of these older techniques in a lock stock and barrel way were so accurate it's unlikely astrology would have had such a rocky ride. It's not as though the human race forget to use the 'wheel' is it

.

Trevor, you've expressed what has been on my mind a lot lately ? but I would say it applies to 'traditional' astrology as a whole, not just some techniques. How is an allegedly valuable and accurate system 'forgotten' if it IS so valuable and accurate? Kings and princes, wealthy landowners, merchants and bankers ? the powerful people: There's no way they would have allowed it to slip away if it was so effective! Good results would have led to greater demand as the world's population increased and became more urbanized, each person wanting his or her piece of the pie. Greater supply (more astrologers) would have followed. We can blame the Age of Reason and the development of modern science, but wealth and power as incentives are too strong to allow something so useful to be dropped along the way ? if it indeed is so useful.

But it all sort of faded away. And yet, we don't seem to question it as we go about our daily arguments about the best or most accurate old methods.

Kirk wrote:But it all sort of faded away. And yet, we don't seem to question it as we go about our daily arguments about the best or most accurate old methods.

This assumption that astrology would have to develop instead of regressing to a "minor" art is a dangerous one. It as if stating that one has full grasp of the workings of the universe. We've already seen, in the course of history, the loss of knowledge and the fall of society's that had much to add (and for that matter were scientificaly and ethicaly much more "developed" than the ones that would follow). The hellenistic/roman shift to the middle ages is one hell of a good example, and the rise of industry can not be considered as a model of development from various perspectives. Moreover, the accuracy of astrology is compared generally to that of modern astrology and other predictive methods, I never saw stated anywhere that it was such a knowledge that you could substitute real life for it.

Also, it's a good thing to remember that, although experience points to the existence of fate/free will working at the same time as two antagonic forces, astrology deals with that one which can not be changed, hence possible to be predicted, and not with our choices of believing or trying to fight against our fate, even if that is actually impossible.

What I'm saying is that astrology is not the study of how to change fate, it's the study of how fate itself develops. Also, today we have better predictive models than that of astrology, for example the one created by stock market specialists and micro/macro echonomists for example (or do you think that it is not also studying patterns to come to a conclusion about the future?) and just as prone to failure, since astrology itself is a unperfect model, used by unperfect humans. Hence, it's twice unperfect, just like the material world is, as opposite to the spiritual one, or the notion we have of it. And on top of that, astrology's premisse is spiritual. The problema is not if astrology works or not, but why is it not generally accepted anymore? The answer for that is because humans made a choice of shifting from the spiritual world of old to a more material view.

This assumption that astrology would have to develop instead of regressing to a "minor" art is a dangerous one.

Hi, PFN. It's not a question of astrology developing further or regressing. The question is rather why astrology was dropped, abandoned. Just think of the advantages of being able to foresee the future or seeing your enemy's weaknesses and vulnerable periods. Why would people have walked away from such a practice if it really was all that effective and useful? But the fact is, they did. Therefore, it obviously wasn't. But why is there such current-day belief that the astrology of former times was so effective and useful? Here we are resurrecting and promoting it. And the herd ? the mass of those who want so badly to believe ? follows along, while the current flock of authors and astro-celebrities guides them along, selling books and services along the way. [There were 3 'alongs' in that sentence, but at this point I'm too lazy and uninterested to fix it. Please, just go along with it.]

What I'm saying is that astrology is not the study of how to change fate, it's the study of how fate itself develops.

You're helping my case here! The human race possessed such a ?study of how fate itself develops? (what a source of power!) and simply walked away from it? It says something about the study, doesn't it! And we drool over yet another ancient astrological technique presented to us by a contemporary who oozes confident authority. We must think critically.

Kirk wrote: The question is rather why astrology was dropped, abandoned.

Because people didn't believe in it anymore.

Kirk wrote: Why would people have walked away from such a practice if it really was all that effective and useful?

Because people didn't believe in it anymore.

Kirk wrote: But the fact is, they did. Therefore, it obviously wasn't.

That's a assumption. If they didn't believe in it anymore, they would drop it if it worked or not. If they thought it could work better but mucked around with it to the point that it became a silly mess, then they would throw up their hands and say "This stuff doesn't work anymore!", and then they would drop it. If they noticed that most of the names in those books are all in filthy Ay-rab, they'd say "this stuff's written by the wrong people", and then they would drop it.

Kirk wrote: The human race possessed such a ?study of how fate itself develops? (what a source of power!) and simply walked away from it?

Why would you study something you didn't believe in?

Perhaps critical thinking is in smaller supply then previously believed?

That's a assumption. If they didn't believe in it anymore, they would drop it if it worked or not. If they thought it could work better but mucked around with it to the point that it became a silly mess, then they would throw up their hands and say "This stuff doesn't work anymore!", and then they would drop it. If they noticed that most of the names in those books are all in filthy Ay-rab, they'd say "this stuff's written by the wrong people", and then they would drop it

.

Hi Gabe,

If they had a goose that laid nice shiny golden ones would they walk away from it? How does a person stop believing in the golden eggs he has been collecting? That isn't human nature. In their prejudice and hatred they might criticize those Ay-rab books, but that's hardly going to stop them from learning how to find golden eggs. Human nature, once again. No, folks realized that the goose wasn't all it was said to be.

Regarding mucking around with it until it became a ?silly mess?: Perhaps some astrologers did mess around with it too much so that it became ineffective, but some of them would have stayed with the tried-and-true methods that had been bringing in the cash (Stick with what works: Human nature again). Those people and their success in attaining power and money would have served as models for others. Many of the books ? those that we now revere and consult ? were still around, further keeping open the possibility of a continued tradition. But yet, it pretty much faded away. I can only see that as an indication that the astrological methods didn't ? and still don't ? deliver the eggs.

I will stick my oar in this one briefly

Only today on the radio a businessman bemoaned that he could not plan for the future as economists gave a lot of different predictions that were all rubbish anyway.

A while back a european bank based in the far east invested for fun on the basis of astrological predictions made by a local feng shui man. They made money as he was correct but a spokesman assured everyone that they would not normally use astrology.

If I understand Kirk he assumes that people will act rationally in their own interests but in my view that is incorrect. Most people are sheep who will follow the flock.If everyone gets it wrong no one can single you out for blame if you are wrong so everyone takes the consensus view.

Doubtless in the future we will prove astrology as fact and then complain that gullible people still follow the advice of fraudulent economists.

Matthew